1

Introduction

20 Years of Restoration

in the Carmel

River Introduction

Mission Statement

PENINSULA WATER RESOURCES

Monterey Peninsula

Water Management District

BALANCE COMMUNITY AND

ENVIRONMENTAL WATER NEEDSby

MANAGING

PROTECTING

and

AUGMENTING

MPWMD BOUNDARY

Carmel River Watershed

MPWMD Service AreaMonterey Peninsula

Water Management District

Monterey Bay

MontereyCarmel-by-the-Sea

Carmel River

Carmel Highlands

SeasideDel Rey Oaks

Sand CityPacific Grove

Carmel Valley Village

Pebble Beach

San Clemente Dam

Los Padres Dam

Current Water Sources

7

Monterey PeninsulaWater Management District

Current Sources of Our Water

Carmel River69% of Supply

Miscellaneous6% of Supply

MontereySanta Cruz

Oakland

Seaside Basin25% of Supply

Carmel River70% of Supply

Miscellaneous5% of Supply

Monterey

San J ose

Groundwater Aquifer

San ClementeDam

Los Padres Dam

Drainage Basin

Order 95-10

In 1995, the State limited the amount of water that can be pumped from under the Carmel River by Cal-Am, which supplies most of the water on the Monterey Peninsula, and declared the alluvial aquifer to be fully appropriated during the dry season.

Past Use Current Limit

Future Limit

14,106 acre-feet (AF), average Carmel River

production in 1980s

11,285 AF, temporary

permission to use this much water

3,376 AF, Cal-Am’s

recognized water right

State Cuts Cal-Am Supplies

LEFT – THE RIVER RISES RAPIDLYIN RESPONSE TO WINTER RAINS. THIS PHOTO, TAKEN MARCH 10, 1995 AT THE BORONDA ROAD BRIDGE, SHOWS THE RIVER AT APPROXIMATELY 15,000 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND. IN JUST TWO DAYS (MARCH 10 & 11, 1995), THIS STORM EVENT PRODUCED ENOUGH RUNOFF TO SUPPLY MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER NEEDS FOR A YEAR.

Carmel River Flow

RIGHT – PHOTO TAKEN IN MAY 2002 AT THE SAME LOCATION AT A FLOW OF ABOUT 20 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND (CFS). FLOW AT THIS SITE DROPS TO AS LITTLE AS FIVE CFS IN THE DRY SEASON.

San Clemente Dam and Reservoir

FEBRUARY 9, 1998

JULY 1982

TWO MAIN STEM RESERVOIRSSTORE LESS THAN 3% OF ANNUAL FLOW FOR SUMMER RELEASE (NOTE – ONLY ONE RESERVOIR IS SHOWN HERE). INFLOWING SEDIMENT HAS REDUCED SURFACE STORAGE AND CONTRIBUTED TO CHANNEL DEGRADATION AND STREAMBANK EROSION DOWNSTREAM.

ABOVE – DEBRIS CLOGS RESERVOIR PORTS DURING HIGH FLOWS IN FEBRUARY 1998. WORKERS SPENT THREE MONTHS CUTTING WOOD AND SENDING PIECES DOWNSTREAM.

RIGHT – LOOKING UPSTREAM AT THE DAM FACE

San Clemente ReservoirForeset Slope

January 2003

April 2001

TWO VIEWS LOOKING UPSTREAM FROM THE DAM FACE AT THE FORESET SLOPE CREEPING DOWNSTREAM AS SEDIMENT FILLS THE RESERVOIR. LESS THAN 10% OF THE ORIGINAL STORAGE VOLUME REMAINS.

July 1982500 feetupstream

December 2003

San Clemente Reservoir Drawdown Project

July 2003

To reduce the potential for catastrophic dam failure during an earthquake or very large flood, six ports were installed through the dam, 10 feet below the spillway level in June 2003 (lower center of photo). During low flow periods, the water level is drawn down to relieve pressure on the dam. The foreset slope (the leading edge of the sediment) can be seen in the center of the photograph. Silt and sand is expected to advance toward the dam and begin spilling in the very near future.

Except in extremely wet years, groundwater pumping causes a portion of the river to dry up annually. Here, in this 1980 photo, a well was located in the bottom of the channel (note the flow in the center of the photo), nine miles upstream of the ocean. Up to 15 miles were annually dewatered. After the addition of wells closer to the end of the river, pumping was shifted downstream, resulting in fewer miles of river going dry.

Groundwater Extraction

Steelhead Migration Impacted

April 30, 1987

Low flows in late spring combined with groundwater extraction leads to stranding of adults, smolts, and fingerling steelhead. Groundwater pumping lowers water levels, which ultimately dries up the river and results in dead and dying fish. Since 1984, MPWMD has annually rescued stranded fish from drying sections in the main stem. Depending on life cycle stage, fish are transferred either to the ocean or to perennial sections. This is a kelt, which is an adult returning to the ocean, that either evaded capture or died of natural causes.

Carmel River Restoration

January 10, 1982

Degradation of the riparian corridor culminated in an episode of erosion that scoured the channel and streambanks between 1978 and 1983. Faced with destroyed streambanks, a precipitous drop in the steelhead run, and an almost complete loss of streamside vegetation, property owners and concerned environmental groups demanded – and received - a restoration program. The program, which began in 1984 with funding from riverfront property owners and District water users, continues today.

Left – looking upstream from the Schulte Bridge area. Prior to 1978, this reach was a single-thread channel, flanked by a dense riparian corridor. By the spring of 1982, erosion had transformed the reach into a braided, meandering channel with virtually no streamside cover.

Schulte Restoration Project

1983 1982

Left – looking downstream to Schulte Bridge.MPWMD carried out a pilot project in 1986 to restore this area using biotechnical methods (see Schulte Restoration Project). MPWMD continues protection and restoration work in the Carmel River under the District’s Mitigation Program.

Right – looking upstream from Schulte Bridge. With no streamside vegetation to hold the banks together, streambanks are prone to scour and slumping. Most of the concrete rubble seen here was placed on the streambank in 1982, washed out in 1983, and was replaced by tires banded together (see photo below). Prior to rules prohibiting the use of deleterious materials, property owners placed whatever material they could afford to on streambanks to prevent additional loss.

Mitigation Program

Fisheries

MITIGATION PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

(July 1, 2001 - June 30, 2002)

MPWMDhomepage

Carmel RiverRestoration Projects

In 1990, MPWMD certified the Water Allocation Program Environmental Impact Report, which officially recognized that water extraction practices were causing environmental damage. To mitigate for the damage, MPWMD enacted the Mitigation Program, which combined the District’s fisheries, riparian corridor irrigation, and river restoration programs into a single integrated approach to water supply and resource management. Because water extraction practices are still impacting the environment, the program continues today.

Please visit the links below for more information about MPWMD’s activities in the Carmel River and around the District.