1 / 43

PROPOSED GREGORY CANYON LANDFILL Why it matters to you

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.

aleda
Download Presentation

PROPOSED GREGORY CANYON LANDFILL Why it matters to you

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 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

  2. Where is it? Location: San Luis Rey Watershed

  3. San Luis Rey River

  4. Gregory Canyon

  5. May 19, 2005

  6. 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

  7. 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)

  8. How Did a Landfill End Up Proposed for This Location?

  9. SITING PROCESS • Gregory Canyon was rejected multiple times as a potential landfill site by: • public process • county landfill siting studies • San Diego County resolutions

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. Gregory Mountain (“Chok’la”) Medicine Rock

  15. San Luis Rey River

  16. 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

  17. GREGORY CANYON PROPOSED LAND USES

  18. Water Quality • The Liner System

  19. Water Supply Concerns • Endangerment of Aqueducts • Groundwater Depletion • Groundwater Contamination

  20. GREGORY CANYON PROJECT PLAN Landfill Footprint San Diego Aqueduct San Luis Rey River Borrow Pits

  21. 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

  22. Air Quality • Degradation—Dust, fumes • Water needed to control, but no water source

  23. So What is The Latest on this Project? • CEQA Challenges • 404 Permit/ ESA Section 7 Consultation • NEPA Review • Water Supply Needs • Air Quality Permits

  24. CEQA CHALLENGES TO LANDFILLDraft EIR found Inadequate because. . . . • Double Dipping of Habitat Mitigation Area • Traffic Impacts Not Adequately Addressed • Water Source Not Addressed

  25. 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)

  26. 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

  27. The 404 Permit Saga • Why Important? • 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis • ESA Section 7 Consultation • NHPA Section 106 Consultation • NEPA Review

  28. May 19, 2005

  29. 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)

  30. Bridge Location“Mitigation Area”

  31. 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”

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. 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

  35. 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

  36. Myths (Continued) • It is just a special interest group against it! • Opponents to the Project include:

  37. Myths (continued) Only a special interest against? Opponents to the Site as a Landfill Include:

  38. 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

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

  40. Questions?

More Related