About Cambria

Part One in a Series

San Luis Obispo County has no polar bears stranded on mini icebergs, no melting glaciers, no sinking island nations, no dissolving coral reefs – all effects caused by the growing  instability of our climate. This doesn’t mean San Luis Obispo County will escape the effects of climate change. Although most of the more drastic effects are being seen and felt at the poles and the equator, environmental changes in the more temperate zones of the planet are becoming more noticeable.

Last Wednesday I attended an very intriguing workshop hosted by the Local Government Commission (LGC) in San Luis Obispo: SLO Climate Change Adaptation Workshop. LGC partnered with the National Center for Conservation Science & Policy (NCCSP) and Susanne Moser Research & Consulting in collaboration with the City and County of San Luis Obispo to develop and implement climate change adaptation strategies for the region through a grant from the Kresge Foundation. The strategies will help local leaders, decision-makers, and governments prepare for the impacts of climate change in a way that provides benefits across multiple sectors and systems. Our goal is to develop strategies that cohesively consider economics, health, culture, social needs, infrastructure, ecosystem services, and natural resources.

Last week’s daylong event included presentations on the effects and potential needs for adaptation to changes in San Luis Obispo County and breakout sessions where participants discussed the priorities for our county as we plan for the future.  An abbreviated list of some of those in attendance:

David Church, Executive Officer, SLO LAFCO

Judy Corbett, Executive Director, Local Government Commission

Adam Hill, SLO County Supervisor

Ellen Carroll, Environmental Coordinator, SLO County Planning

Larry Allen, Air Pollution Control Officer, APCD

Ron De Carli, Executive Director, SLOCOG

Joy Fitzhugh, Legislative Analyst, SLO Farm Bureau

Marni Koopman, Ph.D., Climate Change Scientist, National Center for Conservation Science and Policy

Andrew Christie, Chapter Director, Sierra Club

Jan Marx, Council Member, SLO City Council

Chuck Stevenson, AICP, Long Range Planning for SLO County

Ray Weymann, Retired Astronomer

Michael Winn, Chair, WRAC and board member of Nipomo CSD

Paavo Ogren, Director, SLO County Public Works

Don Maruska, Strategy & Fisheries Policy Advisor, SLOSEA

Jerry Bunin, Government Affairs Director, Home Builders Association Central Coast

Maggie Macro, Initiating Team, Transition Paso Robles (one of about half a dozen Transitions members who were there)

Among the many others were residents of a number of communities and green business/energy folks. I was encouraged to see so many staff from many local non profit organizations and government agencies like SWAP, SLO County Housing Trust Fund, Caltrans, Creston Area Advisory Body, Los Osos CSD, Economic Vitality Corporation, ECOSLO, Central Coast Salmon Enhancement, Cal Poly, Cuesta, CA fish and Game, and planners from the cities of Atascadero, Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo, Paso Robles and Morro Bay.

The morning presentations set the stage and helped build a shared foundation of information about changes that are predicted for this county and what adaptations might be required. Starting with the Importance of Adaptation, a look at adaptation and the connection to City and County mitigation work, SLO Climate Change Projections, Climate Change Impacts on SLO Socioeconomic Systems and a review of the Top Socioeconomic Issues and Strategies.

Briefly, the top 10 concerns for species and ecosystems under climate change:

1. Water withdrawals from groundwater basins and rivers are an urgent issue, regardless of climate change, but will become much more
   severe of a challenge under climate change. Workshop participants identified monitoring and regulation of water withdrawals as necessary. Changes in pricing, types of crops, and residual dry matter from land use practices were all recommended. Water conservation measures are urgently needed to reduce competition for water and retain supplies for protected species and important natural processes.
2. Connectivity of fish and wildlife habitat is vital under climate change, yet development is quickly reducing opportunities for connectivity. Longterm region-wide planning is non-existent. Planning for connectivity will require communication and collaboration across land ownership boundaries, incentives for climate change easements on private property, regional analysis of potential buffers and corridors, regional scale climate change consideration in all development decisions, and a better understanding of how and where species will move.
3. Sedimentation in rivers, streams, and estuaries is problematic and likely to get worse with more fires, increased storm intensity, and continued land use practices that lead to erosion. Sedimentation will have negative impacts on riparian and water delivery systems, both of which are already stressed by general drought and overdraft. Land use controls, incentives, newly developed best practices, and prescribed fire were all recommended to reduce sedimentation. Monitoring and adaptive management should be implemented to keep sedimentation rates within historical bounds, if possible.
4. Loss of riparian, wetland, and marsh ecosystems greatly reduces the resilience of the landscape to climate change. These ecosystems are disproportionately important as breeding grounds for fish and wildlife, habitat for rare species, flood abatement that protects nearby infrastructure, water filtration, water infiltration to groundwater storage, and oases during drought. These ecosystems should be protected, restored, and created across the County ASAP.
5. Sea level rise is a huge concern due to its potential to impact marine and terrestrial ecosystems, coastal development, tourism, recreation, and agriculture. Rather than armoring the coast, the coastline should be allowed to be dynamic in state. One suggested approach was rolling easements. Relocating some developments would be necessary, thereby allowing the sandy beaches, dunes, rocky intertidal zone, estuaries, and bluffs to shift over time but still persist. Persistence of these features is vital to tourism, fish and wildlife populations, local fisheries, recreational opportunities, public safety, and quality-of-life for residents. A statewide or regional policy will need to be developed specific to sea level rise and coastal armoring.
6. Loss of oak woodlands from increased fire, drought, and invasive species is of great concern. Reducing current stressors to oak woodlands, such as overgrazing and frequent fire, may allow this important vegetation type to be more resilient to climate change. Educating private landowners about climate change projections and best management practices in oak woodlands, as well as providing them with incentives to retain healthy oak woodlands on their property, would help. Propagating more drought tolerant varieties of oak may also be an option.
7. Many important strongholds for threatened and endangered species are not protected and are not included in critical habitat designations. Critical habitat needs to be revisited and revised to include these areas as well as buffers for climate change range shifts. Some species are already in perilous condition and climate change is likely to cause extinction. It will be important to identify which species can be managed for persistence and which ones are too costly to maintain. Revisiting critical habitat will assist in this determination.
8. Planning should be carried out on a watershed scale, with all major land use players brought to the table, including ranchers, agricultural producers, county planners, the Forest Service, BLM, USFWS, conservation organizations, and others. Planning is currently done in a piecemeal fashion, and regulation is insufficient and unenforced. Planning for development, agriculture, natural ecosystems, and other interests needs to be done collaboratively and through a long-term, climate change lense. Enforcing current laws and regulations (CWA, ESA, local regulations) that affect land and water management is an important first step towards increasing the resilience of species and ecosystems to climate change.
9. Monitoring of species and ecosystems needs to be increased to detect trends early on and adjust management quickly in an adaptive  management approach. Careful planning and thought will need to go into designing monitoring strategies. A central clearinghouse that makes data available from all monitoring and surveying efforts, would be especially useful and could lead to more informed, timely, and sophisticated management efforts.
10. Keeping options open and taking advantage of opportunities. San Luis Obispo County has more options than other areas. Much of the coastline is undeveloped, thereby making marsh and wetland migration possible. Climate change may make marginal farmland available for conversion to coastal wetlands or native grasslands. Topographic complexity provides climate change refuges for species across the County as they shift to new areas. Many areas are currently available for providing buffers and connectivity for natural ecosystems (primarily on private land), but these areas could be lost to development if new policies and approaches are not quickly instituted with climate change in mind.

Upcoming posts will summarize the presentations (and have the MP3s available for download) and the results of the afternoon discussions on priorities. Most of the research is in documents available on the Local Government Commission website.

The third time really was the charm for the CCSD when it comes to an increase in the rates for water and wastewater. In just one afternoon, the District held the public hearing and then counted the letters of protest and support sent in or turned today. Five of us helped the count by opening envelopes and stapling the protest (or support) to the envelope for the consultant to count.

I won’t keep you in suspense – there were 401 letters of protest against the water rate increase and 405 against the wastewater increase. To stop the increase, the district would have to receive at least  1964  protests against water and 1909 against the sewer increase. With no organized effort against the increase, it was quickly obvious that the protest would not succeed. Several of those who spoke during the hearing made it clear they are still unhappy with the way the district is spending our money. No one spoke in favor of the increase, other than acknowledging the proposed budget needed an increase to keep from going into the red.

What’s it all mean? On your September bill, you’ll see an increase in your CCSD bill. WATER: 9.75% – Effective July 1, 2009 (Bill mailed September 10, 2009)  SEWER: 15% – Effective July 1, 2009 (Bill mailed September 10, 2009)  Below is the rates schedule included with the letter explaining the increase.

Old  Rate:                               New  Rates: Effective 7/1/09____(For 12 units)

Water Base $ 21.70                    Water Base $ 23.82

Water Units $ 33.06                  Water Units $ 36.30

Sewer Base $ 56.55                     Sewer Base $ 65.03

Sewer Units $ 18.59                     Sewer Units $ 21.34

TOTAL $ 129.90                              TOTAL $ 146.49

Next up? An increase to cover the capital improvement projects proposed. Stay tuned.

There are an infinite number of reasons people don’t pursue the facts necessary to make an informed decisions. Some of the reasons are even reasonably valid. (Of course, readers of this site value the access to information needed to make good decisions.) In reality, a majority of folks rely mostly on what they hear from their friends and neighbors, filtered through the their own life experiences.  Sometimes, people add what they learn on paper and online.  It often boils down to sound bites and choosing a side based on what your friends have chosen.

Here are some facts: In 2000 Kennedy-Jenks provided a report that has been the basis for the declaration of the Water Code 350 Emergency and the decision to pursue desalination. The report was part of developing a water master plan and included analysis of water use demand. It reported the average residential connection used about 9 units per billing cycle. They calculated a composite connection use of about 12 units, a number often given as “standard” use.  This “composite connection” was calculated

using the “mean annual” unit demand patterns, and assuming residential connections and commercial connections of 3,586 and 210, respectively, (i.e. their December 1999 values), the estimated residential, commercial, and total annual water demand are 578, 201, and 779 acre-feet, respectively. Dividing these values by the assumed number of connections produces annual residential and commercial unit water demand estimates of 0.161 and 0.959 acre-feet per connection, respectively.

In a recent study (Mayer et al, 1999), the indoor water requirements of 12 utilities were evaluated. One of the locations was Lompoc, California. The results of the evaluation are presented in Table 4-1. The mean daily per capita indoor water for the 12 locations was 69.3 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The comparable use for Lompoc was 65.8 gpcd*, slightly less than the average. The indoor water uses are almost exclusively for human consumption and sanitation.

For comparison, the typical average annual water demand, both indoor and outdoor, for District customers is approximately 75 gpcd. Because a Dry Season water demand reduction of approximately 20 percent would be necessary to reach the indoor water use estimates, the declaration of a water shortage emergency for health and safety reasons would only be necessary for Stage 3.

*gpcd = gallons per capita per day

Translating gpcd into what you would see on your CCSD bill (which covers 2 months).  A CCSD billing unit is one hundred (100) cubic feet of water or 748 gallons.

65.8 gpcd = 5.4 units pcbm (per capita bi-monthly)

65.8 gpcd = 5.7 units pcbm (per capita bi-monthly)

75 gpcd = 6.1 units pcbm (per capita bi-monthly)

50 gpcd  = 4.1 units pcbm (per capita bi-monthly)

Whether you support the decision of the CCSD Board to pursue desalination or not, when/if the plant ever begins operation, there will be additional rate increases to pay for that infrastructure and the processes the water is put through. Determining the cost of service for water  is more complex than a simple online calculator could determine. But to get an idea of how much it could cost you for desalinated water, Click here to enter your numbers to see how much  desal will cost per household, according to this site. Eco World has  a number of interactive calculators, all of which relate in some way to resources and the impacts of their use.

The Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (Central Coast Water Board) met last Friday (May 8). On the agenda was an update on Cambria’s MTBE situation. According to the report, the Central Coast Water Board staff oversees cleanup activities on numerous petroleum underground storage tank (UST) cases involving methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE).  Here is the part of the staff report concerning Cambria (the new information is presented in italics):

Chevron Cambria service station, located on the corner of Main Street and Burton Drive in Cambria, has been a Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Coast Water Board) lead groundwater investigation and cleanup case since December 1993. In 1995 Chevron Products Company commissioned the removal of a UST system and transferred ownership of the service station to an independent ownerloperator who installed a new UST system. Chevron is cleaning up a petroleum hydrocarbon discharge, including the fuel additive MTBE, from the original UST system. The discharge threatened groundwater in Cambria Community Service District (CCSD) Wells No. 1 and 3, which provide supplemental water to the community of Cambria.
As part of interim corrective action beginning in May 2000, Chevron continuously pumped MTBE contaminated water from four onsite wells. Currently, there are 15 shallow groundwater extraction wells in operation. Beginning in November 2000, Chevron began full operation of groundwater extraction and high-vacuum, dual-phase extraction systems. Both systems operate continuously,
except for periodic system upgrade, mechanical breakdowns, and system maintenance activities. Extracted and treated groundwater is stored in an onsite, 15,000-gallon tank until it is trucked offsite for disposal at the Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant.
During a November 2001 technical work group meeting with Central Coast Water Board staff, CCSD representatives, and Chevron representatives, the CCSD indicated the new temporary high school well had been connected to the Cambria municipal drinking water supply. The CCSD needs the high school well as an alternative water supply. The CCSD installed a wellhead treatment system on their Santa Rosa Creek wells which will enable well use in the event of an emergency. The Santa Rosa Creek Wells have not been impacted with IMTBE. On May 18, 2004, the Central Coast Water Board’s Executive Officer rescinded Cleanup or Abatement Order (CAO) No. 00-28. The CAO required Chevron to provide CCSD with alternative water supply due to loss of CCSD’s Well Nos. 1 and 3. The settlement agreement between CCSD and Chevron explicitly resolves all of CCSD’s claims against Chevron, including claims for an alternative water supply.

Since the Last Staff Report:
The Fourth Quarter 2008 Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation Status Report indicates fhe following:
Monitoring wells within the plume boundaries continue to exhibit MTBE and tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) concentrations exceeding the cleanup goals of 5 micrograms per liter (pg/L)and) 12 pg/L, respectively; however, current concentrations have decreased significantly compared to historical maximum values. The fourth quarter 2008 maximum MTBE concentration was detected in piezometric well P-5 at 620 pg/L and the maximum TBA concentrations was detected in monitoring well MW-7 at 170 pg/L.  Historically, maximum concenfrations of MTBE and TBA were as high as 5,500 pg/L and 8,80Opg/L, respectively. Shallow-zone MTBE and TBA isoconcenfration maps are shown on Attachments 1 and 2, respectively. Monitoring wells historically located beyond the plume boundaries continue to be free of detectable concentrations of MTBE and TBA. The high-vacuum, dual phase extraction system was not operated during the fourth quarter 2008. Chevron started an oxygenated groundwater infiltration system at the site to enhance the biodegradation of the petroleum hydrocarbon plume. The groundwater extraction and treatment (GWET) system operated during the reporting quarter. The GWET system extracted and treated approximately 15,000 gallons of groundwafer during the fourth quarter; 10,000 gallons were aerated and re-infiltrated into the subsurface (as described in the following bullet) and the remaining 5,000 gallons were disposed at the City of Santa Maria wastewater plant. On October 15, 2008, Stantec Consulting Corporation (Stantec) initiated the infiltration of oxygenated water at the site. Approximately 10,000 gallons of treated and oxygenated groundwater were infiltrated into the source-zone via infiltration wells MW-IR, HVE-4 and HVE-11. Stantec will continue the oxygenated groundwater infiltration activities, sample collection and analysis to evaluate performance of the enhanced in-situ bioremediation technology.

Read the full report and past reports at the geotracker website.

Let me start by saying no single article or set of links could possibly cover this topic completely. There are people who make entire careers dealing with the agencies and regulations involved in planning and development. And while this article won’t make you an overnight expert, it should provide an overview useful as we prepare for the public hearings for the Fiscalini Ranch EIR and the Water Master Plan EIR.

Of EIR and CEQA

Right now there are two very important documents in a “public comment” period of their life cycles: The Fiscalini Ranch Preserve Environmental Impact Report (FRP EIR) and the Water Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (WMP EIR). These EIRs are required by the California Environmental Quality Act – a statute that requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate (or compensate for) those impacts, if feasible.

CEQA was passed by the State legislature in 1970 in response to a federal protection statute ( NEPA). Most proposals for physical development in California are subject to the provisions of CEQA, as are many governmental decisions which do not immediately result in physical development (the Water Master Plan, for example). The fundamental purpose of the Guidelines is to make the CEQA process comprehensible to those who administer it, to those subject to it, and to those for whose benefit it exists (that would include us). Public agencies are entrusted with compliance with CEQA and its provisions are enforced, as necessary, by the public through litigation and the threat thereof. The purpose of an EIR is to provide State and local agencies and the general public with detailed information on the potentially significant environmental effects which a proposed project is likely to have and to list ways which the significant environmental effects may be minimized and indicate alternatives to the project. CEQA and the EIR it requires open the development process up to everyone who may be affected by the “impacts”. This means we need to take advantage of that right, or we can expect blame to be shifted onto us – Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Fortunately for most of us, there are a number of organizations in this area who regularly keep track of EIRs working their way through the approval process, including Greenspace, the Cambria Land Trust, the Sierra Club, the Land Conservancy and others. These groups speak up when they see a problem with a project. The great democratic thing about CEQA is it gives citizens a role in ensuring the project is acceptable. An interactive version of the process chart here is available at on the CERES website

Click the image to view a larger version.

Focus of Review:

Want to comment on the Water Master Plan EIR or the Fiscalini Ranch Preserve EIR? According to CEQA law, the comments most useful are those that focus on how well the EIR identifies and analyzes on the environment (which is more than just the trees. It is everything tangible and real about the area) and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. In other words, comments should not focus on whether or not your support the project, but what changes will be seen if the project is completed. Good Comment: The proposed project does not account for the additional traffic and parking issues. Not as good: We don’t need a sports field.

In the coming days, I will be reading through the  two major EIRs  currently in public comment period. I would like to invite you to add your comments and reactions here on AboutCambria.com, by clicking the “submit a post” tab. Comments on AboutCambria.com CAN include the kind of comments of support or lack of it that aren’t as appropriate for the EIR commenting.