ITEM:		ACTION ITEM
14.	PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF ON Response to National Marine Fisheries Service 2012 Public Review Draft South-Central California Coast Steelhead Recovery Plan
Meeting Date:			December 10, 2012	Budgeted:	N/A
From:			David J. Stoldt,	Program/	N/A
			General Manager	Line Item No.:
Prepared By:			Larry Hampson	Cost Estimate:	N/A
General Counsel Review: N/A
Committee Recommendation: N/A
CEQA Compliance: N/A

SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recently solicited review and comments from the public and interested parties about the “Public Review Draft South-Central California Coast Steelhead Recovery Plan” (Recovery Plan). Comments are due no later than December 18, 2012. The Recovery Plan describes goals and criteria to “…prevent the extinction of South-Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the wild and to ensure the long-term persistence of viable, self-sustaining, populations of steelhead distributed across the South-Central California Coast Steelhead (SCCCS) Distinct Population Segment (DPS). It is also the goal of this Recovery Plan to establish a sustainable South-Central California steelhead sport fishery.” The timeframe for implementation of the plan is estimated at 80 to 100 years and is estimated to cost $560 million to recover steelhead populations in watersheds from the Pajaro River south to Arroyo Grande Creek, just south of Pismo Beach in San Luis Obispo County.

Chapter 10 in the Recovery Plan is devoted to the Carmel River Basin and describes that one-third of the indicators used to analyze the basin rated conditions for steelhead as impaired (fair condition) or severely impaired (poor condition). The Recovery Plan states that “Dams and diversions (including groundwater extractions) on the Carmel River have had the most severe adverse impacts on steelhead populations.” One of the critical recovery actions identified by NMFS is the removal of the main stem dams, including Los Padres Dam (see Table 10-3 in the Recovery Plan), which is characterized as “A pervasive threat to anadromous O. mykiss,” which are ocean-going Carmel River steelhead. The Recovery Plan estimates a cost of about $115 million for a variety of actions in the Carmel River Basin, including $84 million for removal of San Clemente Dam. However, no cost estimates are provided for removal of Los Padres Dam or Old Carmel River Dam. A little more than $31 million is estimated for other activities including projects to restore natural channel features, control invasive species, enhance the lagoon, and to implement public education programs.

The Recovery Plan lacks detail in key areas including analysis of impacts, benefit/costs, implementation, funding, and stakeholder input. But, it does provide an opportunity for the community to develop long-term management actions for the Carmel River Basin in a cooperative manner with federal agencies as opposed to actions through a regulatory or judicial process. Because the timeframe for the Recovery Plan far exceeds that of any other planning document for the local community and could result in long-term, substantial changes in the Carmel River Basin, the plan should be widely disseminated and discussed within the local community.

As one of the key stakeholders involved with managing the Carmel River and in particular, flow releases to the lower river from Los Padres Reservoir, the District should carefully review the Draft Recovery Plan and input from stakeholders before conveying comments to NMFS.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Board should discuss the Draft Recovery Plan and provide direction to staff concerning written comments to be submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service. Key areas in the recovery plan for the Carmel River Basin that appear to require additional work include:

· Planning for stakeholder outreach

· An alternatives analysis to proposed recovery actions

· Analysis of short-term and long-term impacts and/or benefits to steelhead, water rights, property, infrastructure, and streamside resources from recovery actions

· A benefit/cost analysis of proposed recovery actions

· Methods for funding and implementing recovery actions

· Methods to monitor recovery actions and establish recovery targets

BACKGROUND: The Executive Summary and Chapter 10 on the Carmel River Basin from the Recovery Plan are attached as Exhibit 14-A and can be downloaded from the MPWMD website at:

http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/programs/river/crac/meetings/2012/20121129/NMFS-Draft-Recovery-Plan-Executive-Summary-Ch10.pdf

The full Draft Recovery Plan can be downloaded at:

http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/programs/river/crac/meetings/2012/20121129/NMFS-Draft-Recovery-Plan-SCCC-steelhead-Sept26,2012.pdf

The annual run of steelhead in the Carmel River plunged in the 20^th century from several thousand (estimates range up to 20,000) to a low of one adult counted at the San Clemente Dam fish ladder in 1991. The drop was caused by widespread human development of the watershed. In 1997, NMFS listed Carmel River steelhead as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), which also mandates that NMFS develop and implement Recovery Plans for the conservation (recovery) of listed species. Goals of the 2012 Recovery Plan include preventing the extinction of wild South Central Coast steelhead and establishing a sustainable sport fishery. However, as the Executive Summary states, “Implementation of this Recovery Plan will require a shift in societal attitudes, understanding, priorities, and practices.”

Recovery plans developed under the ESA are guidance documents, not mandatory regulatory documents. However, the ESA envisions Recovery plans as the central organizing tool for guiding the recovery of listed species.

MPWMD Water Supply Planning Committee Review

MPWMD staff requested input on the Recovery Plan and on the potential for public ownership of Los Padres Dam from the MPWMD Water Supply Planning Committee, which met on November 15, 2012. The Committee had the following observations:

• There is no recognition of the existing water supply problem for the Monterey Peninsula and the effect that removal of Los Padres Dam would have on existing water rights along the river.
• The Recovery Plan lacks adequate analysis of the water supply benefits to the river and streamside corridor from dry season releases from Los Padres Reservoir storage.
• The Recovery Plan offers only one option for Los Padres Dam and no analysis of alternatives to removal of the dam, such as a maintenance dredging program, downstream habitat improvements, and improved fish passage facilities.
• There is no analysis or discussion of potential impacts to the community from the loss of a water supply and costs associated with dealing with the effects of dam removal (e.g., from an increased potential for flooding, additional steelhead rescues during the dry season).
• A long-term plan should seek to manage the Carmel River in order to recover steelhead while providing some water supply to the community.
• MPWMD should reach out to the community to explain the importance of dealing with Los Padres Dam and to help the community come to a consensus about the dam.
• MPWMD should be actively involved in seeking public ownership of Los Padres Dam.
• MPWMD should seek support from local groups and request that those groups send comment letters to NMFS concerning the Recovery Plan.

Carmel River Advisory Committee Review

At their January 26, 2012 meeting, the Carmel River Advisory Committee considered whether to sponsor a community workshop to take input on the Los Padres Dam and Reservoir and its effect on water supply for the Monterey Peninsula and on the environment of the Carmel River. Exhibit 14-B, which is a portion of the staff note provided at that meeting, contains a brief listing of the status and current operation of the dam and reservoir and some of the associated issues. The CRAC voted to establish a committee to further investigate holding a public workshop to discuss the future of the dam. However, the committee has not convened a meeting to date. At their November 29, 2012 meeting, the CRAC discussed the Recovery Plan, but did not take any action. The Chair, John Dalessio, requested that the committee members provide him with individual comments after reviewing the Recovery Plan. Mr. Dalessio volunteered to compile the comments and submit them to the MPWMD Board for their consideration.

MPWMD STAFF DISCUSSION:

· A process called “Conservation Action Planning (CAP),” which was developed by The Nature Conservancy, was used to assess the health of the Carmel River Basin; staff has not used this method for the basin and cannot comment on its usefulness for developing recovery actions.

· The current version of the Recovery Plan appears to be a framework with a set of goals and objectives, but lacks details about how to implement recommended actions or achieve the desired results for the Carmel River Basin.

· No specific funding mechanisms are identified.

· Staff is not aware that stakeholders were contacted about proposed actions or their priorities. This is a fundamental step in using the CAP approach.

· Objectives for steelhead recovery include maintaining existing populations and habitat and expanding areas that can support additional numbers and diversity of steelhead (Chapter 6). However, the objectives are so broad both for the Carmel River Basin and for the Central Coast DPS that they could simply develop into a moving target for the Carmel River Basin. At a minimum, a monitoring and assessment plan of the population recovery should be proposed in order to refine recovery objectives.

· Actions proposed in the Recovery Plan have the potential to significantly alter the ecology and geomorphology of most of the main stem of the Carmel River. No analysis of potential impacts to existing resources and structures in the streamside corridor from proposed activities is presented. It should be noted that the lower 19 miles of the river contains 19 bridges and approximately 1,600 parcels within the 100-year floodplain. Many of the more than 420 parcels immediately adjacent to the river have buildings and infrastructure that are subject to erosion at high flows.

· Potential benefits associated with proposed activities should be quantified. While there are estimated costs for activities, there are no corresponding estimates of benefits to steelhead numbers or estimates of habitat created or improved through recovery actions.

Sediment retention and fish passage at Los Padres Reservoir are fundamental problems associated with Los Padres Dam. Of note is that removal of Los Padres Dam is identified as a critical recovery action. Although no cost is described for removal of this dam, removal of total barriers to migration are estimated at a little more than $1 million per vertical foot (based on a 2004 California Department of Fish and Game estimate). At approximately 148 feet high, removal of Los Padres Dam can then be inferred to cost at least $150 million to remove (what is unclear in the Recovery Plan is whether this cost would include sediment removal as well as dam removal).

Recently, California American Water (Cal-Am) commissioned a study that will evaluate alternatives for sediment removal, including restoration of storage to the original capacity of 3,030 acre-feet by removing 1.9 million cubic yards of sediment deposit. This information is necessary in order to make informed decisions about the future of this facility and should be available within the next few months. In addition to this study, Cal-Am, MPWMD, NMFS and the California Department of Fish and Game have developed plans to improve fish passage through the spillway. Sufficient funds to complete spillway improvements have not been committed.

Potential Impacts to Steelhead to Consider from Removal of Los Padres Dam

In 2005, in response to ongoing illegal take of steelhead, NMFS requested that Cal-Am fund potential mitigation projects on the Carmel River to improve habitat conditions for steelhead until a long-term water supply project is constructed. Potential actions included dredging Los Padres Reservoir, although due to its costs and timeframe for proceeding forward, this activity was ranked as the 7^th highest priority by NMFS on a list of nine projects. The memo states “Allowing the Carmel River to flow farther downstream before going dry would protect steelhead and their critical habitat, eliminating the need for fish rescues in the area.”

• Los Padres Dam releases are essential to maintaining flow to the lower nine miles of river below the “Narrows” in 90% of Water Years (WY). Releases are essential to maintaining flow below River Mile (RM, measured from the ocean) 15 at Robles Del Rio in 43-52% of WYs.
• Habitat area above Los Padres Dam is less per linear mile than the area that could be dewatered by dam removal; NMFS should quantitatively compute trade-offs.
• Water temperatures for steelhead growth are less above Los Padres Dam. Slower growth requires additional years for smolting to occur and may result in fewer smolts due to extending natural mortality when compared with rearing conditions in downstream areas. Smaller smolts also lead to fewer adult returns. NMFS should carry out Life History modeling to see if the trade-off is beneficial or harmful.
• Steelhead food supply is less above Los Padres Dam than in the rest of the main stem. BMI diversity is greater above Los Padres Dam, but biomass is less. NMFS needs to do bioenergetics modeling to prove the trade-off between lost habitat due to a reduction in wetted area downstream of Los Padres Dam versus more accessible habitat.
• Access to the river in the watershed above Los Padres Dam is more difficult than access downstream of the dam. Legitimate angler presence may be lower relative to downstream areas, so poachers may operate with greater impunity than in the lower river habitat that would be dewatered with the removal of Los Padres Dam.
• CDFG data shows abundance and size of juvenile rainbow trout to steelhead in the watershed above Los Padres Dam is less than in the lower river (in five years over a 15-year period). Therefore, the Carrying Capacity of the river above Los Padres Dam is very likely less than in the miles of river that would be dewatered by the removal of Los Padres Dam. NMFS to need to do bioenergetics modeling to prove trade off in lost versus more accessible habitat is a net benefit to the SH population.
• Removing Los Padres Dam could enhance the spread of Brown Trout and the use of rotenone to effect their removal throughout the upper watershed may not be possible.
• Los Padres Reservoir may provide rearing for land-locked rainbow trout and steelhead above Los Padres Dam during consecutive years of drought, as is the case annually on Alameda Creek’s Calaveras Reservoir. Population surveys upstream of Los Padres Dam need to be done to evaluate this dynamic.
• There is a risk of isolation of the area above Los Padres Dam due to temporal impairment or elimination of fish passage from natural landslides above Los Padres Dam. MPWMD and CDFG remediated a major landslide on Cal-Am property in the last four years. Such actions could be prohibited if the Los Padres Dam and Reservoir area were to be incorporated into the Los Padres Forest Wilderness Area.
• Lack of Los Padres Reservoir flow releases may slightly reduce the feasible smolt outmigration period through the re-engineered San Clemente Dam Reroute Channel and lower river in drier WY Types, or increase the likelihood that this steep section is a barrier to juvenile dispersion.
• Los Padres Reservoir flow releases currently mitigate for much of the cumulative impacts of non-Cal-Am diverters between River Mile 25 and the mouth, during the 5 – 8 dryer months of each year. Lack of Los Padres Reservoir flow releases would increase the frequency and duration that the river dewaters unnaturally, due to non-Cal-Am diverters. NMFS has made no proposal to manage, take enforcement actions, or mitigate for these diversions and has not developed a Habitat Conservation Plan for non-Cal-Am diverters. The Carmel River Basin is not fully adjudicated and SWRCB has no authority to limit riparian diversions to protect steelhead.

EXHIBITS

14-A Excerpts from “Public Review Draft South-Central California Coast Steelhead Recovery Plan”

14-B Staff note for January 26, 2012 Carmel River Advisory Committee

U:\staff\Boardpacket\2012\20121210\ActionItems\14\item14.docx