Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, February 7, 2023 (part 3 of 9)

AMENDED
Memorandum of Understanding for
Integrated Regional Water Management in the
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Region

1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to recognize a mutual understanding among entities in the southern Monterey Bay area regarding their joint efforts toward Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) planning. That understanding will continue to increase coordination, collaboration and communication for comprehensive management of water resources in the cities and unincorporated portions of the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Region (Region).

A. Background and Description of Amendments. The initial MOU to form a Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) was fully executed on July 22, 2008 by the Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT), a 501 (c) 3 organization, the City of Monterey, the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA), the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD). The MOU formed a Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) for the purposes of developing and implementing projects consistent with the guidelines set by the State of California for IRWM.

This amended MOU reflects the addition of MCWD and the RCD as members of the RWMG, describes processes and guidelines for changing the membership of the RWMG, and amends the MOU to meet Proposition 84 standards.

2. RECITALS
A. The State of California desires to foster Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) planning and encourages local public, non-profit, and private (for profit) entities to define planning regions appropriate for managing water resources and to integrate strategies within these planning regions.

B. Water resources management authority in the Region is currently distributed among various public agencies with a range of legal powers and regulatory responsibilities.

These public agencies have definite jurisdictional boundaries, whereas sensible water resources planning and management frequently requires actions in multiple jurisdictions.

Non-public entities within the Region have considerable interests in cooperating with public entities to protect, manage, and enhance water resources within the Region.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 274, Packet Page 374 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 2 of 10 ends

C. Six public entities and one non-profit entity in the Region with responsibility and interests in the management of water resources have agreed to form a Regional Water Management Group for the purposes of developing and implementing projects consistent with the guidelines set by the State of California for IRWM. These entities are: 1.) the Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT), a 501 (c) 3 organization; 2.) the City of Monterey; 3.) the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA); 4.) the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA); 5) the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD); 6) the Resource Conservation District of Monterey County; and 7.) the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD).

D. The Regional Water Management Group has defined an appropriate planning Region that takes into consideration jurisdictional limits, powers and responsibilities, and watershed and groundwater basin boundaries. The Regional Water Management Group is taking the lead in overseeing and implementing a detailed IRWM Plan within the planning Region. The Region is generally described as encompassing approximately 347 square miles and consists of groundwater basins and coastal watershed areas contributing to the Carmel Bay and south Monterey Bay. The Region includes coastal watersheds from the southernmost portion of the San Jose Creek watershed north to the northern limit of the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The inland area is bounded by the Seaside Groundwater Basin to the north and by the Carmel River watershed to the south and east. The western limit of the planning Region generally coincides with the land and Pacific Ocean interface, but includes the Pt. Lobos, Carmel Bay, and Pacific Grove Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) adjacent to the coastal portion of the Region.

The principal groundwater basins in the planning Region are the Seaside Groundwater Basin and the Carmel Valley Aquifer. The Region includes about 38 miles of the coast within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, three ASBS, the Cities of Carmelby-the Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, Seaside, and unincorporated portions of Monterey County including the Carmel Valley watershed (255 square miles), Pebble Beach, the Carmel Highlands and portions of the Seaside Groundwater Basin adjacent to Highway 68 (also known as Canyon Del Rey). This description of the planning Region is not intended to be a limitation on projects and resource planning that may be shared between adjacent IRWM planning Regions (e.g., the Greater Monterey County IRWM planning Region to the north and east).

E. The entities signatory to this MOU desire to link and integrate efforts to jointly oversee the development and implementation of a comprehensive Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Region.

3. GOALS
The goals of the collaborative effort undertaken pursuant to this MOU are:

3.1 To implement a comprehensive IRWMP for the Region that will consider the strategies that are required by the State under CWC 79562.5 and 79564 and Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 275, Packet Page 375 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 3 of 10 ends

subsequent modifications required under Proposition 84. Eligible projects must yield multiple benefits and include one or more of the following elements (PRC § 75026.(a)):
 Water supply reliability, water conservation and water use efficiency  Stormwater capture, storage, clean-up, treatment, and management  Removal of invasive non-native species, the creation and enhancement of wetlands, and the acquisition, protection, and restoration of open space and watershed lands
 Non-point source pollution reduction, management and monitoring  Groundwater recharge and management projects
 Contaminant and salt removal through reclamation, desalting, and other treatment technologies and conveyance of reclaimed water for distribution to users
 Water banking, exchange, reclamation and improvement of water quality  Planning and implementation of multipurpose flood management programs  Watershed protection and management
 Drinking water treatment and distribution
 Ecosystem and fisheries restoration and protection

3.2 To implement a comprehensive IRWMP for the Region that incorporates water supply, water quality, flood and erosion protection, and environmental protection and enhancement objectives.

3.3 To improve and maximize coordination of individual public, private, and non-profit agency plans, programs and projects for mutual benefit and optimal gain within the Region.

3.4 To help identify, develop, and implement collaborative plans, programs, and projects that may be beyond the scope or capability of individual entities, but which would be of mutual benefit if implemented in a cooperative manner.

3.5 To facilitate regional water management efforts that include multiple water supply, water quality, flood control, and environmental protection and enhancement objectives.

3.6 To foster coordination, collaboration and communication between stakeholders and other interested parties, to achieve greater efficiencies, enhance public services, and build public support for vital projects.

3.7. To realize regional water management objectives at the least cost possible through mutual cooperation, elimination of redundancy, and enhanced regional competitiveness for State and Federal grant funding.

4. DEFINITIONS
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 276, Packet Page 376 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 4 of 10 ends

4.1 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP or IRWM Plan). The plan envisioned by state legislators and state resource agencies that integrates the strategies, objectives, and priorities for projects to manage water resources proposed by public entities, non-profit entities, and stakeholders within a defined Planning Region. The minimum plan standards are as shown in Appendix A of “Integrated Regional Water Management Grant Program Guidelines, November 2004, Department of Water Resources and State Water Resources Control Board, Proposition 50, Chapter 8,” as revised. Minimum IRWM Plan standards may be revised from time to time by the State of California.

4.2 Integration. The combining of water management strategies and projects to be included in an IRWMP.

4.3.a Lead Agency for IRWM Plan Development. The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District is designated by the Regional Water Management Group to lead the development or implementation of an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Region.

4.3.b Lead Agency for IRWM Grant Applications. The Regional Water Management Group may designate any entity in the Regional Water Management Group to be the Lead Agency in making application to the State for grant funds.

4.4. Non-profit Agency. A 501 (c) (3) corporation, conservancy, group or other organization involved in water resources management in the Region.

4.5 Private Agency. A private or publicly held for-profit corporation or property owner involved in water resources management in the Region

4.6. Project. A specific project that addresses a service function.

4.7. Public Agency. A state-authorized water district, water agency, water management agency or other public entity, be it a special district, city or other governmental entity, responsible for providing one or more services in the areas of water supply, water quality, wastewater, recycled water, water conservation, stormwater/flood control, watershed planning and aquatic habitat protection and restoration.

4.8. Region. The area defined by the Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) consisting of watersheds, sub-watersheds and groundwater basins under the jurisdiction of one or more entities within the RWMG.

4.9. Service Function. A water-related individual service function provided by a private, public, or non-profit entity, i.e. water supply, water quality, wastewater, recycled water, water conservation, stormwater/flood protection, watershed planning, recreational facilities, and habitat protection and restoration.

4.10 Signatory Entity. A public, private, or non-profit entity within the Region that is signatory to this MOU.

4.11 Stakeholder. A non-signatory public, private, or non-profit agency identified in the IRWM Plan with an interest in water resources management within the Region.

4.12 Technical Advisory Committee. The committee organized to advise the Regional Water Management Group and Stakeholders concerning the IRWM Plan.

Normally, the group will be comprised of individuals with technical backgrounds in the fields of marine and freshwater biology, ecology, geology, engineering, hydrogeology, planning, resource conservation, riparian systems, water conservation, and water quality. However, stakeholders with interests in a Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 277, Packet Page 377 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 5 of 10 ends

particular aspect of resource or project management, but not necessarily a technical background, may also be considered for inclusion in the TAC.

4.13 Regional Water Management Group. The group of entities that takes the lead in overseeing the development and implementation of the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan within the Planning Region. The RWMG consists of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, the City of Monterey, the Marina Coast Water District, the Resource Conservation District of Monterey County, and the Big Sur Land Trust.

4.14. Water Management Strategies. Plans for and activities to be considered in an IRWMP include, but are not limited to, ecosystem restoration, environmental and habitat protection and improvement, water-supply reliability, flood management, groundwater management, recreation and public access, storm water capture and management, water conservation, water quality improvement, water recycling, and wetlands enhancement and creation.

5. IRWMP PARTICIPANTS

5.1 Adopting Entities. The entities in the Region that participate in the development, adoption, and implementation of the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Region. Each entity intending to carry out a project proposed in the IRWMP must formally adopt the IRWMP or provide written substantiation of acceptance by the governing authority of the entity. For a public agency, adoption of the IRWMP is by formal resolution of the governing body. For a non-profit or for-profit entity, proof of acceptance of the IRWMP by the equivalent of a public agency governing body is required (e.g., by a board of directors or other management entity).

5.2. Stakeholders. Entities, such as other public, private, and non-profit entities, business and environmental groups, that are considered valuable contributors to the understanding and management of the Region’s water resources.

5.3. Regulatory Agencies. These agencies, including, but not limited to, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Coastal Commission, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, California Public Utilities Commission, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game, will be invited to participate in the development and implementation of the IRWMP.

5.4 Regional Water Management Group. The group of entities that takes the lead in developing and implementing an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan within the Planning Region.

6. MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING

6.1. Subject matter scope of the IRWMP. The IRWMP for the Region will include, but is not limited to, water supply, water quality, wastewater, recycled water, water conservation, stormwater/flood control, watershed planning, erosion prevention, and habitat protection and restoration. It is acknowledged that the proposals contained in the IRWMP may be based, in part, on the land-use plans of the Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 278, Packet Page 378 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 6 of 10 ends

member entities local governments such as Cities, Monterey County, and special districts located within the Region. Therefore, the resultant IRWMP will by design have incorporated the land-use plans and assumptions intrinsic to the respective water-related service function.

6.2. Geographical scope of the IRWMP. The area for this Memorandum is generally defined as the watersheds and associated groundwater basins contributing to the south Monterey Bay and Carmel Bay as shown in Figure 3-1: Map of Monterey Peninsula Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Region in the IRWM Plan.

The Region includes coastal watersheds from the southernmost portion of the San Jose Creek watershed north to the northern limit of the Seaside Groundwater Basin.

The inland area is bounded by the Seaside Groundwater Basin to the north and by the Carmel River watershed to the south and east. The western limit of the planning Region generally coincides with the land and Pacific Ocean interface, but includes the Pt. Lobos, Carmel Bay, and Pacific Grove Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) adjacent to the coastal portion of the Region.

However, it is recognized that the geographic scope represented in the IRWM Plan may be amended to include projects that are implemented cooperatively between IRWM planning regions (e.g., with the Greater Monterey County IRWM planning region) and is not intended to be a rigid boundary.

6.3. Approach to developing the IRWMP. It will be the responsibility of each entity signatory to this Memorandum to provide the Lead Agency with information for the IRWMP concerning project proposals or to identify the need for a water management strategy for each service function provided by a signatory entity.

In order to be included in the IRWMP, all proposals for development of water management plans and water development project proposals related to the IRWMP must meet the standards identified in the IRWM Plan for the Region.

A technical advisory committee consisting of staff representatives from the Regional Water Management Group, other Stakeholders and such other organizations as may become contributing entities, will review proposed management plans and project proposals for consistency with the IRWMP and recommend a prioritized list of projects to be carried out within the Region. The Regional Water Management Group and Stakeholders will meet to review the recommendation made by the TAC.

6.4. Approval of prioritized project list. Approval of the prioritized project list should occur by consensus of the Regional Water Management Group and Stakeholders and should be based on the prioritization process described in the IRWMP and the recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee. However, if a consensus cannot be reached among the Stakeholders and Regional Water Management Group, the Regional Water Management Group may make a final determination of the prioritized project list.

6.5. Adoption of the IRWMP. Plan adoption will occur by approval of the governing board of each entity. Each member of the RWMG shall adopt the IRWM Plan or an Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 279, Packet Page 379 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 7 of 10 ends

amended IRWM Plan, when the Plan becomes available. Project proponents named in an IRWM grant application shall adopt the IRWM Plan or amended IRWM Plan prior to submittal of the grant application. It should be noted that the adopted Plan and project list may be amended from time to time as described below.

6.6 Amendment of IRWMP or Prioritized Project list. The IRWM Plan and prioritized project list may be amended from time to time. Any member of the Regional Water Management Group or Stakeholders may request that the Lead Agency convene a meeting of the Regional Water Management Group and Stakeholders for the purposes of amending the IRWM Plan or the prioritized project list. However, it is anticipated that the IRWMP or prioritized project list will be amended no more frequently than annually, unless more frequent amendments are required to meet State IRWM standards or grant application cycles. An amended IRWM Plan must be consistent with State IRWM standards as described in Definition 4.1 “Integrated Regional Water Management Plan” and any subsequent revisions by the State to IRWM guidelines.

6.7. Project Implementation. Project proponents will be responsible for completing proposed projects and providing project reports to the Lead Agency.

6.8 Project Monitoring. The Regional Water Management Group will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the IRWMP. The technical advisory committee will regularly report to the General Managers and Governing Boards of the Regional Water Management Group regarding progress on the development and implementation of the IRWMP. The Lead Agency will be responsible for coordinating data collection and dissemination.

6.9 Grant Applications. The Regional Water Management Group will designate a Lead Agency to apply for grant funds. The Lead Agency for each grant application should have a mission and expertise that is consistent with the purpose of the grant being applied for.

6.10 Grant Awards and Agreement. The Lead Agency will be the grantee and administer the grant on behalf of the Regional Water Management Group and Stakeholders.

6.11 Participation in Regional Water Management Group (RWMG). Any qualified stakeholder may petition to become a member of the RWMG. A qualified stakeholder must demonstrate the following: a) an interest, responsibility or authority over multiple resources within the region; or b) a unique interest, responsibility, authority, or asset not shared by any other entity within the RWMG.

The RWMG shall consider such a request for a change to the RWMG and shall vote by majority to accept or reject the request.

6.12 Length of Term in Regional Water Management Group. Members of the RWMG may change from time to time, depending on the level of resources available to each entity. However, there is no required minimum or maximum length of time required as a member of the RWMG. If an entity withdraws from the RWMG, the remaining entities should attempt to replace the interest, responsibility or authority lost by the withdrawal.

6.13 Rights of the Parties and Constituencies: This MOU does not provide any added legal rights or regulatory powers to any of the signatory parties, or to the RWMG as a whole. This MOU does not of itself give any party the power to adjudicate water rights, or to regulate or otherwise control the private property of other parties. This Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 280, Packet Page 380 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 8 of 10 ends

MOU does not contemplate the parties taking any action that would adversely affect the rights of any of the parties, or that would adversely affect the customers or constituencies of any of the parties.

6.14 Termination. An entity signatory to this MOU may withdraw from participation upon 30 days advance notice to the other signatory entities, provided it agrees to be financially responsible for any previously committed, but unmet resource commitment.

6.15. Personnel resources. It is expected that the General Managers and/or other officials of each entity signatory to this MOU will periodically meet to insure that adequate staff resources are available to implement the IRWM Plan.

6.16. Other on-going regional efforts. Development of the IRWMP is separate from efforts of other organizations to develop water-related plans on a regional basis around Monterey Bay and the Central Coast. As the IRWMP is developed and implemented, work products may be shared to provide other entities and groups with current information.

7. INDEMNIFICATION

7.1 Each Party shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other parties, to the extent allowed by law and in proportion to fault, against any and all third-party liability for claims, demands, costs or judgments (direct, indirect, incidental or consequential) involving bodily injury, personal injury, death, property damage or other costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses) arising or resulting from the acts or omissions of its own officers, agents, employees or representatives carried out pursuant to the obligations of this Agreement.

7.2 These indemnity provisions shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. Further, each Party will be liable to the other Party for attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and all other costs and expenses whatsoever, which are incurred by the other Party in enforcing these indemnity provisions.

8. RECORD OF AMENDMENTS

8.1 June 2010 – add Marina Coast Water District to RWMG. Revise Goals, Definitions and MOU terms to reflect Proposition 84 requirements.

8.2 March 2012 – add process to change RWMG, define when plan is to be adopted, revise to Proposition 84 standards

8.3 August 2012 – add Resource Conservation District of Monterey County to RWMG Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 281, Packet Page 381 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 9 of 10 ends

9. SIGNATORIES TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
We, the duly authorized undersigned representatives of our respective entities, acknowledge the above as our understanding of the intent and expected outcome in overseeing the development and implementation of an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Region.
____________________________________
Signature
____________________________________
Printed Name
Monterey County Water Resources
Agency
____________________________________
Date
************************************
____________________________________
Signature
____________________________________
Printed Name
Big Sur Land Trust
____________________________________
Date
************************************
____________________________________
Signature
_David J. Stoldt_____________________
Printed Name
Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District
__7/8/2013__________________________
Date
___________________________________
Signature
____________________________________
Printed Name
Monterey Regional Water Pollution
Control Agency
___________________________________
Date
************************************
___________________________________
Signature
____________________________________
Printed Name
City of Monterey
____________________________________
Date
************************************
___________________________________
Signature
____________________________________
Printed Name
Marina Coast Water District
____________________________________
Date
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 282, Packet Page 382 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 10 of 10 ends

Signature
____________________________________
Printed Name
Board President, Resource Conservation
District of Monterey County
____________________________________
Date
************************************
U:\mpwmd\IRWM\Regional Water Management Group\2013
Amended MOU\RWMG-MOU-April2013_DS_Signed.docx
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 283, Packet Page 383 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
APPENDIX 1-B

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING (2018)

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 284, Packet Page 384 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 285, Packet Page 385 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 1 of 12 ends

AMENDED
Memorandum of Understanding for
Integrated Regional Water Management in the
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Region

A. Background and Description of Amendments. The initial MOU to form a Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) was fully executed on July 22, 2008 by the Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT), a 501 (c) 3 organization, the City of Monterey, the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRPWCA, now known as Monterey One Water or M1W), the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD). The MOU formed a Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) for the purposes of developing and implementing projects consistent with the guidelines set by the State of California for IRWM.

Subsequently, the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) requested approval to become part of the RWMG and signed an amended MOU in June 2011 that includes MCWD as a member of the RWMG. In 2012, the MOU was amended to include the Resource Conservation District of Monterey County (RCD) as a member of the RWMG. In 2018, a number of additional organizations requested approval to become part of the MOU, including California State University Monterey Bay, Carmel Area Wastewater District, Carmel River Watershed Conservancy, Carmel Valley Association, City of Carmel-bythe-Sea, City of Del Rey Oaks, City of Sand City, City of Seaside, and Monterey County Resource Management Agency.

In 2014, voters passed Proposition 1, the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Act (Public Resources Code, sections 79700 - 79798), which authorizes the Legislature to appropriate funding for competitive grants for Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) projects. Funding is administered by the Department of Water Resources (DWR).

In 2015, representatives from the RWMGs representing the Central Coast region, which is coincident with the geographic extent of the funding area, entered into discussions about a funding area agreement for Proposition 1 funds allocated to the Central Coast funding area. In 2016, the Central Coast RWMGs entered into a Memorandum of Agreement for Integrated Regional Water Management Planning and Funding in the Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 286, Packet Page 386 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 2 of 12 ends

Central Coast Funding Area to share Proposition 1 funding for the IRWM grant program among the six Parties in a fair and equitable manner, and to reduce the need for the Parties to compete against each other for grant funds, which creates unnecessary economic inefficiencies in implementing each Planning Region’s IRWM Plan. (Pending approval by a majority of current RWMG members) This amended MOU reflects the addition of California State University Monterey Bay, Carmel Area Wastewater District, Carmel River Watershed Conservancy, Carmel Valley Association, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, city of Del Rey Oaks, City of Sand City, City of Seaside, and Monterey County Resource Management Agency as members of the RWMG.

B. Water resources management authority in the Region is currently distributed among various public agencies with a range of legal powers and regulatory responsibilities.

These public agencies have definite jurisdictional boundaries, whereas sensible water resources planning and management frequently requires actions in multiple jurisdictions.

Non-public entities within the Region have considerable interests in cooperating with public entities to protect, manage, and enhance water resources within the Region.

C. (Pending approval by current RWMG members) Thirteen public entities and three nonprofit entities in the Region with responsibility and interests in the management of water resources have agreed to form a Regional Water Management Group for the purposes of developing and implementing projects consistent with the guidelines set by the State of California for IRWM. These entities are:
• Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT), a 501 (c) 3 organization;
• California State University Monterey Bay
• Carmel Area Wastewater District;
• Carmel River Watershed Conservancy, a 501 (c) 3 organization; • Carmel Valley Association;
• City of Carmel-by-the-Sea;
• City of Del Rey Oaks
• City of Monterey;
• City of Seaside;
• City of Sand City;
• Monterey One Water (M1W));
• Monterey County Resource Management Agency;
• Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA);
• Marina Coast Water District (MCWD);
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 287, Packet Page 387 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 3 of 12 ends

• Resource Conservation District of Monterey County; and • Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD).

D. The RWMG has defined an appropriate planning Region that takes into consideration jurisdictional limits, powers and responsibilities, and watershed and groundwater basin boundaries. The RWMG is taking the lead in overseeing and implementing a detailed IRWM Plan within the planning Region. The Region is generally described as encompassing approximately 347 square miles and consists of groundwater basins and coastal watershed areas contributing to the Carmel Bay and south Monterey Bay. The Region includes coastal watersheds from the southernmost portion of the San Jose Creek watershed north to the northern limit of the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The inland area is bounded by the Seaside Groundwater Basin to the north and by the Carmel River watershed to the south and east. The western limit of the planning Region generally coincides with the land and Pacific Ocean interface, but includes the Pt. Lobos, Carmel Bay, and Pacific Grove Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) adjacent to the coastal portion of the Region.

3. GOALS
The goals of the collaborative effort undertaken pursuant to this MOU are:

3.1 To implement a comprehensive IRWMP for the Region that will consider the strategies that are required by the State under CWC 79562.5 and 79564 and subsequent modifications required under Proposition 1. Eligible projects must yield multiple benefits and include one or more of the following elements (Water Code §79743 (a - j)):
✓ Water reuse and recycling for non-potable reuse and direct and indirect potable reuse
✓ Water-use efficiency and water conservation
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 288, Packet Page 388 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 4 of 12 ends

✓ Local and regional surface and underground water storage, including groundwater aquifer cleanup or recharge projects
✓ Regional water conveyance facilities that improve integration of separate water systems
✓ Watershed protection, restoration, and management projects, including projects that reduce the risk of wildfire or improve water supply reliability ✓ Stormwater resource management, including, but not limited to, the following:
▪ Projects to reduce, manage, treat, or capture rainwater or stormwater ▪ Projects that provide multiple benefits such as water quality, water supply, flood control, or open space
▪ Decision support tools that evaluate the benefits and costs of multibenefit stormwater projects ▪ Projects to implement a stormwater resource plan developed in accordance with Part 2.3 (commencing with Section 10560) of Division 6 including Water Code § 10562 (b)(7)
✓ Conjunctive use of surface and groundwater storage facilities ✓ Water desalination projects
✓ Decision support tools to model regional water management strategies to account for climate change and other changes in regional demand and supply projections
✓ Improvement of water quality, including drinking water treatment and distribution, groundwater and aquifer remediation, matching water quality to water use, wastewater treatment, water pollution prevention, and management of urban and agricultural runoff
✓ Regional projects or programs as defined by the IRWM Planning Act (Water Code §10537)

3.2 To implement a comprehensive IRWMP for the Region that incorporates water supply, water quality, flood and erosion protection, and environmental protection and enhancement objectives.

3.3 To improve and maximize coordination of individual public, private, and non-profit agency plans, programs and projects for mutual benefit and optimal gain within the Region.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 289, Packet Page 389 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 5 of 12 ends

3.5 To facilitate regional water management efforts that include multiple water supply, water quality, flood control, and environmental protection and enhancement objectives.

3.8 To satisfy State requirements for incorporation of a Storm Water Resource plan developed for the Region in accordance with Part 2.3 (commencing with Section 10560) of Division 6 including Water Code § 10562 (b)(7).

4. DEFINITIONS

4.1 Funding Area Agreement. The agreement entered into between the six regions within the Central Coast funding area to allocate a portion of Proposition 1 IRWM funds to each planning region.

4.2 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP or IRWM Plan). The plan envisioned by state legislators and state resource agencies that integrates the strategies, objectives, and priorities for projects to manage water resources proposed by public entities, non-profit entities, and stakeholders within a defined Planning Region. The minimum plan standards are as shown in Appendix A of “Integrated Regional Water Management Grant Program Guidelines, November 2004, Department of Water Resources and State Water Resources Control Board, Proposition 50, Chapter 8,” as revised. Minimum IRWM Plan standards may be revised from time to time by the State of California.

4.3 Integration. The combining of water management strategies and projects to be included in an IRWMP.

4.4.a Lead Agency for IRWM Plan Development. The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District is designated by the Regional Water Management Group to lead the development or implementation of an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Region.

4.4.b Lead Agency for IRWM Grant Applications. The Regional Water Management Group may designate any entity in the Regional Water Management Group to be the Lead Agency in making application to the State for grant funds.

4.4.c Lead Agency for Executing a Central Coast funding area agreement. The entity the Regional Water Management Group designates to represent the Monterey Peninsula Region to execute a Funding Area Agreement.

4.5 Non-profit Agency. A 501 (c) (3) corporation, conservancy, group or other organization involved in water resources management in the Region.

4.6 Private Agency. A private or publicly held for-profit corporation or property owner involved in water resources management in the Region

4.7 Project. A specific project that addresses a service function.

4.8 Public Agency. A state-authorized water district, water agency, water management agency or other public entity, be it a special district, city or other governmental entity, responsible for providing one or more services in the areas of water supply, Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 290, Packet Page 390 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 6 of 12 ends

water quality, wastewater, recycled water, water conservation, stormwater/flood control, watershed planning and aquatic habitat protection and restoration.

4.9 Region. The area defined by the Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) consisting of watersheds, sub-watersheds and groundwater basins under the jurisdiction of one or more entities within the RWMG.

4.10 Service Function. A water-related individual service function provided by a private, public, or non-profit entity, i.e. water supply, water quality, wastewater, recycled water, water conservation, stormwater/flood protection, watershed planning, recreational facilities, and habitat protection and restoration.

4.11 Signatory Entity. A public, private, or non-profit entity within the Region that is signatory to this MOU.

4.12 Stakeholder. A non-signatory public, private, or non-profit agency identified in the IRWM Plan with an interest in water resources management within the Region.

4.13 Stormwater Resource Plan. The plan developed for the Region that identifies stormwater capture project opportunities.

4.14 Technical Advisory Committee. The committee organized to advise the Regional Water Management Group and Stakeholders concerning the IRWM Plan.

Normally, the group will be comprised of individuals with technical backgrounds in the fields of marine and freshwater biology, ecology, geology, engineering, hydrogeology, planning, resource conservation, riparian systems, water conservation, and water quality. However, stakeholders with interests in a particular aspect of resource or project management, but not necessarily a technical background, may also be considered for inclusion in the TAC.

4.15 Regional Water Management Group. The group of entities that takes the lead in overseeing the development and implementation of the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan within the Planning Region. (a list of members of the Regional Water Management Group is provided in Recital C)

4.16 Water Management Strategies. Plans for and activities to be considered in an IRWMP include, but are not limited to, ecosystem restoration, environmental and habitat protection and improvement, water-supply reliability, flood management, groundwater management, recreation and public access, storm water capture and management, water conservation, water quality improvement, water recycling, and wetlands enhancement and creation.

5. IRWMP PARTICIPANTS

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 291, Packet Page 391 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 7 of 12 ends

5.3. Regulatory Agencies. These agencies, including, but not limited to, the State Water Resources Control Board, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Coastal Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Public Utilities Commission, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, will be invited to participate in the development and implementation of the IRWMP.

5.4 Regional Water Management Group. The group of entities that takes the lead in developing and implementing an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan within the Planning Region.

6. MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING

6.1. Subject matter scope of the IRWMP. The IRWMP for the Region will include, but is not limited to, water supply, water quality, wastewater, recycled water, water conservation, stormwater/flood control, watershed planning, erosion prevention, and habitat protection and restoration. It is acknowledged that the proposals contained in the IRWMP may be based, in part, on the land-use plans of the member entities local governments such as Cities, Monterey County, and special districts located within the Region. Therefore, the resultant IRWMP will by design have incorporated the land-use plans and assumptions intrinsic to the respective water-related service function.

The Region includes coastal watersheds from the southernmost portion of the San Jose Creek watershed north to the northern limit of the Seaside Groundwater Basin.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 292, Packet Page 392 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 8 of 12 ends

6.5. Adoption of the IRWMP. Plan adoption will occur by approval of the governing board of each entity. Each member of the RWMG shall adopt the IRWM Plan or an amended IRWM Plan, when the Plan becomes available. Project proponents named in an IRWM grant application shall adopt the IRWM Plan or amended IRWM Plan prior to submittal of the grant application. It should be noted that the adopted Plan and project list may be amended from time to time as described below.

6.7. Project Implementation. Project proponents will be responsible for completing proposed projects and providing project reports to the Lead Agency.

6.9 Grant Applications. The Regional Water Management Group will designate a Lead Agency to apply for grant funds. The Lead Agency for each grant application Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 293, Packet Page 393 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 9 of 12 ends

should have a mission and expertise that is consistent with the purpose of the grant being applied for.

6.10 Central Coast funding area agreement. The RWMG designates MPWMD to execute a funding area agreement on behalf of the Monterey Peninsula Planning Region.

6.11 Grant Awards and Agreement. The Lead Agency will be the grantee and administer the grant on behalf of the Regional Water Management Group and Stakeholders.

6.12 Participation in Regional Water Management Group (RWMG). Any qualified stakeholder may petition to become a member of the RWMG. A qualified stakeholder must demonstrate an interest, responsibility or authority over one or more resources within the region; The RWMG shall consider such a request for a change to the RWMG and shall vote by majority to accept or reject the request.

6.13 Length of Term in Regional Water Management Group. Members of the RWMG may change from time to time, depending on the level of resources available to each entity. However, there is no required minimum or maximum length of time required as a member of the RWMG. If an entity withdraws from the RWMG, the remaining entities should attempt to replace the interest, responsibility or authority lost by the withdrawal.

6.14 Rights of the Parties and Constituencies: This MOU does not provide any added legal rights or regulatory powers to any of the signatory parties, or to the RWMG as a whole. This MOU does not of itself give any party the power to adjudicate water rights, or to regulate or otherwise control the private property of other parties. This MOU does not contemplate the parties taking any action that would adversely affect the rights of any of the parties, or that would adversely affect the customers or constituencies of any of the parties.

6.15 Termination. An entity signatory to this MOU may withdraw from participation upon 30 days advance notice to the other signatory entities, provided it agrees to be financially responsible for any previously committed, but unmet resource commitment.

6.16. Personnel resources. It is expected that the General Managers and/or other officials of each entity signatory to this MOU will periodically meet to insure that adequate staff resources are available to implement the IRWM Plan.

6.17. Other on-going regional efforts. Development of the IRWMP is separate from efforts of other organizations to develop water-related plans on a regional basis around Monterey Bay and the Central Coast. As the IRWMP is developed and implemented, work products may be shared to provide other entities and groups with current information.

7. RECORD OF AMENDMENTS

7.1 June 2010 – add Marina Coast Water District to RWMG. Revise Goals, Definitions and MOU terms to reflect Proposition 84 requirements.

7.2 March 2012 – add process to change RWMG, define when plan is to be adopted, revise to Proposition 84 standards

7.3 August 2012 – add Resource Conservation District of Monterey County to RWMG Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 294, Packet Page 394 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 10 of 12 ends

7.4 DATE (anticipated as by February 2019) – add California State University Monterey Bay, Carmel Area Wastewater District, Carmel River Watershed Conservancy, Carmel Valley Association, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, City of Del Rey Oaks, City of Sand City, City of Seaside, and Monterey County Resource Management Agency to RWMG
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 295, Packet Page 395 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 11 of 12 ends

8. SIGNATORIES TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
We, the duly authorized undersigned representatives of our respective entities, acknowledge the above as our understanding of the intent and expected outcome in overseeing the development and implementation of an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Region.

Big Sur Land Trust
By:

Date: , 20____
Monterey County Water Resources Agency
By:

Date: , 20____
Monterey Regional Water Pollution
Control Agency
By:

Date: , 20____
City of Monterey
By:

Date: , 20____
Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District
By:

Date: , 20____
Marina Coast Water District
By:

Date: , 20____
Resource Conservation District of
Monterey County
By:

Date: , 20____
California State University Monterey Bay
By:

Date: , 20____
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 296, Packet Page 396 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 12 of 12 ends

Carmel Area Wastewater District
By:

Date: , 20____
Carmel River Watershed Conservancy
By:

Date: , 20____
Carmel Valley Association
By: Priscilla Walton
Date:May 2 , 2019____
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
By:

Date: , 20____
City of Del Rey Oaks
By:

Date: , 20____
City of Sand City
By:

Date: , 20____
City of Seaside
By:

Date: , 20____
Monterey County Resource Management Agency
By:

Date: , 20____
U:\mpwmd\IRWM\Regional Water Management Group\2019 Amended MOU\Item-23_Exh_A.docx Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 297, Packet Page 397 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
APPENDIX 1-C

RESOLUTIONS OF ADOPTION
[PENDING APPROVAL BY RWMG]

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 298, Packet Page 398 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 299, Packet Page 399 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
APPENDIX 1-D

CURRENT STAKEHOLDERS LIST

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 300, Packet Page 400 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 301, Packet Page 401 Monterey Peninsula Integrated Water Management Plan
Stakeholder List
Date: July 22, 2019
Contact Person E-mail Address Organization
Amah [email protected] Mutsun Tribal Band Abbie Beane [email protected] The Offset Project, Carmel River Watershed Conservancy Agnes Topp [email protected] City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Alexander Wade Presidio of Monterey
Alison Imamura [email protected] Monterey One Water
Alissa M Kispersky
[email protected]
California American Water Company
Amanda Morrison
[email protected]
Amy Palkovic [email protected] California State Parks Andrew Racz [email protected] Marina Coast Water District
Andy Magnasco [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Angela Schroeter [email protected] Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Annette Tenneboe [email protected] California Department of Fish and Wildlife Anya Spear [email protected] California State University Monterey Bay Artthur McLoughlin [email protected] Monterey Bay Youth Camp Ashley Blacow [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Barbara Buikema [email protected] Carmel Area Wastewater District Beverly Chaney [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Bob Holden [email protected] Monterey One Water
Bob Jaques [email protected] Seaside Basin Watermaster Bob Roach [email protected] Monterey County Weed Management Area Bob Sevene [email protected] FORT Friends (Fort Ord Recreation Trails Friends, a consolidation of several groups)
Bob Siegfried [email protected] Carmel Valley Association Bob Steinberg [email protected] Interested Citizen
Bobette Parsons [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Brent Marshall [email protected] California State Parks Brian Anderson [email protected] Marine Pollution Studies Lab - UC Davis Brian LeNeve [email protected] Carmel River Steelhead Association Brian Meux [email protected] Carmel River Task Force
Brian True [email protected] Marina Coast Water District
Bridget Hoover [email protected] Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Cameron L. Johnson [email protected] Army Corps of Engineers Carl P. Holm [email protected] Monterey County Resource Management Agency Carol Reeb [email protected] Stanford University- Hopkins Marine Station Carolyn Saputo [email protected] California State Water Resources Control Board Carrie Lewis [email protected] California Conservation Corps Catherine Stedman [email protected] California American Water Company Cathy Paladini [email protected] Monterey County Water Resources Agency Chad Mitcham [email protected] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Charlie Endris [email protected] Cal State
Cheryl Sandoval [email protected] Monterey County Health Dept., Division of Environmental Health Chief Tony Cerda [email protected] Rumsen Tribe
Chris Counts [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Chris Mack [email protected] Keep Fort Ord Wild
Chris Morello [email protected] Monterey Airport District Christina Fischer [email protected] Santa Lucia Conservancy Christoper Hauser [email protected] Santa Lucia Conservancy Christopher Cook [email protected] Cal Am Water Company Courtney Howard [email protected] San Luis Obispo County: Division of Public Works Dan Gho [email protected] City of Pacific Grove Dan Martel [email protected] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dane Mathis [email protected] California Department of Water Resources Darius Rike [email protected] MORCA (Monterey Off-Road Cycling Association, a Chapter of IMBA)

Page 1 of 5 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 302, Packet Page 402 Monterey Peninsula Integrated Water Management Plan
Stakeholder List
Date: July 22, 2019
Contact Person E-mail Address Organization
Dave Potter [email protected]
Dave Stolt [email protected] Monterey Peninsula Water Management District David Chardavoyne [email protected] Monterey County Water Resources Agency David Eisen [email protected] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers David Styer [email protected] California Native Plant Society, Monterey Chapter Dawn Mathes [email protected] Pebble Beach Company Dawn Reis [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Denise Duffy [email protected] Denise Duffy & Associates Dennis King [email protected] CalFire
Dennis Palm [email protected] Ventana Wilderness Alliance Dewey Evans [email protected] Seaside Basin Watermaster Diana Staines [email protected] Denise Duffy & Associates Dino Pick [email protected] City of Del Rey Oaks Dominic Roques [email protected] Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Don Eastman [email protected] Del Monte Forest Property Owners Doug Deitch [email protected] Monterey Bay Conservancy Doug Dowden [email protected]
Doug Rogers [email protected] Interested Citizen
Doug Smith [email protected]
Doug Smith [email protected] Watershed Institute at CSUMB Dr Fred Watson [email protected] The Watershed Institute at CSUMB Dr. Meg Caldwell [email protected] Center for Ocean Solutions Dr. Monica Hunter [email protected] Planning and Conservation League Drew Lander [email protected] Carmel Area Wastewater District Ed Waggoner [email protected] Carmel Area Wastewater District Edrie de los Santos [email protected] City of Marina Edward Thornton [email protected] Naval Postgraduate School Elizabeth Geisler [email protected] Dudek
Elizabeth Krafft [email protected] Monterey County Resource Management Agency Elizabeth Payne [email protected] State Water Board Elizabeth Russell [email protected] Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments Ellen I. Everidge [email protected] Carollo
Emily Zefferman [email protected] Resource Conservation District of Monterey County Eric Sabolsice [email protected] California American Water Company Eric Sand [email protected] Carmel Valley Association Erica Parker [email protected] Representative Mark Stone's office Erin Harwayne [email protected] Denise Duffy & Associates Erin Seghesio [email protected] NOAA
Femke Freiberg [email protected] National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Forrest Arthur [email protected] Santa Lucia Preserve Community Services District Frank Emerson [email protected] Carmel River Steelhead Association Frank Pierce [email protected] Pacific Grove Resident Frank Schwing [email protected] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Fred Watson [email protected] Carmel River Task Force
Gabby Alberola [email protected] CSUMB
Gail Morton [email protected] Fort Ord Recreation Users Gail Youngblood [email protected] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Gary Conley [email protected] Second Nature
Gary Courtright [email protected] MORCA (Monterey Off-Road Cycling Association, a Chapter of IMBA) George T. Riley [email protected] Citizens for Public Water Giuseppe Lama [email protected]
Greg James [email protected] Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Hector Hernandez [email protected] Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Heidi M Niggemeyer [email protected] City of Salinas Ian Crooks [email protected] Cal Am Water Company

Page 2 of 5 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 303, Packet Page 403 Monterey Peninsula Integrated Water Management Plan
Stakeholder List
Date: July 22, 2019
Contact Person E-mail Address Organization
J.T. Rethke [email protected] Pebble Beach Community- Service District Jack Hammerland [email protected] Carmel River Watershed Conservancy Jackie Nelson [email protected] Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District Jacob Martin [email protected] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jacqueline Pearson Meyer [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Jakki Kehl [email protected]
Jan Shriner [email protected] Marina Coast Water District Jane Parker [email protected] Supervisor Jane Parker, Mo Co District 4 Janet Shing [email protected] Community Foundation for Monterey County Janna Faulk [email protected] Monterey County Environmental Health Jason Campbell [email protected] Interested Citizen Jay Tulley [email protected] Presidio of Monterey Jeff Condit [email protected] Monterey One Water
Jeff Frey [email protected] California State Parks
Jeff Krebs [email protected] City of Monterey
Jeff Kwasny [email protected] US Forest Service
Jeffrey Albrecht [email protected] State Water Board Jennifer Gonzales [email protected] Monterey One Water Jennifer Moonjian [email protected] Caltrans Jennifer Morales [email protected] DWR IRWM (Climate Change) Jill Bicknell [email protected] EOA, Inc.

Joanna Devers [email protected] Big Sur Land Trust Jodi Pontureri [email protected] California State Water Resources Control Board Jody Hansen [email protected] Monterey Peninsula College
Joe Rawitzer [email protected] Carmel River Task Force
Joel Casagrande
[email protected]
Joel Weinstein [email protected] Sierra Club Joelle Lobo [email protected] Presidio of Monterey John Akeman [email protected] Monterey County Parks Department John Hiles [email protected] California State Parks John Hunt [email protected]
John Olson [email protected] CSUMB
John Ricker [email protected] Northern Santa Cruz County John Shelton [email protected] California Department of Fish and Game John Silveus [email protected] Carmel River Task Force John Wandke [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Jonathan Garcia [email protected] Fort Ord Reuse Authority Jonathan Lear [email protected] Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Jonathan Pangburn [email protected] CalFire Josh Harwayne [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Julia Dyer [email protected] Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Kamille Hammerstrom [email protected]
Karen McBride [email protected] Rural Communities Assistance Corporation Karen Riley-Olms [email protected] Monterey County Kate McKenna [email protected] Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission Katharine Daniels [email protected] Supervisor Mary Adams, Mo Co District 5 Katherine O'Dea, Executive
Director
[email protected] Save Our Shores
Katie McNeill [email protected] Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Kay Cline [email protected] Sustainable Marina (residents group) Keith Van Der [email protected] Marina Coast Water District Kelly Havens [email protected] Geosyntec
Kelly Sorenson, Executive
Director
[email protected] Ventana Wildlife Society
Ken Ekelund [email protected] Citizen Watershed Monitoring Network Ken Johnson [email protected] Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute

Page 3 of 5 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 304, Packet Page 404 Monterey Peninsula Integrated Water Management Plan
Stakeholder List
Date: July 22, 2019
Contact Person E-mail Address Organization
Kevan Urquhart [email protected] Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Kevin O'Connor [email protected] Central Coast Wetland Group Kevin Shaffer [email protected] Department of Fish and Wildlife Kimberly Null [email protected]
Kyle J. Dahl [email protected] Army Corps of Engineers Laleh Rastegarzadeh [email protected] California State Water Resources Control Board Larry Hampson [email protected] Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Larry Levine [email protected] County Service Area 50 Larry Parrish [email protected] Green Party of Monterey County Laura Dadiw [email protected] Seaside Basin Watermaster Laura Lee Lienk [email protected] Watershed Institute at CSUMB Laurie Lynn Williamson [email protected] City of Monterey Leif Utegaard [email protected] Santa Lucia Preserve Community Services District Leon Gomez [email protected] City of Sand City Public Works and City Engineer Leslie Llantero [email protected] City of Seaside LeVonne Stone [email protected] Ford Ord Environmental Justice Network Lindsay Cope [email protected] Santa Lucia Conservancy Lisa Austin [email protected] Geosyntec
Lisa Emanuelson [email protected] Monterey Bay Citizen Watershed Monitoring Network Lisa Lurie [email protected] Agriculture Water Quality Alliance Lorin Letendre [email protected] Carmel River Watershed Conservancy Louise J. Miranda Ramirez [email protected] Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation Luana Conley [email protected] Sustainable Marina (residents group) Lynette Redman [email protected] Monterey County Public Works Lynn Cellars [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Manuel Quezada [email protected] Monterey County Water Resources Agency Marc Wiener [email protected] City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Margaret Davis [email protected] Friends of Fort Ord Warhorse Margaret Paul [email protected] California Department of Fish & Game: Fisheries Margaret Robbins [email protected] Monterey County Resource Management Agency Marie Butcher [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Maris Sidenstecker [email protected] Save The Whales Mark Dudley [email protected] Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Mark Edria [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Mary Adams [email protected] Supervisor Mary Adams, Mo Co District 5 Mary Ann Matthews [email protected] California Native Plant Society, Monterey County Chapter MaryBeth Dreusike [email protected] Naval Support Activity Monterey Matt Keeling [email protected] Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Matthew Michie [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Maureen Hamilton [email protected] Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Mel Mason [email protected] NAACP
Melanie Beretti [email protected] Monterey County Resource Management Agency Michael A. Houlemard, Jr. [email protected] Fort Ord Reuse Authority Michael Emmett [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Michael Sandecki [email protected] CA Coastal Commission Michael Waxer [email protected] Step Up 2 Green / Sustainability Academy Michelle Dooley [email protected] California Department of Water Resources Mikaela Bogdan [email protected] CSUMB
Mike DeLapa [email protected] LandWatch Monterey County Mike McCullough [email protected] Monterey One Water
Mike Niccum [email protected] Pebble Beach Community Service District (also, PGUSD) Mike Splain [email protected] Ventana Wilderness Alliance Mike Watson [email protected] California Coastal Commission Mike Wegley [email protected] Marina Coast Water District Milas Smith [email protected] City of Pacific Grove Miriam Rodriguez [email protected] Department of Fish and Wildlife Morgan Robertson [email protected] Caltrans

Page 4 of 5 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 305, Packet Page 405 Monterey Peninsula Integrated Water Management Plan
Stakeholder List
Date: July 22, 2019
Contact Person E-mail Address Organization
Nick Becker [email protected] Pebble Beach Community- Service District Nikki Nedeff [email protected] California Native Plant Society, Monterey County Chapter Ogarita Carranza [email protected] Monterey County Public Works Pamela Krone-Davis [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Paola Berthoin [email protected] Carmel River Task Force Paola Ramos [email protected] Environmental Justice Coalition for Water Paul Bruno [email protected] Carmel River Task Force
Paul Robins [email protected] Monterey County Resource Conservation District Paul Sciuto [email protected] Monterey One Water
Paula C. Gill [email protected] Army Corps of Engineers Pete Riegelhuth [email protected] Caltrans
Philomena Smith [email protected] California Native Plant Society, Monterey Chapter Priscilla Walton [email protected] Carmel Valley Association Rachel Saunders [email protected] Big Sur Land Trust Rachid Ait-Lasri [email protected] California State Water Resources Control Board Rafael Payan [email protected] Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District Rami Shihadeh [email protected] Monterey County Resource Conservation District Renate Robe [email protected] Marina Equestrian Center
Richard Svindland [email protected] California American Water Company Rick Boggs [email protected] California State University Monterey Bay Rick Riedl [email protected] City of Seaside
Robert Guidi
[email protected] Army, Department of Public works Robert Johnson [email protected] Monterey County Resource Management Agency Roger Dolan [email protected] Carmel Valley Association Roger VanHorn [email protected] Monterey County Health Dept., Division of Environmental Health Roger Williams [email protected] Carmel River Steelhead Association Ross Clark [email protected] Central Coast Wetland Group/ Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
Roy Thomas, President [email protected] Carmel River Steelhead Association Sam Davidson [email protected] Trout Unlimited
Sara Reyes [email protected] Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Sarah Corbin [email protected] Surfrider Foundation Sarah Hardgrave [email protected] Big Sur Land Trust Sarah Newkirk [email protected] The Nature Conservancy
Scott Ottmar [email protected] City of Seaside
Seema Chavan [email protected] Carollo
Sharon Friedrichsen [email protected] City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Sharon Lacalamita [email protected] Monterey Search and Rescue Dogs, Inc.

Shaunna Juarez [email protected] Monterey County Water Resources Agency Shawn Milar [email protected] USFWS Coastal Program

Page 5 of 5 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 306, Packet Page 406 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay August 2019 DRAFT Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 307, Packet Page 407 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
APPENDIX 1-E

NOTICE OF INTENT
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 308, Packet Page 408 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 309, Packet Page 409

INVOICE
Monterey County Weekly Classifieds
In print and online.

Date: 07/25/19 Account: 061302-00000

ARLENE TAVANI MTY PENINSULA WATER MGMT
PO BOX 85
MONTEREY, CA 93942
831-658-5652
Start date: 07/25/19
Class: Notices
Insertions ordered: 2
Seller: 20
INVOICE NUMBER: 10-061302-00000
Public Notice
Intent to Update to the Monterey
Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South
Monterey Bay Integrated Regional
Water Management Plan
Placed by Sara Reyes
Published July 25, Aug. 1, 2019
Ad Charge: $ 892.50
We appreciate your support. Kindly remit payment to:

Monterey County Weekly Classifieds
668 Williams Ave
Seaside, CA 93955
831-393-3939
www.montereycountyweekly.com
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 310, Packet Page 410 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 311, Packet Page 411 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
APPENDIX 2-A

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 312, Packet Page 412 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 313, Packet Page 413 Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Accipiter cooperii
Cooper's hawk
ABNKC12040 None None G5 S4 WL
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G2G3 S1S2 SSC
Agrostis lacuna-vernalis
vernal pool bent grass
PMPOA041N0 None None G1 S1 1B.1
Allium hickmanii
Hickman's onion
PMLIL02140 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Ambystoma californiense
California tiger salamander
AAAAA01180 Threatened Threatened G2G3 S2S3 WL
Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum
Santa Cruz long-toed salamander
AAAAA01082 Endangered Endangered G5T1T2 S1S2 FP
Anniella pulchra
northern California legless lizard
ARACC01020 None None G3 S3 SSC
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
AMACC10010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle
ABNKC22010 None None G5 S3 FP
Arctostaphylos edmundsii
Little Sur manzanita
PDERI04260 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. hookeri
Hooker's manzanita
PDERI040J1 None None G3T2 S2 1B.2
Arctostaphylos montereyensis
Toro manzanita
PDERI040R0 None None G2? S2? 1B.2
Arctostaphylos pajaroensis
Pajaro manzanita
PDERI04100 None None G1 S1 1B.1
Arctostaphylos pumila
sandmat manzanita
PDERI04180 None None G1 S1 1B.2
Asio flammeus
short-eared owl
ABNSB13040 None None G5 S3 SSC
Astragalus tener var. tener
alkali milk-vetch
PDFAB0F8R1 None None G2T1 S1 1B.2
Astragalus tener var. titi
coastal dunes milk-vetch
PDFAB0F8R2 Endangered Endangered G2T1 S1 1B.1
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
ABNSB10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
Quad IS (Moss Landing (3612177) OR Prunedale (3612176) OR San Juan Bautista (3612175) OR Natividad (3612165) OR Salinas (3612166) OR Marina (3612167) OR Spreckels (3612156) OR Seaside (3612157) OR Monterey (3612158) OR Soberanes Point (3612148) OR Mt. Carmel (3612147)) Query Criteria:

Report Printed on Monday, July 22, 2019
Commercial Version -- Dated June, 30 2019 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 6 Information Expires 12/30/2019
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 314, Packet Page 414 Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Bombus caliginosus
obscure bumble bee
IIHYM24380 None None G4? S1S2
Bombus occidentalis
western bumble bee
IIHYM24250 None None G2G3 S1
Bryoria spiralifera
twisted horsehair lichen
NLTEST5460 None None G3 S1S2 1B.1
Buteo regalis
ferruginous hawk
ABNKC19120 None None G4 S3S4 WL
Castilleja ambigua var. insalutata
pink Johnny-nip
PDSCR0D403 None None G4T2 S2 1B.1
Central Dune Scrub
Central Dune Scrub
CTT21320CA None None G2 S2.2
Central Maritime Chaparral
Central Maritime Chaparral
CTT37C20CA None None G2 S2.2
Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii
Congdon's tarplant
PDAST4R0P1 None None G3T1T2 S1S2 1B.1
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
western snowy plover
ABNNB03031 Threatened None G3T3 S2S3 SSC
Chorizanthe minutiflora
Fort Ord spineflower
PDPGN04100 None None G1 S1 1B.2
Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens
Monterey spineflower
PDPGN040M2 Threatened None G2T2 S2 1B.2
Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta
robust spineflower
PDPGN040Q2 Endangered None G2T1 S1 1B.1
Clarkia jolonensis
Jolon clarkia
PDONA050L0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
CTT52410CA None None G3 S2.1
Coastal Brackish Marsh
Coastal Brackish Marsh
CTT52200CA None None G2 S2.1
Coelus globosus
globose dune beetle
IICOL4A010 None None G1G2 S1S2
Collinsia multicolor
San Francisco collinsia
PDSCR0H0B0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Cordylanthus rigidus ssp. littoralis
seaside bird's-beak
PDSCR0J0P2 None Endangered G5T2 S2 1B.1
Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend's big-eared bat
AMACC08010 None None G3G4 S2 SSC
Coturnicops noveboracensis
yellow rail
ABNME01010 None None G4 S1S2 SSC
Cypseloides niger
black swift
ABNUA01010 None None G4 S2 SSC
Report Printed on Monday, July 22, 2019
Commercial Version -- Dated June, 30 2019 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 6 Information Expires 12/30/2019
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 315, Packet Page 415 Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Danaus plexippus pop. 1
monarch - California overwintering population
IILEPP2012 None None G4T2T3 S2S3
Delphinium californicum ssp. interius
Hospital Canyon larkspur
PDRAN0B0A2 None None G3T3 S3 1B.2
Delphinium hutchinsoniae
Hutchinson's larkspur
PDRAN0B0V0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Delphinium umbraculorum
umbrella larkspur
PDRAN0B1W0 None None G3 S3 1B.3
Dipodomys venustus venustus
Santa Cruz kangaroo rat
AMAFD03042 None None G4T1 S1
Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite
ABNKC06010 None None G5 S3S4 FP
Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
ARAAD02030 None None G3G4 S3 SSC
Eremophila alpestris actia
California horned lark
ABPAT02011 None None G5T4Q S4 WL
Ericameria fasciculata
Eastwood's goldenbush
PDAST3L080 None None G2 S2 1B.1
Eriogonum nortonii
Pinnacles buckwheat
PDPGN08470 None None G2 S2 1B.3
Erysimum ammophilum
sand-loving wallflower
PDBRA16010 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Erysimum menziesii
Menzies' wallflower
PDBRA160R0 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Eucyclogobius newberryi
tidewater goby
AFCQN04010 Endangered None G3 S3 SSC
Euphilotes enoptes smithi
Smith's blue butterfly
IILEPG2026 Endangered None G5T1T2 S1S2
Falco mexicanus
prairie falcon
ABNKD06090 None None G5 S4 WL
Falco peregrinus anatum
American peregrine falcon
ABNKD06071 Delisted Delisted G4T4 S3S4 FP
Fritillaria liliacea
fragrant fritillary
PMLIL0V0C0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria
Monterey gilia
PDPLM041P2 Endangered Threatened G3G4T2 S2 1B.2
Helminthoglypta sequoicola consors
redwood shoulderband
IMGASC2421 None None G2T1 S1
Hesperocyparis goveniana
Gowen cypress
PGCUP04031 Threatened None G1 S1 1B.2
Hesperocyparis macrocarpa
Monterey cypress
PGCUP04060 None None G1 S1 1B.2
Report Printed on Monday, July 22, 2019
Commercial Version -- Dated June, 30 2019 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 6 Information Expires 12/30/2019
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 316, Packet Page 416 Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Holocarpha macradenia
Santa Cruz tarplant
PDAST4X020 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Horkelia cuneata var. sericea
Kellogg's horkelia
PDROS0W043 None None G4T1? S1? 1B.1
Horkelia marinensis
Point Reyes horkelia
PDROS0W0B0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Lasiurus cinereus
hoary bat
AMACC05030 None None G5 S4
Lasthenia conjugens
Contra Costa goldfields
PDAST5L040 Endangered None G1 S1 1B.1
Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus
California black rail
ABNME03041 None Threatened G3G4T1 S1 FP
Layia carnosa
beach layia
PDAST5N010 Endangered Endangered G2 S2 1B.1
Legenere limosa
legenere
PDCAM0C010 None None G2 S2 1B.1
Linderiella occidentalis
California linderiella
ICBRA06010 None None G2G3 S2S3
Lupinus tidestromii
Tidestrom's lupine
PDFAB2B3Y0 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Malacothamnus palmeri var. involucratus
Carmel Valley bush-mallow
PDMAL0Q0B1 None None G3T2Q S2 1B.2
Malacothrix saxatilis var. arachnoidea
Carmel Valley malacothrix
PDAST660C2 None None G5T2 S2 1B.2
Meconella oregana
Oregon meconella
PDPAP0G030 None None G2G3 S2 1B.1
Microseris paludosa
marsh microseris
PDAST6E0D0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Monardella sinuata ssp. nigrescens
northern curly-leaved monardella
PDLAM18162 None None G3T2 S2 1B.2
Monolopia gracilens
woodland woollythreads
PDAST6G010 None None G3 S3 1B.2
Monterey Cypress Forest
Monterey Cypress Forest
CTT83150CA None None G1 S1.2
Monterey Pine Forest
Monterey Pine Forest
CTT83130CA None None G1 S1.1
Monterey Pygmy Cypress Forest
Monterey Pygmy Cypress Forest
CTT83162CA None None G1 S1.1
Northern Bishop Pine Forest
Northern Bishop Pine Forest
CTT83121CA None None G2 S2.2
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
CTT52110CA None None G3 S3.2
Report Printed on Monday, July 22, 2019
Commercial Version -- Dated June, 30 2019 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 of 6 Information Expires 12/30/2019
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 317, Packet Page 417 Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Oceanodroma homochroa
ashy storm-petrel
ABNDC04030 None None G2 S2 SSC
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 9
steelhead - south-central California coast DPS
AFCHA0209H Threatened None G5T2Q S2
Optioservus canus
Pinnacles optioservus riffle beetle
IICOL5E020 None None G1 S1
Pelecanus occidentalis californicus
California brown pelican
ABNFC01021 Delisted Delisted G4T3T4 S3 FP
Phrynosoma blainvillii
coast horned lizard
ARACF12100 None None G3G4 S3S4 SSC
Pinus radiata
Monterey pine
PGPIN040V0 None None G1 S1 1B.1
Piperia yadonii
Yadon's rein orchid
PMORC1X070 Endangered None G1 S1 1B.1
Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus
Choris' popcornflower
PDBOR0V061 None None G3T1Q S1 1B.2
Plagiobothrys diffusus
San Francisco popcornflower
PDBOR0V080 None Endangered G1Q S1 1B.1
Plagiobothrys uncinatus
hooked popcornflower
PDBOR0V170 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Potentilla hickmanii
Hickman's cinquefoil
PDROS1B0U0 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Rallus obsoletus obsoletus
California Ridgway's rail
ABNME05011 Endangered Endangered G5T1 S1 FP
Ramalina thrausta
angel's hair lichen
NLLEC3S340 None None G5 S2? 2B.1
Rana boylii
foothill yellow-legged frog
AAABH01050 None Candidate
Threatened
G3 S3 SSC
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
AAABH01022 Threatened None G2G3 S2S3 SSC
Reithrodontomys megalotis distichlis
Salinas harvest mouse
AMAFF02032 None None G5T1 S1
Riparia riparia
bank swallow
ABPAU08010 None Threatened G5 S2
Rosa pinetorum
pine rose
PDROS1J0W0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Sidalcea malachroides
maple-leaved checkerbloom
PDMAL110E0 None None G3 S3 4.2
Sorex ornatus salarius
Monterey shrew
AMABA01105 None None G5T1T2 S1S2 SSC
Spea hammondii
western spadefoot
AAABF02020 None None G3 S3 SSC
Report Printed on Monday, July 22, 2019
Commercial Version -- Dated June, 30 2019 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 5 of 6 Information Expires 12/30/2019
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 318, Packet Page 418 Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Spirinchus thaleichthys
longfin smelt
AFCHB03010 Candidate Threatened G5 S1
Stebbinsoseris decipiens
Santa Cruz microseris
PDAST6E050 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Taricha torosa
Coast Range newt
AAAAF02032 None None G4 S4 SSC
Taxidea taxus
American badger
AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Thamnophis hammondii
two-striped gartersnake
ARADB36160 None None G4 S3S4 SSC
Tortula californica
California screw moss
NBMUS7L090 None None G2G3 S2S3 1B.2
Trifolium buckwestiorum
Santa Cruz clover
PDFAB402W0 None None G2 S2 1B.1
Trifolium hydrophilum
saline clover
PDFAB400R5 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Trifolium polyodon
Pacific Grove clover
PDFAB402H0 None Rare G1 S1 1B.1
Trifolium trichocalyx
Monterey clover
PDFAB402J0 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Tryonia imitator
mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail)
IMGASJ7040 None None G2 S2
Valley Needlegrass Grassland
Valley Needlegrass Grassland
CTT42110CA None None G3 S3.1
Vireo bellii pusillus
least Bell's vireo
ABPBW01114 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S2
Record Count: 115
Report Printed on Monday, July 22, 2019
Commercial Version -- Dated June, 30 2019 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 6 of 6 Information Expires 12/30/2019
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 319, Packet Page 419 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
APPENDIX 2-B

LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 320, Packet Page 420 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 321, Packet Page 421 Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and Southern Monterey Bay Appendix 2b – Land Use Maps for Region July 2019
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Land Use Designation Maps
I. Monterey County General Plan
a. Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan
b. Carmel Area Land Use Plan
c. Del Monte Forest Land Use Plan
d. Fort Ord Master Plan
e. Carmel Valley Master Plan
II. Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan
III. City of Seaside General Plan
IV. Sand City General Plan
V. City of Del Rey Oaks General Plan
VI. City of Monterey General Plan
VII. City of Pacific Grove General Plan
VIII. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 322, Packet Page 422 Æ`
Æ`
Toro
Carmel Area LUP
Jacks Peak County Park
Garland
Ranch
Regional
Park
Big Sur LUP
River
Carmel
Cachagua
Pasadera
See Detail
Carmel Valley Village
ST
See Fort Ord Master Plan for this area, Fig LU6a.

Monterey Peninsula
Airport District
P
a
c i fi
cO c e a n
M o n t e r e y B a y

CARMEL VALLEY RD

ROBINSON CANYON RD
Point Lobos State Reserve
Garrapata Beach State Park
Carmel River State Beach
Roach Canyon Park
Fort Ord Dunes State Park
Laguna Seca Rec. Area
Toro Regional Park
Garland
Ranch
Regional
Park
Del Monte Forest
See Detail
Highway 1 Area
See Detail
Carmel Valley Master Plan
See Figure LU3
.99
.99
.99
.99
.99
.99
10 10

5.1 5.1 5.1

2.5 2.5

2.5 5.1 5.1

5.1 5.1

5.1 5.1
5 2.5

2.5 2.5
10 10
10 10
10 10
10 10
10 10
10 10 5.1

5.1 5.1
5+

5.1 5.1

5.1 5+

5.1 5.1
160
40 160
160
40 40
40 40
40 40
40 40
40 160
160
160
40 40 40
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
40 40 40
40 40
40 40
40 40
40 40 40
40 160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
40 40
40 40
40 40
40 40
40 40
10 10
10 5.1

5.1 7.5
10 40
40 40
40 40
40 40
Land use within the
Coastal Zone is
addressed in the
Carmel & Big Sur LUPs.

Greater Salinas
40 GMP-1.16
ST
GMP-1.16
GMP-1.17
ST
ST
GMP-1.18
GMP-1.9 ST

AGUAJITO RD
17-MILE DR

LOMA AL TA RD

VIEJO RD

OLMSTED RD

GARDEN RD

FREMONT ST

VIA MALPASO

DAVID AVE

LIGHTHOUSE AVE

DEL MONTE AVE

EUCALYPTUS RD

GENERAL JIM MOORE BLV

GIGLING RD
1ST ST

INTERGARRISON RD

BLANCO RD

IMJIN RD

RESERVATION RD

DEL MONTE BLVD

LAPIS RD

NASHUA RD

MC FADDEN RD

COOPER RD

ARMSTRONG RD

HITCHCOCK RD

DAVIS RD

FOSTER RD

HITCHCOCK RD

SPRECKELS BLVD

R IVER RD

SAN BENANCIO RD

CORRAL DE TIERRA RD

ROBLEY RD SPUR RD

LAURELES GRADE RD

SADDLE RD

CALERA CYN RD

CARMEL VALLEY RD

CACHAGUA RD

PALO COLORADO RD

RANCHO SAN CARLOS RD

ROBINSON CANYON RD

POT RERO CANYON RD
RIO RD

AGUAJITO RD FREMONT ST
MARINA

SAND CITY SEASIDE

MONTEREY DEL REY OAKS

PACIFIC GROVE

CARMEL BY-THE-SEA

SALINAS
Coast Non-Coastal

OCEAN AVE
1 2.5
1 ·|}þ1
·|}þ1
·|}þ183
£¤101
Los Padres National Forest

5.1 ·|}þ218
Little Sur River
Carmel River Los Padres Dam
San Clemente Dam
Salinas River
Marina Municipal
Airport
TEHAMA
40 ·|}þ68

SPANISH BAY RD
17-MILE DR

CONGRESS RD

DAVID AVE

OCEAN RD
17-MILE DR

SLOAT RD

BIRD ROCK RD

STEVENSON DR

PACIFIC GROVE

MONTEREY
·|}þ68
Land use within the Coastal Zone is
addressed in the Del Monte Forest LUP.

Forest Lake

CARMEL VALLEY RD
Carmel LUP
Carmel Valley Master Plan
See Figure LU3
CARMEL

BY-THE-SEA

OUTLOOK DR

FLANDERS DR

HATTON RD

CANADA DR
·|þ}1
.99
.99
.99
.99
.99
1 .99
9 .99
.59
.59
.59
.99
.59

5.1 .99

OCEAN AVE

YORK RD

ESTRELLA AVE

SOUTH BOUNDARY RD

YORK RD
See the Fort Ord Master Plan
for this area, Fig LU6a.
10 5.1

5.1 5.1

5.1 10
.76 .76

2.76 2.76

2.76 2.5
10 Laguna Seca
Recreation Area
·|}þ68
BIT RD

PASADERA DR

MONTEREY COUNTY
012 Miles
Sources: Roads = Monterey County IT/GIS. Parcels = Monterey County Assessor, City Limits and Urban Reserve = Monterey County LAFCO.

Sources: Roads = Monterey County IT/GIS, Parcels = Monterey County Assessor, City Limits and Urban Reserve = Monterey County LAFCO Coastal Zone Boundary = California Coastal Commission.

Adopted by the Board of Supervisors October 26, 2010. Amended October 18, 2011.

Land Use Plan ® Greater Monterey Peninsula
*No density value indicates development limited to lots of record.

Figure # LU5
Highway 1 - Detail 01,000
Feet
Pasadera - Detail 02,000
Feet
Del Monte Forest Non - Coastal - Detail 02,500
Feet
Highway
Road
Coastal Zone Bondary
Planning Area
Community Area
City Limits
Park Boundary
County Boundary
Parcel
Æ` Airport
Residential - red figure = Acres/Unit*
Residential - Rural Density 5 Acres+/Unit
Residential - Low Density 5 - 1 Acres/Unit
Residential - red figure = Units/Acre*
Residential - Medium Density 1 - 5 Units/Acre
Residential - High Density 5 - 20 Units/Acre
Commercial
Commercial
Agricultural - red figure = Acre Minimum.*
Farmlands 40 - 160 Acre Minimum
Rural Grazing 10 - 160 Acre Minimum
Permanent Grazing 10 - 160 Acre Minimum
Resource Conservation 10 - 160 Ac Min
Resource Conservation - red figure = Acre Minimum.*
Public/Quasi-Public
Rivers and Water Bodies
Affordable Housing Overlay
Special Treatment Area & Policy #
Urban Reserve
ST
Legend for Del Monte Forest
Coastal Zone Bondary
Parcel
City Limits
Residential
RESIDENTIAL 2 Units/Acre
RESIDENTIAL 2.4 Units/Acre
RESIDENTIAL 4 Units/Acre
Resource Conservation
Resource Conservation 10 Ac Min
Open Space Forest
Open Space Recreation
Urban Reserve
·|}þ68
£¤101
·|}þ ·|}þ68
68 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 323, Packet Page 423 |ÿ
n
n
n
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Big Sur LUP
Del Monte Forest LUP

OCEAN AV

CARPENTER ST

AGUAJITO RD
RIO RD

SANTA LUCIA AV

SEVENTEEN MILE DR

HATTON RD

RIBERA RD

QUAIL MEADOWS DR
Carmel River State Beach
San Jose Creek
State Beach Point Lobos State Reserve
Garrapata Beach State Park
Garrapata Beach
State Park
Yankee Point
Carmel Point
Malpaso Cr
Wildcat Cr
Gibson cr
Carmel River

ATHERTON DR

CARMEL VALLEY RD
RIO RD

SANJOSECR

YANKEE PT DR

CARMEL BY-THE-SEA
1 Map Prepared by: Monterey County Resource Management Agency, March, 2008. Sources: Parcels= Monterey County Assessor, Roads= Monterey County IT/GIS.

Adopted by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors Oct. 19, 1982, Amended march 9, 1995. Certified by the California Coastal Commission April 14, 1983, Amended Jan. 22, 1985* *Two areas in Carmel Highlands were not certified; see map.

P
a
c
i f i c O c e a n
®
05,000
Feet
Residential
Residential - Low Density
Residential - Medium Density
Commercial
Recreation & Visitor-Serving
Agricultural
Agricultural Conservation
Agricultural Preservation
Resource Conservation
Forest & Upland Habitat
Watershed & Scenic Conservation
Wetlands & Coastal Strand
Recreation
Scenic & Natural Resource Recreation
Public/Quasi-Public

MONTEREY COUNTY
Land Use Plan
Carmel Area
Areas not certified
by Coastal Commission
C a r m e l
B a y
·|}þ1
Mission Fields
Carmel Meadows
Carmel
Highlands
Highway
Major Road
Minor Road
Stream
|ÿ1
n School
Coastal Zone Boundary
City Limit
! ! ! ! Scenic Corridor
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 324, Packet Page 424 ¥pr
¥pr
¥pr
¥pr
¥pr
|ÿ
|ÿ

SPANISH BAY

GOWEN CYPRESS

HUCKLEBERRY HILL

MIDDLEFORK

SPYGLASS

CYPRESS

PEBBLE BEACH PESCADERO

COUNTRY CLUB
Pa
c
i
f i c
O
c
e
a
n
Cypress
Point
Sunset
Point
Midway
Point Pebble
Beach
Stillwater
Cove
Pescadero
Point
Forest
Lake
Point Joe
Spanish Bay
Fanshell
Beach
C a r m e l
B a y
Area of Scientific and Biological Significance
and Carmel Bay Ecological Reserve boundary
&

CARMEL BY-THE-SEA

MONTEREY

PACIFIC GROVE

CONGRESS RD MAJELLARD CONGRESS RD

SLOAT RD

DAVID AVE

LOPEZ RD

SUNSET LN

EL BOSQUE DR
S.F.B. MORSE DR
Presidio of
Monterey
Refer to the Greater Monterey Peninsula
Area Plan for land use within this area.

B
C
F
G H
I
I
J
K L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
U
V
W
X
Y
Arrowhead
Point
Bird
Rock

FOREST LAKE RD

CO NG R ESS R D

BIRD ROCK RD

STEVENSON DR SPYGLASS HILL RD

SLOAT RD

O CEA N RD

STEVENSON DR
17 -M I L E DR

VISCAI NO RD CORTEZ RD

RO ND A RD

PALMERO WAY
17-MILE DR

S OMBRIA LN

PORTOLA RD

PADRE LN
17-MILEDR
17-MILE DR
D
Seal Rock Creek
Pescadero Canyo
Pier
Sawmill Gulch
A
H
J Seal
Rock
1 68
Carmel Gate
Highway 1 Gate
Country Club Gate
S.F.B. Morse Gate
Pacific Grove Gate

DEL MONTE FOREST
Land Use Plan
02 1,000 ,000 4,000
Figure 5
See LUP text for map sources.

Feet
®
¥pr Entrance Gate
Highway
Del Monte Forest Boundary
Coastal Zone Boundary
Stream

PLANNING AREA

CITY LIMITS
Planning Unit
Parcel
Residential
Residential - Low Density
Residential - Medium Density
Residential - High Density
Open Space
Forest
Recreational
Shoreline
Commercial
General Commercial
Institutional
Visitor Serving
1 S.F.B. Morse Preserve Huckleberry Hill Natural Habitat Area Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 325, Packet Page 425

SALINAS
MARINA

SEASIDE

DEL REY
OAKS

MONTEREY
Salinas River

RESERVATION RD

GENERAL JIM MOORE BLV

INTERGARRISON RD

BLANCO RD

MONTEREY COUNTY
Land Use Plan
Fort Ord Master Plan
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles
Figure # LU6a
Map Prepared by Monterey County Planning Dept. October 24, 2006 Sources: Monterey County IT/GIS= Roads, City Limits, Monterey County Assessor= Parcels , Monterey County Planning Dept.= Planning Areas, Fort Ord Reuse Authority= Land Use
1 Highway
Road
River
Community Area
Incorporated City
Parcel
SFD Low Density Residential
Residential Infill Opportunities
Planned Development Mixed Use District
Business Park/Light industrial Office/R&D
Open Space Recreation
Habitat Management
School/University
University Medium Density Residential
Regional Retail
Military Enclave
Public Facility/Institutional
Highway 68 Bypass ROW; Development with Restriction
Veterans Cemetery
Convenience Retail
Golf Course Opportunity Site
Hotel Opportunity Site
Equestrian Center Opportunity Site
1 68
P a c i f i c
O c e a n
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 326, Packet Page 426 Toro
Greater Monterey Peninsula
Greater Monterey Peninsula

CARMEL VALLEY RD
GMP-1.16, CV-1.25
Jacks Peak County Park
GarlandRanchRegionalPark
Carmel LUP
Big Sur LUP
River
Carmel
Greater Monterey Peninsula
Cachagua
5 5
5 2.5

2.5 2.5

2.5 2.5
10 1
1 1
1 2.5
1 1
1 1
1 1
10 10 Ac Min 10 Ac Min
10 Ac Min
40 Ac Min
40 Ac Min
10 Ac Min
10 Ac Min
10 Ac Min
10 Ac Min
10 Ac Min
10 Ac Min
10 Ac Min
40 AC MIN
CV-1.26

2.5 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 10
10 2.5

2.5 2.5
10 2.5
10 10

2.5 1
1 1
1 1

2.5 10
5 5
10 2.5

2.5 2.5 10
5 2.5
1 1

2.5 2.5

2.5 2.5
1 1

2.5 2.5

2.5 2.5
5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5 5
5 2.5

2.5 2.5

2.5 2.5
5 5
5 18.2
Mid-Carmel Valley
See Detail
Carmel Valley Village
See Detail

MIRAMONT E RD VIAL LA GITANA

SOUTHBANK RD

SCHULTE RD
5 5

CANADA WAY

CANADA DR

RIO VISTA DR

CARMEL KNOLLS DR

AGUAJITO RD

VIE JO RD

UNDERWOOD RD
1 1
1 MONTEREY

MONTEREY
CARMEL BY-THESEA
RANCHO SAN CARLOS RD 2.5
CV-1.27
GMP-1.16, CV-1.25
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
CV-1.22
CV-1.23

SCARLETT RD

HOLT RD

TIERRA GRANDE DR

MERCURIO RD

VALLEY GREENS DR
QUA

MEADOWS RD

IL MEADOWS DR

VIA MALLORCA

FLANDERS DR

OUTLOOK DR

OLMSTED RD

VIA MALPASO
TEHAMA

SADDLE RD

HIDDEN HILLS RD

JEANETTE RD

RANCHO FIESTA RD

EAST GARZAS RD

BORONDA RD

LAUREL DR

FORD RD

COUNTRY CLUB DR

CARMEL VALLEY RD

ESQUILINE RD

VIA CONTENTA

EL CAMINITO RD

CARMEL VALLEY RD

VIA LOS T ULAR ES

ROBINSON CANYON RD

RANCHO SAN CARLOS RD

BROOKDA LE DR
RIO RD

CARMEL RANCHO BLVD

AGUAJITO RD
·|}þ1

ROBINSON CANYON RD
C

CORRAL DE TIERRA RD

ALER A CANYON RD

LAURELES GRADE RD
10 5
10 2.5

2.5 2.5

2.5 2.5
10 1
1 1
1 2.5
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1

2.5 3.75

5.78 2.5

2.5 1

2.5 2.5
GarlandRanchRegionalPark

2.5 Greater Monterey Peninsula
·|}þ68
DEL
REY
OAKS
See Fort Ord Master Plan for this area
Toro

RO BLEY RD

CORRAL DE TIERRA RD

SAN BENANCIO RD

LAURELES GRADE RD
Toro
Monterey Peninsula Airport District
1 ·|}þ68

LOMA ALTA RD

MONHOLLAN RD
·|}þ68

POTRERO CANYON RD

CARMEL VALLEY RD
1 1
1 1

2.5 2.5

2.5 2.5
Toro Regional Park
Laguna Seca
Recreation Area
Roach CanyonPark
Æ`

LOS ROBLES RD

MIDDLE CYN RD

RING LN

E VASQUES

TOUCHE PASS

SAN CLEMENTE DR

CACHAGUA R D

RANCHO SAN CARLOS RD

COVEY CT

PRADO DEL SOL

LA RANCHERIA

OAK MEADOW LN
San Clemente
Chamisal

MESA TRAIL
Carmel River

VIA CONTENTA

FORD RD
Esquiline Rd
CV-1.26
Garland Ranch
Regional Park

PASO CRESTA

PASO HONDO

HOLMAN RD

CHAPARRA L RD
1 1
1 1

2.5 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 2.5

2.5 2.5

2.5 2.5
1 1

2.5 7.97 1

2.5 1
10 2.5
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
SOUTHBANK RD 2.5

2.5 LUPIN LN

POPPY RD

LILAC LN

EL CAMINITO RD

PILOT RD

DE LOS HELECHOS

CALLE DE LOS OSITOS
10 2.5
ST

VILLAGE DR

FLIGHT RD

CALLE DE LA VENTANA

PIEDRAS BLANCAS

EL POTRERO

CALLE DE LOS AGRINEMSORS

CARM E L VALLEY RD
Carmel River

2.5 2.5

8.52 2.5

2.5 2.5

2.5 2.5
1 1
1 1

VIA MILPITAS

2.5 Greater Monterey Peninsula Greater Monterey Peninsula

CARMEL VALLEY RD

CARMEL RANCHO BLVD
RIO RD
CV-1.27
1 7.1
Carmel River
RIO RD
1 ST
Carmel LUP
·|}þ1
CV-1.22
1 1 1

17.3 1
1 1
1 1

2.5 1

BERWICK DR

DORRIS DR

CENTER ST

ROBINSON CANYON RD

CARMEL VALLEY RD

TIERRA GRANDE DR
ST

CARMEL R
Carmel River
1 1 3.75
1 MONTEREY COUNTY
012 0.5
Miles
Map Prepared by: Monterey County Resource Management Agency, July 13, 2011.

Sources: Roads = Monterey County IT/GIS, Parcels = Monterey County Assessor, City Limits and Urban Reserve = Monterey County LAFCO.

Coastal Zone Boundary = California Coastal Commission.

Adopted by the Board of Supervisors October 26, 2010.

Land Use Plan
® Carmel Valley Master Plan
*No density value indicates development limited to lots of record.

Figure #LU3
Mouth of
Carmel Valley
See Detail
Land use within the
Coastal Zone is
addressed in the
Carmel LUP.

Mouth of Carmel Valley - Detail 01,000Feet
Mid-Carmel Valley - Detail 0500Feet
Carmel Valley Village - Detail 01,000Feet
HighwayRoadCoastal Zone BondaryPlanning AreaCity LimitsPark BoundaryParcel Æ` Airport
Residential - red figure = Acres/Unit*
Residential - Rural Density 5 Acres+/UnitResidential - Low Density 5 - 1 Acres/Unit Residential - red figure = Units/Acre*
Residential - Medium Density 1 - 5 Units/AcreResidential - High Density 5 - 20 Units/AcreCarmel Valley Ranch Master Plan Agricultural - red figure = Acre Minimum*
Rural Grazing 10 - 160 Acre MinimumPermanent Grazing 10 - 160 Ac Min Commercial
CommercialHeavy CommercialPlanned CommercialVisitor Accomodations/Professional Offices Resource Conservation 10 - 160 Acre Minimum
Resource Conservation - red figure = Acre Minimum*Open SpacePublic/Quasi-PublicRivers and Water BodiesAffordable Housing OverlaySpecial Treatment Area & Policy #Urban Reserve ST
·|}þ68
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 327, Packet Page 427 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 328, Packet Page 428 Col. Owen Durham St.

Light Fighter Dr.

Gigling Rd.

Normandy Rd.

Monterey Rd.

General Jim Moore Blvd.

City of
Marina
Monterey
County
City of
Sand
City
City of
Monterey
Coe Ave.

Military Ave.

Ord Grove Ave.

La Salle Ave.

San Pablo Ave.

Mingo Ave.

Broadway Ave.

Sonoma Ave.

Hilby Ave.

Kimball Ave.

Plumas Ave.

Trinity Ave.

Harcourt Ave. Fremont Blvd. Contra Costa St. Hillsdale St.

Terrace St.

San Lucas St.

Noche Buena St.

Wheeter St.

Yosemite St.

Del Monte Blvd.

Flores St.

Baker St.

Mescal St.

Monterey
Peninsula
Airport
Monterey
County
Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

City of
Del Rey Oaks
Alhambra St.

General Jim Moore Blvd.

M
M
M
PI
PI
CRG

OSR CMX
OSR
V-FO
PI
PI
RH
RS-12
OSR
PI
OSC
RS-8
RS-8
RS-8
PI
PI PI
OSR
OSR
CC
RM RH
OSR
OSR
RH
RH
CC
CMX
CH
CA
CC
CC
OSR
CC

OSR OSR
OSR PI
OSR
OSR
CRG
CRG
RS-12
PI
PI
OSR
OSR
RH
OSR
OSR
OSR
OSR
OSR
CC
CC
OSR
OSR
OSR
OSR
CMX
RM
CC
CC
RH
RS-8
RS-8
OSR
OSR
OSR
RS-12
RM
CRG
CRG
PI
PI
PI
CMX
CH
CH
CC
RS-8
RS-12
PI
PI
RM
OSR
RS-12
OSR
RH
RS-8
CMX
CA
M
CC

CMX RM (WBUV)

RH/MX (WBUV)
MX
(WBUV)
RH/MX
(WBUV)
MX
(WBUV)
PI
PI
PI
M
M
POS
(WBUV)
·|}þ1
·|}þ68
·|}þ218
·|}þ1
Note: WBUV = West Broadway Urban Village Specific Plan City of Seaside, GIS 2010; last revised 5/11/10 i
to
Monterey
i
to
Salinas :0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
0 1,250 2,500 5,000
Feet
i to
Marina
Seaside Zoning Districts
RS-8 - Single-family Residential
RS-12 - Single-family Residential
RM - Medium Density Residential
RH - High Density Residential
CA - Automotive Commercial
CC - Community Commercial
CH - Heavy Commercial
PI - Public / Institutional
M - Military
V-FO - Visitor-Serving Commercial
OSR - Open Space - Recreation
OSC - Open Space - Conservation
RH/MX - High Density Residential/Mixed Use (WBUV)
MX - Mixed Use (WBUV)
CMX - Commercial Mixed Use
CRG - Regional Commercial POS - Parks and Open Space (WBUV) RM - Medium Density Residential (WBUV)
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 329, Packet Page 429 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 330, Packet Page 430

DENISE DUFFY
&ASSOCIATES, INC.

Figure
Current Zoning Map for the City of Del Rey Oaks 2
Quendale Avenue Portola Drive
Rosita Road
Paloma Road
Via Verde
Work Avenue Carlton Drive
Los Enginos Drive
Del Re y G a rdens Drive
Canyon Del Rey Road
R-1 = Single Family Residential
C-1-V = Neighborhood Commercial With Visitor Overlay
D = Multiple Family Residential*
C-1 = Neighborhood Commercial
C-1-D = Retail Commercial Design Control**
C-1-V = City Parkland
C-1-V = Monterey Schools Service Center***
C-1-V = Frog Pond***
Public-Open Space/Habitat
* Controlled density, design/archeticture
** Portion of C-1-D used for restaurant would need a use permit or rezoning for commercial use. The County allowed restaurant on property was never rezoned.
*** County issued a special permit to the School District and Del Rey Oaks did not rezone when parcel was annexed to City. **** Monterey County Regional Park, to remain in natural state. 0 0.25 0.5
Miles
0 0.25 0.5
Kilometers Del Rey Oaks
North
South Road
South Boundary Road
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 331, Packet Page 431 "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
" ""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
" "
"""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"" "
"
"
"
"" "
"
" "
"
"""
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" " " ""
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
" " "
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
"

B A Y O F

M O N T E R E
Y

CITY BOUNDARY CONTINUES

MONTEREY

PENINSULA

COLLEGE

FAIRGROUNDS

PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY
EL
ESTERO
PARK

CEMETERY
NAVAL

POSTGRADUATE
SCHOOL

MONTEREY PENINSULA AIRPORT
NAVY
GOLF
COURSE

L E G E N D
City Boundary
Lake
"
Emergency Shelter
Historic H1
Historic H2
COMMERCIAL-1
COMMERCIAL-2
COMMERCIAL-3

COMMERCIAL OFFICE

CANNERY ROW

INDUSTRIAL

OPEN SPACE

PLANNED COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
RESIDENTIAL-1
RESIDENTIAL-2
RESIDENTIAL-3
VISITOR ACCOM. FACILITY
N/A
Parcel

CITY OF MONTEREY

ZONING MAP
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 332, Packet Page 432 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 333, Packet Page 433 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 334, Packet Page 434 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay August 2019 DRAFT Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 335, Packet Page 435 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
APPENDIX 2-C
2017-2018 ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE

MPWMD MITIGATION PROGRAM

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 336, Packet Page 436 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 337, Packet Page 437

MONTEREY PENINSULA

WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
2017-2018 ANNUAL REPORT
(July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018)
for the

MPWMD MITIGATION PROGRAM
A report in compliance with the

MPWMD WATER ALLOCATION PROGRAM

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(originally certified in November 1990)
Prepared by MPWMD Staff
April 2019
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 338, Packet Page 438 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
i
2017-2018 ANNUAL REPORT

MPWMD MITIGATION PROGRAM

WATER ALLOCATION PROGRAM EIR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE
I. Introduction and Executive Summary............................................................... I-1 Monitoring
II. Precipitation, Streamflow, Lagoon Water Level Monitoring ..........................II-1 III. Surface Water Quality Monitoring..................................................................III-1 IV. Groundwater Monitoring ............................................................................... IV-1 Manage Water Production
V. Annual Low Flow MOA..................................................................................V-1 VI. Quarterly Water Supply Strategy and Budget................................................ VI-1 VII. Well Registration and Reporting .................................................................. VII-1 Manage Water Demand
VIII. Water Efficiency and Conservation .............................................................VIII-1 IX. Allocation of new Water Supply ................................................................... IX-1 X. Water Use Trends ............................................................................................X-1 XI. WDS Management (Water Permits).............................................................. XI-1 Monitor Production and Regulatory Compliance
XII. Compliance with SWRCB Order.................................................................. XII-1 XIII. Compliance with MPWMD Allocation Limits............................................XIII-1 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 339, Packet Page 439 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
ii
Determine Drought Reserve
XIV. Drought Reserve ..........................................................................................XIV-1 Augment Water Supply
XV. Augment Water Supply.................................................................................XV-1 Mitigation Measures
XVI. Steelhead Fishery Mitigation Measures.......................................................XVI-1 XVII. Riparian Habitat Mitigation Measures....................................................... XVII-1 XVIII. Lagoon Habitat Mitigation Measures........................................................ XVIII-1 XIX. Aesthetic Mitigation Measures ....................................................................XIX-1 Program Costs
XX. Summary of Program Costs..........................................................................XX-1 References
XXI. List of References ........................................................................................XXI-1 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 340, Packet Page 440 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
iii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE
II-1 San Clemente Reservoir Daily Rainfall ...........................................................II-6 II-2 Monthly Distribution of Rainfall at San Clemente Reservoir..........................II-7 II-3 Carmel River Basin Principal Streamflow Measuring Stations.......................II-8 II-4 Carmel River Lagoon Water Level..................................................................II-9 III-1 Temperature and Semi-Monthly Water Quality Monitoring Locations..........III-6 III-2 Daily temperatures recorded at the Garland Park (GAR) station....................III-7 III-3 Daily temperatures recorded at the Sleepy Hollow Weir (SHW) station .......III-7 III-4 Daily temperatures recorded at the above San Clemente (ASC) station.........III-8 III-5 Daily temperatures recorded at the below Los Padres (BLP) station..............III-8 III-6 Daily temperatures recorded at the above Los Padres (ALP) station..............III-9 IV-1 RCE and Rio Road North Water Levels and HWY 1 Streamflow ................ IV-6 IV-2 FO07 and PCA East Water Levels................................................................. IV-7 IV-3 Lower Carmel Valley Water Quality Monitoring Wells................................ IV-8 IV-4 Upper Carmel Valley Water Quality Monitoring Wells................................ IV-9 IV-5 State Parks Monitor Well Water Quality..................................................... IV-10 IV-6 Reimers Monitor Well Water Quality.......................................................... IV-11 IV-7 Seaside Basin Coastal Groundwater Quality Monitor Wells....................... IV-12 IV-8 MSC Water Quality Results......................................................................... IV-13 VII-1 Draft Water Production Summary for Current Year..................................... VII-2 VII-2 Draft Water Production Summary for Previous Year................................... VII-3 VII-3 Comparison of Production to Allocation Limits........................................... VII-4 X-1 Water Use Per Connection for Main System...................................................X-2 XVI-1 Streamflow at Highway 1 Bridge.................................................................XVI-9 XVI-2 Steelhead Smolts Rescued from Carmel River Basin................................XVI-10 XVI-3 Steelhead Rescues in Mainstem Carmel River..........................................XVI-11 XVI-4 Annual Rescue and Transport Mortality....................................................XVI-12 XVI-5 Number of Steelhead at Los Padres Dam ..................................................XVI-13 XVI-6 Carmel River – Juvenile Steelhead Population Density ............................XVI-14 XVI-7 Index of Biotic Integrity………………………………………………….XVI-15 XVII-1 Annual Riparian Irrigation Totals............................................................ XVII-13 XVII-2 Average Canopy Rating .......................................................................... XVII-14 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 341, Packet Page 441 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
iv
XVII-3 Streambank Erosion at Rancho San Carlos Rd. Bridge .......................... XVII-15 XVIII-1 Map of Monitoring Transects and Stations at Carmel River Lagoon ...... XVIII-9 XVIII-2 Carmel River Lagoon Cross Sections Annual Surveys .......................... XVIII-10 XVIII-3 Carmel River Lagoon Cross Sections Comparison of Surveys .............. XVIII-11

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE
I-1 Summary of Mitigation Program Components............................................... I-15 I-2 Summary of Mitigation Program Accomplishments ..................................... I-17 II-1 Carmel River Basin Total Annual Streamflow Summary..............................II-10 III-1 Water Quality Data at Carmel River Lagoon..................................................III-9 III-2 Water Quality Data at Garland Park .............................................................III-10 III-3 Water Quality Data at Sleepy Hollow Weir..................................................III-10 III-4 Water Quality Data at Below Los Padres …………………………………..III-11 VIII-1 Summary of Rebate Program.......................................................................VIII-6 IX-1 Allocation Report for Current Year ............................................................... IX-3 IX-2 Entitlement Report for Current Year ............................................................. IX-4 XI-1 Summary of Water Permits Issued................................................................. XI-3 XIII-1 Allocation Limit compared to Production for the MPWRS ........................XIII-3 XVI-1a Number of Steelhead Rescued in the Carmel River Watershed ................XVI-16 XVI-1b Release Locations of Juvenile Steelhead ...................................................XVI-16 XVI-2 Juvenile Steelhead Annual Population Survey…………………………...XVI-17 XVII-1 Monthly Irrigation Water Use.................................................................. XVII-12 XX-1 Mitigation Program Cost Breakdown………………………………………XX-2 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 342, Packet Page 442 I-1
2017-2018 ANNUAL REPORT
(July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018)

MPWMD MITIGATION PROGRAM

WATER ALLOCATION PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Prepared April 2019
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:

In April 1990, the Water Allocation Program Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD or District) by J.L.

Mintier and Associates. The Final EIR analyzed the effects of five levels of annual California American Water (CAW or Cal-Am) production, ranging from 16,744 acre-feet per year (AFY) to 20,500 AFY. On November 5, 1990, the MPWMD Board certified the Final EIR, adopted findings, and passed a resolution that set Option V as the new water allocation limit. Option V resulted in an annual limit of 16,744 AFY for Cal-Am production, and 3,137 AFY for non-CalAm production, with a total allocation of 19,881 AFY for the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System (MPWRS). The MPWRS is the integrated system of water resources from the Carmel River Alluvial Aquifer and Seaside Groundwater Basin that provide the Monterey Peninsula community’s water supply via the Cal-Am water distribution network.

Even though Option V was the least damaging alternative of the five options analyzed in the Water Allocation Program EIR, production at this level still resulted in significant, adverse environmental impacts that must be mitigated. Thus, the findings adopted by the Board included a "Five-Year Mitigation Program for Option V" and associated mitigation measures.

In June 1993, Ordinance No. 70 was passed, which amended the annual Cal-Am production limit from 16,744 AF to 17,619 AF, and the non-Cal-Am limit from 3,137 AF to 3,054 AF; the total production limit was increased from 19,881 AF to 20,673 AF per year due to new supply from the Paralta Well in Seaside. In April 1996, Ordinance No. 83 slightly changed the Cal-Am and nonCal-Am annual limits to 17,621 AF and 3,046 AF, respectively, resulting in a total limit of 20,667 AFY. In February 1997, Ordinance No. 87 was adopted to provide a special water allocation for the planned expansion of the Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, resulting in a new Cal-Am production limit of 17,641 AFY; the non-Cal-Am limit of 3,046 AFY was not changed.

These actions did not affect the implementation of mitigation measures adopted by the Board in 1990.

The Five-Year Mitigation Program formally began in July 1991 with the new fiscal year (FY) and was slated to run until June 30, 1996. Following public hearings in May 1996 and District Board review of draft reports through September 1996, the Five-Year Evaluation Report for the 1991- Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 343, Packet Page 443 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
I-2
1996 comprehensive program, as well as an Implementation Plan for FY 1996-1997 through FY 2000-2001, were finalized in October 1996. In its July 1995 Order WR 95-10, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) directed Cal-Am to carry out any aspect of the Five-Year Mitigation Program that the District does not continue after June 1996. To date, as part of the annual budget approval process, the District Board has voted to continue the program. The Mitigation Program has accounted for a significant portion of the District’s annual budgetsin terms of revenue (derived primarily from a portion of the MPWMD user fee on the Cal-Am bill) and expenditures. It should be noted that this fee was removed from Cal-Am’s bill in July 2009, resulting from actions subsequent to a California Public Utilities Commission ruling regarding a Cal-Am rate request. Cal-Am continued to pay the Carmel River Mitigation Program fee under a separate agreement with MPWMD through June 2010. The District and Cal-Am have negotiated an annual funding agreement that funded part of the 2016-2017 mitigation program. In April 2017, the MPWMD resumed collection of its user fee from Cal-Am ratepayers. The District’s other revenue sources were used to fund the remainder of the program.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code 21081.6) requires that the MPWMD adopt a reporting or monitoring program to insure compliance with mitigation measures when implementing the Water Allocation Program. Findings Nos. 387 through 404 adopted by the Board on November 5, 1990 describe mitigation measures associated with the Water Allocation Program; many entail preparation of annual monitoring reports. This 2017-2018 Annual Report for the MPWMD Mitigation Program responds to these requirements. It covers the fiscal year period of July 1 through June 30. It should be noted that hydrologic data and well reporting data in this report are tabulated using the water year, defined as October 1 through September 30, in order to be consistent with the accounting period used by the SWRCB.

This 2017-2018 Annual Report first addresses general mitigation measures relating to water supply and demand (Sections II through XI), followed by monitoring related to compliance with production limits, drought reserve and supply augmentation (Sections XII through XV), followed by mitigations relating to specific environmental resources (Sections XVI through XIX). Section XX provides a summary of costs for the biological mitigation programs as well as related hydrologic monitoring, water augmentation and administrative costs. Section XXI presents selected references.

Table I-1 summarizes the mitigation measures described in this report. In subsequent chapters, for each topic, the mitigation measure adopted as part of the Final EIR is briefly described, followed by a summary of activities relating to the topic in FY 2017-2018 (July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018, unless otherwise noted). Monitoring results, where applicable, are also presented.

Tables and figures that support the text are found at the end of each section in the order they are introduced in the text.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

Many activities are carried out as part of the MPWMD Mitigation Program to address the environmental effects that community water use has upon the Carmel River and Seaside Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 344, Packet Page 444 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
I-3
Groundwater Basins. Highlights of the accomplishments in FY 2017-2018 for each major category are shown in Table I-2.

OBSERVED TRENDS, CONCLUSIONS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS:

The following paragraphs describe observed trends (primarily qualitative), conclusions and/or recommendations for the mitigation program. General conclusions are followed by a summary of selected Mitigation Program categories.

General Overview
Overall, the Carmel River environment with respect to riparian vegetation, river flow, and aquifer levels is in better condition today than it was in 1990 when the Allocation Program EIR was prepared. This improvement is evidenced by increased riparian habitat and higher water tables in the Carmel Valley alluvial aquifer. However, the steelhead fishery was rebounding until the onset of the 2012-2015 drought. During and after the drought, steelhead numbers declined to levels similar to those seen in previous droughts. Then in 2017, with abundant winter rains, adult steelhead were observed in the system and the District did not have to rescue juvenile steelhead in the mainstem of the Carmel River. However, rescues were carried out in the tributaries. Rescues resumed in the summer of 2018.

The comprehensive MPWMD Mitigation Program is an important factor responsible for this improvement. Direct actions such as fish rescues and rearing, and riparian habitat restoration literally enable species to survive and reproduce. Indirect action such as conservation programs, water augmentation, ordinances/regulations and cooperative development of Cal-Am operation strategies result in less environmental impact from human water needs than would occur otherwise.

The District’s comprehensive monitoring program provides a solid scientific data baseline, and enables better understanding of the relationships between weather, hydrology, human activities and the environment. Better understanding of the MPWRS enables informed decision-making that achieves the District’s mission of benefiting the community and the environment.

It is acknowledged that there are other important factors responsible for this improved situation.

For example, since Water Year (WY) 1991, the Carmel River has received normal or better runoff in 17 out of 27 years. Actions by federal resource agencies under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the SWRCB under its Order WR 95-10 and follow-up orders have provided strong incentive for Cal-Am and other local water producers to examine and amend water production practices to the degree feasible, and for the community to reduce water use. Except for one year in 1997, the community has complied with the production limits imposed on Cal-Am by the SWRCB since Order 95-10 became effective in July 1995.

Despite these improvements, challenges still remain due to human influence on the river. The steelhead and red-legged frog remain listed as threatened species under the ESA. At least several miles of the river still dry up in most years, harming habitat for listed fish and frog species. The presence of the one existing dam, flood-plain development and water diversions to meet Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 345, Packet Page 445 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
I-4
community and local user needs continue to alter the natural dynamics of the river. Streambank restoration projects may be significantly damaged in large winter storm events, and some people continue to illegally dump refuse into the river or alter their property without the proper permits.

Thus, the Mitigation Program (or a comprehensive effort similar to it) will be needed as long as significant quantities of water are diverted from the Carmel River and people live in close proximity to it.

Water Resources Monitoring Program
Streamflow and precipitation data continue to provide a scientific basis for management of the water resources within the District. These data continue to be useful in Carmel River Basin planning studies, reservoir management operations, water supply forecast and budgeting, and defining the baseline hydrologic conditions of the Carmel River Basin. Also, the District’s streamflow monitoring program continues to produce high quality and cost-effective data.

There is limited storage of surface water on the Carmel River. Los Padres Reservoir, completed in 1948, holds 1,667 AF of storage (without flashboard), based on 2017 survey data. In addition, San Clemente Reservoir (SCR), completed in 1921, was removed in the fall of 2015 by order of the Department of Water Resources (DWR) due to seismic safety concerns.

Groundwater levels, and consequently groundwater storage conditions, in the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer have maintained a relatively normal pattern in recent years, in contrast to the dramatic storage declines that were observed during the prolonged 1987-1991 drought period. The relatively stable storage in the Carmel Valley alluvial aquifer in recent years is attributable to a combination of periods of more favorable hydrologic conditions and the adoption of improved water management practices that have tended to preserve higher storage conditions in the aquifer.

In WY 2018, Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer storage decreased compared with recent years as this year was classified as “below normal.”
In contrast, storage conditions in the coastal portion of the Seaside Groundwater Basin have not been stable in recent years, in particular with respect to the deeper Santa Margarita aquifer, from which over 80 percent of the Cal-Am production in the Seaside Basin is derived. This downward trend in water levels reflects the changed production operations in the Seaside Basin stemming primarily from changed practices after SWRCB Order 95-10. The increased annual reliance on production from Cal-Am’s major production wells in Seaside, along with significant increases in non-Cal-Am use, have dramatically lowered water levels in this aquifer, and seasonal recoveries have not been sufficient to reverse this trend.

To address this storage depletion trend, the District initiated efforts in the 2000-2001 timeframe to prepare a Seaside Basin Groundwater Management Plan in compliance with protocols set by the State of California (AB 3030, as amended by SB 1938). This process was superseded by litigation filed by Cal-Am in August 2003, requesting a court adjudication of water production and storage rights in the Seaside Basin. The District participated in all litigation proceedings as an intervening “interested party”. The Superior Court held hearings in December 2005 and issued a final adjudication decision in March 2006, which was amended through an additional court filing in February 2007. The final decision established a new, lower “natural safe yield” for the Basin of Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 346, Packet Page 446 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
I-5
3,000 AFY, and an initial Basin “operating safe yield” of 5,600 AFY. Under the decision, the operating safe yield would be reduced by 10% every three years until the operating safe yield matches the natural safe yield of the Basin in 2021. The Court also created a nine-member Watermaster Board (of which the District is a member) to implement the Court’s decision. With the triennial reductions in operational yield required by the Seaside Basin Adjudication Decision, water levels have not been declining as fast as previously observed.

One of the means that could potentially mitigate this observed storage depletion trend is a program that the District has been actively pursuing since 1996 -- the Seaside Basin groundwater injection program (also known as aquifer storage and recovery, or ASR). ASR entails diverting excess water flows (typically in Winter/Spring) from the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer through existing Cal-Am facilities and injecting the water into the Seaside Groundwater Basin for later recovery in dry periods.

The primary goal of the MPWMD ASR Project is better management of existing water resources and production facilities to help reduce impacts to the Carmel River, especially during the dry season. The projects are viewed as being complementary to other larger, long-term water augmentation projects that are currently being pursued for the Monterey Peninsula. These projects, also known as Phase 1 and 2 ASR projects, entail a maximum diversion of 2,426 AFY, and 2,900 AFY respectively from the Carmel River for injection. The combined average yield for both projects is estimated at about 2,000 AFY. The operation of the Phase 1 and 2 ASR Projects result in reduced unauthorized pumping of the Carmel River in Summer/Fall and increased storage in the Seaside Basin, which are both considered to be environmentally beneficial.

The ASR water supply efforts in 2017-2018 included: (1) continued work with regulatory and land use agencies on expansion of the Phase 1 Santa Margarita ASR site; (2) continued work on the utility water system for the Phase 2 ASR Project at the Seaside Middle School site; (3) coordination with Cal-Am and other parties to construct the necessary infrastructure for the ASR project expansion; and (4) continued implementation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Cal-Am on operation and maintenance at the ASR facilities.

Groundwater quality conditions in both the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer and Seaside Basin have remained acceptable in terms of potential indicators of contamination from shallow sources such as septic systems. There have been no identifiable trends indicative of seawater intrusion into the principal supply sources the coastal areas of these two aquifer systems to date.

Steelhead Fishery Program
 Adult Steelhead
Previous redd surveys below San Clemente Dam (SCD) confirm that the spawning habitat in the lower river has improved considerably over the last 20 years and many adults now spawn there instead of the upper watershed. In addition, juvenile steelhead rescued by the District from the lower river that survive to adulthood may be more likely to return to the lower river to spawn rather than migrate upstream.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 347, Packet Page 447 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
I-6
Variability of adult steelhead counts are likely the result of a combination of controlling and limiting factors including:
 Variable river and flow conditions effects on all steelhead life stages including adult steelhead, as migration may be limited or blocked and spawning reaches may dry early;  adverse ocean conditions with increased water temperatures off the coast of California, and degraded ocean water quality likely affecting the abundance of food resources and possibly even the survival of returning steelhead;
 variable lagoon conditions, caused by artificial manipulation of the sandbar and/or naturally occurring periods of low winter flows; and
 low densities of juvenile fish affecting subsequent adult populations.  Juvenile Steelhead
Long-term monitoring of the juvenile steelhead population at eleven sites along the mainstem Carmel River below Los Padres Dam (LPD) shows that fish density continues to be quite variable both year to year and site to site from less than 0.10 fish-per-foot (fpf) of stream to levels frequently ranging above 1.00 fpf, values that are typical of well-stocked steelhead streams. In this 2018 reporting period, the average population density remained less than the long-term average of 0.67 fpf for the Carmel River, likely due to the recent drought, poor habitat conditions in the lower river, and low numbers of returning adults.

The variability of the juvenile steelhead population in the Carmel River Basin is directly related to the following factors:

Positive Factors:
 General improvements in streamflow patterns, due to favorable natural fluctuations, exemplified by relatively high base-flow conditions between 1995 and 2012 and the very wet conditions in 2017;
 District and SWRCB rules to actively manage the rate and distribution of groundwater extractions and direct surface diversions within the basin, coupled with changes to CalAm’s operations at LPD, the increased availability of ASR and Sand City desalinated water in the summer, and extensive conservation measures, all help provide increased streamflow;
 restoration and stabilization of the lower Carmel River’s stream banks, providing improved riparian habitat (tree cover/shade along the stream, an increase in woody debris and the associated invertebrate food supply) while preventing erosion of silt/sand from filling gravel beds and pools;
 extensive juvenile steelhead rescues by the District over the last 29 years, now totaling Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 348, Packet Page 448 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
I-7
437,528 fish through 2018;
 rearing and releases of rescued fish from the Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing Facility (SHSRF) of 97,600 juveniles and smolts back into the river and lagoon over the past 22 years (16 years of operation), at sizes generally larger than the river-reared fish, which in theory should enhance their ocean survival.

Negative Factors:
 variable lagoon conditions, including highly variable water surface elevation changes caused by mechanical breaching, chronic poor water quality (especially in the fall), and predation by birds and striped bass;
 barriers or seasonal impediments to juvenile and smolt emigration, such as intermittent periods of low flow below the Narrows during the normal spring emigration season;  spring flow variability such as low-flow conditions that could dewater redds prematurely or high flows that could either deposit sediment over redds or completely wash them out;  occasionally elevated fall temperature and hydrogen sulfide levels below LPD, and the increase in sediment from the SCD removal project;
 the potential for enhanced predation on smolts and YOY migrating through the sediment field above LPD; and
 invasive species: striped bass have recently (2015) started migrating up the river from the lagoon and are likely preying on juvenile steelhead. New Zealand Mud Snails (NZMS) were first discovered during BMI surveys at Red Rock (mid-valley) in 2016 and now comprise up to 62% of the BMI in the lower river. NZMS out compete native invertebrates and are a poor food item themselves for steelhead.

District staff continues to provide technical expertise and scientific data to CAW engineers and environmental consultants, DWR/DSOD, CDFW, NMFS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and others involved in addressing the resource management issues associated with both LPD and the area influenced by the SCD Removal and Carmel River Reroute Project. District staff also continues to provide technical expertise and scientific data to California Department Parks and Recreation, Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Monterey County Public Works Department, California Coastal Commission, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Carmel Area Wastewater District, and other regulatory agencies and stakeholders involved in the management of the Carmel River, the Carmel River Lagoon and the barrier beach.

Riparian Habitat Mitigation
With the exception of the Rancho Cañada to Rancho San Carlos Road Bridge reach, the Carmel River streamside corridor has stabilized in nearly all reaches that were affected by a combination of increased groundwater extraction, extreme drought and flood events that occurred during the Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 349, Packet Page 449 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
I-8
1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Prior to the 2016-17 winter high flows, a complex channel had developed in the lower 16 miles of the river with improved steelhead spawning substrate, diverse habitat, and a richer riparian community. Areas with perennial or near perennial flow (upstream of Schulte Bridge) or a high groundwater table, such as downstream of Highway 1, experienced vigorous natural recruitment in the channel bottom, which has helped to stabilize streambanks and diversify aquatic habitat. Areas that continue to be dewatered annually have less significant growth.

In areas with perennial flow, natural recruitment has led to vegetation encroachment that, in some areas, may constrict high flows and threaten bank stability. MPWMD continues to monitor these areas closely and to develop a management strategy to balance protection of native habitat with the need to reduce erosion potential. Environmental review of proposed projects and the process of securing permits is quite complex and requires an exhaustive review of potential impacts.

The Soberanes fire in the summer of 2016 combined with the removal of San Clemente Dam and high flows in the winter of 2016-17 proved to be a combination of events that significantly changed the river downstream of the former dam site. Quantities of silt, sand, and debris that had not been seen in the alluvial reach since high flows in 1998 were carried down from the fire-scarred upper watershed into the active channel. Past similar events during 1978-1983 and 1993-1998 contributed to substantial destabilization of streambanks in the lower 15.5 miles of the river; however, the 2016-17 event comes after significant reductions in annual diversions have been made and after long reaches of the river have been actively restored or passively recovered. Thus streambank instability was limited to the area downstream of Rancho San Carlos Road. Followup channel surveys by CSUMB indicate that the increased sediment load during the winter of 2017 were likely due to material being washed out from the Carmel River Reroute at the former San Clemente Dam site.

The recovery of streamside areas subjected to annual dewatering requires monitoring. Plant stress in the late summer and fall is evident in portions of the river that go dry. In these areas, streambanks can exhibit unstable characteristics during high flows, such as sudden bank collapse, because of the lack of healthy vegetation that would ordinarily provide stability. The drought that began with Water Year 2013 (beginning October 2012) and ended in Water Year 2016 is an ongoing concern because of the past history of channel erosion and bank instability after severe droughts in 1976-77 and 1987-1991. Impacts to streamside vegetation can manifest themselves for several years even after the end of a drought.

Based on annual cross-section work by CSUMB, several areas have experienced a filling in of pools with sand. Absent high flows like those that occurred in 2017, it is likely that the sand will be winnowed out and sent downstream over the next several years. When river flows drop in late spring or early summer of 2019, District staff will investigate the overall scour and deposition of the streambed and report on this in next year’s mitigation report. Current results still show many of the pools are still filled with sand.

Restoration project areas sponsored by MPWMD since 1984 continue to mature and exhibit more features of relatively undisturbed reaches, such as plant diversity and vigor, complex floodplain topography, and a variety of in-channel features such as large wood, extensive vegetative cover, pools, riffles, and cut banks.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 350, Packet Page 450 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
I-9
As cited in previous reports, the most significant trends continue to include the following:
 increased encroachment of vegetation into the active channel bottom that can induce debris blockage, bank erosion and increased risks during floods,  effects to areas with groundwater extraction downstream of Schulte Road,  channel changes and erosion due to new supply of sediment from upstream associated with high flows, San Clemente Dam removal, and the Soberanes Fire in Water Year 2017,  healthy avian species diversity, and
 maturing of previous restoration projects.

Carmel River Erosion Protection and Restoration
With the exception of the channel area between the Via Mallorca Road bridge and the Rancho San Carlos Road bridge, streambanks in the main stem appear to be relatively stable during average water years with “frequent flow” storm events (flows with a return magnitude of less than five years). The program begun by MPWMD in 1984 (and later subsumed into the Mitigation Program) to stabilize streambanks appears to be achieving the goals that were initially set out, i.e., to reduce bank erosion during high flow events up to a 10-year return flow, restore vegetation along the streamside, and improve fisheries habitat.

Consistent with previous reports, it is likely that the following trends will continue:
 Local, State and Federal agencies consider the Carmel River watershed to be a high priority area for restoration, as evidenced by the interest in addressing water supply issues, the removal of San Clemente Dam, proposed projects in the lower Carmel River, and continued oversight with the management of threatened species. Stringent avoidance and mitigation requirements will continue to be placed on activities that could have negative impacts on sensitive aquatic species or their habitats.
 Activities that interrupt or curtail natural stream functions, such as lining streambanks with riprap, have come under increasing scrutiny and now require significant mitigation offsets.

Approximately 35% to 40% of the streambanks downstream of Carmel Valley Village have been altered or hardened since the late 1950s. Activities that increase the amount of habitat or restore natural stream functions are more likely to be approved or funded through State and Federal grant programs.
 Additional work to add instream features (such as large logs for steelhead refuge or backwater channel areas for frogs) can restore and diversify aquatic habitat.  Major restoration projects completed between 1987 and 1999 have had extensive and successful work to diversify plantings. However, maintenance of irrigation systems is ongoing and requires extensive work in water years classified as below normal, dry and critically dry.
 The channel will change due to a new supply of sediment coming from upstream of the old San Clemente Dam and additional sources of sediment associated with the Soberanes Fire of 2016.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 351, Packet Page 451 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
I-10
Vegetation Restoration and Irrigation
To the maximum extent possible, MPWMD-sponsored river restoration projects incorporate a functional floodplain that is intended to be inundated in relatively frequent storm events (those expected every 1-2 years). For example, low benches at the Red Rock and All Saints Projects have served as natural recruitment areas and are currently being colonized by black cottonwoods, sycamores, and willows. In addition, willow and cottonwood pole plantings in these areas were installed with a backhoe, which allows them to tap into the water table. These techniques have been successful and have reduced the need for supplemental irrigation.

Channel Vegetation Management
Another notable trend relating to the District’s vegetation management program was the widening of the channel after floods in 1995 and 1998. With relatively normal years following these floods, the channel has narrowed as vegetation recruits on the channel bottom and gravel bars. Current Federal regulations such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) “Section 4(d)” rules promulgated by NOAA Fisheries to protect steelhead significantly restrict vegetation management activities.

Because of these restrictions, the District can carry out activities only on the most critical channel restrictions and erosion hazards in the lower 15 miles of the river. In the absence of high winter flows capable of scouring vegetation out of the channel bottom, encroaching vegetation may significantly restrict the channel. As vegetation in the river channel matures in the channel bottom, more conflicts are likely to arise between preserving habitat and reducing the potential for property damage during high flows. MPWMD will continue to balance the need to treat erosion hazards in the river yet maintain features that contribute to aquatic habitat quality.

Permits for Channel Restoration and Vegetation Management In 2018, MPWMD renewed its long-term permits with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for routine maintenance and restoration work.

In 2014, the District also renewed a long-term Routine Maintenance Agreement (RMA) with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to conduct regular maintenance and restoration activities in the Carmel River.

Monitoring Program
Vegetative moisture stress fluctuates depending on the rainfall, proximate stream flow, depth to groundwater, and average daily temperatures, and tends to be much lower in above-normal rainfall years. Typical trends for a single season start with little to no vegetative moisture stress in the spring, when the soil is moist and the river is flowing. As the river begins to dry up in lower Carmel Valley (normally around June) and temperatures begin to increase, an overall increase in vegetative moisture stress occurs. For much of the riparian corridor in the lower seven miles of the Carmel River, this stress has been mitigated by supplemental irrigation, thereby preventing the die off of large areas of riparian habitat. However, many recruiting trees experience high levels of stress or mortality in areas difficult to irrigate. Riparian vegetation exposed to rapid or substantial lowering of groundwater levels (i.e., below the root zones of the plants) will continue to require Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 352, Packet Page 452 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
I-11
monitoring and irrigation during the dry season.

With respect to riparian songbird diversity, populations dropped after major floods in 1995 and 1998 because of the loss of streamside habitat. Since 1998, species diversity recovered and now fluctuates depending on habitat conditions. Values from 2018 avian point count surveys indicate that the District’s mitigation program is preserving and improving riparian habitat.

Strategies for the future
A comprehensive long-term solution to overall environmental degradation requires a significant increase in dry-season water flows in the lower river, a reversal of the incision process, and reestablishment of a natural meander pattern. Of these, MPWMD has made progress on increasing summer low flows and groundwater levels by aggressively pursuing a water conservation program, implementing the first and second phases of the Seaside Groundwater Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project, and recommending an increase in summer releases from Los Padres Reservoir.

Reversal, or at least a slowing, of channel incision may be possible if the supply of sediment is brought into better balance with the sediment transport forces. Additional sediment from the tributary watersheds between San Clemente Dam and Los Padres Dam will pass into the lower river in the foreseeable future now that San Clemente Dam has been removed. District staff are already seeing signs of additional sediment in the Carmel River below Esquiline Road Bridge associated with high flows in Water Year 2017.

Over the long term, an increase in sediment supply could help reduce streambank instability and erosion threats to public and private infrastructure. However, reestablishing a natural supply of sediment and restoring the natural river meander pattern through the lower 15.5 miles of the Carmel Valley presents significant political, environmental, and fiscal challenges, and is not currently being considered as part of the Mitigation Program.

Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Grant Program The IRWM program promoted by the California DWR encourages planning and management of water resources on a regional scale and promotes projects that incorporate multiple objectives and strategies. In addition, the IRWM process brings stakeholders together and encourages cooperation among agencies in developing mutually beneficial solutions to resource problems.

MPWMD adopted the 2014 Update to the IRWM Plan for a region encompassing Monterey Peninsula areas within the District boundary, the area in the Carmel River watershed outside of the MPWMD boundary, Carmel Bay and the Southern Monterey Bay. The IRWM Plan combines strategies to improve and manage potable water supply, water conservation, stormwater runoff, floodwaters, wastewater, water recycling, habitat for wildlife, and public recreation.

Funding from the IRWM grant program and other programs requiring an adopted IRWM Plan could provide the incentive to undertake a set of projects that would continue to improve the Carmel River environment and engage a larger number of organizations in helping to develop and Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 353, Packet Page 453 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
I-12
implement a comprehensive solution to water resource problems in the planning region. The Monterey Peninsula region is expecting to take advantage of about $4.3 million from Prop 1 IRWM funds over the next several; years. In 2018, $252,693 was awarded to the region as a part of the Disadvantaged Community Involvement grant. A grant solicitation package for the first round of implementation projects is expected to be issued in the first half of 2019, and the Monterey Peninsula region will be applying for approximately $2 million in grant funds.

More information about the IRWM Plan and the group of stakeholders in the planning region can be found at the following web site:
http://www.mpirwm.org
Carmel River Lagoon Habitat
The District continues to support and encourage the ongoing habitat restoration efforts in the wetlands and riparian areas surrounding the Carmel River Lagoon. These efforts are consistent with goals that were identified in the Carmel River Lagoon Enhancement Plan, which was partially funded by the District. The District continues to work with various agencies and landowners to implement ongoing restoration of the Odello West property and future restoration of the Odello East property across the highway. Because of the restoration activities on the south side of the lagoon, the District has concentrated its monitoring efforts on the relatively undisturbed north side.

Staff also continue to meet and discuss with other agencies the potential use of an existing California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) agricultural well.

The District expanded its long-term monitoring around the lagoon in 1995 in an attempt to determine if the reduction in freshwater flows due to groundwater pumping upstream might change the size or ecological character of the wetlands. Demonstrable changes have not been identified.

Classification Number of Years Water Year
Extremely Wet 3 1995, 1998, 2017
Wet 2 2005, 2006
Above Normal 5 1996, 1997, 2000, 2010, 2011
Normal 5 1999, 2001, 2003, 2008, 2009
Below Normal 3 2004, 2016, 2018
Dry 4 2002, 2012, 2013, 2015
Critically Dry 2 2007, 2014
Thus, the hydrology of the watershed has been at least normal or better 63% of the time during that 24 year period. However, monitoring in 2014 occurred during a Critically Dry Water Year that followed two consecutive Dry Water Years, and 2015 was the first time a fourth year of Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 354, Packet Page 454 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
I-13
drought was ever monitored. Other natural factors that affect the wetlands include introduction of salt water into the system as waves overtop the sandbar in autumn and winter, tidal fluctuations, and long-term global climatic change. When the District initiated the long-term lagoon monitoring component of the Mitigation Program, it was with the understanding that it would be necessary to gather data for an extended period in order to draw conclusions about well production drawdown effects on wetland dynamics. It is recommended that the current vegetation, conductivity, topographical and wildlife monitoring be continued in order to provide a robust data set for continued analysis of potential changes around the lagoon. During this RY the District budgeted to replace the CDPR lagoon water-quality profiler that has been out of service for five years, with a stock one from a major vendor. However, since the Carmel Area Wastewater District (CAWD) plans to replace and underground their outlet pipe very soon, we delayed spending significant funds on what would be just a temporary installation at this time. The District intends to re-budget in RY 2020-2021 for the placement of a vertical profiler, once the new CAWD pipe is in place, and then restore continuous data collection during a future RY.

Lagoon bathymetric cross sectional surveys, initially conducted in 1988, have been completed annually during the dry season since 1994. These data are useful in assessing changes in the sand supply within the main body of the lagoon and are necessary to answer questions concerning whether or not the lagoon is filling up with sand, thus losing valuable habitat. As indicated in the survey plots, the sandy bed of the lagoon can vary significantly from year to year. Substrate elevations at the cross sections remained relatively stable during WY 2018 compared to August 2017 conditions, likely related to below normal streamflow conditions. Since 1994, an apparent trend of overall loss in sand volume appears to be emerging, as south bank substrate elevations are close to the historic low. The sand loss or down-cutting observed at the cross sections is consistent with the pervasive down-cutting that has occurred along the thalweg of the Lower Carmel River (LCR) upstream of the Highway 1 Bridge (HWY 1) for several miles, a trend believed to have begun in WY 2006. In the recent “Critically Dry” years of WY 2007 and 2014 and “Dry” years of WY 2012 and 2013, no significant changes were documented compared to the respective prior years. Water Year 2018 classified as “Below Normal”, resulted in no significant changes at the cross sections, thus it is concluded that substrate elevations at the cross sections generally do not change in these low-flow years, despite the regular occurrence of major lagoon mouth breaches in all of these years, except WY 2014. The “Extremely Wet” WY 2017 caused dramatic changes (scour) at the cross sections indicating that quantity of streamflow (peak flow and total volume) is likely the primary factor that controls significant substrate changes at the key cross sections.

Program Costs
Mitigation Program costs for FY 2017-2018 totaled approximately $2.35 million including direct personnel expenses, operating costs, project expenditures, capital equipment, and fixed asset purchases. The annual cost of mitigation efforts varies because several mitigation measures are weather dependent. Expenditures in FY 2017-2018 were $0.18 million higher than the prior fiscal year due to increases in Mitigation Program costs. However, the overall costs have remained constant (average of $2.30 million per year) for last five years. In the past, expenditures had trended upward due to expenditures for the Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR) Project. ASR Project costs are no longer captured under Mitigation Program Costs. FY 2015-2016 expenditures were $2.27 million; and FY 2016-2017 expenditures were $2.17 million.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 355, Packet Page 455 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
I-14
During FY 2017-2018, revenues totaled $3.73 million including user fees, tax revenues, grant receipts, investment income and miscellaneous revenues. The Mitigation Program Fund Balance as of June 30, 2018 was $3.43 million.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 356, Packet Page 456 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
I-15
Table I-1

SUMMARY OF COMPONENTS OF MPWMD MITIGATION PROGRAM
July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018

WATER MANAGEMENT
 Monitor Water Resources
 Manage Water Production
 Manage Water Demand
 Monitor Water Usage
 Augment Water Supply
 Allocation of New Supply
 Determine Drought Reserve

STEELHEAD FISHERY
 Capture/Transport Emigrating Smolts in Spring
-- Smolt rescues
-- Pit tagging study
 Prevent Stranding of Fall/Winter Juvenile Migrants
-- Juvenile rescues
 Rescue Juveniles Downstream of Robles del Rio in Summer  Operate Sleepy Hollow holding/rearing facility
 Monitoring Activities for Mitigation Plan
-- Juvenile population surveys
 Other Activities not required by Mitigation Plan
-- Spawning habitat restoration
-- Modify critical riffles

RIPARIAN VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
 Conservation and Water Distribution Management
 Prepare/Oversee Riparian Corridor Management Plan
 Implement Riparian Corridor Management Program
-- Cal-Am well irrigation (4 wells)
-- Channel clearing
-- Vegetation monitoring
-- Track and pursue violations
-- River Care Guide booklet
-- CRMP Erosion Protection Program

LAGOON VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
 Assist with Lagoon Enhancement Plan Investigations (See Note 1)  Expand Long-Term Lagoon Monitoring Program
-- Water quality/quantity
-- Vegetation/soils
 Identify Alternatives to Maintain Lagoon Volume
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 357, Packet Page 457 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
I-16

AESTHETICS
 Restore Riparian Vegetation (see above)
_______
Note 1: Mitigation measures are dependent on implementation of the Lagoon Enhancement Plan by the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the land owner and CEQA lead agency. Portions of the Enhancement Plan have been implemented by CalTrans as part of a “mitigation banking” project.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 358, Packet Page 458 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
I-17
Table I-2
Summary of MPWMD Mitigation Program Accomplishments: 2017-2018 Report

MITIGATION ACTION MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Monitor Water Resources Regularly tracked precipitation, streamflow, surface and groundwater levels and quality, and lagoon characteristics between Los Padres Dam and the Carmel River Lagoon, using real-time methods at numerous data collection stations.

Maintained extensive monitoring network, and continuous streamflow recorders below the former San Clemente Dam and other sites.

Manage Water Production Developed and implemented multi-agency Memorandum of Agreement and quarterly water supply strategies based on normal-year conditions; worked cooperatively with resource agencies implementing the federal Endangered Species Act.

Implemented ordinances that regulate wells and water
distribution systems.

Manage Water Demand A total of 2,444 conservation inspections were conducted in FY 2017-2018. An estimated 13.73 acre-feet (AF) of water were saved by new retrofits verified this year in these two categories.

For FY 2017-2018, a total of 1,674 applications for rebates were received, 1,238 applications were approved with the use of the rebate refund, as described in Section VIII.

As of June 30, 2018, a total of 89.576AF of water remained available in the areas served by CAW, as described in Section IX.

This includes water from pre- and post-Paralta Allocations and water added to a Jurisdiction’s Allocation from Water Use Credit transfers and public retrofits.

Monitor Water Usage Complied with SWRCB Order 95-10 for Water Year 2018.

Augment Water Supply Long-term efforts to augment supply included: (1) Continued participation in the CPUC rate hearing process to review elements of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP); (2) Participated in meetings intended to resolve concerns about MPWSP construction, operations, financing, management and oversight; (3) Participated on Technical Advisory Committee to the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority; (4) Operated Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Phase 1 and 2 projects in WY 2018; (5) Held regular
coordination meetings with Cal-Am regarding planned
infrastructure upgrades to deliver water supply to the ASR project wells at full capacity; (6) Conducted additional work Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 359, Packet Page 459 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
I-18

MITIGATION ACTION MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS
related to alternative desalination plant sites; (7) Provided technical support to Monterey One Water for the Pure Water Monterey Project; (8) Participated in CPUC hearing process on Cal-Am related rate requests.

Other ongoing activities included: (1) Served as member of both the Seaside Basin Watermaster Board and as the Technical Advisory Committee; (2) Participation in a technical role regarding alternatives for Los Padres Dam and associated sediment management.

Allocate New Supply Remained within Water Allocation Program limits.

Determine Drought
Reserve
Rationing was not required due to maintenance of adequate storage reserve.

Steelhead Fishery Program The surface flow of the Carmel River dropped below 10 cfs at the Highway 1 Bridge on May 18, 2018. In response to this decline, District staff began monitoring daily river conditions.

Mainstem rescues began on June 25th and were conducted until October 3, 2018 between the Highway 1 Bridge (RM 1.0) and Schulte Bridge area (RM 6.7), and at the Trail and Saddle area (RM 13.3). During this period, staff conducted 32 rescue operations over 6.3 miles, yielding a total of 2,794 steelhead, including: 1,396 young-of-the-year (YOY), 1,383 yearlings (1+), 1 kelt and 14 mortalities (0.50%). Since 1989, District staff has rescued 437,528 steelhead from drying reaches of the Carmel River watershed. Compared to previous rescue seasons, total rescued fish in the 2018 dry season was only 34% of the 1989-2018 average of 14,584, as described in Section XVI.

Riparian Habitat Program Continued revegetation efforts at exposed banks with little or no vegetation located between Via Mallorca and Esquiline Roads; Contracted to collect channel profile data and limited cross section data from the Carmel River for use in maintaining a long-term record and comparing to the past and future data; Made public presentations showing MPWMD-sponsored
restoration work over the past 27 years; Continued long-term monitoring of physical and biological processes along the river in order to evaluate the District’s river management activities; Continued the annual inspections of the Carmel River from the upstream end of the lagoon to Camp Steffani; Walked the entire river to observe and record erosion damage, conditions that could cause erosion, riparian ordinance infractions, and the overall condition of the riparian corridor; Continued
enforcement actions to address serious violations of District Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 360, Packet Page 460 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
I-19

MITIGATION ACTION MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS
riparian ordinances; Carried out vegetation management
activities; Operated under Routine Maintenance Agreement with CDFW for MPWMD vegetation maintenance activities.

Lagoon Habitat Program The District continues to support and encourage the ongoing habitat restoration efforts in the wetlands and riparian areas surrounding the Carmel River Lagoon. These efforts are
consistent with goals that were identified in the Carmel River Lagoon Enhancement Plan, which was partially funded by the District. The District continues to work with various agencies and landowners to implement ongoing restoration of the Odello West property and future restoration of the Odello East property across the highway. The District also surveyed and analyzed four bathymetric transects, participated in interagency meetings regarding management of lagoon in winter storm events (see also steelhead efforts that benefit lagoon) and monitored lagoon stage.

Aesthetic Measures See Riparian Habitat Program measures in Section XVII.

U:\mpwmd\Allocation\Annual Mit. Report RY 2018\RY 2018-Place your files here\I Executive Summary\Section_I_summary_tc032619a.docx Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 361, Packet Page 461 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
II-1
II. HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
The Water Allocation Program EIR concluded that Water Supply Option V would have less-than-significant impacts on the water resources in the Monterey Peninsula area, and that no mitigation measures were required. This conclusion was based solely on changes to the hydrologic regime and not on changes to water-dependent resources. Impacts on water-dependent resources (e.g., riparian vegetation and wildlife and steelhead fishery) due to changes in the hydrologic regime were identified as significant in the EIR.

Implementation of the mitigation measures proposed for the impacts on these waterdependent resources are described in subsequent sections. It was suggested in the EIR that the District continue and expand its current monitoring programs to establish baseline conditions for assessment of long-term changes (Finding No. 381). Accordingly, the District currently maintains ongoing precipitation, streamflow, storage, water-level and water-quality monitoring programs. These programs and the activities to implement them for Water Year 2018 (October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018), are summarized below.

A. Precipitation Monitoring
Description and Purpose
During the period from October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018, the District continued to process long-term precipitation records at Los Padres Dam (LPD) and at the former San Clemente Dam Site (SCDS) collected by California American Water (CAW).

District staff also records precipitation at its Monterey office located at Ryan Ranch, and receives daily rainfall reports from the National Weather Service climate station at Monterey. In addition, real-time and historical rainfall data for the Monterey Peninsula area can be accessed via the Internet. These data support a variety of District programs, including erosion control, riparian vegetation management and identifying long-term precipitation trends and hydrologic-year conditions.

Implementation and Activities During 2017-2018
Work during this period involved continuing maintenance of the existing precipitation monitoring network. A summary of daily precipitation at SCDS during Water Year (WY) 2018 is shown in Figure II-1. The average annual recorded precipitation at this site for the period from 1922 through 2018 is 21.17 inches. In WY 2018, 13.52 inches of precipitation were recorded at SCDS, which is 64 percent of average.

Figure II-2 shows a comparison of WY 2018 rainfall at SCDS and the average monthly rainfall at this site. As indicated in Figure II-2, monthly rainfall was below average in all months except for March 2018 at 5.99 inches of precipitation, which accounted for 44 percent of the WY 2018 total.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 362, Packet Page 462 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
II-2
B. Streamflow Monitoring
Description and Purpose
Since its inception, the District has historically collected streamflow measurements at approximately 15 mainstem sites on the Carmel River and on 16 tributaries to the Carmel River. The District's current principal streamflow measuring sites within the Carmel River Basin (CRB) are shown in Figure II-3. Prior to 1991, the streamflow measurements were instantaneous measurements made by the current-meter method. In 1991, a concerted effort was made to upgrade the streamflow monitoring network as staff installed continuous recorders at six selected tributary sites. Since that time, the District has continued to expand its streamflow monitoring network, which currently consists of 18 continuous-recording gaging stations.

Data collected at the District streamflow monitoring sites are analyzed for use in watersupply planning, fishery, riparian and erosion control programs. More specific uses of streamflow data include, but are not limited, to the items listed below:
 Defining the general hydrologic conditions in the basin  Setting flow requirements for meeting aquatic life goals  Monitoring compliance with minimum-flow requirements
 Forecasting water-supply availability
 Assessing and scheduling fish rescue activities
 Assessing effectiveness of riparian mitigations
 Evaluating surface and groundwater interaction
 Developing and calibrating hydrologic models
 Delineating and managing flood plains
 Evaluating and designing water-supply projects
 Providing data for forecasting floods and defining flood-recurrence intervals  Assessing hydrologic impacts from water-development projects  Supporting Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) operations Implementation and Activities During 2017-2018
During the 2017-2018 period, the District operated and maintained (O&M) 16 streamflow gaging stations within the CRB / District Boundary, and collected continuous water-level data at both Los Padres Reservoir and at the Carmel River Lagoon. In addition, instantaneous measurements of discharge were collected at the Carmel River above Los Padres Reservoir and Danish Creek sites on a monthly basis during the “dry season” which runs approximately from June through November. The District continuous recording gaging stations are listed below:

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 363, Packet Page 463 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
II-3
Tributary/other Mainstem
Finch Creek Carmel River below Los Padres Reservoir
Cachagua Creek Carmel River at Sleepy Hollow Weir
Pine Creek Carmel River at Don Juan Bridge
San Clemente Creek Carmel River at Highway 1 Bridge
Tularcitos Creek Carmel River above Los Padres Reservoir Hitchcock Creek (non-recording)
Garzas Creek near Lower Garzas Canyon Continuous Water Level Garzas Creek at Garzas Road Los Padres Reservoir
Potrero Creek Carmel River Lagoon
Robinson Canyon Creek
San Jose Creek
Arroyo del Rey at Del Rey Oaks
Streamflow gaging station O&M at each of the above sites involves obtaining monthly discharge measurements, maintaining recording equipment, obtaining staff gage readings and occasional surveying. Subsequently, river/creek stage and discharge data are processed in-house utilizing Hydstra Time-Series Software (Kisters North America, Inc.), to produce continuous streamflow records for the sites. Table II-1 summarizes the computed annual flows in acre-feet (AF) for the District sites for the WY 1992-2018 period. In addition, Table II-1 includes annual flow values for the two mainstem sites operated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the 1992-2018 period.

During the 2017-2018 period, District staff continued to maintain the existing streamflow monitoring network (network). Streamflow within the Carmel River Basin during WY 2018 was classified as “below normal”, as further described below. Work within this period involved collecting numerous, routine streamflow measurements by the current meter method, in order to refine the stage/discharge relation at the gaging stations. In addition, several low-flow measurements were obtained at the sites utilizing a three-inch modified Parshall Flume.

Upgrade of Continuous Recording Hardware at Gaging Stations During WY 2018, staff completed hardware upgrades at the six sites listed below as technical support is no longer available for the older equipment.

Cachagua Creek
Pine Creek
San Clemente Creek
Garzas Creek
Robinson Creek
San Jose Creek
Equipment upgrades at these sites involved replacement of older Campbell Scientific Inc. (CSI) CR510 dataloggers and Druck pressure transducers (water level sensors) with current CSI CR300 dataloggers and CS451 pressure transducers. In addition, 20 watt solar panels Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 364, Packet Page 464 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
II-4
were added to each of the sites to eliminate (in most cases) the need for periodic, manual battery replacement at the sites.

Automation of Streamflow Data on District Website
During the 2017-2018 period, District staff continued to maintain automated daily posting of real-time streamflow data to the District website for the following locations:

CR below Los Padres Reservoir
CR at Sleepy Hollow Weir
CR at Don Juan Bridge
CR at Highway 1 Bridge
Finch Creek at Hastings Reservation
Carmel River Lagoon
This automated process facilitates data dissemination which reduces the volume of data inquiries.
● Summary of Streamflow Conditions -- Streamflow during WY 2018 within the CRB was classified as “below normal”, defined as a year exceeded in terms of runoff 75 percent of the time. The highest peak streamflow event of the year occurred on March 22, 2018 at 3,070 cfs, and 2,570 cfs at the District’s Carmel River (CR) at Don Juan Bridge, and CR at Highway 1 Bridge gaging stations, respectively.

During WY 2018, 30,600 acre-feet (AF) of unimpaired runoff were estimated at the San Clemente Dam Site (SCDS). This total represents 45% of the average annual runoff (68,000 AF) expected at the SCDS.

C. Carmel River Lagoon Water-Level Monitoring
Description and Purpose
Since 1987, the District has monitored the level of surface water in the CR Lagoon. The water level is monitored with a continuous recorder located in the South Arm of the Lagoon that utilizes pressure transducer technology. The water-level data have been used, in part, to support technical studies for use by the Carmel River Steelhead Association, California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Coastal Conservancy, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), Monterey County Public Works Department (MCPWD) and MPWMD. In addition, the water-level data are monitored by the MCWRA via their ALERT system to enhance flood warning for residents located along the northern margin of the Lagoon and wetland.

Implementation and Activities During 2017-2018
During the 2017-2018 period, District staff continued to maintain the continuous waterlevel recorder located in the South Arm of the Lagoon, and a complete record of waterCouncil Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 365, Packet Page 465 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
II-5
level readings (i.e., 15-minute intervals) was obtained. Staff continued to utilize the telecommunications capability established at the Lagoon gage in September 2007 to post Lagoon water-level data on to the District’s website. These continuous water-level data are automatically plotted and posted daily on the District website under the “Carmel River Lagoon Water Levels” as an 8-day plot that shows the past week’s levels. Staff continued to maintain the monthly lagoon level plots that are available on the District website from WY 2006 to the present. This allows interested parties to access the data to view historical and recent water-level trends.

The first Lagoon mouth opening of WY 2018 occurred on January 9, 2018 (Figure II-4) as the Resource Management Agency of Monterey County directed action to lower the sandbar elevation two feet by construction of a pilot channel to the ocean on January 8 and

9. This action was necessary to alleviate immediate flood conditions at the lagoon. With a lagoon inflow of approximately 40 cfs at this time, the lagoon level continued to rise during and after the sandbar management activity, flowed through the pilot channel and caused the January 9 lagoon mouth breach. Following this initial breach, the sandbar at the mouth immediately redeveloped and the lagoon mouth became closed to the ocean until the next breach on January 21. Overall, data indicates the lagoon mouth was closed most of January 2018 except for about seven days as evidenced by tidal cycles seen in Figure II-4 which are indicative of an open lagoon mouth. This pattern of a predominantly closed lagoon is typical in wintertime with low river inflow conditions less than 20 cfs (averaged 17 cfs in January 2018) as high wave energy at the beach face dominates on weak river forces associated with low flows.

U:\mpwmd\Allocation\Annual Mit. Report RY 2018\RY 2018-Place your files here\II Precipitation, Streamflow, Lagoon Water Level Monitoring\GJSection II hydrologic monitoring_GJ_WY1718.docx Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 366, Packet Page 466 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
II-6
Figure II-1
San Clemente Reservoir Site Daily Rainfall: Water Year 2018 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 367, Packet Page 467 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
II-7
Figure II-2
Monthly Distribution of Rainfall at San Clemente Reservoir Site Water Year 2018 Compared to 1922-2018 Long-Term Average Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 368, Packet Page 468 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
II-8
Figure II-3
Carmel River Basin Principal Streamflow Gaging Stations

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 369, Packet Page 469 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
II-9
Figure II-4
Carmel River Lagoon Water Level
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District HYPLOT V133 Output 03/20/2019 Period 1 Month Plot Start 00:00_01/01/2018 2018
Interval 1 Hour Plot End 00:00_02/01/2018
LA Carmel River Lagoon 233.00 Inst. Corrected Level (ft) LOGGERNET

0.5 3

5.5 8

10.5 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 370, Packet Page 470 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
II-10
Table II-1
Carmel River Basin Annual Streamflow Summary Water Years 1992 – 2018 (Values in Acre-Feet)
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 371, Packet Page 471 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
III -1
III. Carmel River Surface-Water Quality Monitoring
Description and Purpose
This monitoring is used to help assess whether or not water-quality criteria for aquatic life are being met in various reaches of the Carmel River, and whether habitats for resources such as Carmel River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and red-legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii) are being sustained or impaired. Monitoring also provides District staff with a way of measuring trends over extended time periods. These data are used as an indicator of habitat quality, supports staff in recommending appropriate reservoir release schedules, and assists in determining timing of fish rescues.

Since 1991, surface-water quality data have been collected at three sampling stations along the Carmel River on a semi-monthly basis. In 2017, staff added a monitoring site lower in the river, at Garland Park. The locations of the current four sampling stations are as follows: (1) below Los Padres Reservoir (BLP) at River Mile (RM) 25.4, (2) Sleepy Hollow Weir (SHW) at RM 17.1, (3) Don Juan Bridge at Garland Park (GAR) at RM

10.8, and (4) Carmel River Lagoon (CRL) at RM 0.1. River miles are measured from the mouth of the Carmel River where it meets the Pacific Ocean. District staff also continued its vertical profile sampling of the Carmel River Lagoon on a monthly basis. Monitoring at these specific stations gives District staff information on the quality of water released from the reservoir, quality conditions in the main-stem river, and the quality conditions in the lagoon.

District staff also monitors river temperatures continuously at five locations within the Carmel River Basin (Figure III-1). Previously, a sixth location was monitored at the South Arm Lagoon; this station has been discontinued due to continuous problems with erroneous readings and vandalism. The objective is to document the temperature regime in different stream reaches and to determine whether water-quality criteria for maximum stream temperatures are exceeded. In addition, these data allow District staff to monitor changes in the thermal regime of the river over time.

Implementation and Activities During 2017-2018
District staff carried out a semi-monthly surface water quality sampling program for the Reporting Year (RY) 2018 (July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018); data were collected for the following chemical and physical parameters (units in parentheses): temperature (°F), dissolved oxygen (mg/L), carbon dioxide (mg/L), pH, specific conductance (uS/cm), salinity (ppt), and turbidity (NTU). The emphasis for this suite of parameters is on the suitability for rearing juvenile steelhead. In addition, continuous recording temperature data loggers (Optic StowAway temperature data loggers from the Onset Computer Corporation) were deployed at five locations on the Carmel River (Figure III-1), as follows:

1. ALP Above Los Padres Reservoir (RM 27.0)

2. BLP Below Los Padres Reservoir (RM 25.4)
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 372, Packet Page 472 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
III -2

3. ASC Above San Clemente Reservoir (RM 18.5)

4. SHW Sleepy Hollow Weir (RM 17.1)

5. GAR Garland Park (RM 10.8)

The District continued its vertical profiling program on the Carmel River Lagoon, on a monthly basis during RY 2018. The suite of parameters that were measured is depth, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and salinity. Vertical profiling helps better understand seasonal changes in the limnological cycles, such as stratification, internal mixing, community respiration, and how that relates to available habitat for steelhead.

The following paragraphs describe the results of the water quality monitoring efforts:
• Carmel River Lagoon-- Surface water-quality data collected at the CRL station, which is located on the south side of the main body of the lagoon, are listed in Table III-1. The minimum dissolved-oxygen measurement recorded during surface water quality sampling was 6.8 mg/L. The pH measurements ranged from 7.5 to

8.5. Carbon dioxide measurements ranged from 5 to 15 mg/L. The conductivity measurements ranged from 315 to 11,832 uS/cm. The surface salinity ranged from

0.2 to 8.2 ppt. The conductivity and salinity are highly variable at the lagoon due to tidal influences and river inflows. The turbidity measurements ranged from 0.3 to

7.7 NTU during the sampling period.
• Carmel River Lagoon Vertical Profile - Vertical profiling helps staff understand the seasonal changes in water quality that occurs in the lagoon throughout the water column over time. In the beginning of the sampling period, July 2017, the lagoon was open to the ocean, with surface inflow rapidly declining. The lagoon closed off to the ocean for the season on July 14, 2017 and did not breach again until January 9, 2018. River inflow remained during the entire monitoring period. Inflow during this period was reduced to as low as a mean daily measurement of 4 cubic-feetsecond (cfs) in September as measured by the District’s Highway One gage.

Graphics with observed measurements of the profiles are listed in Appendix III-1.

A narrative of the results for the reporting period is found in the conclusions/recommendations section.
• Garland Park-- Water temperature for the Garland Park (GAR) station is shown in Figure III-2. High flows observed in the Carmel River during the winter of 2017, displaced the water temperature sensor located at this site, resulting in lost data. For the purpose of this reporting period, only July 2017 data was lost. The sensor was replaced on July 31, 2017. The sampling period with reliable data for this station was July 31, 2017 to June 30, 2018. During this period, maximum annual water temperature was 69.2°F, occurring on September 5, 2017. The overall average water temperature during this period was 57.4°F. Maximum daily average water temperature was 66.9°F, occurring on September 5, 2017. Daily average water temperatures were within adequate range for steelhead rearing during the sampling period. The Water-quality data collected at this station are listed in Table III-2.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 373, Packet Page 473 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
III -3
The dissolved-oxygen measurements recorded ranged from 8 to 15.3 mg/L.

Carbon-dioxide measurements ranged from 0 to 10 mg/L. The pH measurements ranged from 7.0 to 8.0. The conductivity measurements ranged from 144 to 299 uS/cm and the turbidity measurements recorded were between 0.1 to 5.5 NTU. • Sleepy Hollow Weir-- Water temperature for the Sleepy Hollow Weir (SHW) station is shown in Figure III-3. The data recorders sampling period was July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. The maximum annual water temperature was 77.4°F, occurring on September 2, 2017. The overall average water temperature during the sampling period at this station was 57.6°F. The maximum daily average water temperature was 71.7°F, occurring on September 5, 2017. Constant water temperatures over 68°F are considered stressful for steelhead (Brungs and Jones, 1977). Average daily water temperatures over 68°F occurred 27 times or 7% of the sampling record. The Water-quality data collected at this station are listed in Table III-3. The dissolved-oxygen measurements recorded ranged from 8.4 to 14.7 mg/L.

Carbon-dioxide measurements ranged from 0 to 5 mg/L. The pH measurements ranged from 7.5 to 8.0. The conductivity measurements ranged from 126 to 293 uS/cm and the turbidity measurements recorded were between 0.1 to 2.0 NTU. • Above San Clemente Reservoir-- Water temperature for the Above San Clemente (ASC) station is shown in Figure III-4. After high flows during the winter of 2017 blew out this recorder, it was replaced in July 2017, the new recorder malfunctioned and it was not discovered until February 2018 and could not be replaced until April.

The sampling period with reliable data for this station was April 23, 2018 to June 30, 2018. During this period, maximum annual water temperature was 67.8°F, occurring on June 30, 2018. The overall average water temperature during this period was 60.0°F. Maximum daily average water temperature was 65.7°F, occurring on June 25, 2018. Daily average water temperatures were within adequate range for steelhead rearing during the sampling period. • Below Los Padres Reservoir-- Water temperature for the Below Los Padres (BLP) station is shown in Figure III-5. The data recorders sampling period was July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. The maximum annual water temperature observed was

74.2°F, occurring on July 14, 2017. The overall average water temperature observed at this station during the sampling period was 58.2°F. The maximum daily average water temperature at this station was 71°F, occurring on July 8, 2017. Constant water temperatures over 68°F are considered stressful for steelhead (Brungs and Jones, 1977). Average daily water temperatures over 68°F occurred 38 times, representing 10% of the time during the sampling period and is directly related to reservoir water levels and releases. Water quality data collected at this station are listed in Table III-4. Water quality at this station is highly influenced by reservoir water quality and release location. The dissolved oxygen measurements recorded ranged from 7.7 to 12.2 mg/L. Carbon dioxide measurements ranged from 0 to 10 mg/L. The pH measurements ranged from 6.5 to 8.0. The conductivity Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 374, Packet Page 474 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
III -4
measurements ranged from 111 to 285 uS/cm and the turbidity measured at this station ranged from 0.5 to 9.3 NTU.
• Above Los Padres Reservoir-- Water temperature for the Above Los Padres (ALP) station is shown in Figure III-6. High flows observed in the Carmel River during the winter of 2017, displaced the water temperature sensor located at this site, resulting in lost data. For the purpose of this reporting period, only July and most of August 2017 data was lost. The sensor was replaced on August 23, 2017.

The sampling period with reliable data for this station was August 23, 2017 to June 30, 2018. During this period, maximum annual water temperature was 71.6°F, occurring on September 5, 2017. The overall average water temperature during this period was 53.4°F. Maximum daily average water temperature was 69.8°F, occurring on September 5, 2018. Constant water temperatures over 68°F are considered stressful for steelhead (Brungs and Jones, 1977). Average daily water temperatures over 68°F occurred 4 times or 1% of the sampling record.

CONCLUSIONS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS:

During the winter the Carmel River basin accumulated 13.52 inches of rain, as measured by the San Clemente Dam rain gage. The reporting year period includes the summer months of Water Year (WY) 2017 and the fall, winter, spring of WY 2018. The WY 2017 and WY 2018 were characterized as “Extremely Wet” and “Below Normal”.

Continuous temperature loggers observed water temperatures that were within stressful ranges to steelhead in the summer months. Even in the unimpaired wilderness area above Los Padres Reservoir, water temperatures reached stressful ranges for a few days in September. The farthest downstream logger, located in Garland Park had adequate rearing temperatures the entire period. Water released and passing from Los Padres Reservoir during the reporting year was adequate for steelhead from fall to spring, but water temperatures reached stressful range during the summer months. This potentially reduced growth rates or displaced fish to other sections of river that had more favorable conditions. Water quality conditions other than water temperature, at the sampling sites around the former San Clemente Reservoir and down in the lower river were adequate for steelhead rearing during most of the sampling period.

Water quality conditions in the lagoon during summer were enhanced this reporting year, because river inflow into the lagoon was continuous for the entire reporting period. The upper Carmel River watershed burned in 2016 and had an “Extremely Wet” WY type in 2017, thus increasing the duration of inflows into the Los Padres Reservoir and allowing storage releases to be delayed, resulting in the ability to keep the river flowing downstream longer during the summer of 2017. The lowest mean daily inflow measurement at the District’s Highway One gage during the reporting year was 4 cfs, occurring in September 2017. Although conditions for rearing steelhead were improved from the inflow, suboptimal temperatures and dissolved oxygen measurements were still observed, but in fewer frequency. Once the lagoon closed in mid-July, water quality conditions were adequate until mid-September in the top 1.5 meters. By late September water temperatures started to enter into the stressful range of 70 degrees. Fall typically is Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 375, Packet Page 475 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
III -5
the time of year that tidal wave over-wash from large swells starts to enter the lagoon and change the water quality dynamics. This was observed in early November, where these over-wash events created a stratified layer of freshwater and salt water, but by late November the continuous inflow kept refreshing all but the deepest parts of the lagoon.

Water quality conditions were adequate up to 2.5 meters until January. In January the first breach occurred, reducing the volume of the lagoon. The reduced volume coupled with the winter tidal wave over-wash created a defined stratified layer of freshwater on top and salty water on the bottom. At this time water quality conditions are adequate only in the top meter or so for rearing juveniles, but is adequate for outgoing smolts and incoming adults at all depths because of their ability to deal with high salt concentrations.

This scenario continued until June, when the lagoon closed off and river inflow refreshed all but the deepest parts of the lagoon. In June, water quality conditions were adequate for steelhead rearing down to about 1.75 meters.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 376, Packet Page 476 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
III -6
Figure III-1
Temperature and Semi-Monthly Water Quality Monitoring Locations in the Carmel River Basin During RY 2018
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 377, Packet Page 477 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
III -7
Figure III-2
Daily temperatures recorded from a continuous temperature data logger at the Garland Park (GAR) station during RY 2018
77//2288//1177 88//2255//1177 99//2222//1177 1100//2200//1177 1111//1177//1177 1122//1155//1177 11//1122//1188 22//99//1188 33//99//1188 44//66//1188 55//44//1188 66//11//1188 66//2299//1188 DDaat
tee
3355
4400
4455
5500
5555
6600
6655
7700
7755
8800
8855
TTeemmppeer
raat
tuur
ree ((FF)
)
3355
4400
4455
5500
5555
6600
6655
7700
7755
8800
8855
MMI
I
NNI
I
MMUUMM

MMAAXXI

IMMUUMM

AAVVEERRAAGGEE
Figure III-3
Daily temperatures recorded from a continuous temperature data logger at the Sleepy Hollow Weir (SHW) station during RY 2018
77//2288//1177 88//2255//1177 99//2222//1177 1100//2200//1177 1111//1177//1177 1122//1155//1177 11//1122//1188 22//99//1188 33//99//1188 44//66//1188 55//44//1188 66//11//1188 66//2299//1188 DDaat
tee
3355
4400
4455
5500
5555
6600
6655
7700
7755
8800
8855
TTeemmppeer
raat
tuur
ree ((FF)
)
3355
4400
4455
5500
5555
6600
6655
7700
7755
8800
8855
MMI
I
NNI

IMMUUMM

MMAAXXI

IMMUUMM

AAVVEERRAAGGEE
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 378, Packet Page 478 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
III -8
Figure III-4
Daily temperatures recorded from a continuous temperature data logger at the above San Clemente (ASC) station during RY 2018
77//2288//1177 88//2255//1177 99//2222//1177 1100//2200//1177 1111//1177//1177 1122//1155//1177 11//1122//1188 22//99//1188 33//99//1188 44//66//1188 55//44//1188 66//11//1188 66//2299//1188 DDaat
tee
3355
4400
4455
5500
5555
6600
6655
7700
7755
8800
8855
TTeemmppeer
raat
tuur
ree ((FF)
)
3355
4400
4455
5500
5555
6600
6655
7700
7755
8800
8855
MMI
I
NNI
I
MMUUMM

MMAAXXI

IMMUUMM

AAVVEERRAAGGEE
Figure III-5
Daily temperatures recorded from a continuous temperature data logger at the Below Los Padres (BLP) station during RY 2018
77//2288//1177 88//2255//1177 99//2222//1177 1100//2200//1177 1111//1177//1177 1122//1155//1177 11//1122//1188 22//99//1188 33//99//1188 44//66//1188 55//44//1188 66//11//1188 66//2299//1188 DDaat
tee
3355
4400
4455
5500
5555
6600
6655
7700
7755
8800
8855
TTeemmppeer
raat
tuur
ree ((FF)
)
3355
4400
4455
5500
5555
6600
6655
7700
7755
8800
8855
MMI
I
NNI

IMMUUMM

MMAAXXI

IMMUUMM

AAVVEERRAAGGEE
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 379, Packet Page 479 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
III -9
Figure III-6
Daily temperatures recorded from a continuous temperature data logger at the Above Los Padres (ALP) station during RY 2018
77//2288//1177 88//2255//1177 99//2222//1177 1100//2200//1177 1111//1177//1177 1122//1155//1177 11//1122//1188 22//99//1188 33//99//1188 44//66//1188 55//44//1188 66//11//1188 66//2299//1188 DDaat
tee
3355
4400
4455
5500
5555
6600
6655
7700
7755
8800
8855
TTeemmppeer
raat
tuur
ree ((FF)
)
3355
4400
4455
5500
5555
6600
6655
7700
7755
8800
8855

MMIINNIIMMUUMM

MMAAXXII
MMUUMM

AAVVEERRAAGGEE
Table III-1
Water quality data collected by MPWMD during RY 2018 at Carmel River Lagoon (CRL) site.

Date Time Temperature Dissolved Oxygen Carbon Dioxide pH Conductivity Nacl Turbidity 24 Hr (F) (mg/L) (mg/L) (uS/cm) (ppt) (NTU)
03-Jul-17 1352 62.6 10.2 5 7.5 6,013 3.8 n/a
25-Jul-17 1226 68.1 9.5 5 8.0 1,033 0.6 1.6
11-Aug-17 1235 67.2 8.7 5 8.0 500 0.3 0.5
25-Aug-17 845 65.6 7.7 5 8.0 480 0.3 0.8
01-Sep-17 1335 70.8 8.3 10 8.0 627 0.3 0.6
15-Sep-17 1245 69.4 8.2 10 7.5 1,259 0.7 0.8
04-Oct-17 1533 63.7 9.5 10 8.0 735 0.4 0.9
20-Oct-17 1430 62.5 7.8 15 8.0 11,832 8.2 3.4
07-Nov-17 1457 57.4 8.5 10 7.5 2,107 1.4 1.5
20-Nov-17 1438 56.8 6.8 10 7.5 954 0.6 0.8
30-Nov-17 953 53.0 8.2 10 7.5 834 0.6 0.6
14-Dec-17 950 46.4 9.9 15 8.0 495 0.3 0.4
22-Dec-17 1305 48.0 10.4 10 7.5 595 0.4 0.5
18-Jan-18 1224 55.7 7.2 15 7.5 7,716 5.6 7.7
01-Feb-18 1117 53.5 11.3 5 8.0 4,143 3 1.2
14-Feb-18 1416 54.3 11.4 10 8.5 655 0.4 0.5
12-Mar-18 1255 57.3 10.1 10 8.0 8,967 6.5 3.1
27-Mar-18 1551 55.0 n/a 5 8.0 315 0.2 5.9
17-Apr-18 1435 59.2 n/a 5 8.0 1,226 0.8 0.6
25-Apr-18 1015 57.3 10.0 5 8.0 1,952 1.3 0.5
11-May-18 1210 62.0 9.8 5 8.0 576 0.3 0.5
25-May-18 1315 62.2 10.4 5 8.0 651 0.4 0.5
05-Jun-18 1150 66.1 9.1 5 8.0 617 0.3 0.3
19-Jun-18 945 65.3 7.6 10 7.5 584 0.3 0.4
Minimum 46.4 6.8 5.0 7.5 315 0.2 0.3
Maximum 70.8 11.4 15.0 8.5 11,832 8.2 7.7
Average 60.0 9.1 8.3 7.9 2,286 1.5 1.4
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 380, Packet Page 480 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
III -10
Table III-2
Water quality data collected by MPWMD during RY 2018 at Garland Park (GAR) station.

Date Time Temperature Dissolved Oxygen Carbon Dioxide pH Conductivity Turbidity 24 hr (F) (mg/L) (mg/L) (uS/cm) (NTU)
03-Jul-17 1301 63.0 10.4 0 7.0 250 n/a
25-Jul-17 1135 63.4 9.5 0 7.5 274 5.5
11-Aug-17 1114 62.4 9.8 5 8.0 276 0.2
25-Aug-17 1048 61.4 9.2 5 8.0 281 0.3
01-Sep-17 1252 65.7 9.0 5 7.0 299 0.3
15-Sep-17 1330 63.0 9.3 0 7.5 293 0.2
04-Oct-17 1457 60.0 9.8 5 7.5 291 0.3
20-Oct-17 1340 59.4 9.4 0 7.5 250 0.2
07-Nov-17 1400 56.0 9.8 5 7.5 274 0.3
20-Nov-17 1400 57.3 8.0 5 8.0 286 0.2
30-Nov-17 1155 53.5 10.4 5 7.5 269 0.2
14-Dec-17 1150 51.6 12.6 5 8.0 274 0.1
22-Dec-17 1113 48.3 11.7 0 8.0 254 0.2
18-Jan-18 1312 55.4 10.7 5 8.0 270 0.3
01-Feb-18 1232 55.2 15.3 0 8.0 292 0.4
14-Feb-18 1336 55.1 11.7 0 8.0 268 0.2
12-Mar-18 1330 55.9 11.2 5 8.0 222 1.0
27-Mar-18 1457 53.4 n/a 0 7.5 144 2.4
17-Apr-18 1335 56.2 n/a 5 8.0 191 0.4
25-Apr-18 1113 57.0 10.2 0 8.0 202 0.2
11-May-18 1307 60.4 10.7 10 8.0 226 0.2
25-May-18 1400 58.7 10.8 5 8.0 228 0.2
05-Jun-18 1230 60.8 9.6 5 8.0 247 0.2
19-Jun-18 1510 64.2 9.3 5 8.0 266 0.3
MINIMUM 48.3 8.0 0.0 7.0 144 0.1
MAXIMUM 65.7 15.3 10.0 8.0 299 5.5
AVERAGE 58.2 10.4 3.3 7.8 255
Table III-3
Water quality data collected by MPWMD during RY 2018 at Sleepy Hollow Weir (SHW) station.

Date Time Temperature Dissolved Oxygen Carbon Dioxide pH Conductivity Turbidity 24 hr (F) (mg/L) (mg/L) (uS/cm) (NTU)
03-Jul-17 1111 64.6 10.1 5 7.5 233 n/a
25-Jul-17 1017 63.5 10.3 0 7.5 243 2.0
11-Aug-17 1037 62.1 10.0 5 8.0 246 0.4
25-Aug-17 1237 66.5 9.5 0 8.0 168 0.6
01-Sep-17 1209 68.7 9.4 0 7.5 284 0.6
14-Sep-17 1527 71.2 8.4 0 7.5 293 0.8
04-Oct-17 1423 61.3 10.0 0 8.0 272 0.8
20-Oct-17 1308 58.6 9.6 5 8.0 272 0.9
07-Nov-17 930 50.3 11.5 0 8.0 246 0.7
20-Nov-17 1130 54.1 8.6 5 8.0 255 1.0
30-Nov-17 1255 50.9 11.6 0 8.0 240 0.7
14-Dec-17 1300 45.7 13.6 5 8.0 226 0.8
22-Dec-17 1042 40.5 14.7 0 8.0 208 0.6
18-Jan-18 1400 53.5 11.2 5 8.0 226 0.8
01-Feb-18 1319 52.2 12.3 0 8.0 197 n/a
14-Feb-18 1302 50.8 12.3 5 8.0 197 0.5
12-Mar-18 1420 55.5 11.6 0 8.0 184 0.9
27-Mar-18 1400 52.9 n/a 0 8.0 126 1.8
17-Apr-18 1245 56.4 n/a 0 8.0 164 0.5
25-Apr-18 1210 59.1 11.1 0 8.0 174 0.1
11-May-18 1406 63.9 9.9 5 8.0 195 0.3
25-May-18 1445 60.1 11.1 0 8.0 192 0.1
05-Jun-18 1415 66.3 9.3 5 8.0 217 0.3
19-Jun-18 1415 70.0 9.0 5 8.0 236 0.4
MINIMUM 40.5 8.4 0.0 7.5 126 0.1
MAXIMUM 71.2 14.7 5.0 8.0 293 2.0
AVERAGE 58.3 10.7 2.1 7.9 220
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 381, Packet Page 481 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
III -11
Table III-4
Water quality data collected by MPWMD during RY 2018 at Below Los Padres (BLP) station.

Date Time Temperature Dissolved Oxygen Carbon Dioxide pH Conductivity Turbidity 24 hr (F) (mg/L) (mg/L) (uS/cm) (NTU)
03-Jul-17 1000 68.3 8.4 5.0 7.5 240 n/a
11-Aug-17 937 64.4 8.8 5.0 8.0 240 1.0
25-Aug-17 1329 67.9 8.5 5.0 8.0 262 0.6
01-Sep-17 1130 69.0 8.3 5.0 7.5 272 1.1
14-Sep-17 1439 69.9 7.7 5.0 6.5 275 1.1
04-Oct-17 1337 65.3 8.1 5.0 7.5 285 2.7
20-Oct-17 1156 62.3 8.2 0.0 7.5 282 3.5
07-Nov-17 1045 58.4 8.8 10.0 7.5 276 5.5
20-Nov-17 1020 56.4 9.4 10.0 7.5 270 8.4
30-Nov-17 1352 55.0 9.5 10.0 8.0 261 8.6
14-Dec-17 1445 49.6 11.2 5.0 7.5 243 9.3
22-Dec-17 929 47.1 11.4 0.0 8.0 234 8.2
18-Jan-18 1510 51.0 10.4 10.0 7.5 202 4.9
01-Feb-18 1435 50.1 12.2 5.0 8.0 176 3.0
14-Feb-18 1125 51.8 11.2 5.0 7.5 181 2.7
12-Mar-18 1540 54.2 11.1 0.0 8.0 154 0.7
27-Mar-18 1200 50.2 n/a 5.0 7.5 111 2.1
17-Apr-18 1058 55.5 n/a 0.0 7.5 148 0.6
25-Apr-18 1408 59.0 10.4 5.0 8.0 160 0.5
11-May-18 1505 60.9 9.3 5.0 8.0 174 0.6
25-May-18 1555 59.9 10.5 10.0 8.0 181 1.5
05-Jun-18 1530 62.1 9.4 5.0 8.0 191 1.4
19-Jun-18 1115 65.9 8.6 5.0 8.0 212 1.7
MINIMUM 47.1 7.7 0.0 6.5 111 0.5
MAXIMUM 69.9 12.2 10.0 8.0 285 9.3
AVERAGE 58.9 9.6 5.2 7.7 219
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 382, Packet Page 482 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
IV-1
IV. GROUNDWATER MONITORING
A. Groundwater-Level Monitoring
Description and Purpose
The District maintains a groundwater-level monitoring program in the Carmel Valley Aquifer and the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The data collected as part of this program are used to support a variety of programs including: (a) storage monitoring, (b) compilation of annual and long-term well hydrographs, (c) water-table contour mapping, (d) Carmel River Management Program, (e) Seaside Basin Watermaster Program, and (f) other special projects. The monitor-well measurements are stored in a database developed by the District to facilitate data entry, access and manipulation of the waterlevel data. In addition, groundwater-level measurements are collected on a regular basis by California American Water (Cal-Am) from each of their production wells, and these measurements are also utilized in the District's program. The District also participates in the cooperative California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program administered by the California Department of Water Resources (http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/casgem/).

Implementation and Activities During 2017-2018
● Carmel Valley Aquifer -- The District's monitor well network in the Carmel Valley Aquifer consists of dedicated monitor wells and producer production wells, and currently totals approximately 50 water-level monitoring wells. During this period, the wells were measured on a monthly basis, and these measurements were used to compute end-of-month storage volume estimates for the aquifer. In addition, more frequent monitoring of selected wells was conducted during winter storm events to more closely monitor aquifer recharge.

During the October 2017-September 2018 period, monitoring data indicated that overall groundwater storage in the Carmel Valley Aquifer showed very little fluctuation in WY 2018. Groundwater storage decreased slightly in WY 2018, characterized as “Dry”, following an “Extremely Wet” WY 2017. In the river reach between Sleepy Hollow Weir and the Narrows (i.e., aquifer subunits 1 and 2), the maximum storage estimate was 95% in October 2017, decreasing to the minimum storage estimate of 94% of capacity at the end of September 2018. Similarly, in the river reach from the Narrows to the Carmel River Lagoon (i.e., aquifer subunits 3 and 4), the maximum storage estimate was 92% in October 2017, decreasing to the minimum storage estimate of 87% of capacity at the end of the WY in September 2018.

Figure IV-1 is a typical hydrograph from the lower Carmel Valley, showing groundwater-level fluctuations at the Rancho Cañada West monitor well (River Mile [RM] 2.13) and the Rio North monitoring well (RM 1.65) compared with mean daily streamflow in the Carmel River at Highway 1 (RM 1.09). The Rancho Cañada West monitor well is located about one mile downstream (i.e., westerly) of the farthest Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 383, Packet Page 483 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
IV-2
downstream Cal-Am production well in Carmel Valley, the Cañada well, and approximately 1,350 feet from the river channel. As shown on this figure, the groundwater elevation began around 20 feet above sea level in September 2017, remained fairly stable throughout WY 2018. WY2018 was characterized as “Dry”, and Cal-Am did not pump from their Cañada well during this period and Rancho Cañada Golf Course ceased operations that included irrigating two golf courses from private wells in the vicinity. Only a minor rise in water level was seen at this site in response to rainfall and runoff in March 2018, then the water level slowly declined to closer to 19 feet by the end of September 2018.

The Rio North well is approximately 790 feet from the river channel. The magnitude of seasonal water-level fluctuation at this site was also minor. In WY 2018, groundwater elevation in the Rio North well rose about one foot in response to runoff and returned to about one foot lower that where it started the WY.
● Seaside Groundwater Basin -- In the Seaside Basin, monthly water-level measurements were collected from 20 monitor wells in the Seaside Coastal Subareas, and four were monitored in the Seaside Inland Subareas. An additional 29 wells in the Seaside Inland and Laguna Seca Subareas were monitored on a quarterly schedule during the year. These additional wells are a combination of active or inactive production wells, and dedicated monitor wells.

Figure IV-2 shows water-level data available from representative wells in the coastal portion of the Seaside Basin monitor well network. This graph shows the water-level elevations in the two principal aquifer zones, the shallower Paso Robles Formation and the deeper Santa Margarita Sandstone, at both upgradient (Site FO-07) and downgradient (Site PCA East) locations from the Paralta production well, the largest capacity Cal-Am well in the coastal area. The graph illustrates the more dominant effect that production from the coastal Seaside Basin wells has had on water levels in the Santa Margarita Sandstone. The graph also illustrates the effect of changed water-supply practices resulting from SWRCB Order WR 95-10. Under the Order, Cal-Am was directed to maximize production from its Seaside Basin sources as a means to reduce production and associated impacts from the Carmel River system. This increased pumping resulted in a declining trend in Santa Margarita aquifer water levels, which are currently below sea level over a large area in the coastal portion of the basin. Seasonal recoveries associated with short-term reduced wintertime production and District aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) injection operations have not been sufficient to reverse the observed long-term downward water-level trend. However, the water-level responses in the Santa Margarita Aquifer at these locations indicate a lessening of the seasonal decline during WY 2017.

The modest recovery of groundwater elevations in the deeper (Santa Margarita) wells seen in the graph is attributable to the District Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) program. Additional information on the ASR program is available on the District website. Discussion of the Seaside Basin ASR Projects is included in Section XV.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 384, Packet Page 484 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
IV-3
B. Groundwater-Quality Monitoring
Description and Purpose
The District maintains an ongoing groundwater-quality monitoring program for the two principal groundwater sources within the District: (a) the Carmel Valley alluvial aquifer, and (b) the coastal subareas of the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The purpose of the program is threefold:
(1) to characterize the quality of water in the aquifers, (2) to detect groundwater contamination from septic systems or other sources in the shallow zones of the Carmel Valley aquifer, and
(3) to monitor sea-water intrusion potential in the coastal portions of the Carmel Valley aquifer and Seaside Basin.

The District has maintained a groundwater-quality monitoring program for the Carmel Valley aquifer since 1981, and for the Seaside Basin since 1990. The District’s program is in addition to the extensive water-quality monitoring that is conducted by Cal-Am at its production wells. The District manages all well construction, maintenance, and fieldsampling activities associated with the program. Water samples are analyzed at Monterey Bay Analytical Services. The Monterey County Health Department, Cal-Am, and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency have also provided assistance with this program in the past. Collection of the water-quality data is intended to detect problems before they can affect the community's water supply.

Implementation and Activities During 2017-2018
The sampling schedule for Carmel Valley is normally staggered, with Upper Valley wells (i.e., upgradient of the Narrows) sampled in Spring and Lower Valley wells (i.e., downgradient of the Narrows) in Fall, to coincide with the historically higher nitrate concentrations in these respective areas. Collection of samples from the Seaside Basin monitor wells is conducted once per year in Fall, coinciding with the historically low water levels in the basin at that time of the year. Additionally, since 2014, samples were collected quarterly from six wells closest to the coast in the Seaside Basin monitoring network by District staff in cooperation with the Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster.
● Carmel Valley Aquifer – Groundwater-quality data were collected from six of the network of seven monitor wells in the Carmel Valley aquifer in November 2018. One of the seven wells in lower Carmel Valley was not sampled earlier because it was submerged under high water in the Carmel River Lagoon during the sampling period.

Another well that had historically been sampled during this period was destroyed by flooding in March 2011 when the river scoured away the south end of the Carmel River State Beach parking lot. The locations of these sampling points are shown in Figure IV3 and Figure IV-4. The results indicated that, in general, there were only minor changes in overall water quality compared to samples collected in 2017. Staff is particularly Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 385, Packet Page 485 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
IV-4
interested in tracking indicators of potential seawater intrusion in the coastal portion of Carmel Valley. Accordingly, three clustered sets of wells were established west of Highway 1, with each set being made up of three wells completed at different depths.

Review of historical data indicated that the shallower and intermediate wells at the two well clusters closest to the coast are subject to the mixing of fresh water and saline water as high tides and surf overtop the sand berm between the lagoon and the ocean. This contributes to episodic mixing within the shallower and intermediate zones of the aquifer, but is not necessarily representative of larger-scale seawater intrusion into the aquifer.

As described above, the three wells in the cluster closest to the ocean were destroyed by river erosion in March 2011, and the wells in the next closest cluster to the ocean were inaccessible due to high water during the sampling period, so during this Mitigation Report period, only the deeper well at the farthest well cluster from the coast (Well 16S/1W-13Lc) was sampled.

Well 16S/1W-13Lc is the deepest in the array of three wells located on State Parks property near the Carmel Area Wastewater District treatment plant at River Mile (RM)

0.65, currently the most proximate well to the ocean in Carmel Valley that was available for sampling. Although Specific Electrical Conductance (SEC) and Chloride concentration fluctuate slightly from year to year (Figure IV-5), both were higher in this well in 2018 relative to 2017, and overall slight increases in SEC and Chloride concentrations are seen at this monitor well over the period of record. Additional background on historical water-quality at the coastal monitor well sites can be found in District Technical Memorandum 90-04, Summary of Carmel Valley Groundwater-quality from Coastal Monitor Wells, which is available at the District office. Staff will continue to track future results for trends that might indicate significant changes in concentrations of these or other constituents in the coastal area of the aquifer.

Water quality in well 16S/1E-23La, located 6.72 miles upstream from the river mouth, remained generally unchanged in 2018 relative to 2017, as shown on the graph of SEC and Chloride that is included to track long-term trends (Figure IV-6). Staff will continue to track changes in all of the monitor wells in the basin to determine if they are indicative of long-term trends, or anomalous short-term events.
● Seaside Groundwater Basin -- Eleven monitor wells in the coastal subareas of the Seaside Basin were sampled in August, October and December 2018. The locations of the Seaside monitor wells are shown in Figure IV-7. One function of the District’s monitor-well network in the Seaside Basin is to serve as an early warning of potential sea-water intrusion into the two principal aquifer zones, the Paso Robles Formation and the Santa Margarita Sandstone. The water-quality results from the Seaside Basin indicate that very little water-quality changes have occurred over the period of record since monitoring began in 1990, and that there is no indication of sea-water intrusion in this area of the basin at this time. Figure IV-8 shows SEC and Chloride concentrations in two coastal wells, one in the shallower Paso Robles Formation aquifer, and one in the deeper Santa Margarita Sandstone aquifer, for the historical period of record beginning in April 1991. Results from the District’s monitoring program indicate that SEC averages Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 386, Packet Page 486 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
IV-5
approximately 350 and 825 microSiemens/centimeter (S/cm), for the Paso Robles and Santa Margarita aquifer zones, respectively.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 387, Packet Page 487 10/1/17 11/1/17 12/1/17 1/1/18 2/1/18 3/1/18 4/1/18 5/1/18 6/1/18 7/1/18 8/1/18 9/1/18 10/1/18 0 400800
1200
010203040
HWY 1Rio Rd NRC West
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 388, Packet Page 488 IV-6 10/1/17 11/1/17 12/1/17 1/1/18 2/1/18 3/1/18 4/1/18 5/1/18 6/1/18 7/1/18 8/1/18 9/1/18 10/1/18 -40
-20
0 20
FO 07 S
FO 07 D
PCA East S
PCA East D
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 389, Packet Page 489 IV-7 IV-8
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 390, Packet Page 490 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 391, Packet Page 491 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 392, Packet Page 492 Figure IV-6
IV-11
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 393, Packet Page 493 Figure IV-7
IV-12
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 394, Packet Page 494 IV-13
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 395, Packet Page 495 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
V-1
V. ANNUAL LOW-FLOW MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Description and Purpose
The original Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the California Department of Fish and Game (now California Department of Fish and Wildlife, CDFW), Cal-Am, and the District was developed in July 1983 to balance CDFW's requirement to conserve and protect the fish and wildlife resources of the state and Cal-Am's responsibility to supply water to the citizens of the communities of the Monterey Peninsula. This MOA is modified each year to reflect specific storage conditions and inflow projections at Los Padres Reservoir (San Clemente Dam was removed in 2015) in the Upper Carmel River watershed. Historically, the MOA addressed the release of water into the Carmel River from San Clemente Dam and was originally designed to maximize surface flow to the Narrows during the low-flow season. In addition to specifying minimum flow releases from San Clemente Dam, the past MOAs limited Cal-Am diversions from San Clemente Dam to the Carmel Valley Filter Plant (CVFP) and directed how Cal-Am was to produce water from the Lower Valley Wells. Currently, the MOA focuses on Los Padres Reservoir, and is formulated in May and remains in force until the end of December. The agreement may be modified or extended by mutual consent of all the parties.

Implementation and Activities During 2017-2018
 2018 MOA – The 2018 MOA was developed on June 21, 2018 and approved by the District Board on August 21, 2017. The final document was signed by the District and forwarded to Cal-Am for their concurrence, but was not signed by CDFW due to the same unresolved language that was proposed in 2009 by CDFW. Based on storage conditions and expected reservoir inflows, it was agreed that Cal-Am would maintain minimum flows in the Carmel River below Los Padres at 10.0 cfs for July and 8.5 cfs August through October, then potentially returning to estimated natural river flows of as much as 8.5 cfs in December 2018.

The 2018 MOA included terms to: (a) limit operation of Cal-Am wells in the Carmel Valley above Robinson Canyon Road Bridge during low-flow periods; and (b) require Cal-Am to make reasonable efforts to operate the lower Carmel Valley wells in sequence from the most downstream well, progressing upstream as wells are needed and available for production.

U:\mpwmd\Allocation\Annual Mit. Report RY 2018\RY 2018-Place your files here\V Annual Low Flow MOA\V Low Flow MOA_JL2018.docx Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 396, Packet Page 496 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
VI-1
VI. QUARTERLY WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY AND BUDGET
Description and Purpose
Under Ordinance No. 19, which was adopted in December 1984, the District was required to develop an annual water-supply strategy. This strategy included estimates of projected demands and proposed production targets for the Cal-Am system. The strategy was designed to limit CalAm surface-water diversions from the Carmel River to no more than 35 percent of total Cal-Am production. Based on the District strategy, Cal-Am developed a water-supply budget specifying monthly production targets.

Under Ordinance No. 41, which was adopted in March 1989, development of the water-supply strategy and budget was changed from an annual to a quarterly process, and Cal-Am's annual surface-water diversions were reduced to a goal of no more than 29 percent of total production.

Currently, the quarterly strategy and budget values are developed jointly by Cal-Am, the District, CDFW and NMFS, in conformance with the annual low-flow Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The strategy is designed to maximize the long-term production potential and protect the environmental quality of the Carmel Valley and Seaside basins. The budget includes monthly production targets for each of Cal-Am's major production sources -- Upper Carmel Valley (UCV) Aquifer, Lower Carmel Valley (LCV) Aquifer, and the Coastal Subareas of the Seaside Basin -- which reflect current and expected system conditions. The quarterly strategies and budgets are normally developed in December, March, June, and September of each year.

Starting in April 2002, the Quarterly Water Supply Strategy and Budgets were fundamentally changed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which adopted Order WRO 2002-0002 on March 21, 2002, and by NMFS and Cal-Am, who signed a Conservation Agreement on September 18, 2001. This order and agreement changed the way that Cal-Am operates its diversions and wells upstream of Robinson Canyon Road Bridge. Specifically, CalAm was ordered to:

1. Immediately upon issuance of SWRCB Order WRO 2002-0002, cease withdrawal of water from the San Clemente Dam (removed in 2015) during low-flow periods except during an emergency. For the purpose of the Order, “low-flow periods” are defined as times when stream flow in the Carmel River at the Don Juan Bridge gage (RM 10.8) is less than 20 cfs for five consecutive days.

2. Reduce diversions during low-flow periods from the Scarlett No. 8 Well, Los Laureles Wells Nos. 5 and 6, Panetta Wells, Garzas Wells Nos. 3 and 4, and the Robles Well.

Current diversions are 1-7 days per month at each well. Diversions at these wells shall be reduced to a maximum of two eight-hour days per month, except that those wells that currently operate only one eight-hour day per month shall continue to operate at not more than one eight-hour day per month. To the maximum degree practicable, Cal-Am shall operate these wells at night. In consultation with NMFS, USFWS, CDFW and the District, Cal-Am can operate the Scarlett 8 well incrementally to meet maximum daily demand after using all other available downstream sources at maximum capacity.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 397, Packet Page 497 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
VI-2

3. Install, not later than March 31, 2002, a pump that delivers water from the Begonia Zone to the Carmel Valley Village Zone. The “Begonia Zone” is defined to include water well production facilities in AQ3, AQ4 and the Seaside Groundwater Basin.

The “Carmel Valley Village Zone” is defined to include all Cal-Am users upstream from the Del Monte Regulating Station.

4. The Russell Wells shall be limited to a combined total instantaneous diversion rate of not more than 0.5 cfs during low-flow periods (these wells are no longer used and deemed under the influence of surface water).

5. During the low-flow periods, except for 0.5 cfs, all water diverted to Carmel Valley Village Zone shall be water that originates from the Begonia Zone (as defined in Paragraph 3 above).

In addition, the production goals for the quarterly budget process have changed over time.

Beginning in 1998, the quarterly budgets were formulated with an annual production goal of 11,285 AF during each Water Year from the Carmel River Basin, in conformance with goals and requirements established by SWRCB Orders WR 95-10, WR 98-04, and subsequently in conformance with WRO 2002-0002, CDO 2009-0060, and WRO 2016-0016. Releases from San Clemente Reservoir were maximized throughout the year and groundwater production in the UCV was limited to periods when sufficient streamflow was available to recharge the aquifer.

Starting in March 2006, the annual limit for Cal-Am’s production from its wells in the Coastal Subareas of the Seaside Groundwater Basin for customers in its main system used in the quarterly budgets was reduced from 4,000 AF per year to 3,504 AF per year based on the final judgment in the basin adjudication. Accordingly, the total annual limit for Cal-Am from the Carmel River and Seaside Groundwater Basins for its main system was set at 14,789 AF. It should be noted that the March 2006 Seaside Basin adjudication decision was amended in February 2007. The decision was amended in part to allow Cal-Am to combine its production allocation from the Coastal Subareas with its production allocation from the Laguna Seca Subarea.

On January 15, 2008, the SWRCB issued a draft Cease and Desist Order (CDO) against Cal-Am.

The Draft CDO refers to the 1995 SWRCB Order 95-10, and notes that compliance with Order 95-10 had not been achieved after 12 years. The CDO institutes a series of cutbacks to Cal-Am production from the Carmel River and prohibits new or intensified connections in the Cal-Am main system. MPWMD and several other parties participated in formal hearings before the SWRCB in the summer of 2008. After several draft versions, the final SWRCB determination on the CDO was issued on October 20, 2009. The District subsequently filed a suit to challenge this ruling, and the Monterey County Superior Court issued a stay on November 3, 2009. In response to a challenge by SWRCB, the court ruled on November 23, 2009 that the stay will remain in effect until the hearing that was held in Santa Clara in April 22, 2010. At that hearing, the Court lifted the stay and the CDO was reinstated. The CDO reduced the Cal-Am annual upper limit of diversion from the Carmel River previously set by Order 95-10 at 11,285 AF to 10,429 AF in WY 2010.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 398, Packet Page 498 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
VI-3
In WY 2015, the CDO (Order 2009-0060) set Cal-Am Carmel River production to 9,945 AF. In WY 2016, the CDO (Order 2016-0016) set the Cal-Am River production to 8,310 AF. The Seaside adjudication decision limited Cal-Am production in the Coastal and Laguna Seca Subareas of the Seaside Basin to 2,251 AF and 48 AF, respectively. This brought the total production limit from all sources to 10,609 AF (not including any adjustments for supplemental supplies or carryover storage).

Implementation and Activities During 2017-2018
During 2017 and 2018, the quarterly strategies and budgets were structured to optimize production from the Coastal Subareas of the Seaside Basin and minimize impacts from production in the Upper Carmel Valley (UCV). Activities in Water Year 2018 are described below.
● Cal-Am Main System Production in Water Year 2018
1 – During WY 2018, Cal-Am
produced 9,956 acre-feet (AF) of water for customer service from all sources in its Carmel River, Seaside Coastal and Laguna Seca Subarea systems. This production consisted of 6,111 AF from Carmel River source wells, 2,229 AF of native water from Seaside Coastal wells, 303 AF from Laguna Seca Subarea wells, 190 AF from the Sand City desalination plant, 153 AF from Table 13, 1,210 AF from ASR Recovery, and 64 AF produced from the MalPaso well and delivered to the Cal-Am system. Of the system total, no water was diverted at San Clemente Dam because it was removed in the summer of 2015.

U:\mpwmd\Allocation\Annual Mit. Report RY 2018\RY 2018-Place your files here\VI Quarterly Budget\VI Quarterly Water Budgettcjledit.docx

1 Beginning with the 2002-2003 Mitigation Report, Cal-Am production is reported on a Water Year basis, from October 1 of one Calendar Year through September 30 of the following Calendar Year. This is a change from previous annual reports in which the reporting period was July of one year through June of the following year. This change makes the mitigation report consistent with reporting requirements under SWRCB Order No. WR 95-10.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 399, Packet Page 499 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
VII-1
VII. WELL REGISTRATION AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Description and Purpose
All owners of wells within the District are required to register and report their annual water production. The purpose of the program is to provide annual aggregate estimates of water production from both Cal-Am and non-Cal-Am wells in the various groundwater production zones in the District. The information provided is used to make decisions regarding management of the limited water resources of the Monterey Peninsula area.

The District began its Well Registration and Reporting Program in 1980. From 1981 through 1990, well owners were allowed to report water production by one of three methods: Water Meter, Land Use, or Power Consumption Correlation. In March 1990, the District adopted Ordinance No. 48 requiring installation of water meters on all large production wells (i.e., those producing 20 or more AFY). In November 1991, District rules were further amended with the adoption of Ordinance No. 56, which extended the metering requirement to all existing medium production wells, defined as those producing between 5 and 20 AFY, and all new wells within the District. Ordinance No. 56 also eliminated the Power Consumption Correlation reporting method.

Implementation and Activities During 2017-2018
Figure VII-1 shows summaries of reported production from Cal-Am and non-Cal-Am wells in WY 2018, and Figure VII-2 shows the WY 2017 data for comparison.

With respect to the District’s Water Allocation Program limits, Cal-Am production from the MPWRS in WY 2018 was 9,036 AF, or 8,605 AF (48.0%) less than the Cal-Am production limit of 17,641 AF that was established with the adoption of Ordinance No. 87 in 1997. Non Cal-Am production within the MPWRS in WY 2018 was 2,623 AF, or 423 AF (13.9%) less than the non Cal-Am production limit of 3,046 AF established by Ordinance No. 87. Combined production from Cal-Am and non Cal-Am sources within the MPWRS was 11,658 AF in WY 2018, which is 9,029 acre-feet (43.6%) less than the 20,687 acre-feet production limit set for the MPWRS as part of the District’s Water Allocation Program. Therefore, no action is necessary at this time, although staff will continue to monitor production trends within the MPWRS and District-wide. A comparison of reported water production from the MPWRS in Reporting Year 1997, WY 2007, and WY 2018 relative to the District’s Water Allocation limits is presented in Figure VII-3. 1997 was the last time the production limits were adjusted. Prior to 2008, the LSS was not included in the MPWRS, but was added with the adoption of Ordinance 135 on September 22, 2008. However, the production limits in the District’s Allocation Program did not change. Production from the MPWRS in RY 1997 and WY 2007 presented in Figure VII-3 was adjusted to include production from the LSS. Production from non-Cal-Am sources has not fluctuated a great deal, and since production from LSS is included, nonCal-Am production has been over the production limit several years. Historical Cal-Am production presented in Figure VII-3 was also adjusted to include production from the LSS. Cal-Am production from the MPWRS has greatly decreased, and since Cal-Am represents such a large portion of total production, combined production from Cal-Am and non-Cal-Am sources has also decreased over the last several years.

During WY 2018, District staff inspected 19 new water meter installations and eight replacement Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 400, Packet Page 500 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
VII-2
meters to ensure compliance with the District's water meter installation standards and guidelines. In addition, staff reviewed copies of 16 applications for permits for construction of new wells within the District from the Monterey County Environmental Health Bureau, three applications for well destruction and four applications for new monitor wells. Staff also advised recipients of County well construction permits that MPWMD requires permits or written exemptions for wells within the District’s boundary.

Lastly, it should be noted that 99% of the groundwater production within the District was reported by the water meter method in WY 2018. In addition, 99% of registered well owners in the District reported annual production for their wells in WY 2018.

Figure VII-1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 401, Packet Page 501 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
VII-3
Figure VII-2

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
DRAFT WATER PRODUCTION SUMMARY FOR WATER YEAR 2017
5 NOTES:

1. Shaded areas indicate production within the Monterey Peninsula Water Resources System.

The LSS was added to the Monterey Peninsula Water Resources System in Septembter 2008.

2. CAW - California American Water

3. Source areas are as follows:

AS1 - UPPER CARMEL VALLEY - San Clemente Dam to Esquiline Bridge AS2 - MID CARMEL VALLEY - Esquiline Bridge to Narrows
AS3 - LOWER CARMEL VALLEY - Narrows to Via Mallorca Bridge AS4 - LOWER CARMEL VALLEY - Via Mallorca Bridge to Lagoon

SCS - SEASIDE COASTAL SUBAREAS
LSS - LAGUNA SECA SUBAREA (Ryan Ranch Area is within LSS) CAC - CACHAGUA CREEK and UPPER WATERSHED AREAS
CVU - CARMEL VALLEY UPLAND - Hillsides and Tularcitos Creek Area

MIS - PENINSULA, CARMEL HIGHLANDS AND SAN JOSE CREEK AREAS

4. Any minor numerical discrepancies in addition are due to rounding. 5 2,345.19 AF is included in CAW production from AS3 to account for water delivered to ASR in WY 2017.

6. This total includes water produced in both SCS and LSS, and does not 1,501.33 AF of ASR water that was recovered for Customer Service in WY 2017.

7. Production includes 1.80 AF to Ryan Ranch from CAW Main System in WY 2017. No water was delivered to Seaside Municipal System in WY 2017.
3 1, 2
6 7
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 402, Packet Page 502 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
VII-4
Figure VII-3
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 403, Packet Page 503 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
VIII-1
VIII. WATER EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION
Description and Purpose
As a legislated function of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (“MPWMD” or “District”), a comprehensive water Conservation Program was implemented in October 1979. The Conservation Program expanded in 1983 when the District facilitated development of The Water Conservation Plan for Monterey County. The Conservation Plan, adopted by the MPWMD Board in 1986, included a goal to reduce demand by 15 percent of the then-estimated year 2020 demand through implementation of a number of water saving measures including retrofits, use of recycled water, education and other means. At the time the plan was adopted, 2020 demand was expected to be 24,000 AFY for the Peninsula, making the conservation goal 3,600 AF.

Ordinance No. 30, adopted in 1987, was the cornerstone conservation ordinance for the Monterey Peninsula. This ordinance required retrofit to Ultra-Low Flush 1.6 gallons per flush toilets upon resale and in new construction, remodels/additions and changes in use. The ordinance was adopted in July 1987 and codified as MPWMD Regulation XIV, Water Conservation. Regulation XIV also implemented other mandatory water saving measures and a verification process. MPWMD’s Regulation XIV has been regarded as a model for other agencies.

In 2009, MPWMD undertook an extensive overhaul of Regulation XIV. Revisions incorporated new technology and Best Management Practices and made the regulation easier to understand.

Substantial amendments to the program included significantly expanded indoor and outdoor water efficiency requirements for New Construction, Visitor-Serving Facilities and Non-Residential customers. For example, all Non-Residential Users that did not have 1.6 gallons-per-flush toilets by January 1, 2010, were required to install High Efficiency Toilets (“HET”) by December 31, 2013.

Another example is a requirement for Rain Sensors to be installed on all automatic Irrigation Systems upon Change of Ownership or Use and Expansion of Use (i.e., remodels).

Another legislated function of the MPWMD is the authority to implement and enforce water rationing. A water rationing plan developed by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management Agency (the predecessor to the MPWMD) was available when the MPWMD was established.

Amendments to the plan were made in 1981 (Ordinance No. 7) and in 1988 (Ordinance Nos. 35 and 37) during drought-related rationing administered by MPWMD that continued through 1991.

Water-use reductions of approximately 30 percent were achieved during the 1988-91 rationing.

In 1997, in response to SWRCB Order 95-101, the MPWMD Board of Directors tasked its staff with preparing a plan to address compliance with the Order (i.e., regulatory supply shortage) as well as with physical water shortages. MPWMD worked with a variety of community interests including California American Water (“Cal-Am”), to conceive and develop the Expanded Water Conservation and Standby Rationing Plan (“Plan”), which was adopted as Ordinance No. 92 in 1998 (codified as Regulation XV). The Plan consisted of seven stages. The first four stages provided Cal-Am and the District with conservation “tools” to keep community water use within

1 SWRCB Order No. WR 95-10 concluded that Cal-Am does not have a legal right for about 10,730 AFA (about 69% of the water supplied to Cal-Am customers) which was being diverted from the Carmel River and that diversions were having an adverse effect on the public trust resources of the river.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 404, Packet Page 504 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
VIII-2
regulatory limits. Stages 5-7 of the Plan were ever-more stringent actions including per-capita rationing that would be triggered by a drought-induced water supply shortages and/or noncompliance with regulatory restrictions.

In February 2017, the MPWMD Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 169 which repealed the existing Regulation XV, The Expanded Water Conservation and Standby Rationing Plan of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and replaced it with a streamlined conservation and rationing plan known as “The 2016 Monterey Peninsula Water Conservation and Rationing Plan.”
A key element of the Conservation Program was also added in 1997 when the District began issuing rebates for voluntary toilet replacements with Ultra-Low Flush (“ULF”) 1.6 gallons-perflush toilets. Initially, the District shared funding with Cal-Am. Today, the rebate funds for CalAm customers are supported by the ratepayers through a conservation surcharge on the Cal-Am bill, with the District administering the program.

Implementation and Activities During 2017-2018
Conservation Inspections -- District staff continued an intensive inspection program to ensure compliance with the Conservation and Permit Regulations. Change of Ownership inspections make up the bulk of the District’s inspection program. Most of the 1,572 properties that changed ownership in FY 2017-2018 were inspected prior to the close of escrow. Fifty percent (50%) of the inspected properties were found to be in compliance during the first inspection. An additional 1 percent (1%) passed during the second inspection, typically after replacing older toilets identified during the initial inspection. Subsequent enforcement is through non-compliance notice on the title of the property.

District staff inspected 952 properties for compliance with Water Permit conditions during FY 2017-2018.

A total of about 2,444 inspections were conducted in FY 2017-2018. An estimated 13.730 acrefeet (“AF”) of water were saved by new retrofits verified this year in these two categories.

Other Conservation Incentives -- The District continued to offer incentives for property owners who agree to install water efficient appliances to offset new water fixtures as a condition of a Water Permit. Credit, in the form of water fixture units, remained available to offset new water fixtures in Remodels and Additions when an older model appliance is replaced with a High Efficiency Dishwasher, High Efficiency Clothes Washer, or HET, or when an Instant-Access Hot Water System is installed. This incentive program is one way to allow limited Remodeling and Additions without increasing water use.

Rebate Program -- The Rebate Program is available for a wide array of water saving devices and offers significantly generous rebates (e.g., up to $500 for a High Efficiency Clothes Washer).

Rebates become unavailable when a Qualifying Device is globally mandated, such as when all Clothes Washers had to be High Efficiency Clothes Washers in all Non-Residential uses by 2014, or when the device is required by the District due to a permit condition or Change of Ownership.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 405, Packet Page 505 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
VIII-3
From July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018, a total of 1,674 applications for rebates were received, 1,238 applications were approved with the use of the rebate refund. Table VIII-1 summarizes the Rebate Program for FY 2017-2018.

At the conclusion of WY 2018, the following items qualified for a rebate2:

Residential Indoor Rebates
High Efficiency Toilet
Ultra High Efficiency Toilet
High Efficiency Residential Dishwasher
High Efficiency Residential Clothes Washer
Instant-Access Hot Water System
On-demand pump or point-of source water heater as part of an Instant-Access Hot Water System
Non-Residential Indoor Rebates
High Efficiency Toilet
Ultra High Efficiency Toilet
Pint Urinal
Zero Water Consumption Urinal
Water Broom
Cooling Tower Conductivity Controller
CEE Tier II Water Efficient Ice Machine
X-ray film processor recirculation system
Cooling Tower pH/Conductivity Controller
Dry Vacuum Pumps
High Efficiency Connectionless Steamer
Water Efficient Commercial Dishwashers
Medical equipment steam sterilizer retrofit with a water tempering device Water Efficient Commercial Steam or “Combi’ Oven
Commercial Ozone Laundry System
Commercial Waterless Wok Stove

2 Rebates are issued when funding is available.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 406, Packet Page 506 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
VIII-4
Outdoor Water Efficiency Rebates
Smart (Weather-Based) Irrigation System Controller
Soil Moisture Sensor
Rainwater Harvesting (water storage capacity)
Lawn removal and replacement with low water use plants or permeable surfaces Rotating Sprinkler Nozzles (minimum purchase and installation of ten) Graywater Irrigation System supplied by one Clothes Washer for irrigation and/or one or more Bathrooms that have a Bathtub/Shower connected to a Graywater Irrigation System Non-Residential Graywater Irrigation Systems considered on a case-by-case basis The Water Conservation Rebate Program is available on a first-come, first-served basis. District staff continues to meet with local community organizations to advertise the program.

Conservation Education and Outreach -- District activities remained focused on public education and encouraging Peninsula residents and businesses to implement new water conservation and efficiency practices and to maintain existing equipment and behaviors.

Individualized Water Waste education took place as necessary to remind water users not to wash sidewalks, leave hoses running or ignore leaks. Efforts again successfully kept community water use below regulatory limits.
 The District continued supporting water conservation education through the Water Awareness Committee of Monterey County (“WAC”). WAC is a nonprofit watereducation organization serving Monterey County. The District, as a founding member, holds a seat on the WAC Board of Directors and contributes annual financial and staff support to its efforts. WAC provides books on water-efficient landscaping, Drip Irrigation, and other water related subjects to libraries in Monterey County, sponsors a school water education program and provides outreach opportunities for the public to learn about local water issues.
 District staff participated in several events during FY 2017-2018. Outreach events included: Pebble Beach Community Services District Open House, Monterey Peninsula College Earth Day, City of Monterey’s Cutting Day, City of Pacific Grove’s Good Old Days, and Water Awareness Day at the Monterey County Fair. The events provided the public with an opportunity to learn about the District’s extensive activities and programs.  Entered a drought tolerant landscape display in the Monterey County Fair and was awarded second place in the Water-Wise Landscape category.
 The District participated in educating the Hospitality Industry at the Monterey County Hospitality Association Nick Lombardo Golf Tournament.
 The District hosted Convert Thirsty Lawn to a Drought Tolerant Garden class.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 407, Packet Page 507 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
VIII-5
 Water Demand staff attended the leading-edge WaterSmart Innovations Conference and Exposition. The conference offered four sessions with choices of eight different water efficiency tracks per session.
 Hosted a hands-on sheet-mulching workshop at Martin Luther King Elementary School.  Water Demand staff gave a presentation to the Multi-Family Dwelling property owners and property management companies to discuss upcoming water efficiency requirements.  The District planted an organic garden at the office, irrigation supplied by the Rainwater cistern on Site.
 Offered two Specialized Landscaping classes focusing on drought tolerant landscape and native plants selections.
 Hosted rainwater harvesting, and water efficient irrigation workshops.  Presented “Conservation is a Culture: The Story of the Monterey Peninsula” at the Sustainability Conference in Seattle.

Regulatory Changes -- Several ordinances were approved in recent years that have resulted in additional water savings:
 Ordinance No. 172, adopted August 15, 2016, implemented regional water efficient landscape requirements for new and refurbished landscapes throughout the District. The ordinance added water efficient landscape requirements to the District’s Rules in keeping with the District’s role as the Monterey Peninsula’s regional water manager. The District now issues Landscape Water Permits, enforces the conditions, and reports annually to the state.
 Ordinance No. 175, adopted on November 14, 2016, amended rules related to the setting of Production Limits for Water Distribution Systems in the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer.
 Ordinance No. 178, adopted November 13, 2017, added water efficiency requirements for Multi-Family Residential Sites with more than three units and common areas at Common Interest Developments (i.e., condominiums) and allowed permanent sub-metering of Accessory Dwelling Units.
 Ordinance No. 179, adopted August 20, 2018, expanded the Rebate Program to allow rebates for a grant-supported retrofit project (Highly Efficient Applied Retrofit Targets or HEART) in the disadvantaged communities.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 408, Packet Page 508 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
VIII-6
Table VIII-1
Summary of Rebate Program
Type of Devices Rebated Number of
devices Rebate Paid Estimated AF
Gallons
Saved
High Efficiency Toilet (HET) 154 $13,862.97 6.429192 2,094,958.64 Ultra-Low Flush to HET 326 $27,942.98 3.260000 1,062,274.26 Ultra HET 20 $2,693.00 0.200000 65,170.20
Toilet Flapper 4 $49.81 0.000000 0
High Efficiency Dishwasher 201 $27,875.00 0.603000 196,488.15 High Efficiency Clothes Washer 571 $285,400.35 9.193100 2,995,580.83 Instant-Access Hot Water System 18 $3,598.99 0.000000 0 On Demand Systems 4 400.00 0.000000 0
Zero Use Urinals 0 0.00 0.000000 0
High Efficiency Urinals 0 0.00 0.000000 0
Pint Urinals 0 0.00 0.000000 0
Cisterns 30 $45,052.00 0.000000 0
Smart Controllers 10 $1,559.00 0.000000 0
Rotating Sprinkler Nozzles 0 0.00 0.000000 0
Moisture Sensors 0 0.00 0.000000 0
Lawn Removal & Replacement 6 $10,035.00 1.043614 340,062.67 Graywater 0 0.00 0.000000 0
Ice Machines 0 0.00 0.000000 0
TOTALS 1,344 $418,469.10 20.728906 6,754,534.75
U:\mpwmd\Allocation\Annual Mit. Report RY 2018\RY 2018-Place your files here\VIII Water Conservation\Section VIII_Water Conservation_20190205_Ayala.docx
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 409, Packet Page 509 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
IX-1
IX. ALLOCATION OF NEW WATER SUPPLY
The MPWMD Water Allocation Program requires that each new water Connection or Expansion of Use be accounted for so that System Limits are not exceeded. Ordinance No. 70, adopted by the District Board on June 21, 1993, ended the moratorium on the issuance of new water Connections that was imposed in January 1991 as a result of the Water Allocation Program EIR.

The ordinance established a consumption Allocation of water that could be used by each Jurisdiction from a total of 358 Acre-Feet Annually (AFA). This amount was calculated from a formula based on the production capacity of the Paralta well, an interim water supply project development by the District in cooperation with California American Water (“Cal-Am”) (see also Section X).

Of the 358 AFA available from the Paralta well, a 50 AFA District Reserve Allocation was established in 1993 for community benefit projects. In February 1995, Ordinance No. 73 rescinded the District Reserve and allocated the remaining water equally among the eight Jurisdictions. Of the original 50 AFA, 34.720 AFA remained and was distributed equally (4.34 AFA each) among the Jurisdictions.

As described in Section XI of this report, specific water “Entitlements” associated with funding of the Pebble Beach Reclamation Project are available for areas within the Del Monte Forest pursuant to Ordinance No. 109. These Entitlements are not water “Allocations”, and are therefore tracked separately. In addition, there are several other Entitlements of water available to specific areas of the Cal-Am service area.

Implementation and Activities During 2017-2018
Between August 1993 and July 2018, a total of 253.144 AFA of the 342.720 AFA Paralta Well Allocation had been permitted for use by Jurisdictions, leaving 89.576 AFA remaining, or 26.1 percent of the Jurisdictions’ Paralta well Allocations. Credits from expired or canceled Water Permits (“Pre-Paralta Credits”) are tracked by Jurisdiction and may be used for Expansions of Use and New Connections similar to the Paralta Allocation. Finally, credits that were received for public retrofit projects from March 1995 to July 1998 (pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 75 and 91) and Water Use Credits that were transferred to a Jurisdiction are tracked as “Public Credits”.

Table IX-1 provides the status of water Allocations for each Jurisdiction as of June 30, 2018.

Table IX-2 summarizes the Entitlements of water available to specific areas of the Cal-Am service area.

In April 2005, the first Water Use Permits were issued to property owners in the Del Monte Forest who purchased water from the Pebble Beach Company (PBC). Property owners taking advantage of this program pay PBC for the Entitlement and receive documentation of their purchase. The District processes and records a Water Use Permit on the title of the property that provides notice of the amount of Water Entitlement available. Water Permits are required when the property Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 410, Packet Page 510 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
IX-2
owner desires to use the water available from a Water Use Permit. As of June 30, 2018, 587 Water Use Permits and Water Permits had been issued for a total of 47.470 AFA new and expanded uses.

Ordinance No. 132. In January 2008, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 132 (adding Rule 23.6) to allow the expansion and extension of the Cal-Am system to provide Connections to, and Potable water service for the use on and benefit of property located within Sand City. This rule enables the issuance of Sand City Water Use Permits for new and expanded water uses on Sand City Sites, in a cumulative amount of no more than 206 AFA. As of June 30, 2018, 23 Water Use Permits and Water Permits had been issued for a total of 4.353 AFA.

Ordinance No. 165. In August 2015, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 165 (adding Rule 23.8) to allow the expansion and extension of the Cal-Am system to provide Connections to, and Potable water service for the use on and benefit of property located within the Carmel River watershed and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. This rule enables the issuance of Malpaso Water Use Permits for new and expanded water uses on Carmel River watershed and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Sites, in a cumulative amount of no more than 80 AFA. As of June 30, 2018, 147 Water Use Permits and Water Permits had been issued for a total of 9.315 AFA.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 411, Packet Page 511 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
IX-3
Table IX-1

ALLOCATION REPORT
Reported in Acre-Feet
Water Year 2017-2018
Jurisdiction Paralta Pre-Paralta
Credits
Public Total Water
Available
Airport District 5.197 0.000 0.000 5.197
Carmel-by-the-Sea 1.398 1.081 0.182 2.661
Del Rey Oaks 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Monterey 0.263 0.030 2.325 2.618
Monterey County 10.717 0.352 1.775 12.844
Pacific Grove 0.000 0.022 0.133 0.155
Sand City 0.000 0.000 23.373 23.373
Seaside 7.146 34.438 1.144 42.728
TOTALS 24.721 35.923 28.932 89.576
* Does not include 15.280 AFA from the District Reserve prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 73.

Allocation Holder Water Available Total Demand from
Water Permits Issued
Remaining Water
Available
Quail Meadows 33.000 32.320 0.680
Water West 12.760 9.372 3.388
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 412, Packet Page 512 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
IX-4
Table IX-2

ENTITLEMENT REPORT
Reported in Acre-Feet
Water Year 2017-2018
Entitlement Holder Entitlement Total Demand
from Water
Permits Issued
Remaining Entitlement/and
Water Use Permits Available
Pebble Beach Co. 1 228.260 31.431 196.829
Del Monte Forest Benefited
Properties 2
(Pursuant to Ord No. 109)
136.740 50.539 86.201
Macomber Estates 10.000 9.595 0.405
Griffin Trust 5.000 4.829 0.171
CAWD/PBCSD Project
Totals 380.000 96.394 283.606
Entitlement Holder Entitlement Total Demand
from Water
Permits Issued
Remaining Entitlement/and
Water Use Permits
Available
City of Sand City 206.000 4.353 201.647
Malpaso Water Company 80.000 9.315 70.685
U:\mpwmd\Allocation\Annual Mit. Report RY 2018\RY 2018-Place your files here\IX Allocation of New Water Supply\Section IX_Allocation_20190205_Ayala.docx

Increases in the Del Monte Forest Benefited Properties Entitlement will result in reductions in the Pebble Beach Co. Entitlement.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 413, Packet Page 513 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
X-1
X. WATER-USE TRENDS
Description and Purpose
Based on data provided by California American Water (Cal-Am), Monterey Peninsula Water Management District staff tracks water use (Cal-Am metered consumption) over time to assess community water-use trends. These data are used in water-supply planning (augmentation) as well as development of conservation programs (e.g., assess the degree of conservation savings needed and the effectiveness of conservation programs).

Implementation and Activities During 2017-2018
Water-use trends may be tracked by using production data at the well head, as described above, or by considering Cal-Am metered consumption information, as described below. Figure X-1 provides water-use trends from 1980 through 2018, as represented by consumption in Acre-Feet per Cal-Am Connection (AF/Connection) for customers1in the Main Cal-Am System. This is based on an annual report titled “Customers & Consumption by Political Jurisdiction & Classification” that provides metered use information for each political jurisdiction and for the Cal-Am system subunits, as well as several user classifications. For WY 2018, the use per Connection is based on Cal-Am’s total metered consumption2(8,740 AF) divided by Cal-Am’s total customers (38,738) and equaled 0.226 AF/Connection.

Water consumption in WY 2018 increased slightly from an all-time low of 8,576 in WY 2017.

Review of Figure X-1 indicates that water use per Connection for the last 29 years (1989-2018) is significantly less than in the preceding nine years (1980-1988). The sharp decline in WYs 1989, 1990, and 1991 is attributable to mandatory water rationing in response to the 1987-1991 drought period. From 1992-2004, annual water consumption remained relatively stable, with a range from approximately 0.33 to 0.40 AF/connection, and average of 0.359 AF/connection, compared to the average of 0.500 AF/connection for the 1980-1988 period. Since WY 2004, a general annual declining trend has occurred. Notably, water consumption per Connection in WY 2018 (0.226 AF/Connection) was 55% less than the pre-drought consumption per Connection in RY 1987 (0.503 AF/connection).

1 Includes residential, multi-residential, commercial, industrial, golf course, public authority, other and non-revenue metered connections.
2Excludes Cal-Am satellite systems with separate well sources (i.e., Ryan Ranch, Hidden Hills, Bishop, Ralph Lane, Chualar and Ambler). Also excludes water supplied to MPWMD by Cal-Am wells to irrigate Carmel River riparian vegetation as part of the Allocation EIR Mitigation Program.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 414, Packet Page 514 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
X-2
Figure X-1
U:\mpwmd\Allocation\Annual Mit. Report RY 2018\RY 2018-Place your files here\X Water Use Trends\Section X Water Use Trends_20190205_Ayala.docx
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 415, Packet Page 515 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XI-1
XI. WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (WATER

PERMITS)
Description and Purpose
The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD or District) balances water supply and demand by carefully tracking the amount of allotted water used by the eight Jurisdictions within the MPWMD boundaries. The Monthly Water Allocation Program Report, found in the District’s regular meeting Board packet, summarizes the amount of water available to each Jurisdiction. The current Allocation system, implemented after adoption of the Water Allocation Program EIR, replaced a system based on each Jurisdiction receiving a percentage of the total available production. The current process makes only newly developed water supplies available for new and expanding uses through an Allocation by Jurisdiction system, which is tracked every time a Water Permit is issued. In mid-1993, water from the Paralta Well project resulted in an Allocation of water to the Jurisdictions, ending a moratorium that was established in 1989.

In addition to Allocations for each of the Jurisdictions, there are several separate Water Entitlements: Water West, a water company purchased by California American Water (CAW) in the early 1990’s, has an independent Entitlement of water for properties within the boundaries of the former system. Properties located in the Quail Meadows subdivision, Pebble Beach Company (PBC) properties, Hester Hyde, Griffin Trust, and J. Lohr properties also have an independent Entitlement of water. Water from the PBC’s Entitlement can be assigned to other properties located within the Del Monte Forest (Pebble Beach).

Implementation and Activities During 2017-2018
● Permit Activity -- From July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018, a total of 1,063 Water Permits were issued in the CAW System (86 new residences and 893 residential Remodels/additions were permitted). There were 119 Non-Residential Water Permits issued for Remodels/Additions and Changes of Use in the CAW system. Separate Water Entitlements are shown on Table X1-1. As of June 30, 2018, a total of 89.576 AF of water remained available in the areas served by CAW, as shown in Section IX. This includes water from pre- and post-Paralta Allocations and water added to a Jurisdiction’s Allocation from Water Use Credit transfers and public retrofits.
● Reclamation – The Carmel Area Wastewater District/Pebble Beach Community Services District (CAWD/PBSCD) Recycled Water Project began operation in 1994, producing Reclaimed Water to replace Potable water previously used to irrigate golf courses and recreational open space in the Del Monte Forest (Pebble Beach area). At the start of operation, the District released Water Entitlements to the project sponsors for their fiscal participation. The PBC received 365 AF, Macomber Estates received 10 AF, and the Griffin Trust received 5 AF. The District retains 420 AF of the project’s estimated savings of 800 AFA; none of the District share has been allocated.

Ordinance No. 109. In May 2004, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 109 (amending Rule 23.5) to enable financing of upgrades to the CAWD/ PBCSD Recycled Water Project. This ordinance enabled Water Entitlements held by the PBC to be made available to properties throughout the Del Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 416, Packet Page 516 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XI-2
Monte Forest in order to finance the Project Expansion. Ordinance No. 109 also provided a framework for several ancillary agreements for financing, construction and operation, and sale of Recycled Water.

In April 2005, the first Water Use Permits were issued to property owners in the Del Monte Forest who purchased water from the PBC. Property owners taking advantage of this program pay PBC for the Entitlement and receive documentation of their purchase. The District processes and records a Water Use Permit on the title of the property that provides notice of the amount of Water Entitlement available. Regular Water Permits are required when the property owner desires to use the water available from a Water Use Permit. As of June 30, 2018, 587 Water Use Permits and Water Permits had been issued for a total of 47.470 AF to permit new and expanded uses (see Section IX).

Ordinance No. 132. In January 2008, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 132 (adding Rule 23.6) to allow the expansion and extension of the CAW System to provide Connections to, and Potable water service for the use on and benefit of property located within Sand City. This rule enables the issuance of Sand City Water Use Permits for new and expanded water uses on Sand City sites, in a cumulative amount of no more than 206 AFA. For FY 2017-2018 23 Water Use Permits and Water Permits had been issued for a total of 4.353 AF.

Ordinance No. 165. In August 2016, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 165 (adding Rule 23.8) to allow the expansion and extension of the CAW System to provide Connections to, and Potable water service for the use on and benefit of property located within the Carmel River watershed and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. This rule enables the issuance of Malpaso Water Use Permits for new and expanded water uses on Carmel River watershed and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Sites, in a cumulative amount of no more than 80 AFA. For FY 2017-2018 147 Water Use Permits and Water Permits had been issued for a total of 9.315 AFA. ● Interagency Coordination -- District staff continues extensive coordination with community development personnel from the local Jurisdictions to facilitate communication regarding the Water Permit process. Presentations on the local water-supply situation are given regularly, and meetings are held to discuss permit procedures and to answer questions about Allocation management. Through these meetings, rapport has been developed with the local agencies, making the management of water supplies more productive and accurate.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 417, Packet Page 517 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XI-3
Table XI-1
Summary of Water Permits Issued

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER
Main System
(July 2017-June 2018)
Type of Water Permit No. of
Permits
Capacity
(Acre-Feet)
Average Use
Per Permit
(Acre-Feet)
New Residential
 Pebble Beach Entitlements* 30 12.465 0.416
 Sand City Entitlement* 2 0.341 0.171
 Malpaso Water Entitlement* 13 7.983 0.614
Residential Remodels/Additions
 Pebble Beach Entitlements* 52 10.772 0.207
 Sand City Entitlement* 6 0.034 0.006
 Malpaso Water Entitlement* 40 8.347 0.209
New Non-Residential
 Pebble Beach Entitlements* 1 1.013 1.013
 Sand City Entitlement* 0 0.000 0.000
 Malpaso Water Entitlement* 0 0.000 0.000
Non-Residential Remodels/Additions
 Pebble Beach Entitlements* 3 1.383 0.461
 Sand City Entitlement* 0 0.000 0.000
 Malpaso Water Entitlement* 4 4.181 1.045
*Pebble Beach and Sand City Entitlements are tracked separately from Main California American Water System permits.

U:\mpwmd\Allocation\Annual Mit. Report RY 2018\RY 2018-Place your files here\XI WDS Permitting\Section XI WDS Management_20190409_Ayala.docx
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 418, Packet Page 518 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XII-1
XII. MONITOR PRODUCTION AND COMPLIANCE WITH SWRCB
ORDER WR 2009-0060 AND WR 2016-0016
Implementation and Activities During 2017-2018
Regarding compliance with State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order WR 2016- 0016 (i.e, the “Cease and Desist Order” or CDO), California American Water (Cal-Am) target production from the Carmel River Basin in Water Year (WY) 2018 for the SWRCB tally was based on the initial regulatory limit of 8,310 acre-feet (AF). This number was then reduced by Sand City Desalination Project production of 190 AF and ASR Recovery of 610 AF over the 600 AF cap on ASR diversion counted in river pumping, resulting in an adjusted base amount of 7,510 AF. Actual Cal-Am Carmel River Basin diversions (after adjustments) for WY 2018 were 6,865 AF. Thus, Cal-Am reported diversions were below the adjusted diversion limit from the Carmel River Basin imposed by the SWRCB. WY 2018 was the 21th straight year in which compliance with Order WR 95-10 was achieved, the 9th year for compliance with Order WR 2009-0060, and the second year of compliance with SWRCB 2016-0016. A major purpose of the District’s Expanded Conservation Plan and Standby Rationing Program is to ensure continued compliance with the SWRCB Orders. The community was in Stage 1 of the conservation program throughout the 2017-2018 reporting period.

U:\mpwmd\Allocation\Annual Mit. Report RY 2018\RY 2018-Place your files here\XII Compliance SBO and Adj\XII Monitor Production Compliance with CDO-tcjledit.docx
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 419, Packet Page 519 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XIII-1
XIII. MONITOR PRODUCTION AND COMPLIANCE WITH MPWMD

ALLOCATION LIMITS
Description and Purpose
The adoption of Ordinance No. 70 in June 1993 revised the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System (MPWRS) supply limit from an annual production limit of 19,881 acre-feet per year (AFY) to 20,673 AFY. The California American Water (Cal-Am) annual production limit of 16,744 AFY (Option V from Finding No. 403 of the Final Water Allocation Program EIR; Ordinance No. 53) was revised to 17,619 AFY, and the non-Cal-Am production limit of 3,137 AFY was revised to 3,054 AFY. This new water supply limit reflected the 385 AFY of new water production allocation from the Paralta Well project and minor adjustments to reflect the integration of the Water West system into the Cal-Am system, the annexation of Quail Meadows Subdivision into Cal-Am, and the refinement of the non-Cal-Am production estimate.

Ordinance No. 83, adopted in April 1996, set Cal-Am’s annual production limit at 17,621 AFY and the non-Cal-Am annual production limit at 3,046 AFY, based on permanent reductions in water use by non-Cal-Am water users in exchange for water service from Cal-Am. As part of the agreement, 15% of the historical non-Cal-Am production was set aside to meet the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (District) long-term water conservation goal. Based on these changes, a new limit for the MPWRS as a whole was set at 20,667 AFY.

The Cal-Am production limit was again amended in February 1997, when Ordinance No. 87 was adopted as an urgency ordinance to provide a special community benefit reserve allocation of 19.6 AFY of production to the Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula. Ordinance No. 87 increased the total annual Cal-Am production limit to 17,641 AFY, but did not change the nonCal-Am limit. Thus, the new limit for the MPWRS as a whole is 20,687 AFY.

In addition to District-imposed production limits as part of its Water Allocation Program, Cal-Am must also comply with limits set by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in 1995 as part of Order WR 95-10. The Order includes a provision that Cal-Am water diversions (surface and groundwater production) from the Carmel River basin should not exceed 11,990 AF in Water Year (WY) 1996, and not exceed 11,285 AF in WY 1997 and subsequent years. In 2009, the SWRCB issued Order 2009-0060 (i.e., the “Cease and Desist Order” or CDO), which further modified the Cal-Am production limits and imposed a production ramp-down schedule by water year (see Section XII). The water year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30 of the following year. The District program to monitor water use includes tracking Cal-Am compliance with the SWRCB goals.

Implementation and Activities During 2017-2018
District staff continued to manage the overall supply budget, sending periodic reports to the cities and/or county and providing updates and general information as needed. The monitoring programs initiated by Ordinance Nos. 52 and 53 continue to be implemented. Beginning with the 2001-2002 Annual Report, the District changed the reporting period for the Well Registration and Reporting Program from a Reporting Year (July 1-June 30) to a Water Year (October 1-September 30) to be Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 420, Packet Page 520 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XIII-2
consistent with the SWRCB Order reporting requirements, and other hydrological reporting programs. The 2000-2001 Annual Mitigation Report was the last report in which groundwater production within the District was presented in a Reporting Year format. Water production tables for the current year in this report use WY 2018 data (October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018). Compliance with production limits imposed by MPWMD as part of the Water Allocation Program are shown in Table XIII-1.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 421, Packet Page 521 (All values in Acre-Feet)
WY 2017 Actual 6,396 1,724 300 2,024 8,420 1,487 491 241 2,219

1. This table is current through the date of this report.2. For CDO compliance, ASR, Mal Paso, and Table 13 diversions are included in River production per State Board.3. Sand City Desal, Table 13, and ASR recovery are also tracked as water resources projects.4. To date, 530 AF and 153 AF have been produced from the River for ASR and Table 13 respectively.5. All values are rounded to the nearest Acre-Foot.6. For CDO Tracking Purposes, ASR production for injection is capped at 600 AFY.7. Table 13 diversions are reported under water rights but counted as production from the River for CDO tracking.

Oct-17 532 392 0 0 14 3 940
Nov-17 421 326 0 0 3 3 753
Dec-17 399 339 0 0 26 1 765
Jan-18 400 265 0 0 25 7 697
Feb-18 413 264 0 0 21 7 704
Mar-18 374 189 0 98 0 7 667
Apr-18 579 91 0 55 3 7 735
May-18 740 113 0 0 25 0 878
Jun-18 692 154 43 0 23 8 919
Jul-18 567 34 360 0 26 7 993
Aug-18 518 34 414 0 10 7 983
Sep-18 475 31 392 0 14 8 921
Total 6,111 2,229 1,210 153 190 64 9,956
WY 2017 5,306 2,024 1,487 491 241 93 9,641

1. This table is produced as a proxy for customer demand.2. Numbers are provisional and are subject to correction. 12 Month Moving Average 1 9,952 10,130 Rule 160 Production Limit

1. Average includes production from Carmel River, Seaside Basin, Sand City Desal, and ASR recovery produced for Customer Service.

Total
Rationing Trigger: WY 2018
Monthly Production from all Sources for Customer Service: WY 2018 (All values in Acre-Feet)
Carmel River
Basin Seaside Basin ASR Recovery Table 13 Sand City Mal Paso Difference 653 -106 -303 -409 244 110 74 110 295
1,320 227 300 1,8471,210 153 190
Target 7,518 1,820 0 1,820
9,094 1,552
Seca Compliance Recovery City 3
Year-to-Date
Actual 4 6,865 1,926 303 2,229
Production vs. CDO and Adjudication to Date: WY 2018
MPWRS Water Projects and Rights
9,338
Sand
Values Basin 2, 6 Coastal
Carmel Seaside Groundwater Basin
MPWRS
Total
Water Projects
and Rights
Total
River Laguna Ajudication ASR Table 13 7
Table XIII-1
U:\jlear\QuarterlyWaterBudget\WY2018\Production and QB Tracking WY 2018.xls.xls_tab_ Prod Compliance WY2012/Production Complience tab XIII-3 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 422, Packet Page 522 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XIV-1
XIV. DETERMINE DROUGHT RESERVE
Description and Purpose
In conceptual terms, drought reserve can be defined as the balance between water supply and water demand that is necessary to insure a specified level of drought protection. The question that remains is how much protection is "adequate". There is no universally accepted standard for quantifying "adequate" levels of drought protection for municipal water supply systems.

Moreover, drought protection can be measured in a number of ways including safe or firm yield, annual shortfalls, frequency or severity of water rationing, carryover storage, or some indicator of environmental stress.

For the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), the level of desired drought protection has been specified by the Board of Directors in terms of water rationing. Adequate drought protection exists as long as the frequency of mandatory water rationing is less than predetermined standards. The determination of whether or not mandatory water rationing would be imposed during a reoccurrence of particular drought periods is based on simulated system operations for the 1958-2002 period of record.

In more specific terms, drought reserve can be expressed as the total usable storage in the Monterey Peninsula Water Resources System that is required on May 1 to limit mandatory water rationing to the predetermined frequency. The total storage that is required includes carryover storage for use during the following water year and the storage necessary to satisfy the demand that is expected to occur during the remainder of the current water year. In August 1993, the Board adopted a drought protection goal that allows no more than 20 percent mandatory water rationing two percent of the time, or two out of 100 years, on average.

Implementation and Activities During 2017-2018
In 2018, District staff determined that approximately 23,091 acre-feet (AF) of usable storage were required on May 1, 2018 to avoid requesting a District-wide voluntary 15 percent reduction in water demand. Given that actual, usable storage on May 1 was estimated at 29,170 AF, no demand reductions beyond existing Stage 1 restrictions were necessary for 2018 based on physical water availability. The 2018 trigger values are based on the maximum California American Water (CAW) production limit set by the State Water Resources Control Board in Order No. WR 2009-0060 (8,310 AF) for CAW’s diversions from the Carmel River, the maximum production limit for CAW’s diversions from the Coastal Subareas of the Seaside Groundwater Basin set by the Court as a result of the Seaside Groundwater Basin adjudication (2,251 AF), and the non CAW water production limit that was specified in the District’s Water Allocation Program (3,046 AF).

U:\mpwmd\Allocation\Annual Mit. Report RY 2018\RY 2018-Place your files here\XIV Drought Reserve\XIV_drought_reserve-tcjledit.docx Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 423, Packet Page 523 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XV-1
XV. AUGMENT WATER SUPPLY
The Findings for Adoption of the Water Allocation Program EIR in 1990 identified a set of general mitigation measures that relate to increasing the water supply. Finding No. 403-A stated that the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD or District) shall pursue construction of a major, long-term water supply project to provide water for restoration of the environment and for public water supply. Finding No. 403-B stated that the District should pursue a series of smaller "near-term" water supply projects to provide additional water for drought protection and some new growth until the long-term project is completed.

In 1996, District efforts related to both long-term and near-term projects were consolidated into the MPWMD Water Augmentation Plan (WAP). Specific goals and objectives were adopted in January 1997, and revised in January 1998, April 2000, and March 2001. Since 2001, the MPWMD Board has held Strategic Planning Workshops to set strategic planning initiatives, set goals and objectives to guide District activities, receive progress reports and provide policy guidance. Augmenting the water supply remains a major focus. Activities for the July 2017 through June 2018 reporting period were primarily guided by goals and objectives in the Strategic Plan adopted by the Board on April 20, 2015.

To maintain consistency with the Water Allocation Program EIR, the following sections describe MPWMD efforts for long-term and near-term projects separately. In practice, District water augmentation efforts are integrated. For aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), the long-term MPWMD ASR Phase 1 and Phase 2 Projects and associated water rights are described under Section XV-A; the annual ASR operation activities are discussed under Section XV-B.

A. Long-Term Water Supply Project
Description and Purpose
The mission of the District is to promote or provide for a long-term sustainable water supply, and to manage and protect water resources for the benefit of the community and the environment. The following paragraphs provide background information followed by a review of actions in the July 2017 through June 2018 period. Additional information is provided by the General Manager at most monthly regular board meetings, available on the District website at: www.mpwmd.net.

Background: In the early 1990s, the electorate did not approve public funding for two major water supply projects – a small 3,000 acre-foot per year desalination project in 1993 and the proposed 24,000 acre-foot (AF) New Los Padres Dam and Reservoir (NLP) Project in 1995. Since then, the District has focused its efforts on non-dam alternatives. The District participated extensively in the 1999-2002 California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) “Plan B” process to identify a non-dam alternative to the NLP. Since 2012, the District has worked with Cal Am on the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP), a portfolio comprised of (i) a 6,200 AFA desalination plant owned by Cal-Am, (ii) a 3,500 AFA Advanced Water Purification Facility known as “Pure Water Monterey”, a joint project of Monterey One Water (M1W) and the District, and (iii) additional ASR by the District and Cal-Am.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 424, Packet Page 524 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XV-2
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) decisions on Carmel River issues in July 1995 and subsequent orders continue to influence water augmentation efforts to the present. The SWRCB Order WR 95-10 identified an estimated 10,730 acre-feet per year (AFY) of historical unauthorized Cal-Am diversions from the Carmel River that must be replaced by another water project or projects. With few exceptions, SWRCB orders have a “one-for-one replacement” requirement, whereby any new water supply that is developed for Cal-Am use must offset the unauthorized diversions from the Carmel River before new water supply can be used for new construction or remodels that intensify water use in the Cal-Am system. Thus, water for existing legal lots of record and other future needs will be available only when Order 95-10 and its subsequent requirements have been fully satisfied.

Because of a lack of progress toward completion of a replacement water supply and despite strong objections from the Monterey Peninsula, the SWRCB issued a Final Cease and Desist Order on October 20, 2009 (CDO 2009-0060). This Order set mandatory reductions in Carmel River diversions that that were to culminate in reducing Cal-Am Carmel River diversions to an authorized amount of 3,376 AFY by December 31, 2016.

Cal-Am, in conjunction with the District, Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority, the City of Pacific Grove and the Pebble Beach Company, submitted an application to amend the CDO on April 28, 2016. On July 19, 2016, the SWRCB adopted Order 2016-0016 extending the CDO period to December 31, 2021. The effective diversion limit (EDL) for the Carmel River was lowered to no more than 8,310 AFY and additional mitigation measures to offset impacts to public trust resources were ordered by the SWRCB1.

Seaside Basin Setting: Management of the Seaside Groundwater Basin also has important ramifications for long-term community water supply. SWRCB Order 95-10 directed Cal-Am to maximize pumping in the Seaside Basin to the extent practicable in order to reduce diversions from the Carmel River. Thus, since 1995, the Seaside Basin became an increasingly important source of water supply. Unfortunately, it also began to exhibit signs of stress from over-pumping due to Order 95-10, as well as significant increases in non-Cal-Am use. As a result, to protect its rights, Cal-Am brought a complaint to the courts in 2003, where the defendants were 9 other pumpers and 4 cities.

The Superior Court rendered a Final Decision on adjudication of basin water rights on March 27, 2006 (as amended). The Decision determined that the Seaside Basin is in overdraft; quantified water rights for parties with overlying water rights (“Alternative Producers”); and set a reduced “natural safe yield” and a near-term “operating yield” allowed to be produced by certain parties with appropriative rights (“Standard Producers”) as they work toward a “physical solution” to eliminate the overdraft. The Decision set a timetable that included triennial reductions in basin production to 3,000 AFA. Thus, by 2021, Cal-Am’s legal share of water rights in the basin will be reduced to 1,474 AFY – down from production of nearly 4,000 AFY prior to adjudication. A nine-member Watermaster Board was created to implement the Decision with continued oversight by the Court. The MPWMD holds one seat on the Watermaster Board with two out of 13 votes; a MPWMD Board member serves as the MPWMD representative. The Watermaster has generally

1 Additional detailed background information can be found in previous years Mitigation Program Annual reports and in SWRCB Orders 95-10 and 2009-0060.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 425, Packet Page 525 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XV-3
held monthly meetings since its formal commencement on April 5, 2006. The Watermaster website is at: http://www.seasidebasinwatermaster.org/.

District staff sits on the Watermaster Technical Advisory Committee and contributes data and analysis for several technical reports required by the Court. MPWMD staff and consultants, along with other partners, have been retained by the Watermaster to provide contract technical services, including project management, data collection, and preparation of documents required by the Court as part of the Seaside Basin Monitoring and Management Program.

Water Supply Needs: Community water-augmentation efforts have focused on compliance with SWRCB Orders and the Seaside Basin Adjudication. In addition, the MPWSP includes water supply for existing lots of record. As presently envisioned, 6,252 AFA of new supply will be added as a result of the MPWSP and 3,500 AFA from Pure Water Monterey.

Because of continuing water conservation outreach and incentives, the SWRCB CDO, and the enactment of a steeply-tiered rate structure, water use on the Monterey Peninsula has trended down and is currently hovering at levels not seen since 1959.

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA or Water Authority): In early 2012, the mayors of six Peninsula cities -- Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City and Seaside -- created a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) called the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority. The Water Authority’s goal is to find a solution to the pending Peninsula water shortage due to the SWRCB’s Cease and Desist Order and the Seaside Basin Adjudication. The Water Authority is concerned that the community has been unable to reach a consensus on a water supply solution, and if a project is not in place by the CDO deadlines, the community will face severe rationing and an economic crisis. The Water Authority believes in a portfolio approach to achieve an adequate and cost-effective water supply for the Peninsula while addressing public concerns about the transparency of the project development process, and about the projected increased cost of water. The Water Authority website is: www.mprwa.org.

Since 2012, the MPWMD General Manager has served on the Authority’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Governance Committee (Governance Committee): In order to enhance coordination between the public and private sector, provide oversight on behalf of the public, and help reduce the cost of future regional water supply projects, the Governance Committee was formed under an Agreement dated November 5, 2013 (revised April 30, 2014). The Governance Committee is comprised of the Water Authority, MPWMD, County of Monterey, and Cal-Am.

Through 2018, the Governance Committee continued to monitor progress on the desalination plant, Pure Water Monterey, and construction of the Monterey pipeline. MPWMD facilitates meetings of the Governance Committee. Additional information including agenda packages and meeting minutes are at: http://www.mpwmd.net/GovernanceCommittee/GovernanceCmte.htm MPWMD Water Supply Project Priorities: On April 20, 2015, the District Board adopted its Strategic Plan, which included One-Year and Three-Year goals and objectives related to water Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 426, Packet Page 526 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XV-4
supply projects, as follows2:

Desalination: Further develop the “Ratepayer Relief Bonds” proposal for a public contribution for the Cal-Am regional desalination project. (Note: Though not enumerated as a specific goal, the Board also supported evaluation of an alternative non-Cal-Am project as a “back-up” measure, given the delays and uncertainties associated with the CalAm desalination project).

Groundwater Replenishment (GWR): Enter into a cost-sharing agreement for GWR and advance CEQA and feasibility work. This project is also known as “Pure Water Monterey” with Monterey One Water as the lead.

Aquifer Storage and Recovery: Complete Water Project 1 (ASR Phase 1), including an enhanced back-flush pond; redefine easement and enter into agreements with City of Seaside and Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA); complete construction of water treatment facilities.

Local Projects: Work with jurisdictions to advance planning and development of local supplies. Examples include: Pacific Grove golf course irrigation with recycled water, well development for Del Monte Golf Course irrigation, and other projects. The District has provided seed-level matching funding to advance local planning.

Odello Property: Regulate and provide oversight of the “Malpaso Water Company water entitlement.”
The Three-Year Strategic Goals adopted in 2015 included:

Develop Comprehensive Strategy for SWRCB Permits 20808A, 20808B, and 20808C:

The District has successfully reassigned portions of the original New Los Padres Reservoir water right Permit #20808 to Phases 1 and 2 of ASR (20808A, 20808C) and retains the remainder under Permit 20808B. However, permit conditions for each are not consistent.

In addition, a condition of all the permits requires licensing by 2020 (a process to demonstrate beneficial use of water and make the right permanent). While the District continues to make clear progress toward perfecting rights under Permits 20808A and C with the ASR project, efforts on a project that would use rights under Permit 20808B are still in a preliminary study stage.

A strategy for these water rights may include:
 Identify potential sites in Carmel Valley for diversion and storage and sites in the Seaside Basin that could be used for injection and recovery;  Evaluate possible source well rehabilitation and/or expansion in Carmel Valley, which could entail potential treatment capacity expansion;

2 The staff note and proposed Strategic Plan are at Item 24 in the following link:
http://www.mpwmd.net/asd/board/boardpacket/2015/PDF/April%2020%20Pkt.pdf Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 427, Packet Page 527 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XV-5
 Consider developing a strategy for a direct diversion component of water right;  Petitioning the SWRCB to amend existing permits and consider conforming all permits to the same standards; attempt to create greater operating flexibility such that any injection well can inject any diverted water and wells can be used for both recovery and production;
 Petition the SWRCB to grant a time extension for licensing the permits;  Consider completing a water availability analysis and an IFIM study to develop new permit conditions.

Prepare for Allocation of “New Water”: The District will need to develop fair and equitable mechanisms to allocate water from new water projects to the jurisdictions.

Policies need to be considered for:
 Allocation of water for legal lots of record;
 Local projects that may free-up potable supplies within jurisdictions;  Additional water supplies that could be created by future ASR, Table 13 water rights, and changes in water right permit conditions;
 Use of any “excess” supplies in the early years of the MPWSP, before allocation to full build-out of Pebble Beach or legal lots of record;  Update and evaluation of the jurisdictions’ general plan needs.

The One-Year Strategic Goals adopted in 2015 included:

Establish a Long-Term Strategy for Los Padres Dam: In 2011, the District proposed increasing water supply capacity at Los Padres Dam through either a rubber dam on the existing spillway, or dredging, or both. Cal-Am expressed little or no interest in these projects in the past, due in part to the high cost and logistical challenges associated with replacing or enhancing fish transport over the dam and through the reservoir, dredging the reservoir, and because the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has indicated that permanent removal of Los Padres Dam should be considered for restoration of the Central Coast Steelhead. However, many fisheries experts believe that a regulated river with reservoir storage that can be used to augment dry season flows would be a better long-term solution for the steelhead as well as property owners along the river. In 2015, the District entered into an agreement with Cal-Am to develop an alternatives study that addresses the following:
 Dam ownership;
 Dam removal and steelhead recovery;
 Property owners and rights;
 Additional water supply;
 Fish passage over Los Padres Dam and through the reservoir; As of mid-2018, several consultants the District retained for the study had begun or continued to work on fish passage, a sediment transport model for the river, a linked surface water-groundwater model for the Carmel River Basin, and a steelhead habitat model of the Carmel River main stem Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 428, Packet Page 528 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XV-6
from the ocean to Los Padres Dam.

The District continued to make progress on the following One-Year Goals:
 Pursue Proposition 1 and federal funding opportunities.  Local Projects including Monterey Regional Airport, Monterey County Fairgrounds, and Pebble Beach Company Del Monte Golf Course as possible projects.  Develop ordinance and allocation frameworks for locally developed water supplies. This includes regulation and oversight for water right transfers in the Carmel River Basin (e.g., Odello) and Seaside Groundwater Basin (e.g., Cypress, DBO) as well as reallocation of potable water saved by conversion to non-potable irrigation sources (Pacific Grove).

In 2014, the State Legislature signed sweeping legislation (Sustainable Groundwater Management Act [SGMA]), which could potentially have a substantive effect on water supply planning and development of water projects. The District Board has accomplished the following with respect to SGMA:
 Adopted a resolution designating the District as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer.
 Worked with SWRCB and the Department of Water Resources to resolve issues regarding the categorization of the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer, and succeeded in obtaining an exemption from the requirements of SGMA.
 Worked with the Watermaster to ensure reporting requirements for the adjudicated Seaside Groundwater Basin are met.
 Coordinated with Marina Coast Water District and MCWRA to address interaction between the Salinas Valley and Seaside Groundwater Basins.

The 2015 Adopted Strategic Goals document is also available on the District website at:
http://www.mpwmd.net/who-we-are/mission-vision-goals/bod-goals/ Implementation and Activities During 2017-2018
The following paragraphs describe action on the water augmentation goals identified above in the July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 period. A brief summary of accomplishments is provided.

Please refer to the 2018 Annual Report for additional information.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project – The District worked jointly with Cal-Am, the Water Authority, and other parties to further the MPWSP. The District continued to actively participate in CPUC hearings and settlement agreements regarding Cal-Am’s Application A.12-04-019 for the MPWSP.

Groundwater Replenishment/Pure Water Monterey Project – The District provided the majority of pre-construction funding and provided services for work on this innovative water recycling plant, working in partnership with Monterey One Water which will own and operate the system.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 429, Packet Page 529 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XV-7
In the period July 2017 to June 2018, the project partners completed environmental compliance documents for an expansion of the Pure Water Monterey treatment facility capacity to 5.0 million gallons per day (mgd) from 4.0 mgd. The expansion will allow for the delivery of up to 600 AFA of purified recycled water to the Marina Coast Water District. The team also successfully obtained water rights for the project, secured State Revolving Fund loan monies from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to build the project, and certified an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report to add the Monterey Pipeline and Hilby Pump Station. Construction on the Monterey Pipeline began in late 2016 with the District acting as Project Manager for environmental compliance assurance. When completed, the pipeline will allow Pure Water Monterey water to be supplied to Pebble Beach, Carmel and Carmel Valley and also allow excess Carmel River water to be delivered to the ASR wells in the winter. Construction on all components of Pure Water Monterey began in 2017. Completion was expected in late2018, but construction was delayed into 2019.

Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) - The District continued to work with FORA and the City of Seaside on expanding property at the Santa Margarita site to install permanent pipelines connecting the Phase 1 and 2 sites and an expanded back-flush pit. A design to expand the backflush pit was completed and a preliminary plan for construction of treatment facilities was circulated for review.

Local Water Projects– For a fourth year, the District continued to provide grants to local public entities to help them pursue small water projects, including: (1) the City of Monterey for evaluating capture and reuse of urban stormwater, (2) The Pebble Beach Company for a non-potable supply well for irrigation of its Del Monte Golf Course, and (3) the City of Seaside for drilling a new well. Previously funded local projects are making progress:

Pacific Grove began operations of its “Water Factory” in January 2018. The City of Monterey partnered with M1W to develop a stormwater resource plan for the Monterey Peninsula and Carmel Valley with additional grant funds from Prop. 1. The City of Seaside has not yet moved forward with a new well.

Odello Property/Water Rights Transfer –The District passed Ordinance No. 165 to establish a Water Entitlement to Malpaso LLC, based on its existing license from the SWRCB for the old Odello property south of the Carmel River and east of Highway One.

This became the model for similar ordinances for other water right transfers. Several home remodels and business expansions have been accomplished with water from the Malpaso entitlement.

Water Rights/SWRCB Permit 20808-B – The District continued work on an integrated ground water – surface water GSFLOW/MODFLOW model to update instream flow needs for steelhead in the Carmel River, with a focus on model calibration, data review and input.

The model was operable in late-2017 and was fully calibrated using the parameter estimation (PEST) process on a USGS super computer. The model will allow the District to model different water supply scenarios and their impacts on the Carmel River and will be an important tool to assess water availability under a wide range of scenarios for water use under Permit 20808-B.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 430, Packet Page 530 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XV-8
Proposition 1 Integrated Regional Water Management Program – The District took the lead for the Monterey Peninsula region in negotiating an agreement for sharing Proposition 1 Disadvantaged Community funds in the Central Coast funding area. The Monterey Peninsula region received $435,000 for planning and implementation of projects.

In related action, the District continued work with the federal Bureau of Reclamation on the Salinas and Carmel Rivers Basin Study, which will facilitate integrated resources management in light of future climate change.

Los Padres Dam – The District continued to monitor improvements to upstream passage at the dam and held workshop meetings with technical staff from Cal-Am, MPWMD and regulatory agencies concerning future management alternatives. Areas of study include sediment management, future water availability, evaluating downstream habitat impacts, and an evaluation of alternatives ranging from complete dam removal to increasing storage at the reservoir.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) – The District continued to participate in technical meetings focused on management of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (SVGB). Because there is no hydrogeologic divide3between the Seaside and Salinas basins, pumping in either basin can affect aquifers near the basin boundaries.

B. Near-Term Water Supply Projects
Description and Purpose
Section XV-A above describes long-term water supply alternatives, including the MPWMD ASR Phase 1 and Phase 2 Projects. This section focuses on annual ASR operations. Since 1996, the District has evaluated the feasibility of ASR at greater levels of detail. As of June 2017, the District had constructed five ASR wells in the Seaside Basin: (1) a shallower ASR pilot test well into the Paso Robles Formation (located at Mission Memorial Park in Seaside) in 1998; (2) a 720-foot deep, full-scale test well into the Santa Margarita Formation in 2002 (now ASR-1); (3) another full-scale ASR well at the Santa Margarita site (ASR-2) in 2007; a full-scale ASR well at the Seaside Middle School site (ASR-3) in 2012; and a second full-scale well at the Middle School site (ASR-4) in 2014. To comply with the SWRCB water rights permit conditions, MPWMD submits detailed annual reports to the SWRCB after each operational season, which also confirms that diversions for the ASR projects have complied with regulatory requirements. A similar report is provided to the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of its ongoing oversight of the ASR program in the Seaside Basin.

3 The basins are separated by a flow divide running northwest to southeast from approximately the north end of Sand City through the Laguna Seca Raceway (currently the WeatherTech Raceway at Laguna Seca). Water in the aquifers to the southwest of the divide is deemed to be in the Seaside Basin.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 431, Packet Page 531 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XV-9
Implementation and Activities During 2017-2018
The District operated the ASR facilities in coordination with Cal-Am while diverting 530 acrefeet (AF) of Carmel River Basin water for injection and storage in the Seaside Basin during the 2018 water year (WY). Since inception of the ASR program, a total of 8,561 AF has been diverted from the Carmel River for storage and subsequent recovery through the end of WY 2018. In Water Year 2018, 1,218 AF of ASR-stored water was extracted (recovered), for delivery to Cal-Am system customers.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 432, Packet Page 532 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVI-1
XVI. STEELHEAD FISHERY MITIGATION MEASURES
The Findings for Certification of the Water Allocation Program Final EIR (Findings Nos. 388-A through D) identified mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the Carmel River steelhead population, including: (a) expansion of the program to capture and transport smolts during spring, (b) prevent stranding of early fall and winter migrants, (c) rescue juveniles downstream of Robles del Rio during summer, and (d) implement an experimental smolt transport program at Los Padres Dam (LPD). Monitoring of adult returns and juvenile populations provides an indication of the overall success of the steelhead mitigation measures. The following sections briefly describe the purpose of each mitigation measure and activities during the current reporting period.

A. Capture and Transport Emigrating Smolts during Spring Description and Purpose
The goal of this program is to reduce disruption of the steelhead life cycle due to streamflow diversions. During spring months, when steelhead smolts are actively emigrating from freshwater to the ocean, the diversion of surface and groundwater from the river and alluvial aquifer sometimes interferes, and in some cases, blocks migration into the ocean. This threatens individual fish, reduces the number of smolts that successfully reach the ocean, and indirectly affects the number of adults that eventually return to freshwater. When streamflow is too low for natural emigration, or when smolts are at risk of being stranded, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD or District) monitors streamflow, captures emigrating smolts, and transports them to the lagoon or ocean.

Implementation and Activities During 2018
During the primary three-month smolt migration period, March-May 2018, flows in the lower river at the Highway 1 Gage were adequate for smolt migration with flows ranging from 1,160 to 22 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Figure XVI-1) and no smolt trapping was needed (Figure XVI2).

B. Prevent Stranding of Fall/Winter Juvenile Migrants
Description and Purpose
As in other central California streams, juvenile steelhead in the Carmel River move downstream into lower reaches of the river well ahead of the peak emigration of smolts. Depending on river conditions and diversions during the previous dry season, there is some risk that pre-smolts and other juvenile steelhead will be stranded following early fall and winter storms, which increase flows and stimulate the fish to move downstream into habitats that are subsequently dewatered after the storm peak passes. This risk occurs primarily from October through February, although during severe droughts, the risk period may extend into March. The District mitigates this problem by capturing and transporting juveniles when necessary during the high-risk period. Currently, juveniles trapped during fall/winter months are transported upstream to viable habitats above the Narrows or held at the District’s Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing Facility (SHSRF).

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 433, Packet Page 533 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVI-2
Implementation and Activities During 2018
District staff monitored river conditions during the fall and winter months of 2018. Flow at the District’s Highway 1 Gage dropped to zero cfs on August 16, 2018 and the lower river remained dry through early December 19, 2018 (Figure XVI-1). Due to the dry conditions, there was a moderate risk of fish stranding and conditions were carefully monitored throughout the fall and winter, but no additional rescues were needed.

C. Rescue Juveniles Downstream of Robles Del Rio during Summer Description and Purpose
About 1.5 miles of habitat between Boronda Road and Robles del Rio Road, and up to nine miles of habitat below the Narrows, are seasonally subject to dewatering depending on the magnitude of streamflow releases at LPD, seasonal air temperatures, and water demand. Beginning as early as April or May of each dry season, the District rescues juvenile steelhead from the habitat in these reaches. The goal of this program is to help maintain a viable steelhead population by transplanting juveniles to permanent river habitat above the Narrows (if it is available), and/or rearing juvenile steelhead at the SHSRF if existing habitat is not available or is already fully saturated with juvenile steelhead.

Implementation and Activities 2018 Rescue and Rearing Season  MPWMD Fish Rescue Totals - Since 1989, District staff has rescued 437,528 steelhead from drying reaches of the Carmel River watershed. Compared to previous rescue seasons, total rescued fish in the 2018 dry season was only 34% of the 1989-2018 average of 14,584 (Figure XVI-3). Rescue and transport mortality for the 2018 dry season was 0.56%. Average rescue transport mortality for the 1991-2018 period is 0.57% (Figure XVI-4). 2018 MPWMD Annual Mainstem Rescue Totals – The surface flow of the Carmel River dropped below 10 cfs at the Highway 1 Bridge on May 18, 2018. In response to this decline, District staff began monitoring daily river conditions. Mainstem rescues began on June 25th and were conducted until October 3, 2018 between the Highway 1 Bridge (RM 1.0) and Schulte Bridge area (RM 6.7), and at the Trail and Saddle area (RM 13.3). During this period, staff conducted 32 rescue operations over 6.3 miles, yielding a total of 2,794 steelhead, including: 1,396 young-of-the-year (YOY), 1,383 yearlings (1+), 1 kelt and 14 mortalities (0.50%) (Table XVI-1a). Staff tagged 2,268 fish with passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags before release. Fish were transported and released at seven locations upstream of the drying reach; lower Garland Park (112), Don Juan Bridge (22), mid-Garland Park (490), upper Garland Park (440), Cal-Am’s West Garzas Well (605), Rosie’s Bridge (312), and Hitchcock creek confluence (799) (Table XVI-1b). 2018 MPWMD Tributary Rescues Totals – A total of 14 rescue days were conducted on Potrero, Robinson Canyon, Garzas, Hitchcock, and Cachagua Creeks. Rescue operations occurred in early May through late-June, yielding a total of 2,164 steelhead, including: 1,855 young-of-the-year (YOY), 295 yearlings (1+), and 14 mortalities (0.65%) (Table XVI-1a). Staff tagged 152 fish of Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 434, Packet Page 534 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVI-3
size with PIT tags before release. Fish rescued out of Potrero creek (212) and Robinson canyon creek (8) were transported and released upstream of their confluence in perennial waters of the mainstem, while fish rescued out of Garzas (353) and Cachagua (1,577) were transported and released close to their confluence with the Carmel River (Table XVI-1b). No fish were rescued or observed in Hitchcock Creek, even though two rescue days were undertaken.  Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing Facility (SHSRF) - Facility Modifications in Reporting Year 2018 – The District is in the process of completing a major intake system upgrade that will improve the reliability and ease of maintenance of the intake pumps during both high and low flow conditions. The main features of the project include installing a new intake structure that can withstand flood and drought conditions as well as the increased bedload from the San Clemente Dam removal project two years ago, and a new Recirculating Aquaculture System (RAS) that can be operated in times of low flow or high turbidity to keep the fish healthy. This project is financed by funds from the California American Water (Cal-Am) Settlement agreement with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) administered through the State Coastal Conservancy (SCC), and is expected to be completed in 2019.

During this reporting year, District staff and their consultants finalized the project design, permitting, and environmental monitoring requirements. General contractor Mercer-Fraser Company of Eureka, CA, was hired and started construction in September on the $2 million project. By the end of December, the new intake screen, piping and electrical conduits had been installed. The settling basin, building foundation, rearing channel modifications, and new concrete pad for the cooling tower and degasser were completed.

Summary of 2018 SHSRF Fish Stocking and Releases – No fish were held at the Facility in 2018 due to the construction project.

D. Monitoring of Steelhead Population
Description and Purpose
The District uses three primary techniques to monitor the health of the steelhead population: (1) counts of adult steelhead passing LPD, (2) surveys of winter steelhead redds, and (3) surveys of the juvenile steelhead population at the end of the dry season in October.

Implementation and Activities during 2018
● Winter Steelhead Adult Counts - The LPD Fish Trap is operated and monitored by CalAm. The trap was monitored from January 15, 2018 to June 6, 2018. The number of trapped adult sea-run steelhead reported during the 2018 migration season (Jan. - April) was 29 (Figure XVI5). The average run size for the 1991-2018 period is 95 fish. Additionally, there were 8 resident trout counted in the trap this season.
● Winter Redd Surveys – Since 1994, the District has conducted winter steelhead redd (nest) surveys downstream of LPD. The primary purpose of the surveys is to conduct a thorough assessment of steelhead redds and adult fish (including spawning pairs, singles, kelts, and Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 435, Packet Page 535 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVI-4
carcasses) in the Carmel River, then use those results to help evaluate the health and abundance of each steelhead life stage.

In addition, the general condition of the spawning habitat as well as the numbers of steelhead smolts, juveniles, and fry are noted in each reach. Also, noted are any areas where low flows might be creating migration barriers to upstream or downstream fish passage.

Thirdly, the surveys are used to track gravel movement and monitor spawning activity in conjunction with the District’s Spawning Gravel Enhancement Project below LPD, where in 2014, 1,500 tons of 1.5 - 4” gravel was placed with the goal of increasing the available spawning habitat by 50% above Cachagua Creek.
2018 Redd Survey Summary:

Extremely dry conditions persisted through February 2018 and no sea-run steelhead could enter the watershed. Two large storm systems in March brought in fish but high flows prevented walking the river to look for redds until mid-April. Once flows finally dropped enough to allow safe access and clear viewing, one complete redd survey pass from Highway 1 (RM 1.0) to Los Padres Dam (RM 24.8) was conducted between April 18 and May 3, 2018 by MPWMD fisheries staff. River flows at the time of the surveys ranged from ~70 to 40 cfs at the survey locations.

Overall, 52 redds were observed between Quail Lodge golf course, at Doris Day Pool (RM ~4.5) and a half-mile downstream of LPD in the newly placed spawning gravel (~RM 24.3), along with two pairs of spawning adults, nine single adults and two carcasses, as well as more than 60 smolts and 20+ large/older juveniles. Despite the late migration season and high (redds erasing) spring river flows, 2018 had the greatest number of counted redds since 2013, with 16 more redds than in 2017. Additionally, the hundreds of fry seen throughout the entire river (even where no redds were seen) indicate a successful spawning season.

The lower portions of six tributaries were also surveyed. Three redds, and several fry were seen in Cachagua Creek and several larger fish were observed in Tularcitos, Robinson, and Potrero Creeks indicating that fish were able to survive there since last year.

Gravels from the District’s 2014 Spawning Gravel Enhancement Project continued to move downstream, creating new spawning habitat all the way to Syndicate Camp (RM ~22.1). While the spawning gravel grant’s monitoring period is over, this downstream movement of gravel and subsequent habitat improvement satisfies the project’s goal of >50% increase in spawning habitat between LPD and Cachagua Creek as evidenced by the five redds in fresh gravel seen in the Prince’s Camp/Galante area.

Pacific Lamprey – Lamprey numbers appear to be rising in the Carmel River the past few years, and with the removal of SCD they are able to spawn in the upper watershed for the first time since the 1920’s. In 2018, staff counted 42 lamprey redds, 14 of which were seen in or above the CRRDR reach.

Striped Bass – Striped bass (SB) have been present in the Carmel River lagoon for approximately 10 years, but they were first observed up in the lower river in 2015. In 2016 and 2017 they extended their range to the CRRDR reach, 18.5 miles upstream of the lagoon. In 2018, several Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 436, Packet Page 536 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVI-5
small groups of SB were observed in the lower river and one large group was seen at the Old Carmel Dam site. To date, no juvenile bass have been found in the river. ● Juvenile Population Surveys - Since Fall 1990, the District has surveyed the juvenile steelhead population in the Carmel River below LPD. This information is crucial to assess the success of adult reproduction and to determine whether or not freshwater habitats are adequately seeded with juveniles.

In 2018, 10 survey sites were sampled throughout the 17-mile reach between Mid-Valley and Cachagua. District staff also assisted NMFS on a number of additional surveys throughout the watershed. Fish densities were generally the highest they have been since 2012 (before the drought) at all sites below the CRRDR reach, ranging from 0.23 – 0.50 fish per foot (fpf) (Table XVI-2). The overall average improved slightly this year to 0.39 fpf, but was still below the longterm average of 0.67 fpf (3,552 fish per mile) (Figure XVI-6). ● Constraints to Cal-Am Diversions from the Lower Aquifer - During the 1992 SWRCB hearings on complaints against Cal-Am’s diversions from the Carmel River, testimony was presented that outlined the potential benefits of a modified way of managing the sequence of pumping from Cal-Am well fields in the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer. Pursuant to Condition No. 5 of SWRCB Order WR 95-10, Cal-Am is required to operate its Carmel Valley production wells beginning with the most downstream well, and moving upstream to other wells as needed to meet demand.

The goal of this order is to maximize the length of viable stream and aquatic habitats in the lower Carmel Valley.

During the 2018 dry season, it was estimated that this mode of operation and flow releases from Los Padres Reservoir resulted in 2.0 miles of additional viable aquatic habitat down to Schulte Bridge (RM 6.7). Juvenile population estimates show fish densities at 0.36 fish-per-foot (fpf) below the narrows (Table XVI-2). This additional habitat supported approximately 3,800 juveniles.

E. Other Activities Related to the Steelhead Resource
The District continues to carry out several activities that were not specifically identified as part of the original Allocation EIR Mitigation Program, but will improve habitat conditions, help restore the steelhead resource, or provide additional key data on the steelhead resource. These include: (a) rescue and transportation of kelts, (b) spawning habitat restoration and monitoring, (c) assessment of steelhead migration barriers, (d) PIT tagging operations, (e) assessment of the benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) communities, and (f) Carmel River habitat mapping.

Implementation and Activities in 2018
● Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) Tagging – The District has been collaborating with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southwest Fisheries Science Center since 2013 on establishing a steelhead tagging and monitoring network in the Carmel River in order to provide data to assist in management decisions, recovery efforts, and ongoing mitigation evaluations. To Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 437, Packet Page 537 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVI-6
date, the collaboration has tagged over 8,000 steelhead using passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags. In 2018, the District operated two of four PIT tag antenna arrays in the mainstem Carmel River. An array is a wired antenna that is put into the river and reads the PIT tags. As fish pass by the antenna the tag sends a signal to a data logger. Each tagged fish has a different identification number, which allows us to identify individual fish, including where they were tagged, their size and length at tagging and which direction they are traveling. A data base is currently under construction in order to analyze the copious amount of data that is collected by the arrays. ● Rescue and Transportation of Kelts – "Kelts" are adult steelhead that have already spawned, typically from January through April, and begin to migrate back to the ocean in late spring and early summer. Under existing conditions, these fish are threatened by receding flows in many years, especially when the upstream migration of adults is delayed due to lack of early-season storms. District staff rescue and transport these fish to more stable waters, when needed.

In 2018, the lower river remained wet until June so no trapping was necessary and no kelts were captured during summer rescues.
● Bioassessment Program – The California State Water Resources Control Board’s Reach Wide Benthic (RWB) protocol’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) procedures are used to sample benthic macroinvertebrates (BMI) and assess their physical habitats.

Sampling was completed in November 2018 at five sites from the control site in the Los Padres Wilderness above Los Padres Reservoir (CRLP) to the mid-valley site at Red Rock (CRRR). Sites are given an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) score between 0 (poor) and 100 (excellent). At most sites, IBI scores from the past four years show a significant improvement in habitat conditions with values above the historic (2004-2010) average score due primarily to recovery from the severe drought and the removal of San Clemente Dam (Figure XVI-7) (See the 2017 Mitigation Report for additional information on this program).

OBSERVED TRENDS, CONCLUSIONS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS:
 Adult Steelhead
Previous redd surveys below SCD confirm that the spawning habitat in the lower river has improved considerably over the last 20 years and many adults now spawn there instead of the upper watershed. In addition, juvenile steelhead rescued by the District from the lower river that survive to adulthood may be more likely to return to the lower river to spawn rather than migrate upstream.

Variability of adult steelhead counts are likely the result of a combination of controlling and limiting factors including:
 Variable river and flow conditions effects on all steelhead life stages including adult steelhead, as migration may be limited or blocked and spawning reaches may dry early;  adverse ocean conditions with increased water temperatures off the coast of California, and degraded ocean water quality likely affecting the abundance of food resources and possibly Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 438, Packet Page 538 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVI-7
even the survival of returning steelhead;
 variable lagoon conditions, caused by artificial manipulation of the sandbar and/or naturally occurring periods of low winter flows; and
 low densities of juvenile fish affecting subsequent adult populations.  Juvenile Steelhead
Long-term monitoring of the juvenile steelhead population at eleven sites along the mainstem Carmel River below LPD shows that fish density continues to be quite variable both year to year and site to site from less than 0.10 fish-per-foot (fpf) of stream to levels frequently ranging above

1.00 fpf, values that are typical of well-stocked steelhead streams. In this 2018 reporting period, the average population density remained less than the long-term average of 0.67 fpf for the Carmel River, likely due to the recent drought, poor habitat conditions in the lower river, and low numbers of returning adults.

The variability of the juvenile steelhead population in the Carmel River Basin is directly related to the following factors:

Positive Factors:
 General improvements in streamflow patterns, due to favorable natural fluctuations, exemplified by relatively high base-flow conditions between 1995 and 2012 and the very wet conditions in 2017;
 District and SWRCB rules to actively manage the rate and distribution of groundwater extractions and direct surface diversions within the basin, coupled with changes to CalAm’s operations at LPD, the increased availability of ASR and Sand City desalinated water in the summer, and extensive conservation measures, all help provide increased streamflow;
 restoration and stabilization of the lower Carmel River’s stream banks, providing improved riparian habitat (tree cover/shade along the stream, an increase in woody debris and the associated invertebrate food supply) while preventing erosion of silt/sand from filling gravel beds and pools;
 extensive juvenile steelhead rescues by the District over the last 29 years, now totaling 437,528 fish through 2018;
 rearing and releases of rescued fish from the SHSRF of 97,600 juveniles and smolts back into the river and lagoon over the past 22 years (16 years of operation), at sizes generally larger than the river-reared fish, which in theory should enhance their ocean survival.

Negative Factors:
 variable lagoon conditions, including highly variable water surface elevation changes caused by mechanical breaching, chronic poor water quality (especially in the fall), and Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 439, Packet Page 539 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVI-8
predation by birds and striped bass;
 barriers or seasonal impediments to juvenile and smolt emigration, such as intermittent periods of low flow below the Narrows during the normal spring emigration season;  spring flow variability such as low-flow conditions that could dewater redds prematurely or high flows that could either deposit sediment over redds or completely wash them out;  occasionally elevated fall temperature and hydrogen sulfide levels below LPD, and the increase in sediment from the SCD removal project;
 the potential for enhanced predation on smolts and YOY migrating through the sediment field above LPD; and
 invasive species: striped bass have recently (2015) started migrating up the river from the lagoon and are likely preying on juvenile steelhead. New Zealand Mud Snails (NZMS) were first discovered during BMI surveys at Red Rock (mid-valley) in 2016 and now comprise up to 62% of the BMI in the lower river. NZMS out compete native invertebrates and are a poor food item themselves for steelhead.

U:\Beverly\word\mitannualrpt\2018\2018 Sec_XVI_steelhead_TEXT and FIGS bc-.docx Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 440, Packet Page 540 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVI-9
Figure XVI-1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 441, Packet Page 541 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVI-10
Figure XVI-2
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 442, Packet Page 542 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVI-11
Figure XVI-3
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 443, Packet Page 543 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVI-12
Figure XVI-4
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 444, Packet Page 544 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVI-13
Figure XVI-5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 445, Packet Page 545 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVI-14
Figure XVI-6
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 446, Packet Page 546 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVI-15
Figure XVI-7
Index of Biotic Integrity scores for Carmel River in 2014 through 2018 at sites where samples were collected using the reach-wide benthic procedure.

Scores range from 0 (poor) to 100 (very good). Site mean values incorporate historic data from years 2000 to 2010.

CRLP – Above LPR; CRCA –Cachagua (below LPD); CRSH – Sleepy Hollow; CRSP –Stonepine, CRRR –Red Rock; CRVG – Valley Greens, CRCR –Cross Roads.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 447, Packet Page 547 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVI-16
Table XVI-1a
Number of Steelhead Rescued in the Carmel River Watershed by Age Group and General Location, Rescue Yeas 2018.

Table XVI-1b
Transplant Locations of (non-smolt) Steelhead Rescued in the Carmel River Watershed, Rescue Year 2018.

NOTE: River miles are approximate.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 448, Packet Page 548 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVI-17
Table XVI-2
U:\Beverly\word\mitannualrpt\2017\2017 Sec_XVI
Valley
Greens
Br.

Red Rock
(Mid
Valley)
Scarlett
Narrows
Garland
Park Boronda DeDamp Park
Stonepine
Resort
Sleepy
Hollow
SCR Lower
Delta
SCR Upper
Delta
Los
Compadres Cachagua
YEAR RM 4.8 RM 7.7 RM 8.7 RM 10.8 RM 12.7 RM 13.7 RM 15.8 RM 17.5 RM 19.0 RM 19.6 RM 20.7 RM 24.7 (nos./ft) (nos./mi) 1990 ND 0.50 0.27 0.26 0.22 0.31 1,650
1991 0.12 0.74 0.39 0.09 0.62 0.39 2,070
1992 0.67 0.36 0.96 0.30 0.40 0.83 0.59 3,098
1993 0.62 0.91 0.92 0.82 0.84 0.52 1.22 1.84 0.96 5,075 1994 ND 0.44 0.23 0.43 ND 0.50 0.29 1.51 0.71 0.59 3,100 1995 0.49 0.65 1.01 1.61 ND 1.42 0.69 0.50 1.63 1.00 5,281 1996 0.24 1.52 0.82 1.05 2.03 1.22 0.29 0.95 1.92 1.12 5,890 1997 0.02 0.22 1.02 1.74 1.15 0.50 0.22 1.15 1.41 0.83 4,359 1998 0.19 0.30 0.67 0.34 1.50 0.27 0.60 0.54 2.24 0.74 3,901 1999 0.17 0.26 0.50 0.32 0.62 1.67 0.45 0.46 1.35 0.64 3,403 2000 0.91 1.03 0.64 1.38 5.66 1.71 1.46 1.41 2.30 1.83 9,680 2001 ND 0.48 0.35 0.63 0.68 1.08 0.32 0.47 1.62 0.70 3,716 2002 ND 0.68 0.85 1.67 0.83 1.07 0.50 0.33 0.68 1.52 2.73 1.09 5,734 2003 1.53 0.82 2.16 1.86 1.45 1.55 1.23 0.58 1.09 1.69 2.16 1.47 7,738 2004 0.25 0.46 0.78 1.21 0.43 1.24 0.55 0.21 0.41 0.45 0.89 0.63 3,302 2005 1.23 0.60 1.34 1.16 0.91 1.62 1.63 0.21 0.85 0.98 2.10 1.15 6,062 2006 1.13 0.64 0.86 0.87 0.47 0.37 0.95 1.65 0.28 0.82 1.00 0.82 4,339 2007 ND 0.15 0.50 0.77 0.06 0.33 0.16 0.36 0.25 0.49 0.50 0.36 1,885 2008 ND 0.90 2.61 3.64 1.11 1.19 1.38 0.17 0.71 1.13 1.56 1.44 7,603 2009 0.24 ND 0.25 ND 0.27 ND 0.48 ND ND ND 0.72 0.39 2,070 2010 0.19 0.06 ND 0.30 0.38 0.17 0.31 0.32 0.26 0.11 0.60 0.78 0.33 1,737 2011 0.11 0.17 ND 0.36 ND ND ND 1.07 ND ND ND 0.27 0.40 2,091 2012 ND 0.67 0.47 1.01 1.58 0.35 0.59 0.37 1.31 0.74 0.82 0.83 0.79 4,195 2013 ND ND 0.41 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.40 0.48 0.43 2,270 2014 ND ND 0.07 0.14 ND ND 0.18 0.12 ND 0.24 0.30 0.17 0.17 920 2015 ND ND ND 0.10 ND ND 0.19 0.30 ND 0.30 0.38 0.46 0.29 1,522 2016 ND ND 0.07 0.15 0.14 0.19 0.13 0.24 0.34 0.40 0.31 0.22 1,156 2017 0.01 0.07 0.41 0.17 0.36 0.20 0.35 0.25 0.24 0.71 0.74 0.32 1,690 2018 ND 0.23 0.50 0.46 0.41 0.47 0.36 0.28 0.32 0.44 0.45 0.39 2,070 Station Ave
(#/ft) 0.10 0.48 0.53 0.73 1.00 0.97 0.80 0.56 0.56 0.47 0.74 1.13 0.70 3,711 Station Ave
(#/mile) 546 2,508 2,808 3,830 5,269 5,114 4,242 2,947 2,980 2,474 3,929 5,979

0.67 3,552
1 Surveys completed in October and results based on repetitive 3-pass removal method using an electrofisher. 2 RM; indicates miles from rivermouth
3 ND indicates stream w as dry at sampling station or that site w as not sampled that year. Blanks = site not added yet. 2009 - huge storm mid-Oct and river got too high to sample. 2013 - much of river dry. SCR under construction. u/beverly/excel/popsurvey/stat linial density1990_1 updated 021419 Lineal Population Density at Survey Stations (numbers per foot of stream) 2, 3 Carmel River Juvenile Steelhead Annual Population Survey 1 Overall Station Averages:

Overall Annual
Average
site
removed
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 449, Packet Page 549 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVII-1
XVII. RIPARIAN HABITAT MITIGATION MEASURES
The Findings of Adoption of the 1990 Water Allocation Program Final EIR identified four mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the Carmel River riparian corridor, which includes wildlife that is dependent on streamside habitat (Finding Nos. 389-A through D, and 391). The measures are: (a) conservation and water-distribution management to retain water in the river; (b) prepare and oversee a Riparian Corridor Management Plan; (c) implement the Riparian Corridor Management Program; and (d) expand the existing monitoring program for soil moisture and vegetative stress.

Since 2007, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD or District) has been the lead agency in developing and implementing the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWM Plan) for the Monterey Peninsula region. In 2017, the District reached out for assistance with this effort to the Regional Water Management Group. The Big Sur Land Trust agreed to take the lead in updating the IRWM Plan to 2016 standards and will also facilitate a project solicitation.

MPWMD continued to maintain the IRWM web site and also facilitated a grant agreement with the Department of Water Resources for Prop 1 funds for Disadvantaged Communities The IRWM region consists of coastal watershed areas in Carmel Bay and south Monterey Bay between Pt. Lobos on the south and the Fort Ord Dunes State Park on the north – a 38.3-mile stretch of the Pacific coast. The area encompasses the six Monterey Peninsula cities of Carmelby-the Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, Seaside, and extends into portions of the unincorporated area of Monterey County in the Carmel Highlands, Pebble Beach and the inland areas of Carmel Valley and the Laguna Seca area.

A funds sharing agreement for the Central Coast funding area consisting of coastal watersheds from Santa Cruz County to Santa Barbara County was executed in 2016 that will allow the Monterey Peninsula region to plan for receiving $4.6 million in IRWM grant funding over the next several years. Additional information is contained at the end of this chapter.

A. Conservation and Water Distribution Management to Retain Water in the Carmel River
The purpose of this measure is to reduce pumping impacts on riparian vegetation, particularly in the region of Aquifer Subunit 2 (Scarlett Narrows to Carmel Valley Village). Activities to further this goal during 2017-2018 are summarized above in Section II (Hydrologic Monitoring), Section V (Annual Low Flow MOA), Section VI (Quarterly Budget), and Section VIII (Water Efficiency and Conservation).

B. Oversee Riparian Corridor Management Program
Riparian habitat mitigation measures proposed in the Water Allocation Program Final EIR have formed the basis for riparian corridor management activities undertaken since the Board of Directors certified the EIR in November 1990. The Riparian Corridor Management Program (RCMP) integrates the District's many riparian mitigation and management activities into one Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 450, Packet Page 550 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVII-2
program. Components of the RCMP include the Carmel River Erosion Protection and Restoration Program; continued irrigation around Cal-Am production wells in the lower Carmel Valley and around existing District restoration projects; in-channel vegetation management; public education; enforcement of District rules and regulations; and monitoring of wildlife, vegetation and soil.

C. Implement Riparian Corridor Management Program
The goal of the Riparian Corridor Management Program is the rehabilitation, restoration, enhancement and preservation of the streamside corridor along the Carmel River. As described below, several major sub-programs are carried out to achieve this goal.

Implementation and Activities During 2017-2018
During FY 2017-2018, MPWMD accomplished the following:
 continued revegetation efforts at exposed banks with little or no vegetation located in Aquifer Subunits 2 and 3 (Via Mallorca Rd. to Esquiline Rd.);  operated under a Routine Maintenance Agreement with California Department of Fish and Wildlife and a Regional General Permit with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for maintenance activities associated with vegetation encroachment and restoration projects;  made public presentations showing MPWMD-sponsored restoration work since 1984 and presented recent documentation of Carmel River State Beach, lagoon, and Scenic Road concerns;
 diversified restoration projects and experimented with planting techniques that allow trees to mature more quickly and depend less on irrigation;
 continued long-term monitoring of physical and biological processes along the river in order to evaluate the District’s river management activities;  continued the annual inspections of the Carmel River from the upstream end of the lagoon at River Mile (RM) 0.5 to Camp Steffani at RM 15.5 (staff members responsible for vegetation management and erosion prevention annually walk the entire river to observe and record erosion damage, conditions that could cause erosion [e.g., in-channel vegetation or debris], riparian ordinance infractions, presence of deleterious material, and the overall condition of the riparian corridor);
 carried out vegetation management activities at thirteen sites (Highway One Bridge, Rancho Canada Golf Course, Via Mallorca Bridge, Rancho San Carlos Bridge, Valley Greens Bridge, Schulte Bridge, Robinson Canyon Bridge, Randazzo’s Bridge, Garland Park, West Garzas, Boronda Bridge, Trail and Saddle, DeDampierre, Esquiline Bridge, and Ward Bridge);
The following sections describe MPWMD’s work in more detail. ● Carmel River Erosion Protection and Restoration
Lower San Carlos Restoration Project: The two-mile reach between the lower end of the Rancho Cañada golf course and Rancho San Carlos Road Bridge has historically been unstable and has Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 451, Packet Page 551 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVII-3
eroded at various locations during high flows in 1969, 1978-1983, 1995, 1998, 2006, 2007, 2011, and 2017. Floodplain development and frequent seasonal Carmel River dewatering are the primary causes of this periodic instability, with continued channel degradation also a factor.

During the spring of 2011, additional erosion of the north streambank occurred immediately downstream of the Rancho San Carlos Road Bridge. MPWMD have subsequently inspected the site annually. High flows in January and February 2017 removed up 50 feet of the left streambank and resulted in the loss of several large cottonwoods and a portion of Santa Barbara sedge, which is used by Native Americans for making basketry. The District retained Balance Hydrologics, Inc. to develop a restoration plan. Construction of a cribwall for approximately 160 lineal feet was carried out on the left bank and some root wads combined with boulders for the right bank took place in the summer of 2018.

Riparian Ordinance Enforcement Action: MPWMD continues to work with private property owners on how to protect the riparian corridor. Typical actions included helping property owners plant native streamside vegetation on their property to prevent erosion.

Monitoring San Clemente Dam Removal and Carmel River Reroute: MPWMD engaged in efforts with state, local, and federal scientists interested in pre- and post-construction monitoring of the Carmel River. This included providing funding to the School of Natural Sciences at California State University Monterey Bay to carry out topographic, sediment, and large wood survey work. ● Vegetation Restoration -- Various techniques for vegetation installation were employed at District restoration projects in FY 2017-2018. Planting techniques involved either rooted seedlings or cuttings sustained by irrigation, or deeper plantings set to tap summer groundwater without supplemental water applications. The District continued to diversify streambanks by planting with willows, black cottonwoods, and sycamores.

The primary objectives of the District’s restoration planting effort are to stabilize eroded stream banks with native vegetation and to enhance habitat values near the stream, on adjacent floodplains, and terrace areas. One of the goals of the habitat enhancement program is to diversify restoration plantings by identifying microhabitat areas and revegetating them with species typical of those riparian habitat sites. District staff provided riparian plants to several private property owners. Rooted seedlings are obtained from cuttings and seeds collected from along the Carmel River and propagated by a local nursery.
● Irrigation Program -- Established riparian vegetation has proven to be an effective deterrent to stream erosion; the mat-like roots of most riparian species bind together loose channel banks and foliage tends to slow the velocity of high river flows. The District selectively irrigates mature streamside vegetation and newly established restoration plantings in order to maintain a healthy, vigorous riparian corridor both for erosion protection and habitat enhancement.

Table XVII-1 and Figure XVII-1 shows water use at various restoration and riparian mitigation sites for calendar year 2018. A total of 11.91 acre-feet (AF) of water were applied in 2018. In calendar year 2017, 8.21 AF were used to irrigate riparian vegetation. The irrigation season Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 452, Packet Page 552 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVII-4
typically begins in April and continues through the end of November. ● Vegetation Management -- Since Fall 1990, the District has carried out annual vegetation management projects along portions of the Carmel River to reduce potential obstructions to river flow and to reduce the potential for bank erosion. In the past, the District has removed downed trees and vegetation that could deflect high water onto adjacent stream banks, thereby inducing erosion and degrading streamside habitat.

Carmel River Inspection - Annually, staff assesses the lower 15.5 miles from the lagoon to Camp Stephani in order to determine if and where clearing should occur. At sites where debris and/or live vegetation is judged to be a potential hazard, staff balances the goals of conserving aquatic and streamside habitat with reducing the potential for erosion of private and public property and infrastructure. Only woody plant material representing a bank erosion threat is treated by notching or partially cutting through the trunk and large limbs.

During the fall of 2017, fourteen areas with vegetation encroachment, debris piles, and downed trees in the channel bottom were selected for vegetation management:

1. Highway One Bridge Area (encroaching vegetation area approximately 500 ft2): at River Mile (RM) 1 upstream and downstream of Highway One Bridge willows encroaching into the active channel were trimmed back.

2. Via Mallorca Bridge Area (encroaching vegetation area approximately 200 ft2): at RM 3.2 upstream and downstream of Via Mallorca Bridge willows encroaching into the active channel were trimmed back.

3. Rancho San Carlos Bridge Area (encroaching vegetation area approximately 200 ft2): at RM 3.9 upstream and downstream of Rancho San Carlos Bridge willows encroaching into the active channel were trimmed back.

4. Valley Greens Bridge Area (downed trees and encroaching vegetation area approximately 200 ft2): at RM 4.8 upstream and downstream of Valley Greens Bridge willows encroaching into the active channel were trimmed back and downed trees were cut into several sections.

5. Schulte Bridge Area (downed trees, debris piles, and encroaching vegetation area approximately 100 ft2): at RM 6.7 upstream and downstream of Schulte Bridge debris piles have been forced up against vegetation. These debris piles were broken up with hand tools and removed from live vegetation. Some trees were trimmed to allow debris to pass through the constriction. In addition, downed trees in the area had their crown branches removed with the trunks being cut in several places and left in place for large wood habitat.

6. Robinson Canyon Bridge Area (downed trees and encroaching vegetation area approximately 100 ft2): at RM 8.5 downstream of Robinson Canyon Bridge willows encroaching into the active channel were trimmed back with downed trees being cut into sections.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 453, Packet Page 553 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVII-5

7. Randazzo’s Bridge Area (downed trees and encroaching vegetation area approximately 100 ft2): at a private bridge known as Randazzo’s Bridge at RM 10.1 tree branches encroaching into the active channel were trimmed back and several downed trees were cut into smaller sections.

8. Garland Park Area (debris pile and downed trees): at RM 11.0 a debris pile was broken up and a tree lodged on Don Juan Bridge was cut into sections.

9. West Garzas Road Area (downed trees and encroaching vegetation area approximately 200 ft2): at RM 12.1 willows encroaching into the active channel were trimmed back and a downed tree was cut into sections.

10. Boronda Bridge Area (downed tree and encroaching vegetation area approximately 200 ft2): at RM 12.6 upstream of Boronda Road Bridge downed trees had their trunks cut into sections while the crown was removed and chipped off-site. Some willows were trimmed.

11. Trail and Saddle Club Area (downed tree, debris piles and encroaching vegetation area approximately 200 ft2): at RM 13.7 willows encroaching into the active channel were trimmed back and some debris piles were broken apart. In addition, a large downed western sycamore had its trunk cut in serval places and was left in place for large wood habitat.

12. DeDampierre Area (downed trees, debris piles, and encroaching vegetation area approximately 200 ft2): at RM 13.7 twenty one willows growing in the active channel were cut down. Even though these willows will sprout back, because they were cut at their base, the District has mitigated for these particular trees by planting 12 black cottonwoods and 27 red willows downstream of the work area per specifications in the Revegetation Plan (September 20, 2017).

The District will provide an Annual Mitigation Report on the plantings by May 1st of each year.

In addition, several downed trees in the active channel were reduced in size to allow debris and high flows to pass.

13. Esquiline Bridge Area (downed trees and encroaching vegetation area approximately 200 ft2): upstream and downstream of Esquiline Bridge at RM 14.5 downed trees were cut into sections so debris can pass during high flows.

14. Ward Bridge Area (downed trees and encroaching vegetation area approximately 200 ft2): upstream and downstream of Ward’s private bridge at RM 15.0; several large downed trees were hung up in a section with a split channel. These trunks were cut in several places to allow debris to pass.

In general, a width of up to 30 feet of open channel is desired. A total of approximately 2,600 square feet of stream cover encompassing approximately 0.06 acres in the channel bottom may have been affected by the vegetation removal. In addition, a total of approximately five debris piles were altered by the management actions.

In addition to erosion hazard reduction, vegetation management objectives include removing trash Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 454, Packet Page 554 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVII-6
and inorganic debris from the river channel. During FY 2017-2018, trash such as plastic, paper, cans, bottles and car parts were removed from the channel and disposed by the District.

In general, the health of the riparian corridor along the lower 15.5 miles of the river appeared to be good with continued development of naturally recruited species, such as black cottonwoods, willows, and sycamores, on some of the engineered floodplains as well as natural gravel bars.

While most of the stream channel remained clear of major obstructions, District staff documented increases in vegetation encroachment into the channel bottom that will likely require continued monitoring and may require vegetation management activities in the future. District staff believes that continued selective removal of encroaching vegetation will be necessary during the summer of 2019. Without such a program, it is possible that unauthorized vegetation removal by property owners along the river may increase and lead to a decline in the health and stability of the riparian corridor.
● Public Information and Partnerships
MPWMD continued its outreach program with presentations to senior environmental science classes from Carmel High School, and graduate students at California State University Monterey Bay and the Water Committee for the Carmel Valley Association. In addition, staff lead lectures for the Pacific Grove Naturalist Program and gave a presentation at the 9th National Summit on Coastal and Estuarine Restoration and Management. Topics included information on the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System, proposed water supply projects within the region, MPWMD’s Environmental Protection Program, the Carmel River steelhead life cycle, specific issues related to the Carmel River watershed.

D. Expand Monitoring Programs for Soil Moisture and Vegetative Stress This mitigation measure involves implementing a groundwater and vegetation monitoring program to better assess plant water stress and related irrigation needs in the riparian zone. Data from soilmoisture and plant water-stress tests facilitate the identification and location of impacts resulting from the prolonged depression or rapid drawdown of the water table. Soil and plant monitoring also documents the beneficial results of riparian mitigations, and provides a statistical foundation for determining trends in conditions over time.

In calendar year 2018, staff collected bi-monthly canopy ratings of individual trees at four study sites in mid and lower Carmel Valley (Rancho Cañada, San Carlos, Schulte Restoration Project, and the Valley Hills Restoration Project). Canopy ratings are used to determine the amount of defoliation that is occurring in riparian trees due to moisture stress associated with a falling water table. Figure XVII-2 shows average canopy ratings for both willows and cottonwoods. Results showed that willows and cottonwoods started showing signs of moisture stress in the fall. It should be noted that many trees are irrigated in the vicinity of large production wells to offset impacts associated with water extraction. Monitoring results help District staff determine irrigation requirements for portions of the riparian corridor that are under the influence of groundwater extraction. Photo documentation and measurements of foliage volume occurs in other areas as well, depending on river flow conditions and depth to groundwater.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 455, Packet Page 555 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVII-7
In addition to vegetation and groundwater monitoring, avian (bird) species diversity monitoring has been carried out annually from 1992 to the summer of 2010 and then on a periodic basis starting in 2015. Data collected by Dr. David Mullen and the BSOL since 1992 compares habitat values at permanent monitoring stations and provides an indication of changing patterns of avian use in District restoration projects. The information collected on avian species diversity has helped document the response of populations to habitat enhancements implemented by the District. Since 1992, the avian monitoring work has shown healthy avian species diversity along river reaches where the District has implemented restoration projects, while diversity-index readings in control sites with established riparian vegetation seem to fluctuate depending on the presence of flow in the river channel, the quality of the habitat, and off site conditions during migration. The most recent avian point counts were conduction in 2018.

OBSERVED TRENDS, CONCLUSIONS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS:

With the exception of the Rancho Cañada to Rancho San Carlos Road Bridge reach, the Carmel River streamside corridor has stabilized in nearly all reaches that were affected by a combination of increased groundwater extraction, extreme drought and flood events that occurred during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Prior to the 2016-17 winter high flows, a complex channel had developed in the lower 16 miles of the river with improved steelhead spawning substrate, diverse habitat, and a richer riparian community. Areas with perennial or near perennial flow (upstream of Schulte Bridge) or a high groundwater table, such as downstream of Highway 1, experienced vigorous natural recruitment in the channel bottom, which has helped to stabilize streambanks and diversify aquatic habitat. Areas that continue to be dewatered annually have less significant growth.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 456, Packet Page 556 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVII-8
The recovery of streamside areas subjected to annual dewatering requires monitoring. Plant stress in the late summer and fall is evident in portions of the river that go dry. In these areas, streambanks can exhibit unstable characteristics during high flows, such as sudden bank collapse, because of the lack of healthy vegetation that would ordinarily provide stability. The drought that began with Water Year 2013 (beginning October 2012) and ended in Water Year 2016 is an ongoing concern because of the past history of channel erosion and bank instability after severe droughts in 1976-77 and 1987-1991. Impacts to streamside vegetation can manifest themselves for several years even after the end of a drought.

As cited in previous reports, the most significant trends continue to include the following:
 increased encroachment of vegetation into the active channel bottom that can induce debris blockage, bank erosion and increased risks during floods,  effects to areas with groundwater extraction downstream of Schulte Road,  channel changes and erosion due to new supply of sediment from upstream associated with high flows, San Clemente Dam removal, and the Soberanes Fire in Water Year 2017,  healthy avian species diversity, and
 maturing of previous restoration projects.

Consistent with previous reports, it is likely that the following trends will continue:
 Local, State and Federal agencies consider the Carmel River watershed to be a high priority area for restoration, as evidenced by the interest in addressing water supply issues, the Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 457, Packet Page 557 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVII-9
removal of San Clemente Dam, proposed projects in the lower Carmel River, and continued oversight with the management of threatened species. Stringent avoidance and mitigation requirements will continue to be placed on activities that could have negative impacts on sensitive aquatic species or their habitats.
 Activities that interrupt or curtail natural stream functions, such as lining streambanks with riprap, have come under increasing scrutiny and now require significant mitigation offsets.

In the spring of 2011, the river migrated into the north streambank downstream of the Rancho San Carlos Road Bridge (see Figure XVII-3). In the winter of 2017, during a series of high flows, erosion started taking place on the south side of the river. This reach became unstable and the District began construction on a restoration project that stabilized the streambanks in the summer of 2018. It is likely that additional erosion would occur if these streambanks were left alone.

Eventually, without corrective measures to balance the sediment load with the flow of water or to mitigate for the effect of the downcutting, streambanks will begin to collapse and the integrity of bridges and other infrastructure in the active channel of the river may be threatened.

Vegetation Restoration and Irrigation
To the maximum extent possible, MPWMD-sponsored river restoration projects incorporate a functional floodplain that is intended to be inundated in relatively frequent storm events (those expected every 1-2 years). For example, low benches at the Red Rock and All Saints Projects have served as natural recruitment areas and are currently being colonized by black cottonwoods, sycamores and willows. In addition, willow and cottonwood pole plantings in these areas were installed with a backhoe, which allows them to tap into the water table. These techniques have been successful and have reduced the need for supplemental irrigation.

Channel Vegetation Management
Another notable trend relating to the District’s vegetation management program was the widening of the channel after floods in 1995 and 1998. With relatively normal years following these floods, the channel has narrowed as vegetation recruits on the channel bottom and gravel bars. Current Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 458, Packet Page 558 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVII-10
Federal regulations such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) “Section 4(d)” rules promulgated by NOAA Fisheries to protect steelhead significantly restrict vegetation management activities.

Strategies for the future
A comprehensive long-term solution to overall environmental degradation requires a significant increase in dry-season water flows in the lower river, a reversal of the incision process, and reestablishment of a natural meander pattern. Of these, MPWMD has made progress on increasing summer low flows and groundwater levels by aggressively pursuing a water conservation program, Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 459, Packet Page 559 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVII-11
implementing the first and second phases of the Seaside Groundwater Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project, and recommending an increase in summer releases from Los Padres Reservoir.

Funding from the IRWM grant program and other programs requiring an adopted IRWM Plan could provide the incentive to undertake a set of projects that would continue to improve the Carmel River environment and engage a larger number of organizations in helping to develop and implement a comprehensive solution to water resource problems in the planning region. The Monterey Peninsula region is expecting to take advantage of about $4.3 million from Prop 1 IRWM funds over the next several years. In 2018, $252,693 was awarded to the region as a part of the Disadvantaged Community Involvement grant. A grant solicitation package for the first round of implementation projects is expected to be issued in the first half of 2019, and the Monterey Peninsula region will be applying for approximately $2 million in grant funds.

More information about the IRWM Plan and the group of stakeholders in the planning region can be found at the following web site:
http://www.mpirwm.org
U:\Thomas\wp\mitrep\Sec_ xvii_riparian_20190306tcdraft.docx Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 460, Packet Page 560 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVII-12
Table XVII-1
Monthly Irrigation Water Use During 2018
(Values in Acre-Feet)
Project Site Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Total DeDampierre 0.000 0.130 0.222 0.212 0.121 0.073 0.112 0.051 0.921 Trail and Saddle 0.230 0.255 0.112 0.716 0.764 0.790 0.468 0.450 0.590 0.273 0.207 4.855 Begonia 0.062 0.124 0.085 0.354 0.269 0.308 0.360 0.271 0.161 0.017 2.011 Reimers 0.137 0.346 0.414 0.434 0.432 0.189 0.103 0.189 2.244 Valley Hills 0.049 0.099 0.488 0.636 0.537 1.809
Schulte Bridge 0.013 0.002 0.001 0.013 0.004 0.025 0.005 0.004 0.067 TOTAL WATER USE IN ACRE-FEET FOR DISTRICT RESTORATION PROJECTS IN 2018 = 11.908 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 461, Packet Page 561 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVII-13
Figure XVII-1
Riparian Irrigation Totals

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 Acre-Feet
Project Sites
2018 Irrigation Totals
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 462, Packet Page 562 XVII-14
Figure XVII-2
2018 Average Canopy Rating for Cottonwoods and Willows

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5 Canopy Rating
Date
Carmel River Riparian Vegetation:

Average Canopy Rating for Cottonwoods and Willows
Cottonwoods
Willows
Stress Level
1= Green, obviously vigorous none, no irrigation required 2= Some visible yellowing low, occasional irrigation required 3= Leaves mostly yellowing moderate, regular irrigation required 4= < 10% Defoliated moderate, regular irrigation required 5= Defoliated 10% to 30% moderate, regular irrigation required 6= Defoliated 30% to 50% moderate to high, additional measures required 7= Defoliated 50% to 70% high stress, risk of mortality or canopy dieback 8= Defoliated 70% to 90% high stress, risk of mortality or canopy dieback 9= > 90% Defoliated high stress, risk of mortality or canopy dieback 10= Dead consider replanting
Canopy Rating Scale
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 463, Packet Page 563 XVII-15
Figure XVII-3
Streambank Erosion at Rancho San Carlos Road Bridge, Carmel River Left Bank Looking Downstream before Bank Stabilization (Spring 2017) Left Bank Looking Downstream after Bank Stabilization (Fall 2018) Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 464, Packet Page 564 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVIII-1
XVIII. LAGOON HABITAT MITIGATION MEASURES
The Findings for Adoption of the Water Allocation Program Final EIR identified three mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the Carmel River Lagoon, including wildlife that is dependent on it (Finding Nos. 390-A through C, and 392). They include: (a) assist with lagoon enhancement plan investigations, (b) expand long-term monitoring program, and (c) identify feasible alternatives to maintain adequate lagoon volume. This section briefly describes the purpose of these three programs and summarizes the mitigation activities from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018, referred to as the Reporting Year (RY).

A. Assist with Lagoon Enhancement Plan Investigations
Description and Purpose
The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD or District), Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR), and the California Coastal Conservancy (Conservancy) co-funded the Carmel River Lagoon Enhancement Plan, which was prepared by Philip Williams & Associates. A key aspect of the Lagoon Enhancement Plan was to identify alternative means to restore and enhance the lagoon environment. District staff participated on a plan review committee, which met on an as-needed basis, and contributed staff expertise for enhancement plan investigations. District staff reviewed and provided comments on the Draft Lagoon Enhancement Plan document. These comments, as well as comments from other reviewing agencies, were incorporated into the Final Plan dated December 1992.

Implementation and Activities during 2017-2018
During this period, the CDPR continued their native riparian plant re-vegetation efforts at a reduced level within the 100-acre portion of the “Odello West” property that is now part of the Carmel River State Beach. The re-vegetation work is ongoing, though the formal monitoring program and its reporting ended after five years in 2009.

District staff monitored receiving water quality and continued to provide expertise to representatives from numerous state, federal and local agencies, as well as members of the public.

The lagoon water-quality data for both surface and subsurface profiles are presented in Section III.

During many months in the summer and fall, there is usually no natural surface flow to the lagoon, and the lagoon has historically experienced poor water quality and low water levels that could contribute to poor growth or fish mortality. However, there was year round flow in this RY.

For the third RY in a row, no water was pumped from either the CDPR “Cal-Trans” well or the CDPR “Highway 1” well. No water was applied to CDPR riparian restoration areas adjacent to the south arm of the lagoon during this period or the previous two RYs. No water was added into the South arm of the Lagoon during the last three RYs.

During April of RY 2014-2015, the District began to report and graph lagoon levels in both NGVD 1929 and the newer sea level topographic datum, NAVD 1988, that was adopted by the USGS in Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 465, Packet Page 565 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVIII-2
1991. Most government agencies are shifting to the use of this newer datum. Lagoon elevation summaries starting last RY will be given in NAVD 1988. The difference between these older and newer sea level datums at this location along the California coast is +2.74 feet.

District staff did not provide any ongoing support to the Carmel River Lagoon Technical Advisory Committee (CRL-TAC) in this RY, regarding Monterey County Resource Management Agency (MC-RMA), Public Works (RMA-PW) management of the sandbar that forms each year between the lagoon and the ocean. The CRL-TAC remains operational in concept, but no further meetings were held during the last seven RYs. Lagoon water levels can fall to less than five feet elevation (NAVD 1988, measured in the south arm) when the beach breaches in the middle. NMFS and CDFW have indicated that an elevation from four to ten feet at NGVD 1929 (equivalent to approximately seven to thirteen feet at NAVD 1988), depending on the time of year and life cycle needs of steelhead, would be an optimal management target to benefit steelhead rearing.

The lagoon was last connected to the ocean on a continuous basis last RY on July 14, 2017, when the lagoon closed on its own. Lagoon elevations remained above the minimum target of 6.74 feet throughout the summer, fall and winter of 2017, until it was breached on January 10, 2018. Wave over-wash events raised lagoon levels very slightly multiple times between September 6, 2017, and October 8, 2017, by less than half a foot each time, followed by an approximately 1.75 foot increase on October 20, 2017. Lagoon elevation climbed from 10.5 to over 12 feet in November, then stayed relatively level in December 2017 and on into early January 2018, until it was breached. A very small initial winter storm on January 8-10, 2018 raised lagoon elevations to 13 feet late on January 8, 2018. RMA-PW took action to manage the lagoon on January 8, 2018 by sculpting an approximately 12,000 square foot outlet channel at 12.75 foot elevation, with a sand plug in the channel at ~13.25 foot elevation. The lagoon began to drain through the outlet channel early on the morning of January 9
th, and then flows cut down the outlet channel to ~5.25 foot elevation by the end of the day on January 10, 2018. The lagoon closed on January 12 at ~ 8.75 foot of elevation and continued to rise to ~13.5 feet on January 21, 2019. A second smaller outlet channel of ~4,000 square feet was constructed on January 20, 2019 at an elevation of 12.75 feet, with a sand plug of ~13.55 feet, and the lagoon breached through that channel on January 21, 2019.

The lagoon then entered its normal winter pattern of tidally driven cycles of openings and closures, except in February, where it mostly remained closed due to low flows and little rain. During the remainder of RY 2017-2018 until final unaided closure on May 29, 2018, lagoon water elevations varied from approximately 3.0 to as high as approximately 11.5 feet, but usually peaked under 10 feet. The lagoon was open to the sea over 75% of the time on 83 days of the 110-day period, from January 9, through May 29, 2018. Note that the lagoon remained closed at the end of this RY.

The lagoon was closed on 77% of the days in this RY, due to the short and mild winter, followed by an early spring recession that resulted in a Below Normal Water Year Type. While flow past the Highway 1 Gage to the lagoon occurred at greater than 4.0 CFS all through the fall of 2017, it ceased in the following RY on August 16, 2018. The first minimal rains of the year finally opened the lagoon on January 9, 2018 at flows of only 38 cfs at Highway 1 Gage. The rest of January and February were very dry with flows ranging predominantly from 14 – 20 cfs. The first moderate winter storms of the RY occurred in March with three peaks of 307, 169, and 1180 cfs on March 2, 17, and 22, 2018. Flows declined through the next significant storm on April 7, 2018, when they were boosted slightly by a two-day storm on the April 7-8, 2018. River flows steadily Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 466, Packet Page 566 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVIII-3
declined from there to 2.7 cfs at the end of the RY on June 30, 2018. Thus even though flows during this current RY occurred for a total of 365 consecutive days (100% of the time) past Highway 1 and into the lagoon, 75% of the time they were less than 21 CFS, which is estimated as approximately the critical flow required to keep the lagoon open.

The District continues to seek another participating agency to take over leadership of the CRLTAC and chair the meetings, but the District will continue to provide the same level of staff support. The CRL-TAC meets as needed concerning management of the Carmel River lagoon and beach. As described above, the CRL-TAC did not meet during the last seven RYs. The District is no longer actively pursuing funding to implement Final Study Plan for the Long-Term Adaptive Management of the Carmel River State Beach and Lagoon (April 17, 2007), as no applicable source of funding was secured during the prior three RYs. The District is instead supporting analysis, permitting, and development of the Ecosystem Protective Barrier Project being advocated by the Carmel River Watershed Conservancy (CRWC) and pursued with grant funding acquired by the CRWC and provided to MC-RMA.

During the 2008-2009 RY, CDPR finalized its Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Carmel River Lagoon Water Elevation Adaptive Management, and acquired separate State and Federal permits for the closure of the lagoon in the spring to maximize habitat volume. However, due to State budgetary constraints, CDPR is no longer able to implement the permitted actions, and has not for the last eight RYs. CDPR continues to recommend that another agency with appropriate jurisdiction and funding take over the lagoon closure process, and the MC-RMA/RMA-PW have in effect informally done so in some years since 2011.

The MC-RMA is the parent county agency for RMA-PW. MC-RMA is now pursuing separate long-term State and Federal permit applications for lagoon breaching by RMA-PW. This is the seventh RY where MC-RMA and RMA-PW had most or all of the permits necessary for all their actions.

B. Expand Long-Term Monitoring Program
Description and Purpose
Long-term monitoring of the lagoon and its associated plant communities provides data that can be used to evaluate the wetlands’ response to groundwater pumping. The purpose of the monitoring is to: (1) determine if changes in hydrology or plant species distribution and coverage are occurring due to the removal of groundwater upstream, and (2) implement additional mitigations if pumping-induced changes to hydrologic characteristics or vegetation are identified.

The Mitigation Program calls for extensive studies such as vegetation mapping and soil surveys to occur every five years. In practice, lagoon vegetation has been monitored annually from 1995 through 2005, and nearly every other year thereafter, except 2011 and 2016 when lagoon water levels were too high in summer to do so. This monitoring resumed in 2017. Saturation-paste conductivity of soils in the vicinity of the vegetation-monitoring stations was measured annually from 1995 through 2004. Wildlife surveys have not been conducted since 2015. Bathymetric surveys continue to be conducted each year.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 467, Packet Page 567 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVIII-4
Implementation and Activities during 2017-2018
The District has historically conducted three types of long-term lagoon monitoring activities, only two of which were completed this RY:
 Vegetation Surveys [last completed in 2017]
 Topographic Surveys and hydrology
 Wildlife Surveys [last completed in 2015]
● Vegetation Monitoring – The same monitoring stations that were established in 1995 were sampled annually between 1995 and 2005, and then every other year until 2009, as the Allocation EIR only called for this monitoring to occur every two years. In July and August of 2011 the water level in the lagoon were too high to monitor the stations, except for very brief intermittent periods early in July. Therefore, vegetation monitoring did not occur in 2010 or 2011, but resumed in July 2012 and August 2014. In July and August of 2016, water levels were again too high to monitor the stations early in July, and the air quality was so bad the days that the monitoring was scheduled to occur due to the Sobranes wildfire in the Santa Lucia Mountains that staff made a decision to postpone the event till 2017. Vegetation and soil monitoring resumed in July 2017, and was covered in last RY 2016-2017 report, so will not be reiterated here. Any new data will be discussed in the future report for RY 2018-2019.

The report, Biologic Assessment of the Carmel River Lagoon Wetlands, prepared for the District by the Habitat Restoration Group in 1995, provides a detailed description of the methodology employed. Ten pairs of quadrats were intentionally located along transects at lower elevations of the wetlands because it is anticipated that changes in the vegetative community would first become apparent in these habitat types. The north side was emphasized because of disturbances on the south side associated with the creation of the Cal-Trans Carmel River Mitigation Bank and subsequent restoration of the former Odello artichoke field.

A more detailed discussion of the results of past vegetation monitoring is presented in the 2005 Mitigation Program Report. Data gathered thus far suggest that factors favoring freshwater species over salt tolerant species may be occurring. Determining whether changes are attributable to water management practices upstream as opposed to the timing of monitoring, beach breaching, variation in hydrologic regimes or global weather dynamics are more complex questions. Review of the available data has not identified significant changes from one monitoring event to the next. Nor have strong relationships between species composition or distribution and water management practices been identified. Staff anticipates continued monitoring of the wetlands every other year in the future to provide evaluation of long-term trends. ● Topographic Surveys and Hydrologic Monitoring -- During the period covered in this report, District staff surveyed four cross sections to track the movement of sediment in the lagoon, continued to maintain a water-level recorder and support an Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time (ALERT) station at the south arm, and measured groundwater elevations in three wetland piezometers that were installed in May 1996. There is a good correlation between surface-water elevation and water elevation in the piezometers. Staff also continues to track surface discharge Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 468, Packet Page 568 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVIII-5
into the lagoon at the Highway 1 gaging station, and water production upstream of the lagoon. ● Wildlife Monitoring – Birds are often used as indicators of the suitability of an area for wildlife because they tend to be easier to identify and count than other creatures. By tracking the species diversity index at a specific location over time, scientists are able to infer if changes have occurred that may affect the area’s dependent wildlife. In the past, District staff contracted with the Ventana Wilderness Society and Big Sur Ornithology Lab (BSOL) to conduct avian point count surveys in the riparian corridor of the Carmel River at sites from Carmel Valley Village to a point just upstream of the lagoon. The District carried out this program from 1992 through 2010 on a regular basis. However, due to budget constraints, the avian point counts are carried out less frequently, with the last two occurring in 2015 and 2018.

Avian monitoring specific to the lagoon was last carried out by the District at sites near the lagoon at the mouth of the Carmel River in the summer of 2004. Sampling in the vicinity of the lagoon was subsequently carried out by the CDPR from 2005-2008, when monitoring ceased due to ongoing budget constraints.

Special Studies During 2017-2018
● Steelhead Population Monitoring
MPWMD applied for and acquired ESA Section 7 coverage starting in 2009 to conduct a markrecapture study as part of its semi-annual renewal of staff Scientific Collecting Permits from CDFW. These have been replaced by the agency’s triennial “entity” permit good through 2020.

No winter or spring/summer 2017-2018 population censuses were conducted this RY due to high lagoon levels after lagoon closure and throughout the RY, until the lagoon was breached, making it ineffective to seine the lagoon. High lagoon levels and thick shoreline vegetation, all of which are very beneficial to fish and wildlife, are making it difficult to sample the lagoon for steelhead in may RYs.

C. Identify Feasible Alternatives to Maintain Adequate Lagoon Volume Description and Purpose
The purpose of this mitigation measure is to determine the volume required to keep the lagoon in a stable condition that can adequately support plants and wildlife. It is envisioned that alternative means to achieve and maintain the desired volume will be compared, and the most cost-effective means selected. One alternative that may achieve these goals is the development of a water supply project that can reliably provide more water to the Monterey Peninsula and result in reduced diversions from the Carmel River; however, few other feasible alternatives have materialized in spite of extensive evaluation. MPWMD staff previously estimated that approximately 8 cfs, or about 16 acre feet per day (AFD), can percolate through the barrier beach when the outlet is closed and lagoon water levels are stable at relatively high elevations (8 – 9 feet). This seepage rate was determined utilizing continuous streamflow data from the Carmel River at Highway 1 Bridge gaging station and the 1997 lagoon stage volume relationship over the 1991-2005 period.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 469, Packet Page 569 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVIII-6
However, in May and June 2009, following the manual lagoon mouth closure on May 18, 2009, streamflow and lagoon storage data showed that 12 cfs or 24 AFD percolated through the beach berm and into the surrounding wetlands (based on an updated 2007 lagoon storage table). It is postulated that increased infiltration capacity of the lagoon may be due to a combination of the excavation of an outlet channel to the south, the two South Arm excavations in 2004 and 2007, and that the manual lagoon mouth closure results in a higher water surface elevation than was typical of the 1991-2005 period. A higher water surface elevation likely results in flow through the outlet channel that then percolates into the beach. This volume of water passing through the beach is significant, and is equivalent to about two-thirds of the daily Carmel River diversions historically needed to meet a portion of the municipal demand of the Monterey Peninsula during the summer. No treated water from the CAWD was added to the lagoon in this RY. There were concerns about the effects the recycled CAWD water might have on water quality in the lagoon, which might affect both juvenile steelhead and red-legged frog habitat values, so the action ceased until impact evaluations could be completed. Those studies have been suspended indefinitely (see Section XVIII-A above). No water from an existing agricultural well was added to the lagoon in this RY. Determination of desirable lagoon volume will be conducted in conjunction with the monitoring studies noted above and the findings of the Lagoon Enhancement Plan. Development of feasible alternative means to provide adequate volume to sustain healthy lagoon habitat throughout the dry season continues to be sought by the District.

Implementation and Activities During 2017-2018
District staff continued the annual survey of four key lagoon cross sections (Figure XVIII-1) to track changes in the volume of sand in the active portion of the lagoon over time. An initial survey of the four cross sections was conducted in January 1988. Subsequent annual surveys have been conducted beginning in September 1994 through the present. Sedimentation in the lagoon is a concern because the Carmel River as a whole has taken on an increased load of sand from Tularcitos Creek and other drainages following the El Niño winter of 1998. Additional sedimentation concerns include the combined effects of the 2015 San Clemente Dam (SCD) removal, 2016 Soberanes Fire, and the extremely wet WY 2017 that moved significant sediment into the Lower Carmel River (LCR). In regards to the El Nino winter 1998, it appears at this time, the majority of the sediment deposited along the Carmel River in 1998 has washed through the Carmel River system and lagoon, and has subsequently reached the ocean. The more recent sedimentation factors described above (beginning with the 2015 SCD removal) so far have resulted in significant sand deposition along the LCR, with no major impact on lagoon sand supply within the cross sections. Existing and future surveys at these four key cross sections provide a quantitative means to evaluate whether or not lagoon volume is changing significantly over time.

The dynamic nature of the lagoon substrate is evident in Figure XVIII-2, which shows the results of the annual surveys conducted since 1994.

In September 2018, staff completed the annual surveys of cross sections (XS) 1-4. In Water Year 2018, approximately 27,200 acre-feet (AF) of streamflow passed through the lagoon as measured at the District’s CR at Highway 1 Bridge (HWY 1) gage, and classified as a “below normal” year.

The highest peak streamflow of WY 2018 was 2,570 cfs on March 22, 2018, recorded at the District’s HWY 1 gage. Below normal streamflow conditions in WY 2018 resulted in no major changes in lagoon sand supply between September 2017 and September 2018, with the only Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 470, Packet Page 570 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVIII-7
notable change being moderate sand deposition along the southwest margin of the lagoon (base of bedrock outcrop) at the common left end point of XS1 and XS2 (Figure XVIII-3).

Review of the entire cross sectional data set (Figure XVIII-2) shows an overall trend of sand loss within the zone of the established cross sections. Left bank (as facing downstream) substrate elevations at XS1 and XS2 appear close to the historic low, with right bank elevations higher than average. The lagoon substrate elevations at XS3 and XS4 reached an historic low elevation in September 2017 with essentially no change in September 2018. The overall sand loss at the cross sections since 1994, particularly XS 4, is consistent with the steady loss of streambed material in the vicinity of Highway 1 Bridge gage (and along reaches for several miles upstream) that has been occurring since 2006, suggesting a limited sand supply in the Lower Carmel River at this time. In addition, it should be noted that at elevation 10-feet (NGVD 1929 datum) the lagoon backwater zone now extends approximately one quarter mile upstream of the Highway 1 Bridge to the eastern margin of the Crossroads Shopping Center as a result of continued down-cutting of the stream channel.

OBSERVED TRENDS, CONCLUSIONS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS:

The District continues to support and encourage the ongoing habitat restoration efforts in the wetlands and riparian areas surrounding the Carmel River Lagoon. These efforts are consistent with goals that were identified in the Carmel River Lagoon Enhancement Plan, which was partially funded by the District. The District continues to work with various agencies and landowners to implement ongoing restoration of the Odello West property and future restoration of the Odello East property across the highway. Because of the restoration activities on the south side of the lagoon, the District has concentrated its monitoring efforts on the relatively undisturbed north side.

Staff also continue to meet and discuss with other agencies the potential use of an existing CDPR agricultural well.

Because of the complexity of the estuarine system, a variety of parameters are monitored, including vegetative cover in transects and quadrats, water conductivity, and hydrology. It is notable that due to the number of factors affecting this system, it would be premature to attribute any observed changes solely to groundwater pumping. During the 24-year period to date, there have been three Extremely Wet (1995, 1998, and 2017), two Wet (2005, 2006), five Above Normal (1996, 1997, 2000, 2010, and 2011), five Normal (1999, 2001, 2003, 2008 and 2009), three Below Normal (2004, 2016, and 2018), four Dry (2002, 2012, 2013, and 2015), and two Critically Dry (2007 and 2014) Water Year types in terms of total annual runoff. Thus, the hydrology of the watershed has been wetter than average 42% of the time, and at least normal or better 63% of the time during that 24 year period. However, monitoring in 2014 occurred during a Critically Dry Water Year that followed two consecutive Dry Water Years, and 2015 was the first time a fourth year of drought was ever monitored. Other natural factors that affect the wetlands include introduction of salt water into the system as waves overtop the sandbar in autumn and winter, tidal fluctuations, and long-term global climatic change. When the District initiated the long-term lagoon monitoring component of the Mitigation Program, it was with the understanding that it would be necessary to gather data for an extended period in order to draw conclusions about well production drawdown Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 471, Packet Page 571 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVIII-8
effects on wetland dynamics. It is recommended that the current vegetation, conductivity, topographical and wildlife monitoring be continued in order to provide a robust data set for continued analysis of potential changes around the lagoon. During this RY the District budgeted to replace the CDPR lagoon water-quality profiler that has been out of service for five years, with a stock one from a major vendor. However, since the Carmel Area Wastewater District (CAWD) plans to replace and underground their outlet pipe very soon, we delayed spending significant funds on what would be just a temporary installation at this time. The District intends to re-budget in RY 2020-2021 for the placement of a vertical profiler, once the new CAWD pipe is in place, and then restore continuous data collection during a future RY.

U:\mpwmd\Allocation\Annual Mit. Report RY 2018\RY 2018-Place your files here\XVIII Lagoon Mitigation Measures\Lagoon_Sec_XVIII_lagoonKU_TL_GJeditsRY1718.docx Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 472, Packet Page 572 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVIII-9
Figure XVIII-1
Map of Monitoring Transects and Stations at Carmel River Lagoon.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 473, Packet Page 573 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVIII-10
Figure XVIII-2
Carmel River Lagoon Cross Sections 1 through 4, based on Annual Surveys 1994-2018 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 474, Packet Page 574 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XVIII-11
Figure XVIII-3
Carmel River Lagoon Cross Sections 1 through 4, Comparison of 2017 and 2018 Surveys Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 475, Packet Page 575 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XIX-1
XIX. AESTHETIC MITIGATION MEASURES
The Findings for Adoption of the Water Allocation Program Final EIR identified one mitigation measure to reduce aesthetic impacts along the Carmel River associated with riparian vegetation – that is, to implement the riparian habitat mitigation measures described above in Finding No. 393.

Accordingly, please refer to Section XVIIfor information on riparian mitigation activities during the period from July 2017 through June 2018.

U:\mpwmd\Allocation\Annual Mit. Report RY 2018\RY 2018-Place your files here\XIX Aesthetic Mitigation Measures\XIX_aesthetic.doc Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 476, Packet Page 576 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XX-1
XX. SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR MITIGATION PROGRAM, JULY 1,
2017 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2018
Mitigation Program costs for FY 2017-2018 totaled approximately $2.35 million including direct personnel expenses, operating costs, project expenditures, capital equipment, and fixed asset purchases (Table XX-1). The annual cost of mitigation efforts varies because several mitigation measures are weather dependent. Expenditures in FY 2017-2018 were $0.18 million higher than the prior fiscal year due to increases in Mitigation Program costs. However, the overall costs have remained constant (average of $2.30 million per year) for last five years. In the past, expenditures had trended upward due to expenditures for the Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR) Project. ASR Project costs are no longer captured under Mitigation Program Costs. FY 2015-2016 expenditures were $2.27 million; and FY 2016-2017 expenditures were $2.17 million.

During FY 2017-2018, revenues totaled $3.73 million including user fees, tax revenues, grant receipts, investment income and miscellaneous revenues. The Mitigation Program Fund Balance as of June 30, 2018 was $3.43 million.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 477, Packet Page 577 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XX-2
Table XX-1
Mitigation Program Cost Breakdown for the Period July 2017 through June 2018 Data Water
EXPENDITURES Collection Riparian Fish Lagoon Supply IRGWMP Admin Total Personnel Costs $200,475 $226,688 $436,599 $84,361 $197,101 $17,378 $277,665 $1,440,266 Operating Expenses 52,171 58,993 113,619 21,954 51,293 4,522 72,259 374,810 Project Expenses 10,091 162,700 279,871 9,032 0 977 0 462,671 Fixed Asset Acquisitions 7,813 21,152 17,015 3,288 7,681 677 10,821 68,446 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $270,549 $469,533 $847,103 $118,634 $256,075 $23,555 $360,744 $2,346,193

REVENUES
Permit Fees $20,810
Mitigation Revenue 0
User Fees 2,972,424
Tax Revenues 549,806
Grant Receipts 135,021
Investment Income 14,049
Miscellaneous 39,027
TOTAL REVENUE $3,731,137
REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES $1,384,944
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 478, Packet Page 578 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XXI-1
XXI. REFERENCES
The following selected references provide additional information about the subjects described in this Annual Report. References are organized by section.

Section I. Executive Summary
MPWMD, January 1992-present. Annual Reports for the MPWMD Mitigation Program.

MPWMD, 1996a. Final Report, Evaluation of MPWMD Five-Year Mitigation Program, 1991- 1996. October 1996.

MPWMD, 1996b. Final Report, Implementation Plan for MPWMD Mitigation Program, Fiscal Years 1997-2001. October 1996.

MPWMD, 1990a. Final Environmental Impact Report for MPWMD Water Allocation Program.

Prepared for MPWMD by Laurence Mintier & Associates, April 1990.

MPWMD, 1990b. Certification findings adopted by MPWMD Board for Final EIR for MPWMD Water Allocation Program. November 1990.

Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd., 1992. Carmel River Lagoon Enhancement Plan. Prepared for Carmel River Steelhead Association, California State Coastal Conservancy, Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, California Department of Parks and Recreation, June 1992.

Sections II, III and IV. Monitor Water Resources
Brungs, W. and B. Jones. 1977. Temperature Criteria for Freshwater Fish: Protocol and Procedures. Environmental Research Lab-Duluth, Minn. EPA/600/3-77/061.

Chapman, G., 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Office of Water Regulations and Standards.

EPA/440/5-86/003.

James, Greg, 1994. Surface water dynamics at the Carmel River Lagoon, Water Years 1991 through 1994. MPWMD Technical Memorandum 94-05.

James, Greg, 1996. Carmel River Basin -- Surface Water Resources Data Report, Water Years 1992-1995, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, October 1996.

James, Greg, 1999. Carmel River Basin -- Surface Water Resources Data Report, Water Years 1996-1999, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, December 1999.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 479, Packet Page 579 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XXI-2
James, Greg, 2004. Carmel River Basin -- Surface Water Resources Data Report, Water Years 2000-2003, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, January 2004.

James, Greg, 2005. Surface water dynamics at the Carmel River Lagoon, Water Years 1991 through 2005. MPWMD Technical Memorandum 05-01.

Oliver, Joe, 1996a. Summary of Seaside Basin monitor well data, with focus on local response to production from the Paralta Well, April to December 1995. MPWMD Technical Memorandum 96-01.

Oliver, Joe, 1996b. Summary of Seaside Basin monitor well data, with focus on Paralta Well pumping and recovery period, December 1995 to June 1996. MPWMD Technical Memorandum 96-02.

Piper, R. et al, 1982. Fish Hatchery Management. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Wedemeyer, G.A. 1996. Interactions with water quality conditions: carbon dioxide. Pages 67- 69 in G.A. Wedemeyer, editor. Physiology of Fish in Intensive Culture System. Chapman and Hall, New York, New York.

Section XV. Augment Water Supply
Bell, Andrew and Henrietta Stern, 2000. Assess Potential Feasibility of Dredging Existing Reservoirs on the Carmel River, Preliminary Draft, MPWMD Issue Paper 2000-01, July 28, 2000.

Bookman-Edmonston/GEI, 2006. Seawater Desalination Projects Evaluation. Prepared for MPWMD, June 26, 2006.

California American Water and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, 2006. Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Management & Operations Agreement between California American Water and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, March 30, 2006.

California Public Utilities Commission, 2002. Final Report—Plan B Project Report. Prepared by Raines, Melton & Carella, Inc. for the Water Division, July 2002.

California Public Utilities Commission, 2000. Status Report on Plan B Components. Prepared by Water Advisory Branch, May 18, 2001.

Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc, 2004. Sand City Desalination Project Feasibility Study – Final Report. Prepared for MPWMD, April 16, 2004.

Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc, 2003. Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Alternatives - Final Phase 1 Technical Memorandum. Prepared for MPWMD, March 19, 2003.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 480, Packet Page 580 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XXI-3
EDAW, Inc., 2001. Draft Plan B Project Report. Prepared for California Public Utilities Commission, August 2001.

EDAW, Inc., 2000a. Plan B Component Screening Report. Prepared for California Public Utilities Commission, November 2000.

EDAW, Inc., 2000b. Plan B Component Characterization Report. Prepared for California Public Utilities Commission, April 3, 2000.

Fuerst, D.W., 2006, Existing Water Needs of Cal-Am Customers Within MPWMD Boundaries and Non Cal-Am Producers Within the Seaside Groundwater Basin Adjusted for Weather Conditions During Water Years 1996 Through 2006, Technical Memorandum 2006-02, October 2006
Fugro West, Inc., 1997a. Reconnaissance-Level Feasibility Study for Seaside Basin Injection/Recovery Project. Prepared for MPWMD, February 1997.

Fugro West, Inc., 1997b. Hydrogeologic Assessment of Seaside Coastal groundwater Basins, Phase III Update. Prepared for MPWMD, September 1997.

Monterey County Superior Court, Case No. M66343, California American Water v. City of Seaside, et al., Final Decision, March 27, 2006.

MPWMD, 2001. Calendar Year 2000 Update to Water Augmentation Plan. February 13, 2001.

MPWMD, 2000. Calendar Year Update to Water Augmentation Plan. January 19, 2000.

MPWMD, 1998. Update to Preliminary Water Augmentation Plan. January 19, 1998.

MPWMD, 1996a. Preliminary Water Augmentation Plan. December 9, 1996.

MPWMD, 1996b. Action Plan for Water Supply Alternatives. February 29, 1996.

Oliver, Joe, 2000. Assess Potential Feasibility of Reuse of Storm Water on the Monterey Peninsula. Draft, MPWMD Issue Paper 2000-02, July 28, 2000.

Yates, G., M. Feeney and L. Rosenberg, 2002. Laguna Seca Subarea Phase III Hydrogeologic Update. Prepared for MPWMD, November 2002 (final report).

Yates, G., M. Feeney and L. Rosenberg, 2005. Seaside Groundwater Basin: Update on Water Resource Conditions. Prepared for MPWMD, April 14, 2005 (final report).

Section XVI. Steelhead Fishery Mitigation Measures
Brungs, W. and B. Jones, 1977. Temperature Criteria for Freshwater Fish: Protocol and Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 481, Packet Page 581 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XXI-4
Procedures. Environmental Research Lab-Duluth, Minn. EPA/600/3-77/061.

Chaney, B. (formerly Hanna, B.), 1997-2000. Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing Facility Annual Report (reports available for years 1996 through 2000).

Chapman, G., 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Office of Water Regulations and Standards.

EPA/440/5-86/003.

King, J. Thomas in association with B. Chaney and T. Lindberg, 2004. Three-Year Summary of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District’s Bioassessment Program on the Carmel River, Fall 200-Spring 2003. Prepared for MPWMD by BioAssessment Services, June 2004.

Piper, R. et al, 1982. Fish Hatchery Management. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Section XVII. Riparian Habitat Mitigation Measures
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), 2004. Environmental and Biological Assessment of Portions of the Carmel River Watershed, Monterey County, California. Prepared for the Carmel River Watershed Assessment sponsored by the Carmel River Watershed Conservancy, December 2004.

MPWMD, 1996. Pamphlet titled, “How to Protect and Enhance Your Property Along the Carmel River.”
MPWMD, 1996. Pamphlet titled, “Streambank Planting guidelines.” Mullen, D.A., 1993-1996 and Big Sur Ornithology Laboratory, 1997-present. Analysis of Avian Guild Species Diversity in the Los Padres Reservoir and Carmel River Riparian Corridor. Annual reports to MPWMD dated 1993 to present.

Smith, D.P. and Huntington, P., 2004. Carmel River large woody debris inventory from Stonepine to Carmel Lagoon, Fall 200. Prepared in association with Watershed Institute, California State University Monterey Bay, Publication No. WI-2004-01, 72 pp.

Section XVIII. Lagoon Habitat Mitigation Measures
Big Sur Ornithology Laboratory, 1997-present. Analysis of Avian Guild Species Diversity in the Los Padres Reservoir and Carmel River Riparian Corridor. Annual reports to MPWMD dated 1997 to present (includes evaluation of lagoon species diversity index).

California State University Monterey Bay, Watershed Institute, 2001. Winter Water Quality of the Carmel and Salinas River Lagoons, Monterey, California: 2000/2001. Prepared for Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 482, Packet Page 582 MPWMD 2018 Mitigation Program Report
XXI-5
the Monterey County Water Resources Agency.

Carmel River Lagoon Technical Advisory Committee, 2005. Draft – Carmel River Lagoon, Proposed Short-Term Management Plan for Winter 2005-2006. Prepared November 9, 2005.

Graham Matthews & Associates, 1997. Carmel River Lagoon Mapping and Development of Stage-Volume and Stage-Area Relationships. Prepared for MPWMD, November 4, 1997.

Habitat Restoration Group, 1995. Biologic Assessment of Carmel River Lagoon Wetlands.

Prepared for MPWMD, November 1995.

Philip Williams & Associates, 1991. Draft Carmel River Lagoon Enhancement Plan. Prepared for Carmel River Steelhead Association, California State Coastal Conservancy, Monterey County Water Resources Agency and MPWMD, in cooperation with California Department of Parks and Recreation, December 1991.

Section XX. Summary of Costs
(Annual Audit Reports on file at District office)
U:\mpwmd\Allocation\Annual Mit. Report RY 2018\RY 2018-Place your files here\XXI References\Sec_XXI_references2018.docx Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 483, Packet Page 583 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
APPENDIX 2-D

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY

SERVICE AREA MAP

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 484, Packet Page 584 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 485, Packet Page 585 California-American Water Company 2. System Description 2010 Urban Water Management Plan
2-3
Figure 2-1: Map of California American Water's Central Division - Monterey County District Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 486, Packet Page 586 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay August 2019 DRAFT Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 487, Packet Page 587 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
APPENDIX 2-E

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGION

STORMWATER RESOURCE PLAN

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 488, Packet Page 588 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 489, Packet Page 589 Prepared for
Monterey One Water
5 Harris Court
Monterey, California 93940
FINAL

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGION

STORMWATER RESOURCE PLAN
Prepared by
1111 Broadway, 6th Floor
Oakland, California 94607
947 Cass Street #5
Monterey, California 93940
1021 S. Wolfe Road, Suite 185
Sunnyvale, California 94086
Project Number: WW2405
July 30, 2019
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 490, Packet Page 590 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP i 07.30.2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... E-1 ES-1.Introduction .............................................................................................. E-1 ES-2.Coordination ............................................................................................ E-2 ES-3.Watershed Identification .......................................................................... E-2 ES-4.Water Quality Compliance ...................................................................... E-3 ES-5.Quantitative Methods for Identification and Prioritization of Stormwater and Dry Weather Projects ............................................................................................... E-4 ES-6.Identification and Prioritization of Projects ............................................. E-5 ES-7.Implementation Strategy and Schedule ................................................... E-6 ES-8.Education, Outreach, and Public Participation ........................................ E-7

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Organization of Entities Involved in Plan Development ............................. 1

1.2 Regional Water Quality and Quantity Considerations ................................ 1

1.3 Purpose of Regional SWRP ......................................................................... 2

1.4 Monterey Peninsula Water Recovery Study ................................................ 2

1.5 Project Concepts and Project Opportunities ................................................ 3

1.6 Community Outreach and Coordination ...................................................... 3

1.7 Report Organization ..................................................................................... 4

2. ORGANIZATION, COORDINATION, AND COLLABORATION .................. 5

2.1 Coordination of Cooperating Entities .......................................................... 5

2.2 TAC Involvement ........................................................................................ 6

2.3 Stakeholder Involvement ............................................................................. 8

2.4 Coordination with Integrated Regional Water Management Group .......... 10

2.5 Coordination with Regulatory Agencies.................................................... 12

2.6 Relationship to Existing Planning Documents .......................................... 13

3. WATERSHED IDENTIFICATION ................................................................... 14

3.1 Watersheds and Subwatersheds Descriptions ............................................ 14

3.2 Carmel River Basin .................................................................................... 15

3.2.1 Water Quality ................................................................................. 18

3.2.2 Watershed Processes ...................................................................... 19

3.3 Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay .................................................... 20

3.3.1 Water Quality ................................................................................. 22

3.3.2 Watershed Processes ...................................................................... 23

3.4 Big Sur/Frontal Pacific Ocean ................................................................... 24 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 491, Packet Page 591 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP ii 07.30.2019

3.5 El Toro Creek/Salinas River ...................................................................... 25

4. WATER QUALITY COMPLIANCE................................................................. 26

4.1 Pollutant-Generating Activities ................................................................. 26

4.2 Permits and TMDLs................................................................................... 27

4.2.1 Applicable Permit Requirements ................................................... 27

4.2.2 Areas of Special Biological Significance ...................................... 28

4.2.3 Tularcitos Creek TMDL ................................................................ 29

4.2.4 Statewide Trash Provisions ............................................................ 29

4.2.5 Federal Lands ................................................................................. 30

4.2.6 Previous Actions Taken Towards Water Quality Protection ......... 30

4.3 SWRP Water Quality Compliance Strategies ............................................ 31

5. QUANTITATIVE METHODS FOR IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION OF STORMWATER AND DRY WEATHER CAPTURE PROJECTS.................. 33

5.1 Overview of Approach............................................................................... 33

5.2 Evaluation of Models and Tools ................................................................ 34

5.2.1 Project Identification and Metrics-Based Analyses ....................... 34

5.2.2 Project Quantification .................................................................... 35

5.3 Project Identification and Classification .................................................... 35

5.3.1 Planned Projects in the Planning Area ........................................... 35

5.3.2 Identification of Additional Project Opportunities ........................ 36

5.3.3 Project Classification ..................................................................... 37

5.3.4 Monterey Peninsula Water Recovery Study Projects .................... 40

5.3.5 Identified Project Database ............................................................ 41

5.4 Project Metrics-Based Multi-Benefit Evaluation ...................................... 42

5.4.1 Project Scoring ............................................................................... 42

6. IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION OF PROJECTS ........................ 46

6.1 Identified Projects ...................................................................................... 46

6.1.1 Project Opportunities Identified in Existing Plans ........................ 46

6.1.2 Additional Potential Project Opportunities and Feasibility Analysis46

6.1.3 List of Potential Project Opportunities .......................................... 47

6.2 Results of Integrated Metrics-Based Multi-Benefit Analysis and Prioritized List of Potential Projects ................................................................................................ 47

6.3 Selected Project Concept Designs and Quantitative Analysis of Project Benefits 48

6.3.1 Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Runoff Diversion ........................ 49 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 492, Packet Page 592 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP iii 07.30.2019

6.3.2 Lake El Estero Diversion to Sanitary Sewer ................................. 49

6.3.3 Monterey Tunnel Stormwater Diversion ....................................... 49

6.3.4 Carmel-by-the-Sea Stormwater Diversion..................................... 49

6.3.5 Pacific Grove-Monterey ASBS Watershed – David Avenue Stormwater Storage and Diversion .................................................................... 50

6.3.6 Del Monte Manor Park Infiltration ................................................ 50

6.3.7 Drywell Aquifer Recharge Program .............................................. 50

6.4 Development of Project Concept Designs ................................................. 51

7. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY AND SCHEDULE ................................... 53

7.1 Resources for Plan and Project Implementation ........................................ 53

7.1.1 Resources for Plan Adoption and Adaptive Management ............. 53

7.1.2 Resources for Project Implementation ........................................... 53

7.2 Plan Implementation .................................................................................. 53

7.2.1 Timeline for Incorporating the SWRP into the IRWMP ............... 53

7.2.2 Actions, Projects, and Studies for SWRP Implementation ............ 54

7.2.3 Entities Responsible for Project Implementation .......................... 54

7.2.4 Community Participation Strategy for SWRP Implementation ..... 55

7.2.5 Procedures to Track the Status of SWRP Implementation ............ 55

7.2.6 Potential Timelines and Cost Estimates for Implementing Identified Project Opportunities ................................................................................. 55

7.2.7 Strategy and Timeline for Obtaining Necessary Federal, State, and Local Permits ........................................................................................... 58

7.3 Adaptive Management – Maintaining a Living Document ....................... 59

7.4 Implementation Performance Measures .................................................... 60

8. EDUCATION, OUTREACH, AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .................... 61

8.1 Goals of Outreach, Education, and Public Participation ........................... 61

8.2 Key Messages ............................................................................................ 61

8.3 Stakeholder Outreach, Education, and Engagement Tasks ....................... 61

8.3.1 Stakeholder Group Formation ....................................................... 62

8.3.2 Stakeholder Group Information Requests and Meetings ............... 62

8.3.3 Public Outreach Meeting ............................................................... 63

8.3.4 Public Involvement in the Implementation of the SWRP and Completion of Projects........................................................................................... 63

8.4 Summary of Tasks and Schedule ............................................................... 64

8.5 Summary of Completed Stakeholder Meetings ......................................... 64 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 493, Packet Page 593 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP iv 07.30.2019

9. REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 65

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Cooperating Entities and Interested Parties............................................................... 6 Table 2: TAC Members and Roles.............................................................................................. 7 Table 3: Summary of Monterey Peninsula Region SWRP TAC Meeting Topics .................. 8 Table 4: Monterey Peninsula Regional IRWMP Goals ........................................................... 10 Table 5: IRWM Plan Update Prioritized Regional Objectives .............................................. 11 Table 6: Summary of Carmel River Water Rights .................................................................. 17 Table 7: 303(d) Listed Waterbodies in the Carmel River Basin Watershed ......................... 18 Table 8: 303(d) Listed Waterbodies in the Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay Watershed ....................................................................................................................................................... 22 Table 9: Monterey Peninsula Region SWRP Planning Area Impaired Waterbodies .......... 27 Table 10: Project Metrics-Based Multi-Benefit Evaluation Matrix ....................................... 44 Table 11: Agencies Performing Project Prioritization ............................................................ 47 Table 12: Project Concept Status and Potential Timeline ...................................................... 56 Table 13: Project Concept Status and Potential Timeline ...................................................... 58 Table 14: Estimated Funding Needs for Five-Year Increments 2020 - 2040 ......................... 58 Table 15: Summary of Tasks and Schedule ............................................................................. 64

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Map of Monterey Peninsula Region SWRP Planning Area Figure 2: Monterey Peninsula Region ASBS and 303(d)-Listed Waterbodies and Associated Watersheds
Figure 3: Map of Monterey Peninsula Region Received Parks and Protected Open Space Data
Figure 4: Interaction Between Water Recovery Study Analyses and SWRP Analyses Figure 5: Disadvantaged Communities in Monterey Peninsula Region Stormwater Resource Plan Area
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 494, Packet Page 594 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP v 07.30.2019

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: SWRP Self-Certification Checklist
Appendix B: TAC Meeting Summaries
Appendix C: Annotated List of Reviewed Data and Reports Appendix D: Monterey Peninsula Water Recovery Study Report Appendix E: Project Database
Appendix F: Project Concept Designs
Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Project Concepts and Preliminary CEQA Checklist Appendix H: Summary of Stakeholder Meetings
Appendix I: IRWMP Decision Support Tools
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 495, Packet Page 595 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP vi 07.30.2019

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
13267 Letter Water Code Section 13267 Technical Report Order ac-ft/yr acre-feet per year
AMBAG Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
APN Assessor Parcel Number
ASBS Areas of Special Biological Significance
BMPs best management practices
CalAm California American Water Company
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CASGEM California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring CAWD Carmel Area Wastewater District
CCC California Coastal Commission
CCRWQCB Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board CDO Cease and Desist Order
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIP capital improvement program
CMAC Continuous Monitoring and Adaptive Control
DACs Disadvantaged Communities
DD&A Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

DWR Department of Water Resources
E. coli Escherichia coli
EIR Environmental Impact Report
feet msl feet above mean sea level
ft/yr feet per year
Geosyntec Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.

GIS geographic information systems
HEC-HMS Hydrologic Modeling System
HSG hydrologic soil group
HSPF Hydrological Simulation Program
Impaired Waters Policy Water Quality Control Policy for Addressing Impaired Waters:

Regulatory Structure and Options
IRWM Integrated Regional Water Management
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 496, Packet Page 596 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP vii 07.30.2019
IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Program
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
LIDI Low Impact Development Initiative
MBNMS Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
Monterey Peninsula Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay MPWMD Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
MRSWMP Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NGOs nongovernmental organizations
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
PEAIP Program Effectiveness Assessment and Improvement Plan Phase II Permit Phase II Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit
Plan SWRP Stakeholder Outreach, Education, and Engagement Plan ROW right-of-way
RWMG Regional Water Management Group
SBPAT Structural BMP Prioritization and Analysis Tool
SMCWPPP San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program SUSTAIN System for Urban Stormwater Treatment and Analysis Integration SWMM Stormwater Management Model
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SWRP Stormwater Resource Plan
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TELR Tool to Estimate Load Reductions
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
ton/ac-yr ton per acre-year
TR-55 Technical Release 55
TSS total suspended solids
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey
W&WD Water & Wastes Digest
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 497, Packet Page 597 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP E-1 04.11.2019

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-1. Introduction
Monterey One Water, formerly the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA), provides wastewater treatment services to the Monterey Peninsula region and was the lead entity in the development of this Stormwater Resource Plan (SWRP) for the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay (Monterey Peninsula) Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Planning Area. Monterey One Water has prepared this Monterey Peninsula Region SWRP on behalf of the Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program (MRSWMP), including the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, and Seaside, and Monterey County. In addition to the MRSWMP members, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District is also a cooperating entity for the development of this SWRP. Unincorporated communities of Monterey County in this SWRP include Carmel Valley, Pebble Beach, Carmel Highlands, the Laguna Seca area, and the Ord Community. A Consultant Project Team consisting of Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec), EOA, Inc. (EOA), and Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. (DD&A) prepared the SWRP and conducted associated analyses. Preparation of the Monterey Peninsula SWRP was funded by a Proposition 1 Planning Grant and local match funds, including the locally funded Monterey Peninsula Water Recovery Study Report, the results of which are integrated into this SWRP.

Water quantity issues in the Monterey Peninsula region include an impacted water supply due to a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) for diversions from the Carmel River in 2009 (Order WR 2009- 0060), amended on July 19, 2016 (Order WR 2016-0016), and adjudication of the Seaside Groundwater Basin by the Superior Court in 2006, which are currently the primary water supply sources in the Planning Area. Surface water quality issues in the Monterey Peninsula region include pollutant loading from urban and rural runoff, contributing to five impaired water bodies and one total maximum daily load (TMDL). The Planning Area is also includes three Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) – the Point Lobos ASBS, which contains the Point Lobos State Marine Reserve; the Carmel Bay ASBS, which borders the City of Carmel and Pebble Beach Golf Course and contains the Carmel Bay State Marine Conservation Area; and the Pacific Grove ASBS, an area adjacent to Pacific Grove near the boundary of the City of Monterey which contains the Pacific Grove State Marine Conservation Area and the Hopkins State Marine Reserve. All three ASBS areas lie within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), which was designated in 1992 as a federally-protected marine area.

The purpose of this SWRP is to identify stormwater capture project opportunities that could be utilized as new water supply sources for the Monterey Peninsula and provide additional water quality and environmental benefits.

The purpose of the Monterey Peninsula Water Recovery Study, which was conducted as part of the development of this Monterey Peninsula Region SWRP, was to examine the feasibility of Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 498, Packet Page 598 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP E-2 04.11.2019
establishing a Peninsula-wide water recovery and reclamation system, including identifying and evaluating potential projects that could capture sources of wet and dry weather runoff within the Monterey Peninsula IRWM Planning Area for water recovery and use.

The water recovery projects were specifically identified based on their potential to reduce the Peninsula’s dependence on the Carmel River, Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer, and adjudicated Seaside Groundwater Basin. The study considered how to store, treat, and transport potential sources of runoff prior to entering existing water and wastewater infrastructure for use, but did not identify projects that expand existing water distribution and wastewater storage, treatment, and conveyance system capacities, or determine if this will be needed.

ES-2. Coordination
Cooperating entities participating in the Monterey Peninsula Region SWRP include the MRSWMP member agencies, as well as the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.

Additionally, all components of the SWRP were discussed and reviewed by the Monterey Peninsula Region SWRP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which included cooperating entities, regulators, and other interested parties.

A comprehensive and wide-reaching Stakeholder Group, consisting of dozens of federal, state, regional, and local agencies; water/wastewater districts and water suppliers; non-governmental organizations and citizen groups; academic and research institutions; and private businesses, was developed to provide input on the SWRP. Multiple opportunities for stakeholder and public participation were provided during SWRP development.

ES-3. Watershed Identification
The USGS and California Department of Water Resources (DWR) watersheds in the Planning Area are briefly described below:
• The Carmel River Basin watershed, the largest watershed within the Planning Area. The watershed is largely located within unincorporated Monterey County lands, and a portion of the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea intersects the watershed. A portion of the Carmel River Basin watershed is underlain by the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer. Water quality priorities within the Carmel River Basin watershed include the sustainment of beneficial uses within the Carmel River, along with addressing water pollutant concerns present in the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) (303[d]) listings for Tularcitos Creek. Additionally, a Fecal Indicator Bacteria TMDL has been adopted for Tularcitos Creek (CCRWQCB, 2011).
• Most of the Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay watershed, the second largest watershed area within the Planning Area, containing almost all the urbanized areas. Most of the watershed is located within the Planning Area. Water quality priorities within the Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 499, Packet Page 599 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP E-3 04.11.2019
watershed include addressing water pollutant concerns present in the four 303(d) listed waterbodies within the watershed, along with protection of the MBNMS and the three ASBS that receive drainage from the watershed (Pacific Grove and Carmel Bay). The 303(d) listed waterbodies within the Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay watershed include Monterey Harbor, Pacific Ocean at Stillwater Cove Beach, and Majors Creek. • A small portion of the Big Sur/Frontal Pacific Ocean watershed, consisting entirely of unincorporated Monterey County land. The portion of the watershed in the Planning Area includes two major creeks that are largely unaffected by development – the ecologically important San Jose Creek, and the smaller Mal Paso Creek. • A small portion of the El Toro Creek/ Salinas River watershed, entirely within the federally managed Fort Ord National Monument, and land uses consist mostly of open space lands (see Figure 3). The portion of the El Toro Creek/Salinas River watershed that lies within the Planning Area is underlain by the adjudicated Seaside Groundwater Basin.

In 2009, SWRCB issued a Cease-and-Desist Order to CalAm and set January 1, 2016 as a deadline to cease unauthorized diversions from the Carmel River (SWRCB, 2009). The Cease-and-Desist Order was extended in 2016 with a new deadline of January 1, 2022 for compliance (SWRCB, 2016). Currently, over 60% of the potable water (groundwater) used in the Monterey Peninsula region originates from the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer. The Seaside Groundwater Basin (the Basin) underlies an approximately 19- to 24-square-mile area below Sand City, Seaside, Del Rey Oaks, unincorporated Monterey County, and the Fort Ord Community. The action to adjudicate the Seaside Groundwater Basin was filed in 2003 and the Watermaster for the Basin was created in 2006 in response to potential overdraft conditions.

ES-4. Water Quality Compliance
There are several water quality regulatory requirements that some or all the Cooperating Entities must comply with, including the Phase II Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit (Phase II Permit) (Order 2013-0001-DWQ)1, a guidance letter from the CCRWQCB (13267 Letter), Statewide Trash Amendments, and the Tularcitos Creek TMDL.

Additionally, the three ASBS in the Planning Area are subject to ASBS Special Protections, and areas that discharge stormwater to the ASBS must develop compliance plans to meet those Protections. Federal development and redevelopment projects taking place on federal lands within the Planning Area are required to reduce stormwater runoff under Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

1 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/phase_ii_municipal.shtml. The Phase II Permit requires stormwater agencies to comply with the corresponding TMDL requirements, as specified within the Permit and Attachment G, Region-Specific Requirements for Implementation of TMDLs. However, there are no regionspecific requirements affecting the Monterey Peninsula Region.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 500, Packet Page 600 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP E-4 04.11.2019
There have been numerous actions taken in the region to protect water quality. In addition to wastewater control improvements, the cities participating in the MBNMS Water Quality Protection Program have sought to reduce the impacts of urban runoff pollution through a combination of low impact development, stormwater treatment measures (e.g., bioretention and other measures), and source control programs through the implementation of the Sanctuary’s Urban Runoff Plan, the prior Model Urban Runoff Program (1996), Monterey Regional Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (2002), and the MRSWMP (2006 to present).

MRSWMP agencies have also been engaged in the development of TELR and BMP Rapid Assessment Methodology. TELR is intended to be used to prioritize stormwater actions to improve water quality and support water resource objectives, and to track effectiveness of these actions over time.

ES-5. Quantitative Methods for Identification and Prioritization of Stormwater and Dry Weather Projects
All projects identified in the SWRP were evaluated using a metrics-based multi-benefit approach to score projects based on the benefits achieved. The methodology conducted included the following steps:

1. Identify project opportunities – planned and potential project opportunities were identified through three avenues. Planned future projects were provided by SWRP cooperating entities, interested parties, and stakeholders. Additional project opportunity locations were identified and catalogued by the Project Team using a geospatially-based opportunity analysis. Further project opportunities were identified as part of the Monterey Peninsula Water Recovery Study.

2. Screen and classify identified projects – all identified project opportunities were classified by project type, scale, and infiltration feasibility using information provided for planned projects and underlying geospatial characteristics. Project opportunities were then screened for project implementation feasibility and potential performance using geospatial data obtained from the TELR model, publicly available sources, and cooperating entities.

3. Score projects using metrics-based multi-benefit analysis – using the GIS data compiled for each project opportunity as part of Step 2, a quantitative metrics-based multiple benefit evaluation was conducted to score all identified projects.

4. Prioritize and rank projects based on input from cooperating entities, interested parties, stakeholders, and the TAC.

5. Quantification of benefits – the volume of runoff captured was quantified for projects selected for development of concept design.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 501, Packet Page 601 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP E-5 04.11.2019
ES-6. Identification and Prioritization of Projects
The SWRP project identification, analysis, prioritization, and selection process included the following steps:

1. Identify project opportunities and perform a metrics-based evaluation to obtain a preliminary project “score.”

2. Send project opportunities and preliminary scores to project opportunity location organizations to perform project prioritization and rank projects.

3. Send revised master project database with project rankings to Monterey Peninsula Stakeholder Group to obtain feedback.

4. Finalize selection of seven projects for concept designs through the TAC, considering the preliminary project scores, the agency rankings, input from the Monterey Peninsula Stakeholder Group, and other local and institutional knowledge. Select one of the seven projects for preparation of a 30% design and CEQA Checklist.

Using these methods, a total of 84 planned projects were received from 17 entities, 241 Water Recovery Study projects were identified, and 377 parcel-based, 61 regional, and 1,609 right-ofway (ROW) projects were identified through the geospatial analysis in the Planning Area.

Based on Stakeholder Group and TAC input and comments, the primary factor in project selection for concept design was to capture as much usable water as possible to help meet dry weather recycled water demands and augment water supply at other time with prior authorization from Monterey One Water. The seven projects selected for concept design include:
• The Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Runoff Diversion project, a proposed diversion to sanitary sewer and restoration project, is in the City of Monterey. The project is estimated to achieve between 20 to 100 ac-ft/yr of water supply. This project was also developed into a 30% design and a preliminary CEQA checklist was completed. • The Lake El Estero Diversion to Sanitary Sewer project, in the City of Monterey, would augment water supply via diversion of flows to the sanitary sewer, instead of discharging into Monterey Bay. The project is estimated to achieve over 100 ac-ft/yr of water supply from the approximately 3,670-acre tributary drainage area. • The Monterey Tunnel stormwater diversion project is in the City of Monterey. The project would divert flows from the downtown Tunnel and Oliver Street storm drain gravity pipe and to the sanitary sewer instead of discharging it into Monterey Bay. The project is estimated to achieve from 10 to 20 ac-ft/yr of water supply from the approximately 150- acre tributary drainage area.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 502, Packet Page 602 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP E-6 04.11.2019
• The Carmel-by-the-Sea Stormwater Diversion project, located in the City of Carmel-bythe-Sea, would divert dry weather runoff and wet weather first flush flows from the inland storm drain network to the sanitary sewer main along San Antonio Avenue for treatment and reuse for golf course irrigation. The project is estimated to achieve between 10 to 20 ac-ft/yr of water supply from its approximately 310-acre tributary drainage area. • The Pacific Grove-Monterey ASBS Watershed – David Avenue Stormwater Storage and Diversion project in the City of Pacific Grove would store wet and dry weather flows for diversion to the sanitary sewer instead of discharging runoff into Monterey Bay and the Pacific Grove ASBS region. This project is estimated to achieve from 10 to 20 ac-ft/yr of water supply from its approximately 100-acre tributary drainage area. • The regional Del Monte Manor Park Infiltration Project in the City of Seaside, which would include open space park improvements and flood management to infiltrate runoff from the surrounding ROW. The project is estimated to provide indirect benefits of infiltrating 5 to 10 ac-ft/yr of urban runoff above a potable water supply aquifer from its approximately 25- acre tributary drainage area that contains a DAC.
• The Drywell Aquifer Recharge Program in the City of Seaside, with support from regional partners, would focus on using drywells to recharge urban runoff to a primary water supply aquifer. The project is estimated to achieve between 20 to 100 ac-ft/yr of water supply.

Quantification of project benefits utilized a conceptual-level modeling approach. Both wet and dry weather runoff were considered. Wet weather runoff supply was calculated as a function of catchment hydrology, facility configuration, and drawdown rate using continuous hydrologic simulation with USEPA’s Stormwater Management Model (SWMM), and the method included in the Phase II Permit for comparison. Dry weather runoff was estimated for a subset of projects by extrapolating dry weather yield results from previously implemented and evaluated projects.

ES-7. Implementation Strategy and Schedule
It is anticipated that Monterey One Water and MRSWMP will facilitate future SWRP updates and ongoing adaptive management. As part of ongoing management, these regular meetings may include a SWRP meeting agenda item as needed to discuss potential updates to the SWRP and how to prepare and fund the updates.

Funding for implementation of projects included in this SWRP will be obtained by the municipal agency, partnership of agencies, or other stakeholder project sponsors capable of implementing the identified projects. A subset of projects identified in this SWRP were identified for potential implementation by 2040, should projects be found to be feasible through detailed investigation, and project funding be secured. Projects identified in this SWRP may be implemented as funding opportunities become available and funds are awarded or allocated to the project. Sources of Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 503, Packet Page 603 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP E-7 04.11.2019
project funding may include grants, bond measures, local capital improvement program (CIP) budgets, local revenue streams such as utility rates or fees, and/or other funding mechanisms.

Monterey One Water coordinated with the Monterey Peninsula IRWM Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) on incorporation of this SWRP into the Monterey Peninsula IRWMP. The SWRP was introduced to the RWMG at a meeting on November 1, 2018 and the SWRP was unanimously accepted for inclusion in the IRWMP as an appendix.

ES-8. Education, Outreach, and Public Participation
Stakeholder outreach was built upon the work done by the Monterey Peninsula RWMG to develop the Monterey Peninsula IRWMP. As part of developing the Monterey Peninsula IRWMP, the RWMG identified and contacted 130 stakeholders, representing public agencies, local municipalities and special districts, environmental non-profits, community groups, academic educational institutions, private companies, landowners, and individuals. Stakeholders were informed about the SWRP via multiple emails and invited to attend Stakeholder Group meetings.

Stakeholders representing DACs were also mailed postcards with information on the first meeting.

Two Stakeholder Group meetings were held to share information and solicit input on the SWRP:
• The first meeting, held on October 17, 2017, introduced the Stakeholder Group to the SWRP planning process, provided information on the metrics and methodology for identifying, assessing, and prioritizing potential projects, presented preliminary findings from the Water Recovery Project Feasibility Study, and provided opportunities for stakeholders to submit project ideas.
• The second meeting, held on February 8, 2018, presented the prioritized list of multibenefit stormwater capture projects to stakeholders, and requested their feedback on the top ranked projects. Stakeholders were also requested to provide input on project characteristics that should be considered for identifying top projects.

One public meeting was held on June 27, 2018 to present the Public Draft SWRP to stakeholders and the public to obtain their feedback. A bilingual flyer (English and Spanish) advertising the public outreach meeting was developed and distributed via email and community center postings.

The bilingual flyer and Public Meeting summary are provided in Appendix H.

Comments received through the public meeting and the public comment period have been addressed in this Final Draft SWRP. A comments matrix with a summary of responses and edits is provided in Appendix H.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 504, Packet Page 604 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 1 07.30.2019

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Organization of Entities Involved in Plan Development Monterey One Water, formerly the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA), provides wastewater treatment services to the Monterey Peninsula region and was the lead entity in the development of this Stormwater Resource Plan (SWRP) for the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay (Monterey Peninsula) Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Planning Area (Planning Area). Monterey One Water has prepared this Monterey Peninsula Region SWRP on behalf of the Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program (MRSWMP), including the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, and Seaside, and Monterey County. In addition to the MRSWMP members, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District is also a cooperating entity for the development of this SWRP. Unincorporated communities of Monterey County in this SWRP include Carmel Valley, Pebble Beach, Carmel Highlands, the Laguna Seca area, and the Ord Community. A Consultant Project Team consisting of Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec), EOA, Inc. (EOA), and Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. (DD&A) prepared the SWRP and conducted associated analyses.

Preparation of the Monterey Peninsula SWRP was funded by a Proposition 1 Planning Grant and the MRSWMP. The Monterey Peninsula Water Recovery Study Report, the results of which are integrated into this SWRP, was used as a local match for the grant funds, along with the Tool to Estimate Load Reductions (TELR) development project and MRSWMP staff hours. The Monterey Peninsula Water Recovery Study was funded through a Local Water Project Grant from the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and the City of Monterey’s Neighborhood Improvement Program (NIP). The TELR Model was developed through a partnership of the Low Impact Development Initiative (LIDI), the CCRWQCB, and partner Central Coast municipalities, including the MRSWMP agencies.

All components of the SWRP were discussed and reviewed by the Monterey Peninsula Region SWRP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which included cooperating entities, regulators, and other interested parties. The TAC is discussed in further detail in Section 2 of this SWRP.

1.2 Regional Water Quality and Quantity Considerations
Water quantity issues in the Monterey Peninsula region include an impacted water supply due to a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) for diversions from the Carmel River in 2009 (Order WR 2009- 0060), amended on July 19, 2016 (Order WR 2016-0016), and adjudication of the Seaside Groundwater Basin by the Superior Court in 2006, which are currently the primary water supply sources in the Planning Area. Surface water quality issues in the Monterey Peninsula region include pollutant loading from urban and rural runoff, contributing to five impaired water bodies and one total maximum daily load (TMDL). The Planning Area is also includes three Areas of Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 505, Packet Page 605 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 2 07.30.2019
Special Biological Significance (ASBS) – the Point Lobos ASBS, which contains the Point Lobos State Marine Reserve; the Carmel Bay ASBS, which borders the City of Carmel and Pebble Beach Golf Course and contains the Carmel Bay State Marine Conservation Area; and the Pacific Grove ASBS, an area adjacent to Pacific Grove near the boundary of the City of Monterey which contains the Pacific Grove State Marine Conservation Area and the Hopkins State Marine Reserve. All three ASBS areas lie within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), which was designated in 1992 as a federally-protected marine area. Additionally, coastal and water supply vulnerabilities to climate change impacts are a concern for the Monterey Peninsula region. More information about the issues impacting watersheds in the Planning Area is provided in Section 3 of this SWRP.

1.3 Purpose of Regional SWRP
The purpose of this SWRP is to identify stormwater capture project opportunities that could be utilized as new water supply sources for the Monterey Peninsula and provide additional water quality and environmental benefits. An overview of how project opportunities were identified is provided in Section 5. A summary of the resulting project opportunities is provided in Section 6 and in Appendix E.

The completed SWRP and the project opportunities identified as part of its development will allow the Monterey Peninsula region to be eligible for Proposition 1 implementation grant funding and other state bond-funded grants. Such financial support from state grant funds for stormwater and dry weather capture projects will:
• Help protect beneficial uses of waterbodies in the Monterey Peninsula region, which provide environmental, community, health, and economic benefits; • Support implementation strategies using multi-benefit projects and treatment of urban runoff as a resource rather than a waste; and
• Assist in the identification of new water supply sources for the Monterey Peninsula.

1.4 Monterey Peninsula Water Recovery Study
The purpose of the Monterey Peninsula Water Recovery Study, which was conducted as part of the development of this Monterey Peninsula Region SWRP, was to examine the feasibility of establishing a Peninsula-wide water recovery and reclamation system, including identifying and evaluating potential projects that could capture sources of wet and dry weather runoff within the Monterey Peninsula IRWM Planning Area for water recovery and use.

The water recovery projects were specifically identified based on their potential to reduce the Peninsula’s dependence on the Carmel River, Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer, and adjudicated Seaside Groundwater Basin. The study considered how to store, treat, and transport potential Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 506, Packet Page 606 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 3 07.30.2019
sources of runoff prior to entering existing water and wastewater infrastructure for use, but did not identify projects that expand existing water distribution and wastewater storage, treatment, and conveyance system capacities, or determine if this will be needed.

In addition to identifying and evaluating stormwater capture projects that could specifically provide additional water supply to the region, the study also included the development of two project concept designs, along with a 30% design, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) checklist, and project implementation plan and schedule for the top project.

All projects identified through the Water Recovery Study were included in the SWRP project list and analyzed using the SWRP metrics-based multi-benefit approach (see Section 5). Selection of the Water Recovery Study projects that were developed into concepts and 30% design were identified using the methods described in Sections 5 and 6. The Water Recovery Study report, which describes the methods and results, is provided as Appendix D.

1.5 Project Concepts and Project Opportunities
As part of the SWRP, seven of the identified project opportunities were selected to be developed into project concept designs (all of which were also identified in the Water Recovery Study). The projects selected for concept development were identified through a multi-step process. Identified projects were preliminarily scored using a metrics-based multi-benefit analyses consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) SWRP Guidelines (SWRCB, 2015a), as described in Section 5.

Jurisdictions and other public entities owning parcels on which project opportunities were identified were provided the opportunity to rank and prioritize the project opportunities using the preliminary scores along with other locally applicable knowledge. In addition, input on the ranked and prioritized projects was requested from the Stakeholder Groups during a stakeholder meeting held in early February 2018. The preliminary scores and collective input on project opportunities was compiled and presented to the TAC in a meeting held in late February 2018. Using this input, along with local knowledge about water quantity and quality issues, community support, and financing, the TAC selected the seven projects for concept design. The selection process and the seven selected projects are described in Section 6.

1.6 Community Outreach and Coordination
A comprehensive and wide-reaching Stakeholder Group, consisting of dozens of federal, state, regional, and local agencies; water/wastewater districts and water suppliers; non-governmental organizations and citizen groups; academic and research institutions; and private businesses, was developed to provide input on the SWRP. Multiple opportunities for stakeholder and public participation were provided during SWRP development. A summary of outreach to the Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 507, Packet Page 607 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 4 07.30.2019
Stakeholder Group is provided in Section 8 of this SWRP. The Stakeholder Outreach Plan is provided in Appendix H.

1.7 Report Organization
This report is organized as follows:
• Section 2 provides a summary of the cooperating entities, TAC, and Stakeholder Group, and how each group was involved in the development of the SWRP. • Section 3 provides an overview of the watersheds present in the Planning Area, along with the water quantity and quality issues associated with each watershed. • Section 4 provides a discussion of the various water quality regulations present in the Planning Area and strategies for compliance.
• Section 5 summarizes the quantitative methods used to identify, analyze, and prioritize stormwater capture project opportunities.
• Section 6 describes the results of the analyses, including a summary of the identified projects and details regarding selection of the seven projects for development of concept designs.
• Section 7 provides the implementation strategy for the SWRP. • Section 8 includes a summary of the stakeholder outreach efforts conducted during the development of the SWRP.

In addition, the following appendices are provided as attachments to this plan:
• Appendix A: SWRP Self-Certification Checklist.
• Appendix B: TAC Meeting Summaries.
• Appendix C: Annotated List of Reviewed Data and Reports. • Appendix D: Monterey Peninsula Water Recovery Study Report. • Appendix E: Project Database.
• Appendix F: Project Concept Designs.
• Appendix G: Hartnell Gulch Project Concepts and Preliminary CEQA Checklist. • Appendix H: Summary of Stakeholder Meetings.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 508, Packet Page 608 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 5 07.30.2019

2. ORGANIZATION, COORDINATION, AND COLLABORATION
The California Water Code Section requires that local agencies and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) be consulted in the SWRP development. This section of the SWRP describes the organization and roles of the SWRP developers and the community engagement process that occurred during SWRP development, while Section 7 describes the plan for ongoing collaboration during the SWRP implementation and Section 8 focuses on stakeholder participation during SWRP development.

2.1 Coordination of Cooperating Entities
Cooperating entities participating in the Monterey Peninsula Region SWRP include the MRSWMP member agencies, introduced in Section 1.1, as well as the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. The cooperating entities provided input and coordination on the SWRP through a sub-committee of MRSWMP members, which met monthly throughout the duration of the project, as well as involvement on the TAC (described in further detail in Section 2.2). In addition to the cooperating entities, several interested parties were involved in the project through participation on the TAC and through the Stakeholder Group (see Section 2.3). A summary of the Monterey Peninsula region cooperating entities and interested parties is provided in Table 1, below. An “x” indicates the entity has signed one of the agreements summarized below or provided a letter of support.

Agreements and/or support letters that demonstrate agency support and inclusion within the Monterey Peninsula Region SWRP include:
• A Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) combined public agencies from Monterey County and created Monterey One Water (M1W in Table 1), formerly the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA), in 1979. • In 2002, a regional Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed with other local MS4 agencies to form the MRSWMP. With the onset of the region’s first Phase II MS4 Permit, the member agencies began implementing the MRSWMP, which was approved by the Central Coast RWQCB in 2006 for implementation by the MRSWMP members to fulfill municipal permittee obligations locally. The MRSWMP MOA was subsequently updated and renewed by the member agencies in parallel with the second Phase II MS4 Permit timeline.
• A MOA established the Central Coast Regional Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) Dischargers Monitoring Program for all stormwater dischargers to the Carmel Bay ASBS and Pacific Grove ASBS, along with other ASBS outside of the Monterey Peninsula area in 2012. In 2015, this MOA was extended through December 31, 2016.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 509, Packet Page 609 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 6 07.30.2019
Table 1: Cooperating Entities and Interested Parties
Entities
Roles and
Responsibilities
M1WMRSWMPASBSLetter of Support
Monterey One Water Lead Entity x x x
Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program Cooperating Entity x City of Carmel-By-The-Sea Cooperating Entity x x
City of Del Rey Oaks Cooperating Entity x x
City of Monterey Cooperating Entity x x x
City of Pacific Grove Cooperating Entity x x x
City of Sand City Cooperating Entity x x
City of Seaside Cooperating Entity x x
County of Monterey Cooperating Entity x x x
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Cooperating Entity x City of Salinas Interested Party x
Fort Ord Military Reservation Interested Party x
California State Parks Interested Party x
Hopkins Marine Station Interested Party x
Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation Interested Party x
Pebble Beach Company Interested Party x x
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Interested Party x Greater Monterey County Integrated Regional Water
Management Program (IRWMP)
Interested Party x
Central Coast Areas of Special Biological Significance
Regional Dischargers Monitoring Program
Interested Party x
Carmel Area Waste Water District Interested Party x
Transportation Agency for Monterey County Interested Party x Big Sur Land Trust Interested Party x
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Interested Party x

2.2 TAC Involvement
The TAC provided input on the SWRP through four meetings conducted over the course of the project to date, as well as through review of SWRP state submittals. The TAC was primarily responsible for providing feedback of state submittals prior to delivery by the Project Team, providing input on project identification and metrics-based multi-benefit analyses (see Section 5), selecting the top seven project opportunities developed into concept designs, and selecting the top project, developed into a 30% design. The TAC also provided review of this Administrative Draft SWRP prior to finalizing the public draft.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 510, Packet Page 610 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 7 07.30.2019
A summary of the TAC members and roles for the project, including involvement with the MRSWMP Subcommittee, is provided in Table 2, below.

Table 2: TAC Members and Roles
Name Role(s) Organization1
Scott Ottmar MRSWMP Subcommittee Member;
Technical Reviewer City of Seaside
Jeff Krebs MRSWMP Subcommittee Member;
Technical Reviewer City of Monterey
Tom Harty MRSWMP Subcommittee Member;
Technical Reviewer
County of Monterey
Resource Management Agency
Jeff Condit
Project Manager; MRSWMP
Subcommittee Member; Technical
Reviewer
Monterey One Water
Alison Imamura Technical Reviewer Monterey One Water
Larry Hampson Technical Reviewer Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Dominic Roques Technical Reviewer Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region
Sarah Hardgrave Technical Reviewer Big Sur Land Trust
Jeffrey Albrecht Technical Reviewer State Water Resources Control Board Elizabeth Payne Technical Reviewer State Water Resources Control Board Jill Bicknell TAC Facilitator EOA, Inc. (consultant to Monterey One Water) Lisa Austin Project Director Geosyntec (consultant to Monterey One Water) Kelly Havens Technical Task Lead/ Project Manager Geosyntec (consultant to Monterey One Water) Lisa Welsh Assistant Project Manager Geosyntec (consultant to Monterey One Water) Denise Duffy TAC Facilitation, Local Perspective DD&A (consultant to Monterey One Water) Rachid Ait-Lasri Grant Manager State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Financial Assistance
1 Individual’s organization during the development of the SWRP.

A summary of the TAC meetings and topics of discussion is provided in Table 3, below. TAC meeting summaries are provided as Appendix B.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 511, Packet Page 611 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 8 07.30.2019
Table 3: Summary of Monterey Peninsula Region SWRP TAC Meeting Topics TAC Meeting Date Topics Discussed
1/Kickoff September
12, 2017
Project purpose, background, approach, and schedule.

Stormwater Resource Plan Outline.

Stormwater Resource Planning Area Description Memorandum.

Approach to addressing water quality.

Stakeholder Outreach Plan.

Approval of TAC member list.
2 November
2, 2017
Stakeholder Meeting #1.

Relationship between the SWRP and the IRWMP.

Data review and project metrics-based analysis and quantification.

Technical Memorandum on Water Recovery Study Methodology. 3 February
22, 2018
Implementation strategy for the SWRP.

Water Recovery Study findings.

Preliminary SWRP project list and prioritization results.

Selection of projects for concept design.
4 April 12,
2018
DRAFT Administrative Draft SWRP.

Status of preparation of 10% and 30% concept designs.

Plan for the public outreach meeting for presentation of the Public Draft SWRP. 5 August 13,
2018
Public Comments on Public Draft SWRP.

Update on 30% Design for Hartnell Gulch.

Plan for project completion.

2.3 Stakeholder Involvement
The identified Stakeholder Group was engaged in the SWRP development process through email updates and two stakeholder meetings. The Stakeholder Group includes representatives from city, county, regional, state, and federal government agencies; water and wastewater districts and private water suppliers; research institutions; and non-profit organizations and citizen groups. A full list of the stakeholders is provided in Appendix H. The non-profit organizations working on stormwater and dry weather resource planning and management include the following:
• Big Sur Land Trust
• Carmel River Steelhead Association
• Carmel River Watershed Conservancy
• Carmel Valley Association
• Ecology Action
• Keep Fort Ord Wild
• LandWatch Monterey County
• Monterey Coastkeeper/The Otter Project
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 512, Packet Page 612 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 9 07.30.2019
• Planning and Conservation League
• Santa Lucia Conservancy
• Save Our Shores
• Sierra Club
• Step Up 2 Green / Sustainability Academy
• Surfrider Foundation
• Sustainable Marina (residents’ group)
• The Nature Conservancy
• Trout Unlimited
• Ventana Wilderness Alliance
The first meeting was held on October 17, 2017 and included information on the SWRP purpose, the methods used to identify and preliminarily score the project opportunities using a metricsbased multi-benefit analysis, and next steps for the project. Stakeholder input regarding the development of the SWRP and the project identification and scoring process was documented and considered prior to finalizing the analytical methods used.

The second meeting was held on February 8, 2018 and consisted of an overview of the project identification, analysis, and preliminary scoring results. The prioritized list of multi-benefit stormwater capture projects was presented to stakeholders, and their input on the top ranked projects was requested. Stakeholders were also asked to provide input on project characteristics that should be considered for identifying the projects for concept design. A summary of the stakeholder outreach is provided in Section 8 of this SWRP, and meeting notes and summaries are provided in Appendix H.

Additionally, the Stakeholder Group participated in a public meeting held on June 27, 2018 that focused on the Public Draft SWRP. The public meeting consisted of an overview of (1) the SWRP chapters and the methodology for identifying, evaluating, and prioritizing local and regional stormwater capture projects; (2) the IRWMP and relationship to the SWRP; and (3) the seven project concepts selected by the TAC for conceptual design. After the presentation, attendees were encouraged to walk around the meeting room, view the project concepts displayed on poster boards and ask questions of the project proponents. Stakeholders were also invited to provide written feedback at the meeting and asked to submit additional comments online by July 25, 2018. A summary of the public meeting is provided in Appendix H.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 513, Packet Page 613 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 10 07.30.2019

2.4 Coordination with Integrated Regional Water Management Group The Monterey Peninsula SWRP has been prepared in close collaboration with the Monterey Peninsula IRWM Regional Water Management Group (RWMG). The RWMG includes many of the same agencies that are cooperating entities or interested parties in the development of the SWRP. The Monterey Peninsula IRWM lead is the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD). The SWRP was introduced to the RWMG at a meeting on November 1, 2018 and the SWRP was unanimously accepted for inclusion in the IRWMP as an appendix. Projects proposed in the SWRP will also be vetted through the IRWM project prioritization process and included as part of the IRWM project list (also see Appendix I).

The goals of the 2014 IRWMP were organized into six general categories: water supply, water quality, flood protection and erosion prevention, environmental protection and enhancement, climate change, and regional communication and cooperation (MPWMD and DD&A, 2014).

Details related to these goals are provided in Table 4, as updated in 2018 from the 2014 IRWMP (MPWMD and DD&A, 2014; MPWMD, 2019). The 2018 update also resulted in two additional categories from those identified in 2014 (i.e., watershed management and coastal and streamside erosion; erosion had previously been included as part of the flood control category).

Table 4: Monterey Peninsula Regional IRWMP Goals
Water Supply Water Quality
Improve regional water supply reliability through
environmentally responsible solutions that promote
water and energy conservation. Protect the community
from drought and climate change effects with a focus on interagency cooperation and conjunctive use of regional water resources.

Protect and improve water quality for beneficial uses
consistent with regional community interests and the
RWQCB Basin Plan through planning and
implementation in cooperation with local and state
agencies and regional stakeholders.

Watershed Management (WM) Coastal and Streamside Erosion (CSE) Develop watershed scale management strategies,
considering climate change effects and maximizing
opportunities for comprehensive management of water
resources.

Ensure that erosion management strategies are
developed and implemented through a collaborative and
watershed-wide approach and are designed to consider
climate change effects.

Flood Protection (FP) Environmental Protection & Enhancement (EV) Ensure that flood protection strategies are developed
and implemented through a collaborative and
watershed-wide approach and are designed to consider
climate change effects and maximize opportunities for
comprehensive management of water resources.

Preserve the environmental health and well-being of the Region’s streams, watersheds, and the ocean by taking
advantage of opportunities to assess, restore and
enhance these natural resources when developing water
supply, water quality, and flood protection strategies.

Seek opportunities to conserve water and energy, and
adapt to the effects of climate change.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 514, Packet Page 614 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 11 07.30.2019
Climate Change (CC) Regional Communication (RC)
Adapt the region’s water management approach to deal
with impacts of climate change using science-based
approaches, and minimize the regional causal effects
related to water resources.

Identify an appropriate forum for regional
communication, cooperation, and education. Develop
protocols for encouraging integration and reducing
inconsistencies in water management strategies between
local, regional, State, and Federal entities. Provide
balanced access and opportunity for the public,
stakeholders, and DACs to participate in IRWM efforts.

A lengthy objective review process, including input from stakeholders, resulted in the identification of IRWMP goals and objectives within each of the identified categories. The IRWMP objectives are provided in Table 5, as updated in 2018 from the 2014 IRWMP (MPWMD and DD&A, 2014; MPWMD, 2019). As of 2018, there are thirty-two (32) total IRWMP objectives identified.

Table 5: IRWM Plan Update Prioritized Regional Objectives Water Supply (WS)
WS-1. Meet existing water supply replacement needs of the Carmel River system and Seaside Groundwater Basin.

WS-2. Maximize use of recycled water and other reuse and where feasible, expand sewer services to areas with onsite systems to increase sources of water for recycling.* WS-3. Develop opportunities for stormwater capture and reuse pursuant to the Stormwater Resource Plan.

WS-4. Evaluate, advance, or create water conservation throughout the Region.* WS-5. Improve water supply needs to achieve multiple benefits, beneficial uses and environmental flows.

WS-6. Seek long-term sustainable supplies for adopted future demand estimates.

Water Quality (WQ)
WQ-1. Improve inland surface water quality for environmental resources (e.g. steelhead), including headwaters and tributaries of streams, and to protect potable water supplies.* WQ-2. Improve ocean water quality, including, but not limited to, Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), by minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges.

WQ-3. Protect and improve water quality in groundwater basins, especially where at risk from seawater intrusion.

Flood Protection (FP)
FP-1. Develop regional projects and plans necessary to protect critical infrastructure and sensitive habitats from flood damage and sea level rise, in particular, along the Carmel Bay and South Monterey Bay shoreline.* FP-2. Develop approaches for floodplain restoration or adaptive management that minimize maintenance and repair requirements (sustainable flood management systems).

FP-3. Promote floodplain restoration that protect quality and availability of water while preserving or restoring ecologic and stream function.

FP-4. Provide community benefits beyond flood protection, such as public access, open space, recreation, agricultural preservation, and economic development.*
Coastal and Streamside Erosion (CSE)
CSE-1. Manage areas along the shoreline susceptible to erosion, including long-term strategic retreat where appropriate.

CSE-2. Identify opportunities to restore natural stream function, including meandering, in the lower 15 miles of the Carmel River and selected tributaries.

CSE-3. Reduce or prevent adverse downcutting in the main stem Carmel River and its tributaries.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 515, Packet Page 615 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 12 07.30.2019
Watershed Management (WM)
WM-1. Reduce human-induced sources of non-point fine sediment runoff.

WM-2. Restore natural fire frequency in headwater forests.

WM-3. Restore the natural hydrologic flow regime in disturbed watersheds where appropriate, including low impact development strategies in urbanized areas.

WM-4. Re-establish a natural level of sediment supply within the Carmel River and its tributaries.

Environmental Protection and Enhancement (EV)
EV-1. Protect and enhance sensitive species and their habitats in the regional watersheds*; including, but not limited to, promoting the steelhead recovery by meeting accepted or approved environmental flows within the regional watersheds. .

EV-2. Assess, protect, enhance, and/or restore natural resources, including consideration of climate change, when developing water management strategies and projects.*
EV-3. Minimize adverse effects on biological and cultural resources when implementing strategies and projects.

EV-4. Identify opportunities for open spaces, trails and parks along streams and other recreational areas in the watershed that can be incorporated into projects.*
EV-5. Identify and integrate elements from appropriate Federal and State species protection and recovery plans.

EV-6. Promote watershed activities for fire fuel management and adaptive management strategies to protect water quality and water supplies from catastrophic wildfires.* Climate Change (CC)
CC-1. Implement adaptation measures and mitigation solutions to climate change effects, including increased large storm intensity and/or frequency, sea level rise, drought and wildfire.

CC-2. Support increased education, monitoring and research to increase understanding of long-term impacts of climate change in the region.

CC-3. Increase energy conservation measures and alternatives to fossil fuel and non-renewable resources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with water and wastewater facility operations and IRWM projects.

Regional Communication and Cooperation (RC)
RC-1. Identify cooperative, integrated strategies for protecting both infrastructure and environmental resources, including from climate change impacts.

RC-2. Foster collaboration among regional entities as an alternative to litigation through ongoing meetings of the RWMG and regional data sharing.

RC-3. Identify and pursue additional opportunities for public education, outreach, and communication on water resource management and climate change, including to disadvantaged communities and stakeholders with interests in water management issues.

RC-4. Build relationships with State and Federal regulatory agencies and other water forums and agencies.

NOTE:
* = Objective is closely aligned with Statewide Priorities.

2.5 Coordination with Regulatory Agencies
Local, regional, and state regulatory agencies have been engaged and actively involved in the development of this Monterey Peninsula Region SWRP. As summarized in Section 2.1, the SWRP cooperating entities include Monterey Peninsula cities, which have regulatory authority over planning and project permitting, along with Monterey One Water and the MPWMD, which locally regulate wastewater and water supply in the region, respectively.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 516, Packet Page 616 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 13 07.30.2019
Select cooperating entities were also involved in the project through the MRSWMP subcommittee and the TAC, as described in Sections 2.1 and 2.2. In addition to these cooperating entities, a representative from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB) was a member of the TAC, as well as three representatives from the SWRCB (as summarized in Table 2). These regional and state regulatory agencies had the opportunity to provide input on the SWRP as it was being developed.

Decisions relating to plan implementation that must be made by the involved regulatory agencies include project review and approval. In addition to typical project design review conducted by cities within which projects are located, the CCRWQCB may be involved in facilitating project review and approving required permits, such as 401 certifications. Monitoring and visualization of surface water and/or groundwater is required by the ASBS special protections, is carried out as part of groundwater characterization, and is conducted as part of the MRSWMP monitoring program.

In addition to coordination with local, regional, and state regulatory agencies, this SWRP has been prepared consistent with the SWRP Guidelines (SWRCB, 2015a). A self-certification checklist is provided as Appendix A.

2.6 Relationship to Existing Planning Documents
This SWRP was developed with consideration of numerous existing planning documents. A summary of these existing planning documents is provided in Appendix C. Included in this Annotated List of Plans and Reports are the titles of the applicable plans and reports, the authoring organization, the year the document was finalized, a description of the document, and a matrix indicating the topics covered by the document.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 517, Packet Page 617 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 14 07.30.2019

3. WATERSHED IDENTIFICATION
Water Code Sections 10565(c) and 10562(b)(1) require defining the appropriate geographic scale of watersheds for stormwater resource planning. The four United States Geological Survey (USGS) and California Department of Water Resources (DWR) watersheds that are located within the Planning Area have been used as the basis for the Monterey Peninsula Region SWRP. The jurisdictional boundaries within these watersheds were also used to further delineate planning priorities. The USGS and DWR watersheds in the Planning Area include (Figure 1):
• The Carmel River Basin watershed;
• Most of the Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay watershed; • A small portion of the Big Sur/Frontal Pacific Ocean watershed; and • A small portion of the El Toro Creek/ Salinas River watershed.

3.1 Watersheds and Subwatersheds Descriptions
The Carmel River Basin is the largest basin in the Planning Area and the Carmel River represents the largest source of potable water for the region. The Carmel River Basin is less developed than the Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay watershed but does have some water quality issues that are discussed as part of this plan. The Carmel River Basin watershed is underlain by the Carmel Valley groundwater basin.

The Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay watershed contains most of the urbanized area within the Planning Area, and thus has different water quality priorities than the Carmel River Basin. The watershed is underlain by the adjudicated Seaside Groundwater Basin, which augments the water supply provided by the Carmel River Basin watershed, but jurisdictions within this watershed constitute many users of water supply from the Carmel River.

The small portion of the Big Sur/Frontal Pacific Ocean watershed within the Planning Area is not as developed as other areas within the region, consisting largely of unincorporated Monterey County lands. The watershed overlies a small portion of the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer. Much of the water quality concerns in the watershed are like those of the Carmel River Basin.

The small portion of the El Toro Creek/Salinas River watershed is located adjacent to urban areas within the Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay watershed. This portion of the watershed is included in the Planning Area as it is largely open space and overlies the Seaside Groundwater Basin. This plan touches on some of the water quality issues within the larger watershed, but largely discusses this watershed in the same context as the Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay watershed.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 518, Packet Page 618 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 15 07.30.2019
Figure 1 displays the Planning Area, along with the four USGS watersheds, the jurisdictions, the underlying groundwater basins, state and federal lands, creeks, lakes, rivers, and water distribution, and wastewater facility boundaries. The Planning Area drains to three ASBS: Point Lobos, Carmel Bay, and Pacific Grove. These ASBS are shown in Figure 1; drainage areas to the ASBS are displayed in Figure 2.

The Planning Area is also adjacent to the MBNMS. The MBNMS was designated in 1992 as a federally-protected marine area offshore of California's central coast. Its natural resources include the United States’ largest kelp forest, one of North America's largest underwater canyons, and the closest-to-shore deep ocean environment in the continental United States. It is home to one of the most diverse marine ecosystems in the world. Urban stormwater runoff has the potential to impact water quality in the MBNMS, per findings from monitoring and analysis in both the near shore environment and coastal watersheds.

Each of the four watersheds are described in further detail in the following sections.

3.2 Carmel River Basin
The Carmel River Basin comprises the largest area within the Planning Area. The watershed is largely located within unincorporated Monterey County lands, but a portion of the city of Carmelby-the-Sea is within the Carmel River Basin watershed.

Federal parks in the watershed include the Ventana Wilderness within Los Padres National Forest.

Native habitats and natural open space include lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, along with other open space areas, including several parks and open space administered by the Monterey Regional Park District, the largest of which include the Palo Corona Regional Park and the Garland Ranch Regional Park. These areas are shown in Figure 1.

Land use in the 255-square-mile Carmel River Basin watershed includes wilderness, viticulture, grazing, recreation (golf courses and park areas), and rural residential, suburban, commercial, and light industrial. Very little of the watershed is currently in traditional agricultural use (MPWMD and DD&A, 2014). Open space areas in the Planning Area are shown in Figure 3.

A portion of the Carmel River Basin watershed is underlain by the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer.

Currently, over 60% of the potable water (groundwater) used in the Monterey Peninsula region originates from the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer. The Carmel River Basin watershed is also home to 29 fish and wildlife species that are identified federally or by the state of California as “special,” “threatened,” or “endangered,” along with seven plant species (The Carmel River Watershed Conservancy, 2017a; The Carmel River Watershed Conservancy et al., 2017b).

The Carmel River is used as potable water for the region by the California American Water Company (CalAm). CalAm operates the Los Padres Dam and 21 downstream wells which pump water from the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer to the Monterey Peninsula.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 519, Packet Page 619 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 16 07.30.2019
The Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer is one of only three basins in California in which the SWRCB has determined that groundwater flow is in defined subterranean channels that are under the SWRCB jurisdiction. In 1995, the SWRCB limited the amount of water that can be pumped from under the Carmel River by CalAm, which supplies most of the water on the Monterey Peninsula, and declared the alluvial aquifer to be fully appropriated during the dry season. SWRCB found in Order 95-102 that two-thirds of the water CalAm diverted was without authorization or basis of rights and the company was ordered to find replacement supplies. In 2009, SWRCB issued a Cease-and-Desist Order to CalAm and set January 1, 2016 as a deadline to cease unauthorized diversions (SWRCB, 2009). The Cease-and-Desist Order was extended in 2016 with a new deadline of January 1, 2022 for compliance (SWRCB, 2016).

The 2016 Order includes an effective diversion limit of 8,310 acre-feet per year (ac-ft/yr) through December 31, 2021. The 2016 Order indicates that the diversion limit shall be reduced by 1 acrefoot for every acre-foot of Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Water delivered.

Additionally, there are identified annual milestones in the 2016 Order that, if not met, will result in a reduction of the effective diversion limit of 1,000 ac-ft/yr for each milestone missed.

Table 6 provides a summary of current water rights. While the face value of water rights appears to be sufficient to supply the needs of the Monterey Peninsula, the reality is that a substantial portion of the water rights are subject to meeting instream flow requirements. Because the Carmel River has such a wide range of annual flows, it is not a reliable source to fully meet the community’s needs.

2 Order 95-102009-0060 (SWRCB, 1995) indicates that CalAm has the following rights: 1) a pre-1914 appropriative right for 1,137 acre-feet per year; 2) approximately 60 acre-feet per year for riparian parcels within the valley through riparian rights; 3) an appropriative right that was reduced from the original licensed amount to divert up to 3,030 acrefeet per year storage to Los Padres Reservoir from October 1 through May 31 through License 11866, though the actual diversion is limited to 2,179 acre-feet per year due to siltation in the reservoir. The Order states that CalAm was diverting about 10,730 acre-feet per year without a valid basis of right (per Order 95-10).

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 520, Packet Page 620 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 17 07.30.2019
Table 6: Summary of Carmel River Water Rights
Entity Water Right
Face value
(ac-ft/yr)
Yield
(ac-ft/yr)
Maximum Diversion
Rate
(cubic feet per
second)
CalAm
Pre-1914 1,137 1,137 1.6
Riparian 60 60 0.1
License 11866 3,030 2,179 2.0
Permit 21330 1,488 400 2.6
Subtotal CalAm 5,715 3,776 6.3
MPWMD
Permit 20808A1 2,426 730 6.7
Permit 20808B 18,764 unknown 42.0
Permit 20808C1 2,900 870 8.0
Subtotal MPWMD 24,090 1,600 56.7
Subtotal CalAm and MPWMD 29,805 5,376 63.0
Other Table 132 1,256 low 4.3
Other riparian 2,200 2,200 3.6
Total 33,261 7,576 70.9
Notes:

1. Held jointly by MPWMD and CalAm.

2. Permitted or reserved amounts.

The MPWMD augments, manages, and regulates surface and groundwater resources in the Carmel Valley and the greater Monterey Peninsula. MPWMD’s jurisdiction includes the area served by CalAm’s Monterey District and CalAm’s sources of supply, (the Seaside Groundwater Basin and Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer), which MPWMD defines as the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System. The Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System includes supplies for nonCalAm pumpers in the Seaside Basin and Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer, as well. The MPWMD was established by state statute in 1978 to provide integrated management of all water resources for the Monterey Peninsula; among its functions is the allocation of water supply within its boundaries. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Boundary is shown on Figure 1.

CalAm serves the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, and some unincorporated Monterey County communities from supplies in the Carmel River Basin and Seaside Groundwater Basin (MPWMD and DD&A, 2014). The Seaside Groundwater Basin is described in the Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay watershed description provided in the following section.

Portions of unincorporated Monterey County within the Carmel River Basin watershed are served by onsite private wells or small water systems. These wells are regulated by DWR, MPWMD, Monterey County, and by the California Coastal Commission (CCC), if serving coastal development. In addition to a well permit issued by DWR, the property owner receives a Use Permit through Monterey County for development of a new well to support planned development, Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 521, Packet Page 621 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 18 07.30.2019
providing that the well yields enough water without significant impacts. For coastal developments, this involves converting a temporary well permit issued by the CCC to a permanent well (MPWMD and DD&A, 2014). MPWMD also regulates private wells within its boundaries through its Water Distribution System Rules and Regulations. The focus of the MPWMD permit system is to limit withdrawals in areas where basins are being over pumped and to monitor the sustainability of using percolating groundwater in other areas.

The Carmel Area Wastewater District (CAWD) provides wastewater treatment for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and some unincorporated areas such as the mouth of Carmel Valley, portions of Pebble Beach and Carmel Highlands, and other unincorporated areas surrounding the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Most unincorporated areas within Carmel Valley use individual septic systems.

3.2.1 Water Quality
Major tributaries within the Carmel River Basin watershed include Cachagua Creek, Pine Creek, San Clemente Creek, Carmel River, Hitchcock Canyon Creek, Las Garzas Creek, Robinson Canyon Creek, Potrero Creek, and Tularcitos Creek. These waterbodies are shown in Figure 1.

Water quality priorities within the watershed include the sustainment of beneficial uses within the Carmel River, protection of the ASBS that receives drainage from the watershed (Point Lobos; see Figure 2 for drainage areas to the ASBS) along with addressing water pollutant concerns present in the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) (303[d]) listed for Tularcitos Creek. A summary of the waterbody impairments, along with the estimated TMDL completion dates, are provided in Table 7 and shown in Figure 2. These impairments are current as of the approval of the CCRWQCB’s 2014 303(d) list, approved through Resolution R3-2016-0053 and accompanying Staff Report (CCRWQCB, 2016).

Table 7: 303(d) Listed Waterbodies in the Carmel River Basin Watershed Waterbody Impairment(s) 303(d) Decision ID TMDL Completion Date Tularcitos Creek
Chloride
Sodium
Fecal Coliform
23164
23093
37561
2021
2021
2011
Tularcitos Creek provides agricultural beneficial uses. The sources of the chloride and sodium impairments in Tularcitos Creek are currently unknown, according to the 2014 303(d) list. The source of fecal coliform impairment is listed as domestic animals/livestock and natural sources.

The impairment is currently being addressed by the Tularcitos Creek Fecal Indicator Bacteria TMDL, which also covers the Lower San Antonio River, Cholame Creek, San Lorenzo Creek, and Arroyo De La Cruz watersheds (CCRWQCB, 2011).

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 522, Packet Page 622 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 19 07.30.2019

3.2.2 Watershed Processes
Precipitation within the Carmel River Basin watershed primarily falls between November and April. Average annual precipitation varies from the inland portion of the watershed to the coast, where annual precipitation is approximately 12% higher (MPWMD, 2014). Precipitation can also vary significantly from year to year, like much of California. Elevations within the watershed range from approximately 5,000 feet above mean sea level (feet msl) to 0 feet msl at the coast. Upland source areas for the Carmel River are the major source of water reaching the lower Carmel Valley (MPWMD, 2014), with annual precipitation reaching over 50 inches per year at the higher peaks in the Santa Lucia range.

Alteration of natural hydrologic processes in the watershed primarily consists of construction of dams on the Carmel River, the use of the Carmel River for water supply, and development in the lower elevations of the watershed. These alterations have resulted in changes to both natural drainage and environmental/ecological processes, as well as water quality and flooding threats as a result of urbanization. The majority of the upper watershed still has relatively few pervious areas, so changes to flow quantity primarily impact the more developed lower areas of the watershed.

Three dams were constructed on Carmel River between 1880 and 1948 – The Old Carmel River Dam (1883), the San Clemente Dam (1921), and the Los Padres Dam (1948). The Old Carmel River Dam and the San Clemente Dam were both removed from the Carmel River in 2015 and 2016, and projects are underway to restore the channel and habitat areas above and below the dams and reestablish sediment transport mechanisms within the River (The Carmel River Watershed Conservancy, 2017a; San Clemente Dam Removal Project, 2017). The removal of the San Clemente Dam is the largest dam removal project to ever occur in California, and reconnected large portions of the Carmel River Basin watershed. Following the removal of the San Clemente Dam, only the upper 45 square miles of the Carmel River Basin watershed remain disconnected by the main-stem Los Padres Dam (MPWMD and DD&A, 2014). These 45 miles primarily consist of Ventana Wilderness areas and support approximately 50 percent of the watershed’s steelhead spawning habitat and 42 percent of the watershed’s juvenile rearing habitat (MPWMD, 2014).

The Los Padres Dam is located 25 miles inland from the mouth of the Carmel River, and forms the Los Padres Reservoir. The Los Padres Reservoir’s estimated usable storage has been reduced significantly since its construction due to sedimentation (MPWMD and DD&A, 2014; The Carmel River Watershed Conservancy, 2017a).

Changes to environmental processes in the watershed have occurred in the lower portion of the watershed to protect built infrastructure. The Carmel River flows from the central portion of Monterey County toward the Pacific Ocean. During dry periods, the Carmel River does not flow into the Pacific Ocean, instead pooling at the Carmel Lagoon located on the coast of the Monterey Peninsula. To prevent flooding to adjacent properties during the rainy season, an artificial channel is often created through the sand barrier that contains the Carmel Lagoon on the west, though this Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 523, Packet Page 623 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 20 07.30.2019
mechanical breaching activity has been opposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service and conservation groups, as the Carmel Lagoon serves as habitat for certain endangered species, including a population of Central California Coast steelhead (The Carmel River Watershed Conservancy, 2017a; Monterey County Resource Management Agency, 2014a). As a result, there are proposals to develop an ecosystem protective barrier at the mouth of the Carmel Lagoon that would allow breaching of the barrier beach to occur naturally, preventing flood risk, while maintaining ecological function (Monterey County Resource Management Agency, 2014a).

Over the 20th century, significant development along the lower 15 miles of the Carmel River within the Carmel River 100-year floodplain has exacerbated storm-related losses during floods that in some cases have caused damage to roads, infrastructure, and private property, including residences (The Carmel River Watershed Conservancy, 2017a; Monterey County Resource Management Agency, 2014b). Flooding of built infrastructure within the floodplain in the lower portion of the watershed is a significant concern, in addition to the environmental changes discussed. As with all development, increased imperviousness also causes changes to flow quantity and water quality.

3.3 Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay
The Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay watershed comprises the second largest watershed area within the Planning Area and contains almost all the urbanized areas. Most of the watershed is located within the Planning Area. The cities of Pacific Grove, Monterey, Sand City, Del Rey Oaks, and Seaside are located entirely within the Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay watershed, and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is partially located within the watershed. The remainder of the watershed consists of unincorporated Monterey County land, including some unincorporated rural residential communities, such as Corral de Tierra.

Within the Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay watershed are several smaller urban watersheds, delineated as “Planning Watersheds” per the California Interagency Watershed Map of 1999 (updated May 2004, “calw221”). These include Indian Head Beach, Seaside, Laguna Beach, Point Pinos, and a portion of the Carmel Bay watersheds. These planning-level watersheds may be used for organization of project opportunities; because the watershed characteristics, water quality concerns, and goals are similar among the subwatersheds, they are discussed together in this Planning Area description as part of the Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay watershed.

State and federal lands in the watershed include Ford Ord Dunes State Park, a portion of Ford Ord National Monument, the Naval Postgraduate School, the United States Army Presidio of Monterey, the Monterey County Fairgrounds, Monterey State Historic Park, and a portion of California State University Monterey Bay, as well as several small regional parks. These areas are shown in Figure 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 524, Packet Page 624 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 21 07.30.2019
Land use within the watershed varies; within the Cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, Del Rey Oaks, Carmel-by-the-Sea, and Seaside, land use is primarily high- and low-density residential and commercial, with some industrial areas. Unincorporated areas within the watershed are largely low-density residential and open space, including several golf courses. Open space areas in the Planning Area are shown in Figure 3.

The Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay watershed is partially underlain by the adjudicated Seaside Groundwater Basin as well as parts of the Salinas Valley – Corral De Tierra Area and the Salinas Valley – Marina Area groundwater sub-basins. See Figure 1 for a map of the underlying groundwater basins.

The Seaside Groundwater Basin (the Basin) underlies an approximately 19- to 24-square-mile area below Sand City, Seaside, Del Rey Oaks, unincorporated Monterey County, and the Fort Ord Community. The action to adjudicate the Seaside Groundwater Basin was filed in 2003 and the Watermaster for the Basin was created in 2006 in response to potential overdraft conditions.

Pumping reduction requirements were established by the adjudication decision. The Watermaster carries out the Seaside Basin Monitoring and Management Plan and establishes a procedure for dealing with seawater intrusion, should it occur. The objectives of plan included the development of an exploratory borehole drilling program, geophysical surveys, and new monitoring wells to fully characterize the Basin, piezometric and water quality monitoring to examine longer-term trends, and development and implementation of a management program to optimize pumping and returning the Basin to equilibrium through implementation of conservation methods (Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster Board, 2006).

The Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay watershed located within the Planning Area is almost entirely located within the boundary of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.

Most of the cities within the watershed obtain water supply from CalAm. The exception to this includes a portion of the City of Seaside, which has a municipal water system that services 3,300 residential customers primarily adjacent to the Ord Community, representing about 10% of the population of the City of Seaside (MPWMD and DD&A, 2014; City of Seaside, 2017). The Seaside Municipal Water System consists of one groundwater well and two 500,000-gallon water tanks (City of Seaside, 2017). Most of the population of the City of Seaside is serviced by CalAm, and the remainder of the City of Seaside, located within the Ord Community, is serviced by the Marina Coast Water District Ord Community service area (MPWMD and DD&A, 2014; Marina Coast Water District, 2017). The Marina Coast Water District also services Central Marina (part of the Greater Monterey County IRWM region and SWRP). The Marina Coast Water District obtains all its water supply from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, and groundwater withdrawals are approximately 3,200 ac-ft/yr through the production wells that the Marina Coast Water District owns and operates (Marina Coast Water District, 2017). The Marina Coast Water District is also a partner in the Pure Water Monterey Project and would like to expand the supply of recycled water from that facility in the future to serve future customers in Fort Ord.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 525, Packet Page 625 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 22 07.30.2019
Collection of wastewater within the Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay Watershed is the responsibility of the cities. Monterey One Water is responsible for transferring wastewater from the cities and Ford Ord and treating it at the Regional Treatment Plant in Marina. The Marina Coast Water District provides wastewater collection services for the Ord Community within the Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay watershed. CAWD provides wastewater treatment for the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea, and some adjacent unincorporated areas (see Figure 1).

3.3.1 Water Quality
Major waterbodies within the Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay watershed include Canyon Del Rey, El Estero Lake, Laguna Grande, Roberts Lake, Del Monte Lake, Majors Creek, and Seal Rock Creek.

Water quality priorities within the watershed include addressing water pollutant concerns present in the four 303(d) listed waterbodies within the watershed, along with protection of the MBNMS and the two ASBS that receive drainage from the watershed (Pacific Grove and Carmel Bay; see Figure 2 for drainage areas to the ASBS). The 303(d) listed waterbodies within the Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay watershed include Monterey Harbor, Pacific Ocean at Stillwater Cove Beach, and Majors Creek. A summary of the waterbody impairments and the estimated TMDL completion dates are included in Table 8 and shown in Figure 2. These impairments are current as of the approval of the CCRWQCB’s 2014 303(d) list, approved through Resolution R3-2016-0053 and accompanying Staff Report (CCRWQCB, 2016).

Table 8: 303(d) Listed Waterbodies in the Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay Watershed Waterbody Impairment(s) 303(d) Decision ID
Expected TMDL
Completion Date
Monterey Harbor
Arsenic
Copper
Oxygen, Dissolved
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs)
Toxicity
41157
42111
49417
49419
42195
2027
2027
2027
2027
2023
Majors Creek
Copper
Escherichia coli (E. coli)
Lead
Zinc
42843
42895
42433
42726
2027
2027
2027
2027
Pacific Ocean at
Stillwater Cove Beach Enterococcus 44433 2027
Pacific Ocean at
Monterey State Beach
(Del Monte Beach)
Enterococcus
Total Coliform
36783
37096
2027
2027
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 526, Packet Page 626 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 23 07.30.2019
The sources of arsenic, copper, lack of dissolved oxygen, PCBs, and toxicity at Monterey Harbor are unknown. Beneficial use of Monterey Harbor includes commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms.

The source of copper, E. coli, lead, and zinc in Majors Creek is urban runoff and storm sewers, as well as unknown sources, according to the 2014 303(d) list. Natural sources are also included as a source for E. coli impairment. The beneficial use of Majors Creek is cold freshwater habitat.

The source of Enterococcus at Stillwater Cove Beach and Enterococcus and total coliform in the Pacific Ocean at Monterey State Beach is unknown, according to the 2014 303(d) list. Beneficial use of the Pacific Ocean at Stillwater Cove Beach includes water contact recreation.

The ASBS Special Protections require water quality monitoring. Additionally, the Cities of Pacific Grove and Monterey have proposed the ASBS Stormwater Management Project to further protect ASBS from some wet weather flows discharged from urbanized areas. The primary goal of the Pacific Grove ASBS Stormwater Management Project is to improve stormwater quality discharged into the ASBS located along the Pacific Grove coastline.

3.3.2 Watershed Processes
The Canyon Del Rey/Frontal Monterey Bay watershed is the most urbanized of the watersheds in the Planning Area. Imperviousness resulting from urbanization is known to increase the quantity of stormwater that is produced and discharged from an area during rainfall events. While much of the soil in the Canyon del Rey and Seaside Basin has a high sand content and is therefore highly pervious, there are still numerous stormwater outfalls that discharge stormwater runoff from the watershed directly into the Monterey Bay. Much of Monterey, Pacific Grove, and Carmel are underlain by older weakly to moderately consolidated deposits with outcrops of the Monterey Formation (shale), sandstone formations, and granodiorite (USGS, 1997). In these areas, infiltration of rainfall and runoff can be low.

Alteration of natural hydrologic processes in the watershed that are caused by urbanization include changes in quantity and timing of flows, potential impacts to water quality discharged to the Monterey Bay, and environmental effects in natural and urbanized channels. Flood protection in the Canyon Del Rey watershed can also be a challenge. Within the incorporated cities in the watershed, flooding problems are generally localized, affecting fewer structures than some flooding in the unincorporated areas. High flows from the urbanized areas can overwhelm the storm drain systems in these areas discharging to Monterey Bay, including ASBS, presenting a challenge in reducing wet weather discharges from urbanized areas to the Bays and ASBS (MPWMD and DD&A, 2014).

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 527, Packet Page 627 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 24 07.30.2019

3.4 Big Sur/Frontal Pacific Ocean
The portion of the Big Sur/Frontal Pacific Ocean watershed within the Planning Area consists entirely of unincorporated Monterey County land. The area is primarily open space land, with some residential and minor commercial development in the Carmel Highlands community on the coast.

State parks in the watershed include Point Lobos State Natural Reserve and the upper portion of Garrapata State Park. The portion of the watershed within the Planning Area is shown in Figure 1.

The Big Sur/Frontal Pacific Ocean watershed is underlain by a portion of the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer. The Carmel Highlands are located within the MPWMD boundary but are served by the Carmel Riviera Mutual Water Company for water supply. The Water Company draws water from eight wells from groundwater stored in miscellaneous formations and the nearby Mal Paso Creek to serve the estimated 600 residents within their service area, working with Carmel Lahaina Utility Services, Inc. to provide water treatment and distribution operations (Water & Wastes Digest [W&WD], 2010). Most of the residential housing south of the Carmel River is not currently connected to CAWD and uses septic tank systems. Carmel Highlands has an Onsite Wastewater Management Plan. The plan describes the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding that the County of Monterey has with the CCRWQCB to administer individual onsite wastewater disposal regulations in conformity with the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast (Basin Plan).

The regulations are also provided in Chapter 15.20 of the Monterey County Code (Monterey County Health Department, 2009). CAWD is in the process of examining the potential for annexation of some of the communities to extend the district boundary south to serve additional units (Local Agency Formation Commission [LAFCO] of Monterey County, 2016).

The portion of the watershed in the Planning Area includes two major creeks that are largely unaffected by development – the ecologically important San Jose Creek, and the smaller Mal Paso Creek, which is partially within the Planning Area and provides water supply to the Carmel Riviera Mutual Water Company.

San Jose Creek is a steelhead-bearing waterbody which traverses 14.2 miles of steep terrain prior to discharging into the Pacific Ocean. Promoting the steelhead run, including assessing (and improving) the San Jose Creek Lagoon’s connectivity to the ocean, is one of the regional priorities in the IRWMP. A study on San Jose Creek found that sedimentation could inhibit the ability of the Creek to serve as salmonid habitat. A portion of the San Jose Creek has also been designated as critical habitat for California red-legged frogs (MPWMD and DD&A, 2014). Much of the San Jose Creek watershed is conserved public open space managed by State Parks and Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District, and the upper watershed includes open space protected by the Santa Lucia Conservancy and Big Sur Land Trust.

There are no 303(d) listed waterbodies bodies within the portion of the Big Sur/Frontal Pacific Ocean watershed that lies within the Planning Area. A portion of this watershed drains to the Point Lobos ASBS. Water quality priorities are like those within the Carmel River Basin watershed, Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 528, Packet Page 628 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 25 07.30.2019
along with protection of coastal resources. Watershed processes are much the same as the Carmel River Basin, with open space lands primarily located in the upper portion of the watershed and development on the coast. Due to the ecological importance of the San Jose Creek, it is not being considered as a potential water supply source (MPWMD and DD&A, 2014).

3.5 El Toro Creek/Salinas River
A small portion of the El Toro Creek/Salinas River watershed is located within the Planning Area.

This area is entirely within the federally managed Fort Ord National Monument, and land uses consist mostly of open space lands (see Figure 3). The portion of the El Toro Creek/Salinas River watershed that lies within the Planning Area is underlain by the adjudicated Seaside Groundwater Basin. The portion of the watershed within the Planning Area is shown in Figure 1. All runoff produced eventually drains towards the Salinas River, which is located within the Greater Monterey SWRP area; however, since the Fort Ord National Monument is entirely included in the Monterey Peninsula SWRP and this area overlies the Seaside Groundwater Basin, this area is included within the Planning Area.

The small portion of the El Toro Creek/Salinas River watershed located within the Planning Area is outside of the MPWMD service area boundary. Water supply needs in this area are limited and are met using private wells.

There are no major waterbodies in the portion of the El Toro Creek/Salinas River watershed within the Planning Area, and therefore no 303(d) listed waterbodies are located within the portion of the watershed that lies within the Planning Area.

While historic military practices in portions of the area have likely altered some of the natural watershed processes, the portion of the watershed within the Planning Area has very few impervious areas. As such, little additional runoff is anticipated to be produced from this portion of the watershed as compared to pre-development levels.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 529, Packet Page 629 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 26 07.30.2019

4. WATER QUALITY COMPLIANCE
There are several water quality regulatory requirements that some or all the Cooperating Entities must comply with, including the Phase II Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit (Phase II Permit) (Order 2013-0001-DWQ)3, a guidance letter from the CCRWQCB (13267 Letter), Statewide Trash Amendments, and TMDLs. The SWRP will assist in complying with these various permits and documents, as described below.

4.1 Pollutant-Generating Activities
Runoff from watersheds within the Monterey Peninsula region carries pollutants associated with urban development, industrial, and agricultural land use activities, and atmospheric deposition to local receiving water bodies, as described in Section 3. The Phase II recognizes the following:

Finding 2. As human population increases, urban development creates new pollution sources and brings with it proportionately higher levels of car emissions, car maintenance wastes, municipal sewage, pesticides, household hazardous wastes, pet wastes, trash, etc. which can either be washed or directly dumped into the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4).

As a result, the runoff leaving the developed urban area is greater in pollutant load than the pre-development runoff from the same area. Also, when natural vegetated pervious ground cover is converted to impervious surfaces such as paved highways, streets, rooftops, walkways and parking lots, the natural absorption and infiltration abilities of the land are lost. Therefore, runoff leaving developed urban area is significantly greater in runoff volume, velocity, peak flow rate, and duration than pre-development runoff from the same area. The increased volume, velocity, rate, and duration of runoff greatly accelerate the erosion of downstream natural channels. In addition, the greater the impervious cover the greater the significance of the degradation.

Finding 3. Pollutants of concern found in urban runoff include sediments, non-sediment solids, nutrients, pathogens, oxygen-demanding substances, petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, floatables, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), trash, pesticides and herbicides.

Finding 4. Trash and litter are a pervasive problem in California. Controlling trash is a priority, because trash adversely affects our use of California’s waterways. Trash impacts aquatic life in streams, rivers, and the ocean as well as terrestrial species in adjacent riparian and shore areas. Trash, particularly plastics, persists for years. It concentrates organic toxins, entangles and ensnares wildlife, and disrupts feeding when animals mistake plastic for food

3 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/phase_ii_municipal.shtml. The Phase II Permit requires stormwater agencies to comply with the corresponding TMDL requirements, as specified within the Permit and Attachment G, Region-Specific Requirements for Implementation of TMDLs. However, there are no regionspecific requirements affecting the Monterey Peninsula Region.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 530, Packet Page 630 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 27 07.30.2019
and ingest it. Additionally, trash creates aesthetic impacts, impairing our ability to enjoy our waterways.

Specific surface water quality issues identified in the Monterey Peninsula region include urban runoff pollution, including impairments for metals, bacteria, dissolved solids, PCBs, and general toxicity. There are four impaired water bodies and one TMDL (Tularcitos Creek TMDL for fecal coliform) in the Planning Area, which are described in Section 3 and summarized in Table 9.

Table 9: Monterey Peninsula Region SWRP Planning Area Impaired Waterbodies Water Body 2014 303(d) Listed Impairment(s)
Majors Creek in the City of Monterey E. Coli, Copper, Lead, and Zinc Monterey Harbor Arsenic, Copper, Dissolved Oxygen, PCBs, and Toxicity Pacific Ocean at Stillwater Cove Enterococcus
Pacific Ocean at Monterey State Beach (Del
Monte Beach) Enterococcus, Total Coliform
Tularcitos Creek in the Carmel River
watershed Chloride, Sodium, and Fecal Coliform (addressed by TMDL) The Planning Area is also adjacent to three ASBS as well as the MBNMS, and urban runoff is a possible cause of water pollution affecting the MBNMS.

4.2 Permits and TMDLs

4.2.1 Applicable Permit Requirements
MRSWMP member agencies are required to comply with the Phase II Permit. The following provisions of the Phase II Permit are related to analyses and deliverables prepared as part of this SWRP project:
• Provision E.14.a., Program Effectiveness Assessment and Improvement, which requires the development of a Program Effectiveness Assessment and Improvement Plan (PEAIP) and quantitative effectiveness assessment. The CCRWQCB provided a “Water Code Section 13267 Technical Report Order” guidance letter (13267 Letter) on June 13, 2016.

The purpose of the 13267 Letter was to provide additional clarification on reporting requirements (in addition to requirements for implementing progress of key activities). The intent was to enable PEAIPs to sufficiently assess stormwater pollutant reductions and aid in developing meaningful stormwater program modifications for the fifth year Annual Reports (due October 15, 2018) (Provision E.14.b). The 13267 Letter specifically requires each Permittee to:

1. Delineate and characterize catchments within the MS4 Permit area; Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 531, Packet Page 631 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 28 07.30.2019

2. Create and populate an inventory of structural best management practices (BMPs) located within the MS4 Permit area;

3. Estimate stormwater runoff volumes and pollutant loads from all catchments prior to BMP Implementation (unmitigated scenario);

4. Rank catchments relative to all MS4 Permit area catchments based on unmitigated runoff volume and pollutant loads;

5. Assess all inventoried BMPs to determine BMP effectiveness relative to the intended design;

6. Estimate stormwater runoff volumes and pollutant loads from all catchments after BMP implementation (mitigated scenario); and

7. Rank catchments relative to all MS4 Permit area catchments based on mitigated runoff volume and pollutant loads.

The 13267 Letter includes prescriptive details about how to meet each of the above requirements and allows for alternative approaches that are equivalent and equally defensible.

Data developed for the model that will be used for assessing the effectiveness of program components described within the PEAIP, the TELR model, have been used for some of the SWRP project opportunity metrics-based multi-benefit analyses conducted (see Section 5). The analyses conducted for the SWRP are not anticipated to be used to meet PEAIP requirements of the 13267 Letter, but the potential projects identified could be input into separate PEAIP analyses conducted to meet items 6 and 7 summarized above.

MRSWMP has a Stormwater Technical Guide for Low Impact Development (MRSWMP, 2015) that provides additional resources for new or redevelopment projects that must implement LID measures per the CCRWQCB Post-Construction Requirements (PCRs). The PCRs were adopted by the CCRWQCB in 2013 and apply in urbanized areas within specified Watershed Management Zones. This Stormwater Technical Guide provides design criteria and types of BMPs to be used for such projects (MRSWMP, 2015).

4.2.2 Areas of Special Biological Significance
There are three ASBS in the Planning Area: Point Lobos ASBS, which contains the Point Lobos State Marine Reserve, Carmel Bay from the east boundary of Point Lobos State Park to Ghost Tree in Pebble Beach, and an area adjacent to Pacific Grove near the boundary of the City of Monterey.

These areas are subject to ASBS Special Protections, and areas that discharge stormwater to the ASBS must develop compliance plans to meet those Protections.

As summarized in the Monterey Peninsula IRWMP (MPWMD and DD&A, 2014), the ASBS Special Protections generally include the elimination of dry weather runoff to the ASBS, Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 532, Packet Page 632 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 29 07.30.2019
developing measures to prevent wet weather runoff from altering natural water quality in the ASBS, and conducting adequate monitoring to examine if natural water quality and the marine life beneficial use is protected.

4.2.3 Tularcitos Creek TMDL
Grazing lands and ranching are the predominate land use activities in the Tularcitos Creek watershed. The CCRWQCB certified the Tularcitos Creek Fecal Indicator Bacteria TMDL in May 2011 (the TMDL also covers several other water bodies in Monterey County), and the TMDL was approved by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in November 2011. The CCRWQCB approved an alternative TMDL implementation program to rectify impairment due to fecal indicator bacteria under the Water Quality Control Policy for Addressing Impaired Waters:

Regulatory Structure and Options (SWRCB, adopted by Resolution 2005-0050) (Impaired Waters Policy).4 The CCRWQCB has certified the California Rangeland Water Quality Management Plan as the mechanism for implementing the TMDL. The SWRP primarily focuses on identifying urban stormwater projects within the Planning Area, and additional project identification analysis will not be conducted to identify rangeland management projects.

4.2.4 Statewide Trash Provisions
On April 7, 2015, the SWRCB adopted the statewide Trash Provisions (SWRCB, 2015b), which amended two statewide water quality control plans to include trash control requirements for owners/operators of MS4s. A primary intent of the requirements is to achieve significant reductions in the discharge of trash to local water bodies from cities and counties throughout the State. The Trash Provisions define trash as follows:

Trash means all improperly discarded solid material from any production, manufacturing, or processing operation including, but not limited to, products, product packaging, or containers constructed of plastic, steel, aluminum, glass, paper, or other synthetic or natural materials.

The Trash Provisions propose to implement the water quality objectives for trash through a conditional prohibition of discharge of trash directly into waters of the state or where trash may ultimately be deposited into waters of the state. The prohibition of discharge applies to both permitted and non-permitted dischargers. Implementation provisions focus on a land-use-based compliance approach that focuses trash controls in areas with high trash generation rates, which

4 The Impaired Waters Policy provides for a process in which the Regional Water Quality Control Boards may rely on methods used by another entity that is involved in effective efforts to address an impairment, and that the Regional Water Quality Control Board should seek to take those efforts into account and, where appropriate, take advantage of these third-party efforts. The Impaired Waters Policy establishes a certification process whereby the Regional Water Quality Control Boards can formally recognize regulatory or non-regulatory actions of other entities as appropriate TMDL implementation programs when the Regional Water Quality Control Boards determine those actions will result in attainment of standards.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 533, Packet Page 633 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 30 07.30.2019
are referred to as “priority land uses.” The Trash Provisions allow for a dual compliance track approach for MS4 Permittees:
• Track 1: Install, operate, and maintain full capture systems for the storm drain network that capture runoff from the priority land uses in their jurisdiction. • Track 2: Install, operate, and maintain any combination of full capture systems, multibenefit projects, other treatment controls, and/or institutional controls within either the jurisdiction of the MS4 permittee or the jurisdiction of the MS4 permittee and contiguous MS4 permittees. Permittees choosing Track 2 must demonstrate that the approach will achieve full capture system equivalency.

MRSWMP permittees received 13383 order letters from the SWRCB in June 2017 that required them to submit methods to comply with the Statewide Trash Provisions.

4.2.5 Federal Lands
Federal agencies are required to reduce stormwater runoff from federal development and redevelopment projects under Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

This SWRP acknowledges these requirements for the federal lands that are within the Planning Area, but as these areas are outside the jurisdiction of Monterey One Water and the cooperating entities of this SWRP (federal agencies are interested parties and stakeholders of the SWRP), stormwater compliance requirements for federal lands are not described herein.

4.2.6 Previous Actions Taken Towards Water Quality Protection There have been numerous actions taken in the region to protect water quality. In addition to wastewater control improvements, the cities participating in the MBNMS Water Quality Protection Program have sought to reduce the impacts of urban runoff pollution through a combination of low impact development, stormwater treatment measures (e.g., bioretention and other measures), and source control programs through the implementation of the Sanctuary’s Urban Runoff Plan, the prior Model Urban Runoff Program (1996), Monterey Regional Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (2002), and the MRSWMP (2006 to present).

Cities and counties subject to requirements of the ASBS Special Protections were required to submit compliance plans to the SWRCB. Cities within the region that have submitted compliance plans include the City of Carmel by the Sea, the City of Pacific Grove, and the City of Monterey (combined submittal with Pacific Grove), along with the County of Monterey.

These plans outline current and future compliance measures, including projects to reduce dry and wet weather flows to the ASBS. The City of Pacific Grove (with cooperation of City of Monterey and Monterey One Water) has completed two phases of a project to divert a portion of dry season flows away from the Pacific Grove ASBS, and the City of Monterey completed an alternatives Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 534, Packet Page 634 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 31 07.30.2019
analysis in 2006 along with an engineering report and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in 2013 for ceasing discharges in ASBS from Monterey, Pacific Grove, and Pebble Beach (MPWMD and DD&A, 2014). Additionally, the City of Carmel was awarded a Proposition 84 Grant to plan, design, and construct a Dry Weather Diversion Project to eliminate dry weather flows into the Carmel Bay ASBS, a project that began in 2011 (City of Carmel-By-The-Sea, 2014).

In addition to projects planned to reduce the discharge of untreated urban runoff into the ASBS, in early 2013, the Central Coast ASBS Regional Monitoring Program was established through a Memorandum of Agreement for all dischargers on the Central Coast, covering an area from Big Sur, in Monterey County, to Point Reyes, in Marin County. The Central Coast ASBS Regional Monitoring Program results are intended to inform future ASBS compliance efforts (City of Pacific Grove and City of Monterey, 2014).

These stormwater quality improvements add to wastewater pollutant control measures that have been in place in the region since the 1970s to protect water quality in the Monterey Bay. This includes the creation of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (now Monterey One Water) in 1972, along with the consolidation and modernization of wastewater collection and treatment. These projects included the repurposing of old coastal treatment plants into pump stations and the construction of the Regional Treatment Plan, which began operation in 1990, along with construction of the Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant and Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project in the 1990s. In Carmel and surrounding areas, the construction of the Carmel Area Wastewater District treatment plant in 1994 and creation of reclaimed water distribution services resulted in similar water quality benefits.

4.3 SWRP Water Quality Compliance Strategies
Traditional approaches to stormwater management do not fully address water quality impacts from stormwater discharges or necessarily provide multiple benefits such as water supply augmentation and ecological enhancement of the local watershed. The SWRP used a watershed-based approach to identify multi-benefit projects that can yield water quality benefits by reducing the volume of runoff delivered to receiving waters, thus reducing the pollutants discharged while augmenting needed water supplies. Watershed-based approaches to stormwater management also provide social and community benefits beyond traditional management approaches. Through this watershed-based approach, the SWRP projects will assist the MRSWMP permittees in demonstrating compliance with the Phase II Permit.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 535, Packet Page 635 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 32 07.30.2019
In addition, SWRP projects support implementation of the Statewide Trash Provisions. The SWRCB has indicated that the following types of BMPs are considered full capture systems (identified as Multi-Benefit Treatment Systems):
• Bioretention;
• Capture and Use;
• Detention Basin;
• Infiltration Trench;
• Infiltration Basin; and
• Media Filter.

Projects with drainage areas with higher anticipated average annual runoff volumes and right-ofway (ROW) opportunities near bus stops, an identified Priority Land Use for the Trash Provisions, have been identified as part of the project opportunity metrics-based multi-benefit analysis. These potential stormwater capture projects could also serve to meet trash management goals. This is discussed further in Sections 5 and 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 536, Packet Page 636 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 33 07.30.2019

5. QUANTITATIVE METHODS FOR IDENTIFICATION AND

PRIORITIZATION OF STORMWATER AND DRY WEATHER CAPTURE

PROJECTS
This section describes the quantitative methodology conducted for integrated identification, prioritization, and analysis of multiple benefit projects and programs. To develop the methodology, an evaluation of hydrologic/hydraulic models, water quality models, and other geographic information systems (GIS) and spreadsheet-based decision support tools and models was conducted. All projects identified in the SWRP were evaluated using the metrics-based multibenefit approach described in this section to score projects based on the benefits achieved.

This section also introduces additional project identification analysis conducted as part of the match-funded Monterey Peninsula Water Recovery Study. The Water Recovery Study Report is provided in Appendix D.

5.1 Overview of Approach
The methodology conducted included the following steps:

2. Screen and classify identified projects – all identified project opportunities were classified by project type, scale, and infiltration feasibility utilizing this approach. Project opportunities were screened for project implementation feasibility and potential performance using geospatial data obtained from the TELR model and cooperating entities (data received summary provided in Appendix C).

4. Prioritize and rank projects based on input from cooperating entities, interested parties, stakeholders, and the TAC – using the preliminary project opportunity scores along with other institutional knowledge (such as funding availability, areas of proposed redevelopment, and other factors), cooperating entities, interested parties, stakeholders, and the TAC provided input on project ranking and prioritization. The TAC selected the projects for which project concept designs are developed. See Section 6 for details.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 537, Packet Page 637 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 34 07.30.2019

5. Quantification of benefits –the volume of runoff captured was quantified for projects selected for development of concept design. See Section 6 for details.

A discussion of the evaluation of tools that were considered to conduct project analysis is described in the following section (Section 5.2), and descriptions of the selected methodology are provided in subsequent sections (Section 5.3 and Section 5.4).

5.2 Evaluation of Models and Tools
This section presents an evaluation of models and tools considered to complete the analyses.

5.2.1 Project Identification and Metrics-Based Analyses A geospatial tool was needed to identify potential project opportunity locations and to characterize them. There are several proprietary and non-proprietary tools that could perform this analysis, including but not limited to the Structural BMP Prioritization and Analysis Tool (SBPAT)5 , the
System for Urban Stormwater Treatment and Analysis Integration (SUSTAIN)6, TELR, or a customized geospatial approach.

The methodology used for project identification in this SWRP combined data and analyses in TELR with a customized GIS approach. This customized combined GIS and TELR-data approach is described greater detail in Section 5.3.

TELR, which was developed for the Central Coast Region, contains considerable information for the Planning Area that is relevant for stormwater facility siting and makes it suitable for incorporation into the analyses approach. Currently, TELR does not include a mechanism for evaluating multiple potential BMPs in an automated fashion, an important function needed to conduct the metrics-based multi-benefit analyses for the thousands of project opportunities that were identified for the SWRP. While SBPAT and SUSTAIN have these capabilities, SBPAT is currently specific to Southern California and would require considerable effort to be relevant for the Monterey Peninsula region. It is worth noting that the GIS approach used for this project included similar operations to SBPAT and therefore provides similar results. SUSTAIN was not selected, as USEPA has indicated on the website that “EPA can no longer develop or support SUSTAIN” (USEPA, 2017b), and the program currently requires use of an older version of ArcGIS (version 9.3). Given this and the proposed future uses of TELR for the region, investing in model development in SUSTAIN likely would not result in a longer-term sustainable model for the Planning Area.

5 Available at http://ladpw.org/wmd/bmpmethod/overview.shtm (Los Angeles Department of Public Works, 2017). 6 Available at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/system-urban-stormwater-treatment-and-analysis-integrationsustain (USEPA, 2017b).

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 538, Packet Page 638 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 35 07.30.2019

5.2.2 Project Quantification
For all identified project opportunities, simple quantification was conducted using a combination of geospatial data and utilizing analyses that had already occurred for the region as part of the development of TELR. These include the pollutant loading quantification that had been completed for larger-scale catchments within the Planning Area and are provided in the TELR platform.

More detailed quantification was conducted for the seven projects selected for concept design. The estimated volume of captured runoff can be used to quantitatively estimate the benefit that can be achieved by a project. Several proprietary and non-proprietary hydrologic modeling platforms were considered to quantify runoff draining to a facility at a project location. Commonly used nonproprietary hydrologic models include USEPA and USGS Hydrological Simulation Program (HSPF), the United States Army Corps’ Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) and Technical Release 55 (TR-55), and USEPA’s Stormwater Management Model (SWMM). This project utilized results from modeling conducted in USEPA SWMM, which can perform long-term continuous simulation modeling (HEC-HMS and TR-55 do not have this capability). Conceptlevel quantification is described in Section 6.4.

5.3 Project Identification and Classification
Planned and potential SWRP project opportunities were identified through three avenues, as mentioned in Section 5.1: (1) projects already planned or considered for future implementation by cooperating entities, interested parties, and stakeholders (see Section 5.3.1); (2) projects identified through an algorithmic GIS-based opportunity analysis, to identify feasible locations where a project could be implemented (see Section 5.3.2); and (3) additional project identification analysis conducted as part of the match-funded Monterey Peninsula Water Recovery Study (see Section

5.3.4). The planned projects and projects identified through the GIS opportunity analysis were classified as described below in Section 5.3.3. The additional projects identified as part of the Monterey Peninsula Water Recovery Study were classified as part of the Monterey Peninsula Water Recovery Study (Geosyntec, 2018; see Appendix D).

The interaction between the identification and classification of projects in the Water Recovery Study and the identification and classification that occurred as part of the general SWRP analyses is provided in the flow chart shown as Figure 4. This figure does not include final project prioritization or selection of projects for concept design (Steps 4 and 5 in Section 5.1; also see Section 6).

5.3.1 Planned Projects in the Planning Area
Planned projects in the Planning Area are those projects that a proponent has considered for implementation. These projects may be in various planning stages – from a preliminary idea to the design stage. Planned projects were identified through a project request sent out to cooperating Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 539, Packet Page 639 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 36 07.30.2019
entities, interested parties, and stakeholders. The request for projects was delivered in September 2017 in the form of a spreadsheet that contained “required” and “optional” information necessary to conduct project analyses. Information requested for each project included the proponent name, project name, location (Assessor Parcel Number [APN], address, or geospatial file), project type, drainage area information (required if a regional facility, optional otherwise), and other details about the project. The project request that was sent to cooperating entities, interested parties, and stakeholders is provided in Appendix E. These details were used to map preliminary project footprints and/or drainage areas for use in the metrics-based multi-benefit evaluation.

5.3.2 Identification of Additional Project Opportunities In addition to identification of projects submitted by cooperating entities, interested parties, or stakeholders, other opportunities for projects were identified by conducting a geospatial screening of publicly-owned parcels and ROWs. The project opportunity analysis was conducted in a GIS platform. The desktop GIS analysis entailed identification of publicly-owned parcels and ROWs that do not have physical feasibility constraints that could preclude implementation of a stormwater recovery project. The project opportunity analysis consisted of the following steps:7

1. Identify publicly-owned parcels through Monterey County land use code.8

2. Screen identified publicly-owned parcels to identify parcels that are at least 0.1 acres in size and with average slope less than 10% (estimated using USGS topographic data).

3. The parcels that met these criteria were considered for physical feasibility screening. The parcels that did not meet these criteria were not considered for projects.

4. Identify non-state highway public ROW9 within urban areas. This was conducted by using public road data provided by Monterey County.

5. Identified parcel-based, regional, and ROW locations were screened to remove sites with the following physical constraint:
a. Sites significantly outside of urbanized area10 (i.e., assumed to be dominated by open space) that do not overlie a water supply aquifer or riparian corridor; and

7 This analysis did not include screening checks that should occur as part of a project design, which include the presence of steep slopes in drainage areas (mostly applicable to regional projects), need for a liner due to proximity to structures, and other feasibility checks. The screening also did not include field checks such as drainage tie-ins, land use checks, or other data verification.
8 Parcel ownership identified using assessor parcel map data obtained from Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) (November 2015) along with land use code information from Gary de Amaral at the County of Monterey Assessor’s Office (2017). Land use codes 7A and 7B were considered publicly owned (includes municipal, state, and federal land).
9 This did not include roads that are not classified (e.g., bike path, trails, etc.) in the Monterey County data. 10 Identified using a combination of city limits, the United States Census Urbanized Areas, and Designated Places (United States Census Bureau, 2017).

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 540, Packet Page 640 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 37 07.30.2019
b. Sites significantly within areas that are highly susceptible to landslides. 11 5.3.3 Project Classification
All projects identified through the request for planned projects (Section 5.3.1) and the GIS opportunity analysis (Section 5.3.2) were classified to identify those that could be included in the Water Recovery Study (see Section 5.3.4), and to compile information for the metrics-based multibenefit evaluation (see Section 5.4).

Projects were classified by the following information:

1. Project scale (i.e., regional, parcel-based, or ROW project);

2. Infiltration feasibility, or feasibility of direct recharge via treatment through wastewater recycling and groundwater replenishment;

3. Facility type; and

4. Drainage area information.

Project Scale
Potential projects were categorized based on project scale as parcel-based (i.e., self-treating parcel) facilities, regional facilities (potential to treat an area outside of the parcel), and ROW/green street facilities (treating the road and areas that flow to the roadway, including, at a minimum, portions of adjacent parcels).

1. All distributed/street-based projects were identified as ROW projects.

2. Projects located on a parcel were classified as regional if:
a. The parcel contains at least 0.5 acre of undeveloped or open space area (as identified through land use class);12 and
b. The location is sufficiently close to a storm drain (i.e., within 500 feet,13 where storm drain pipe data is available).

3. All other parcel locations were identified as parcel-based projects.

11 Identified using data from the Monterey County Open Data GIS portal. 12 Undeveloped or open space land use identified through available land use data for urban areas; areas outside of urban areas with limited land use data were assumed to have sufficient space to accommodate a regional project. 13 Storm drain diversion projects identified as part of the Water Recovery Study used a different distance from the storm drain for screening; Monterey Peninsula Water Recovery Study Report, Appendix D.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 541, Packet Page 641 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 38 07.30.2019
Infiltration Feasibility
All project opportunity locations were categorized as feasible, partially feasible, or infeasible for infiltration. Locations that are not feasible for infiltration were still considered for partially infiltrating or non-infiltrating stormwater capture projects. Projects were categorized as follows:

1. Hazardous/infeasible for infiltration (i.e., facilities must be lined) – projects that are located:
a. Where more than 50% of the site is over liquefaction hazards; b. Where the surface elevation is within 10 feet (depth) of a water supply aquifer,14 as data are available;
c. Within 100 feet of a site with soil or groundwater contamination (based on proximity to active EnviroStor/GeoTracker15 sites);
d. Sites within 100 feet of water supply wells;16 or
e. Areas overlying Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) “rock outcrop” texture class or without an identified hydrologic soil group (HSG).

2. Infiltration safe but only partially feasible – this is the case when none of the above constraints exist, but the soil underlying the facility is relatively poorly draining (identified as HSG C or D).

3. Infiltration feasible – the site has none of the infiltration hazards present and the soil underlying the facility is relatively well draining (identified as HSG A or B).

Facility Characteristics
Facility characteristics were identified for each potential project for use in the project metricsbased multi-benefit evaluation, as part of the Performance category group. The facility characteristics that were identified include:

1. Water Recovery Project – planned projects or projects identified through the Water Recovery Study as having potential to augment water supply through capture of stormwater or dry weather runoff. See Section 5.3.4.

14 Groundwater depth was assumed to the extent possible using data obtained from the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program.
15 GeoTracker is a California SWRCB website which tracks sites with the potential to impact water quality in California, including contaminated sites (https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/). EnviroStor, a California Department of Toxic Substances Control site, is another useful tool for identifying contaminated sites:
(https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/).
16 Currently available data consists of the point locations of several hundred wells throughout the region, provided by MPWMD.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 542, Packet Page 642 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 39 07.30.2019

2. Green Infrastructure17 (distributed or regional) – these types of facilities are assumed to provide good stormwater pollutant removal; moderately reestablish natural hydrology; moderately develop, restore, or enhance habitat and open space; and provide enhanced community benefit.

3. Non-Green Infrastructure Treatment Control Facilities – these facilities, which do not include vegetation, are assumed to provide moderate stormwater pollutant removal and to moderately reestablish natural water drainage systems. They are sized to MS4 water quality requirements.

4. Flood Control Facilities – these facilities may include components of green infrastructure or (more commonly) non-green infrastructure treatment control. These facilities are identified by sizing to specifically control flood flows (considered to be the 1% or 100- year flood).

5. Hydromodification Control, Stream Restoration, or Habitat Restoration – these facilities or areas are designed specifically to restore areas impacted by erosive stormwater or dry weather flows and/or prevent these areas from impacts caused by future erosive flows.

These facility components may be added to one of the stormwater capture facility types listed above, or they may be stand-alone areas.

6. Public Use Area or Public Education Area – in most cases, public use areas or public education areas would not be stand-alone projects but would be supplemental features of one of the facility types listed above.

7. Programmatic Stormwater Management Opportunities – these include sidewalk landscaping and impervious surface removal programs, rainwater harvesting subsidy programs, green roof subsidy programs, residential rain garden and downspout disconnection programs, subsidy or credit programs for stormwater management and/or water quality projects on agricultural lands, and similar opportunities.

For planned projects identified by cooperating entities, interested parties, and stakeholders, the facility description or classification provided by the agency or project proponent was used to identify facility characteristics. Any planned projects classified as water supply augmentation projects or water recovery projects were also screened for inclusion in the Water Recovery Study.

Project opportunities identified through GIS analyses were classified using the following project classification criteria:

17 USEPA (2017a) includes the following definition of green infrastructure: “Green infrastructure uses vegetation, soils, and other elements and practices to restore some of the natural processes required to manage water and create healthier urban environments. At the city or county scale, green infrastructure is a patchwork of natural areas that provides habitat, flood protection, cleaner air, and cleaner water. At the neighborhood or site scale, stormwater management systems that mimic nature soak up and store water.” Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 543, Packet Page 643 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 40 07.30.2019

1. Locations conducive to implementation of one of the identified Water Recovery Study project types were screened for inclusion in the Water Recovery Study (see Section 5.3.4).

2. Locations that are not considered feasible for implementation of identified Water Recovery Study project types were classified as follows:
a. All identified ROW locations were classified as potential distributed green infrastructure projects (conservatively assumed to be sized for water quality control). b. Remaining parcel-based and regional projects were classified as potential green infrastructure projects.

Project Drainage Area
For each identified project, the project drainage area was identified and characterized. For those projects identified as Water Recovery Study projects, this occurred as part of the Water Recovery Study analyses (see Appendix D). For all other projects, the following drainage area characterization occurred:

1. All planned projects with identified drainage areas were characterized as provided.

2. For ROW projects for which drainage area had not been characterized, the roadway and an assumed tributary buffer (50 feet) that extends into the adjacent parcels were considered the project drainage area.

3. For parcel-based projects for which drainage area had not been characterized, the entire parcel was assumed to make up the drainage area.

4. For regional projects for which the drainage area had not been characterized, the TELR catchment associated with the estimated drainage area was identified. For areas outside of TELR, the drainage area was approximated using catchments from the National Hydrography Dataset Plus.

5. For all projects, the runoff rate and pollutant loading associated with the drainage area was identified using geospatial files exported from TELR.

5.3.4 Monterey Peninsula Water Recovery Study Projects
Planned projects that incorporate augmentation of water supply using captured stormwater or dry weather runoff were identified as potential Water Recovery Projects and screened for inclusion in the Water Recovery Study. Screening entailed categorization as one of the identified Water Recovery Study project types, and examination of feasibility.

The identified Water Recovery Study project types included:

1. Lakes and Reservoirs;
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 544, Packet Page 644 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 41 07.30.2019

2. Storm Drain Diversions to Sanitary Sewer;

3. Infiltration into a Water Supply Aquifer; and

4. Onsite Capture and Use.

The identification and feasibility screening for Lakes and Reservoirs, Storm Drain Diversions to Sanitary Sewer, Infiltration into a Water Supply Aquifer and Onsite Capture and Use projects is provided in the Monterey Peninsula Water Recovery Study Report (Geosyntec, 2018, provided as Appendix D). Lakes and Reservoirs and Storm Drain Diversions to Sanitary Sewer could both be categorized as diversion projects for use by existing water recycling projects.

The identification of Infiltration into a Water Supply Aquifer projects and Onsite Capture and Use projects were partially completed as part of the GIS analysis conducted for the entire Planning Area (described in Sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3). For identification of these projects, the following GIS analyses steps were completed:

1. Public and private parcels with the following attributes were identified as potential Infiltration into a Water Supply Aquifer projects:
a. Majority of the parcel overlying a Water Supply Aquifer (the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer or the Seaside Groundwater Basin); and
b. Land use/land cover that is either vacant, open space, irrigated, or flat impervious cover (e.g., parking lot, tennis court) using aerial imagery in GIS. Buildings, beach, and wooded areas were considered not feasible for infiltration.

2. Public and private parcels with the following attributes were identified as potential Onsite Capture and Use projects:
a. Not identified as a potential Infiltration into Water Supply Aquifer project, unless a cemetery or golf course;
b. Irrigated park or recreation area; and
c. Area to house a capture and use facility that can capture sufficient upstream flows to support irrigation demand onsite.

These project opportunity locations were further screened for inclusion in the Water Recovery Study. Those public parcels that are screened as part of the Water Recovery Study and are found to not be feasible to support a Water Recovery project were included in the general SWRP.

5.3.5 Identified Project Database
Projects identified and classified through the methods described in the preceding sections were compiled into a database that includes all project information provided (for planned projects) as well as information identified as part of the GIS screening process. The resulting comprehensive Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 545, Packet Page 645 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 42 07.30.2019
project database is provided in Appendix E and was used as the basis for applying the project metrics-based multi-benefit evaluation. Details regarding project evaluation are provided in the following section.

5.4 Project Metrics-Based Multi-Benefit Evaluation
Potential project locations were evaluated using a quantitative metrics-based multi-benefit approach. The evaluation and scoring scheme proposed has been adapted from the method used to develop the Ventura Countywide Municipal Stormwater Resource Plan (Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program, 2016) and the Stormwater Resource Plan for San Mateo County (San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program [SMCWPPP], 2017) and is consistent with the Storm Water Resource Plan Guidelines (SWRCB, 2015a). The quantitative metrics and qualitative components that are evaluated for each project are associated with the potential to provide the multiple benefits identified in the State’s SWRP Guidance (i.e., water quality, water supply, flood control, environmental benefit, and community benefit) (SWRCB, 2015a).

5.4.1 Project Scoring
Based on all the information compiled in the identified project database, each project received a score using the point system provided in Table 10. There are two categories of project characteristics that receive points: Implementation Feasibility metrics and Performance metrics. A description of each scored project metric is provided.

The Implementation Feasibility category group includes scores for project characteristics that relate to the ease of implementation. These categories are assumed to apply to all multiple benefit categories (i.e., water quality, water supply, flood control, environmental, and community benefits). This includes the following scoring components related to project metrics:
• Parcel Area (for Regional/Parcel-Based Projects Only) – this scoring component provides more points for larger parcels, assuming that larger projects that capture more runoff would be more feasible on these parcels.
• Opportunity Location Slope – this scoring component is related to ease of construction and implementation. Flatter locations typically require less grading and hydraulic connection considerations.

The Performance category group includes scores for project components that relate to facility performance. This includes the following components:
• Number of Bus Stops (for ROW Projects Only) – the number of bus stops within a 50-foot buffer of the identified ROW centerline segment was used as an indicator of the potential for the site to also achieve trash management goals, as described in Section 4.3.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 546, Packet Page 646 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 43 07.30.2019
• Catchment Runoff Rate Associated with Drainage Area – the catchment runoff rate, provided in TELR, was used as an indicator of how much runoff could be captured at the site. This project component is assumed to apply to all benefit categories. • Infiltration Feasibility – retention of runoff through percolation or infiltration is known to provide enhanced pollutant reduction, reestablishment of natural drainage, recharge potential, and reduction of runoff rates, among other beneficial outcomes. This project component was assumed to apply to all benefit categories. • Water Recovery Project – Water Recovery Projects received points specific to water supply benefits.
• Estimated Water Supply Provided – increasing points (specific to water supply) were received based on potential water supply (as estimated through the Water Recovery Study). • Pollutant Loading Rate Associated with Drainage Area – this scoring component is related to the influent pollutant load. Facilities that are located in catchments estimated to have higher pollutant loading rates (based on land use) have greater potential to reduce loads. • Captures Runoff Ultimately Draining to ASBS or 303(d) – Listed Waterbodies – this scoring component is related to the ultimate discharge location. Facilities that capture runoff that could impact sensitive or impaired waterbodies received more points related to water quality.
• Removes Pollutants from Stormwater – water quality specific points were awarded to facilities designed as treatment control facilities.
• Provides Flood Control Benefits – flood control facilities received points specific to providing flood control benefits.
• Re-establishes Natural Water Drainage Systems or Develops, Restores, or Enhances Habitat and Open Space – hydromodification control, stream restoration, and habitat restoration projects received points specific to providing environmental benefits. • Provides Community Enhancement – projects that specifically provide public use areas or public education components or are in a Disadvantaged Community18 (DAC, see Figure 5) were given points specific to providing community benefit.

18 A DAC is a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household income (Water Code §79505.5). The following four census tracts within the SWRP area are considered DACs:

Tract 127 (Monterey);
Tract 136 (Seaside);
Tract 137 (Seaside); and
Tract 140 (Seaside/Sand City).

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 547, Packet Page 647 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 44 07.30.2019
Public or private land ownership was not used as a scored criterion (only applies to Water Recovery Study projects).

Lake and Reservoir and Storm Drain Diversions to Sanitary Sewer Projects had a maximum possible score of 24 points (slope and parcel area scores did not apply); ROW projects had a maximum score of 26 points (parcel area score did not apply); and all other projects had a maximum score of 28 points (though it is not expected that one project would be able to achieve the maximum score for all project metrics). A normalized project score was calculated for each project to allow for comparison to a 28-point scale. Although all considerations were weighted equally, there are more point categories specific to water supply and water quality to account for priorities in the region.

Table 10: Project Metrics-Based Multi-Benefit Evaluation Matrix Project Scoring Metric Benefit
Addressed
Points
0 1 2
Parcel Area (For
Regional/Parcel-Based Projects
Only)
All < 1 acre 1 - < 4 acres > 4 acres
Number of Bus Stops (ROW
Projects Only) Water Quality 0 1 2 or more
Location Slope All 7-10% 3-7% 0-3%
Catchment Runoff Rate
Associated with Drainage Area All
< 0.15 feet per
year (ft/yr) (per
TELR) or
unavailable in
TELR

0.15 ft/yr < runoff <

0.40 ft/year (per
TELR)
> 0.40 ft/year
(per TELR)
Infiltration Feasibility All No Partial or Not
Applicable1 Yes
Water Recovery Project Water Supply No -- Yes
Estimated Water Supply
Provided Water Supply 0 > 0 ac-ft/yr to <5 ac-ft/yr
5+ ac-ft/yr
10+ ac-ft/yr (3
total points)
20+ ac-ft/yr (4
total points)
Pollutant Loading Rate2
Associated with Drainage Area Water Quality
<0.002 tons
per acre-year
(ton/ac-yr) (per
TELR) or
unavailable in
TELR

0.002 – 0.02 ton/ac-yr
(per TELR)
>0.02 ton/ac-yr
(per TELR)
Captures Runoff Ultimately
Draining to ASBS or 303(d)
Listed Waterbodies
Water Quality No -- Yes
Removes Pollutants from
Stormwater Water Quality --
Non-Green
Infrastructure
Treatment Control
Facilities3
Green
Infrastructure4
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 548, Packet Page 648 Final Monterey Peninsula SWRP 45 07.30.2019
Project Scoring Metric Benefit
Addressed
Points
0 1 2
Provides Flood Control
Benefits Flood --
Flood Control Facility
sized to control
smaller than 100-year
event
Flood Control
Facility sized to
control 100-year
event
Re-establishes Natural Water
Drainage Systems or Develops,
Restores, or Enhances Habitat
and Open Space
Environmental -- --
Stream
Restoration,
Hydromodification Control, or
Habitat
Restoration
Project
Provides Community
Enhancement Community -- --
Public Use Area
or Public
Education
Project5
Provides Enhancement to DAC Community -- -- Project located in DAC
Notes:

1. Partial infiltration refers to project opportunity locations that are not identified as hazardous for infiltration, but when but the soil underlying the facility is relatively poorly draining (assumed to apply when underlying soil HSG is C or D). “Not Applicable” projects include those Water Recovery Study projects that would not be designed to include an infiltration component (e.g., Storm Drain Diversions to Sanitary Sewer), regardless of the underlying infiltration feasibility.

Monterey City CouncilFebruary 7, 2023

Monterey City Council
February 7, 2023