Procopio PowerPoint presentation on ... - Pala Band of Mission Indians

Document Sample
Procopio PowerPoint presentation on ... - Pala Band of Mission Indians Powered By Docstoc
					PROPOSED GREGORY CANYON
        LANDFILL
    Why it matters to you


              Presented to
  San Diego Chapter, Surfrider Foundation

   by: Ted Griswold Environmental Attorney, Procopio
                    April 21, 2010
          Where is it?
Location: San Luis Rey Watershed
San Luis Rey River
Gregory Canyon
   May 19, 2005
                   What is it?

        Proposed Landfill Project Elements
• A privately constructed and operated solid waste
  landfill
• Operating for 30 Years; 1 Million Tons of Trash
  per Year
• Closure another 30 years
• Line bottom of landfill with double liner
• Excavation of earthen materials to a depth just
  above groundwater
   Project Elements (continued)
• Monitoring wells between the bottom of the
  landfill and groundwater
• Build Wall of Trash above the San Luis Rey
• Set aside 1330 Acres of Open Space as part of
  Project
• ―Recycling Facility‖
• Trash source: No Restrictions (seeking contracts
  from local cities and LA, OC, Riverside Counties)
How Did a Landfill End Up
Proposed for This Location?
             SITING PROCESS

• Gregory Canyon was rejected
  multiple times as a potential
  landfill site by:
  – public process
  – county landfill siting studies
  – San Diego County resolutions
Rationale Provided for Rejecting Gregory
    Canyon as Proposed Landfill Site

• Danger to Water Source
• Cultural Resource Impacts
• Endangered and Threatened Species,
  Impacts
• Insufficient Size, too finite
• Seismic Stability
• Land Use Inconsistency
 HOW GREGORY CANYON BECAME A
         LANDFILL SITE
• 1988 – Gregory Canyon Site purchased by
  proponents ($1MM)
• Proponent rebuffed in attempts to site landfill at
  GC, withdraws site as a candidate
• 1994 –Proponents funded Proposition C
  ―Recycling and Solid Waste Disposal Initiative‖
• December 1994 financial report concluded that
  proponents spent approximately $900,000
• No money spent in opposition because of poor
  socioeconomics of the area at that time
      Why are we concerned?
    Why should you be concerned?
•   Cultural Impacts—Sacred Sites
•   Water Quality—Latent Danger
•   Water Supply Endangerment
•   Endangered Species/Habitat Impacts
•   Air Quality
•   Traffic Impacts
     CULTURAL IMPACTS OF THE
            PROJECT
• Destruction of Gregory Mountain (Chokla)
  - Sacred Mountain to the Luiseno people
  - Pala, Pechanga, Rincon, Pauma and La Jolla
  tribes, among others
• Medicine Rock
  - Eligible for the National Registry of Historic
  Sites
  - Registry pending
Gregory Mountain (“Chok’la”)




                    Medicine Rock
San Luis Rey River
        Water Quality Concerns
•   Proximity to San Luis Rey River
•   Perched over Groundwater Resource
•   Leakage Concerns
•   Seismic Stability
•   Loss of Tributary to San Luis Rey River
 GREGORY
 CANYON
PROPOSED
LAND USES
            Water Quality
• The Liner System
     Water Supply Concerns
• Endangerment of Aqueducts
• Groundwater Depletion
• Groundwater Contamination
GREGORY CANYON
  PROJECT PLAN


     Landfill Footprint




   San Diego Aqueduct
     San Luis Rey River



                          Borrow Pits
  Endangered Species/Habitat Impacts

• Endangered Species: Impacts to critical habitat for
  least Bell’s Vireo, arroyo toad, southwest willow
  flycatcher, California gnatcatcher, Steelhead

• Proposed Pre Approved Mitigation Area in
  County North County MSCP

• Direct and Indirect Impacts
              Air Quality
• Degradation—Dust, fumes

• Water needed to control, but no water
  source
      So What is The Latest on this
                Project?
•   CEQA Challenges
•   404 Permit/ ESA Section 7 Consultation
•   NEPA Review
•   Water Supply Needs
•   Air Quality Permits
 CEQA CHALLENGES TO LANDFILL
 Draft EIR found Inadequate because. . . .



• Double Dipping of Habitat Mitigation Area

• Traffic Impacts Not Adequately Addressed

• Water Source Not Addressed
      The Water Source Saga
• Needed for Dust Control, Compaction
• Maximum 193 acre feet per year
• Not in an imported water service area
• Appropriative water permit applied for in
  1996, later abandoned
• Riparian Water Rights attempts (limited to
  parcel with rights)
The Water Source Saga (continued)
• Attempts to use of Onsite Production Wells
  from Dairies (Limited to parcels with wells)
• Attempt to Annex into SDCWA (rejected)
• Olivenhain Municipal Water District
  Reclaimed Water Agreement
  – OMWD Sued, lost
• Next—Using Point of Compliance Wells
  for production
          The 404 Permit Saga
• Why Important?
  –   404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis
  –   ESA Section 7 Consultation
  –   NHPA Section 106 Consultation
  –   NEPA Review
   May 19, 2005
The 404 Permit Saga (continued)
• Three Areas of Concern
  – Canyon Itself
  – Bridge to get to Canyon
  – ―Low Flow Crossing‖ for Construction


• GCL Goal—Avoid Individual Permit
  (avoid permitting requirements)
Bridge Location




―Mitigation Area‖
The 404 Permit Saga (continued)
• Original Studies showed Waters of the US in the
  Canyon (1996, 2003),
   – Accepted by GCL, Corps


• RII Case—For Landfills in Waters, RCRA
  Jurisdiction not 404
   – Would lead to no 404 permit needed, LEA has decision
   – Corps and EPA Concurred. . . . Then
   – Corps Guidance Letter—‖but Liner Is Fill Activity‖
The 404 Permit Saga (continued)
• 2005--In Response, GCL ―re-defines Jursidictional
  Waters‖ in canyon
   –   Finds No Waters in Canyon
   –   Rejected by Corps Staff
   –   Congressional intervention, reversal
   –   Back to just Nationwide Permit

• Opponents push for Section 7, Individual 404 permit,
  NEPA Review, CEQA completion

• RWQCB Seeks to Issue 401 Certification in preparation of
  NWP issuance for Bridge
          The 404 Permit Saga (continued)
• Rapanos Case redefines the Nature of ―Jurisdictional Waters‖
    – ―Traditionally Navigable Waters of US‖
    – Non-relatively permanent waters that flow directly or indirectly into
      TNWs
    – Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting relatively permanent waters
      that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
    – Wetlands adjacent to non-relatively permanent waters that flow directly
      or indirectly into TNWs

• Bogus 2005 JD expires in October 2009

• New Jurisidctional Determination Required looking at TNW
    – Complicated by Lake Henshaw, City of Escondido diversion
    – Relevant—Steelhead use of River
    – Native American traditional canoes, rafts using river
      The 404 Permit Saga (continued)

• Implications of TNW determination on the
  San Luis Rey
    --Virtually ALL Southern California streams
    are ephemeral or intermittent
    --If SLR is not TNW, 404 Jurisdiction lost on
    virtually all streams and their tributaries in
    Southern California
                          Myths

• Isn’t it already Built?
   – Uh, no!!!

• A Liner will protect the water source!
   – No lined landfill has ever not leaked

• It’s gone through 15 years of permitting, isn’t that
  enough?
   – Proof that this is a bad place for a landfill
                                     Myths (Continued)

  • It is just a special interest group against it!
          – Opponents to the Project include:
 American Civil Liberties Union       Anti-Defamation League                     Back Country Coalition

 Buena Vista Audubon                  CA Catholic Conference                     CA League of Conservation Voters

 Diocese of San Diego                 Environmental Defense                      Environmental Defense Fund

 Environmental Health Coalition       Fallbrook Land Conservancy                 Friends of Loma Alta Creek

 Friends of the River                 Grand Jury Environmental Committee         Grassetti Environmental Consulting

 Greenaction                          Jewish Public Affairs Committee            Land Protection Partners

 Law Offices of Susan M. Trager       National Audubon Society                   National Wildlife Federation

 Natural Resources Defense Council    Pala Mesa Resort                           Pala-Pauma Community Sponsor Group

 Presbyterian Church of San Diego     RiverWatch                                 San Diego Audubon

 San Diego Baykeeper                  San Diego Catholic Diocese                 San Diego County Ecumenical Conference

 San Diego County Water Authority     San Diego League of Conservation Voters    San Diego League of Women Voters

 San Diego Natural History Museum     Senator John Burton                        Sierra Club

 Sisters of the Precious Blood        The Nature Conservancy                     The Trust for Public Land

 Union of American Hebrew             United Neighbors of Bonsall                Urban Wildlands Group
Congregations
                          Myths (continued)
                   Only a special interest against?

Opponents to the Site as a Landfill Include:
 County Consultants: Endarra Group (1986), SCS               County District Attorney (1992) – concluded proponent engaged
Engineering (1988)                                           in undue influence on local officials, ties to organized crime

 County Planning Commission (Sept. 7, 1990)                  County Grand Jury (Dec. 3, 1990)

 County DPLU Staff (July 17, 1989, Jan. 12, 1990, June 1,    Fallbrook Community Planning Group and Pala-Pauma Sponsor
1990, 1991)                                                  Group (May/June 1990)

 Fallbrook Public Utility District                           Federal Bureau of Land Management (April 5, 1990)

 Jamul Indian Village                                        La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians

 Los Coyotes Band of Indians                                 Metropolitan Water Authority

 Metropolitan Water District                                 Native American Environmental Protection Coalition

 Pala Band of Mission Indians                                Pauma Band of Mission Indians

 Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians                    Rainbow Community Planning Group,

 Rainbow Municipal Water District                            Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians

 Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians                              San Diego County Water Authority

 San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board              San Diego State University

 San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians                        San Luis Rey Indian Water Authority

 San Luis Rey River Watershed Council                        Yuima Municipal Water District
            Myths (Continued)

• There is nothing that I can do to stop it
  – No!! You can make a difference
  – Need pressure of federal elected officials to
    ensure integrity of 404 alternatives analysis
          CONCLUSION

**Project Fight Continues
**Allies in fight have grown, as has
 opposition
** Your help is appreciated—Stay
 Involved!!
Questions?

				
DOCUMENT INFO