PROPOSED GREGORY CANYON LANDFILL Why it matters to you

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

5. Gregory Canyon

6. May 19, 2005

7. 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

8. 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)

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

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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

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

17. San Luis Rey River

18. 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

19. GREGORY CANYON PROPOSED LAND USES

21. Water Quality • The Liner System

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

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

24. 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

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

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

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

28. 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)

29. 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

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

31. May 19, 2005

32. 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)

33. Bridge Location“Mitigation Area”

34. 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”

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

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

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

41. 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

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

43. Questions?