By Andrew Christie, Chapter Director
After multiple Water Code violations provided the first official intimation that the Cambria Community Services District’s decision to build a desalination plant before, not after, a full environmental review was maybe not so smart (see “Cambria CSD Reaps First Installment on the Whirlwind,” April), the CCSD is now facing the full, cold light of dawn.
On April 6, state and federal resource agencies responded to the CCSD’s Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for its Emergency Water Supply Project.
Hanging over the agencies’ responses was the unmistakable sense of a large bill about to come due, thanks to the CCSD’s decision to pull that clever switcheroo.
Considering all the aspects of the project that the agencies identified as in need of justification, major alteration or replacement with lower-impact alternatives, it looks like a virtual do-over is in the cards for the CCSD. Having dug itself into a hole, the CCSD must now climb a mountain.
“All the above concerns remain”
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife wrote that it “believes that the Project has already resulted in direct and cumulative adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources of the San Simeon Creek, Van Gordon Creek, and the lagoon.”
Fish and Wildlife noted that the state Office of Planning and Research claimed that “the Department had issued the necessary permits when it approved the CCSD’s emergency permit. This is incorrect. The Department had informed CCSD on multiple occasions that a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) would be necessary for the Project pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. However CCSD has not yet obtained an LSAA from the Department for any portion of the Project.”
The US Fish and Wildlife Service provided a four-page list of concerns it has expressed to the CCSD since last July, including “our concerns regarding project-related impacts to federally endangered and threatened species and the District's lack of compliance with the [Endangered Species] Act,” and the District's “adaptive management plan that the Service has not reviewed.” Despite the Service having raised these issues over the previous nine months, “all of the above concerns remain,” in addition to the CCSD’s recent violation of “numerous provisions of permits under which the Water Board regulates the District's project,” and the discovery of dead birds at the project’s brine pond in the first three months of this year.
State Parks: taking the CCSD to school
Of all the agencies submitting comments, the California Department of Parks had the most to say. It began by dryly noting that it was “providing the following comments for an ‘after-the-fact’ coastal development project that was constructed under an ‘emergency permit’ from the San Luis Obispo County Planning Department [ironic quotation marks in original]. It told the CCSD that it will need to prepare both state and federal environmental reviews.
Hitting the highlights:
“The brine pond has become an attractive nuisance for migratory water fowl and California red
legged frogs…. The blowers have not operated in accordance with permit requirements, and routinely result in mist drift off of CCSD property…. Discussions with the manufacturer of the evaporator fans have indicated that the fans were never intended for use in a residential area or adjacent to a public-use area.
“After a notice of violation was issued by the RWQCB, the CCSD moved its outfall pipe back to the required rocky apron, but then, high levels of Strontium were detected in the natural preserve. At least two fish mortalities have been documented in San Simeon Creek.
“Because the project acknowledges impacts including depleted lagoon levels that require recharging, as well as impairment of the fresh ground water in the aquifer, there are direct impacts to resources that DPR as well as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NOAA, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are responsible for protecting.”
“Grading in and among several archaeological sites occurred and damaged historic resources. In accordance with 36 CFR 800 the damages to the archaeological sites must be assessed and documented by a qualified archaeologist.”
The CCSD attempted to characterize several categories of the project’s potential impacts as insignificant. State Parks disagreed overall, finding that, contrary to the CCSD’s assertion, “This project could have substantial direct and indirect impacts to public health and safety, from the direct impact of mist contaminants and creek contamination.”
To assist the CCSD’s comprehension, State Parks broke it down by category to explain exactly where and how the CCSD went wrong in trying to play down the project’s impacts:
Aesthetics: “The project carries potentially significant [impacts] unless mitigated because Park users can now see the facilities and percolation pond from the lower and upper campground as well as along the trail between the two campgrounds and from Highway 1.”
Air Quality: “Potentially significant impact from the mist created by water fans using brine water. This mist contains several contaminants of concern that would reasonably be expected to be inhaled by campers, hikers, workers, residents, and travelers on San Simeon Creek Rd.”
Biological Resources: “This will likely violate the Local Coastal Plan, California Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife habitat and recovery plans…for steelhead trout, California red-legged frogs, and tidewater goby.”
Geology and Soils: “If there was an earthquake on the site, unconsolidated alluvial deposits - gravel, sand, clay, and silt - have the potential to be subject to liquefaction.”
Hazardous Materials: “Accumulation of contaminants in impoundment pond will need to be removed from the site; brine constituents in air mist also pose a hazard…. Heavy metal and other constituents pose a potentially serious hazard to public safety.”
“The project has a potentially significant impact because the project has already caused .erosion as documented in the RWQCB notice of violation report. The existing diffusion pit for the lagoon recharge water could easily transport silt into San Simeon Creek when it overflows. Overflow of the diffusion pit has already been observed causing silty water to flow towards San Simeon Creek. The illegal discharge of water into Van Gordon Creek resulted in substantial erosion and siltation into San Simeon Creek.”
Population and Housing: “The project has a potentially significant impact on growth. CCSD Board members have already referred to the Emergency Water Project as a new water source. Therefore, the development of a new water supply will result in the issuance of new building permits and will be growth inducing. Additional infrastructure will be required. This project EIR/EIS must address the potential for the new water source to influence a higher growth rate, new development, delivery of water to those on the wait list and with will-serve letters. The influence of this new water source on new development must be addressed on a parcel by parcel basis, as well as cumulatively.”
Utilities and Service Systems: “Until the project addresses the potential for new development in Cambria, the impact on wastewater treatment cannot be assumed to be less than significant.”
“A clear description of all modifications from the original county ‘emergency’ permit should be stipulated. Further alterations to the existing ‘emergency’ permit should be stipulated. In addition, impacts of the operations from Day 1 onward, under the ‘emergency’ permit, should be analyzed and discussed; mitigation of all violations and impacts should be provided to make these impacts fall below the threshold of ‘potentially significant impact.’"
And oh, by the way: “Project Conditions must include the cost of relocating the San Simeon Campground, presently estimated at a value of $35,000,000.”
Coastal Commission: Got water rights?
In the you-really-should-have-done-it-right-the-first-time department (see “Cambria CSD Still Crazy After All These Years, Sept. 2014”), the California Coastal Commission weighed in with this:
“The CCSD's initial consideration last year to address its emergency situation was to bring in a temporary and portable facility that could be installed quickly and provide an immediate water supply. That solution was intended to be a limited and temporary response to abate the emergency situation and to provide water quickly, consistent with the purpose of the emergency permit. We recommend the EIR include a description and full analysis of this alternative, as it appears that it would result in fewer overall adverse effects and be more cost-efficient than the current project.”
Further, the CCSD’s basic project description appears to be incorrect (“Please provide an updated description of the project location that is consistent with the legal descriptions of all the involved parcels”); proposed and allowable project water volumes are “currently unclear,” and the CCSD must now provide “consistent and accurate” figures as “the basis for ‘up to 100 gallons per minute” of proposed mitigation flows” and show that these flows will be adequate “for critical habitat needs of listed species” – especially in view of the fact “it appears that some or all of those intended mitigation flows may not reach the stream channel, especially during dry periods when it is most critically needed.”
The Commission noted that the CCSD’s proposed water production volume are in conflict with its current water rights, “which are substantially less than the full amount of water the CCSD has been relying on for this proposed project” (798 acre feet allowed vs. 1,230 acre feet requested). The Commission noted that the CCSD’s intention to petition for full rights at the State Water Board will be a tough row to hoe in view of the fact that “both San Simeon and Santa Rosa Creeks are currently overdrafted and are unable to adequately support some species.”
The resource agencies are in general agreement that the evaporation basin is substantially undersized.
On April 23, after digesting the resource agencies’ devastating analysis, the CCSD’s directors gave a good indication of how they intend to proceed: They allocated $25,000 to retain the services of a public relations firm in hopes of schmoozing their way to approval of the project’s future Environmental Impact Report and Coastal Development Permit.