Environmental Help Needed

[TEXASS]

First, I know this is not ski related but I needed to contact as many peeps as possible. I need help

I live along the san diego river valley in a rual area. There has been a proposal to allow a LLC to mine sand from the area I live in. Close to my house, like a quarter of a mile close.
Although this Idea has been tossed around for the last twenty years it looks like it may be starting to come to the EIR.
I need advise on how to fight this at the State and Federal Level.
I am about 5 miles from the Cleveland National Forest and about 4 miles from a raptor nesting area that is on El Cajon Mountain thats closed from Jan 1- July 1 for raptor nesting.
I do believe that their are a few endangered species living in the valley. We would also be dealing with Air Quality and possible ground water contamination.

Im looking for Legal experts on how to proceed

Thanks

and sorry for cunting up the ski thread but its summer and I need some help

[::: :::]

Contact Sierra club and Audubon society -- they are making it tough to get Timberline MTB allowed here on Hood. I bet local folks there could get on board.

[LightRanger]

The Center for Biological Diversity is pretty litigious. One of their attorneys is based out of Joshua Tree and might be a place to start with them.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/about/staff/

Brendan Cummings, Senior Counsel, Strategic Litigation Group Director, joined the Center in 1998. A graduate of Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law, Brendan has litigated dozens of Endangered Species Act cases, as well as cases under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, Clean Water Act and numerous other state and federal statutes. Prior to working for the Center, Brendan was in private practice specializing in environmental and civil-rights litigation. Contact: Joshua Tree, CA, 760.366.2232 ext. 304, bcummings@biologicaldiversity.org

[TEXASS]

Thanks Guys. Good Info. Keep it coming

[meter-man]

1) Contact these guys too: Cleveland National Forest Foundation https://www.facebook.com/transitsd?fref=photo

2) Form a community group or group of persons interested in protecting the Valley. A FB page can get you started and help you identify others with time, inclination, and money to support you.

3) Do your homework. Come prepared, and the lawyers will love you -- and might do the work for you pro bono. The species angle may be your best bet.

Good luck!

[Danno]

The padded room is where all the lawsmart mags frequent during the summer, just sayin you may have more chance of getting ideas and some stripper chat, possibly.

They're just blood sucking leeches in there.

[bodywhomper]

i'm not an attorney.

this project will need to pencil-out for the county, the BOS will be approving the project, and the mining company. this should include the full fiscal cost of environmental mitigation measures, tax-based income to the county, employment of local residents, the potential costs of a BOS's elected position, etc..

if you and allies can get ducks in a row, meet with BOS and county staff and request an economic analysis of the project. request this early, like now, before the EIR gets going, preferably even before a "Notice of Preparation" is released. It should be reasonable to request an economic analysis of the triple bottom line (look it up). You should also request that another triple bottom line analysis be done after the Final EIR is completed and before the County approves the project. This is a request separate from the process of compliance with CEQA, but is being intermixed in my recommendation to allow for the BOS, public, and mining company to understand the potential pill being swallowed if the project is approved by the county. The specific request should be that the second fiscal analysis be conducted; released to the public, with the opportunity for public review and public comment; and specifically debated in public by the BOS and with the opportunity for public comment after the FEIR is completed so that the CEQA mitigation measures can be considered in the economic analysis and prior to a meeting with an agenda item to potentially approve the project. BOS and county staff feet should be held to the fire to provide this information. mitigation costs also needs to include reasonable costs for post project site restoration.

Specific for SD County, there is something called a Multi Species Conservation Plan, which is an alternative process for compliance with the state and federal endangered species acts. in my experience, a project needs to be described and included in these planning document to gain project approval or the MSCP needs to be revised. this is worth checking into. the processes of modifying this plan (or plans) present their own public decisionmaking processes.

a new mine (or newly re-opened mine) will generate a lot of new traffic from haul trucks. the effects to traffic from this sort of activity in rural areas can be easily manipulated in the context of a CEQA document. traffic can dramatically increase and substantially alter the lifestyle and driving characteristic of existing affected residents, but come out as not a big impact in a CEQA analysis because the increase in traffic would be within the "design criteria" of the county "designation" of a roadway or because projected traffic would be so bad w/o the project that it would simply be worst (but not "significantly" worst) with the haul trucks. During the NOP "scoping period" request that the EIR quantify that the changes in traffic as a result of the project provide quantified projections of increased traffic delays along roadway segments, intersections, and interchanges at both a local level and regional level and that CEQA significance criteria be developed for the EIR that addresses the quantified increases in traffic delays. Also, if projected future changes in traffic include potential other "new" development (e.g subdivision), request that there is a reasonable argument for including the other "new" development. "new" development can sometimes include pie-in-the-sky plans that may be in the "books" but have no (fiscal) commitment by anybody but a county planner and the planning document that was prepared.

there can be other projects that are essentially part of the "ultimate" project, such as new housing for new employees and the need for increased public services. the economic analysis that i mentioned earlier, especially employment-related data, can support the definition of the "ultimate" project. a clear request should be made that any housing and public services demands need to be completely addresses, including potentially new housing, under the CEQA compliance. There's also an air quality and traffic component with that demand.

There may also be large aesthetic impacts. request visual simulations and request that they be prepared and provided early and prior to the CEQA EIR for consideration by the public and BOS. i have no idea about where this mine would be located in relation to the rest of the community, but ever been to globe, az? bring up images of globe, az until viz simulations of the actual project prove otherwise. if you really want to take them to town, request, during the CEQA NOP scoping period, that aesthetics analysis include an analysis following the BLM's visual resources management system to allow the BOS and public to fully understand how the project would alter the scenic values of the area in a vetted manner.

if there is any potential that a federal agency will have some permitting authority over the project (like the USFWS to amend the MSCP), request that a socioeconomic analysis/report be prepared early. This type of analysis is required per a prez executive order. This should be requested early in the process because the report can then be considered and debated by the BOS (seperate from CEQA) before any BOS meeting where they may be approving the project.

i hope this is a useful strategy and makes sense (drinking wine). good luck. mines are not necessarily an inherent evil. i have been in several communities where the mines "do right for the community".
cheers

[ak_powder_monkey]

Better to mine in a neighborhood than you know, wilderness! Think of all the jobs!


(just kidding... partly)

[meter-man]

Bodywhomper, you know how I know you're not an attorney (as you said)? It wasn't your thoughtful - and pretty strong - advice. It was the fact you offered it for free.

[bodywhomper]

it was a good distraction from working late

[TEXASS]

Thanks Bodywhomper. Sorry, but what does BOS stand for ?

Big Meeting last night for the opposition forces. Packed house. News media ect.

We have told the speakers that their love for the valley wont count. Thier rual lifestyle wont count. Only laws will stop this

Link to news story

http://www.cbs8.com/story/29656255/b...nd-mining-plan

[grskier]

data helps... so do a lot of NIMBY soccer moms with some time.

Seriously though.. does anyone have data? or an actual idea of how many truck trips, where, what sort of harm to the aquifer... etc, or is it all generalizations meant to support NIMBY?

[LightRanger]

Sorry, but what does BOS stand for ?

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors.

From that article, it looks like the grassroots opposition is off to a good start.

[LightRanger]

data helps... so do a lot of NIMBY soccer moms with some time.

Seriously though.. does anyone have data? or an actual idea of how many truck trips, where, what sort of harm to the aquifer... etc, or is it all generalizations meant to support NIMBY?

We're not debating the merits of the project. A fellow mag asked for advice on what to do about a mine proposal in his neighborhood. It might be a terrible project, might be a good one. That's not the issue. From the photos on the FB page though, it doesn't look like the best spot for a big open pit: https://www.facebook.com/18406200928...type=3&theater I mean, it's in a fucking nature preserve: http://www.elmontenaturepreservellc....description-2/

[grskier]

We're not debating the merits of the project. A fellow mag asked for advice on what to do about a mine proposal in his neighborhood. It might be a terrible project, might be a good one. That's not the issue. From the photos on the FB page though, it doesn't look like the best spot for a big open pit: https://www.facebook.com/18406200928...type=3&theater I mean, it's in a fucking nature preserve: http://www.elmontenaturepreservellc....description-2/

It's TGR, it's all open for debate....

I'm saying they are throwing out these generalities... but I didn't, on an admittedly cursory, barely looking look... didn't see anyone talking specifics.... which matters to me, as these projects usually suck for somebody, but it's also usually the market responding to a need.

I'm guessing the QECA is a NEPA-esque thing on the state level? That'll have some specifics to be able to refute.

[grskier]

Sorry, for some reason I didn't see bodywhomper's post earlier...

He (I'm making an assumption he's a dude) speaks towards which specifics to get after, and that's what I'm trying to say as well...

[LightRanger]

Yeah for sure. I get it. But homie was lost and asking in generalities at first. Looks like he's in good company and I'm sure the folks in his news link know what's up.

CEQA is California's state-level NEPA statute--with more teeth than NEPA. It's a good and bad thing. It's prevented a good amount of terrible development ideas and suburban sprawl over the years, but it's also wielded against (in my opinion) good projects. There've been a number of reform proposals--many related to infill development in urban areas which everybody considers a good idea, but not much movement yet. As housing prices continue their out-of-control trajectory, something will give. (Though that's obviously not the only reason they're high.)

[TEXASS]

Yeah, you guys got the Jist of this. We have people who dont want the project because of traffic, noise, and sand dust. We do have a 6 month off limit Raptor Nesting area on El Cajon Mountain . Its about 3 miles from the propject.
And, Im asking here because I know you need specific laws that could be broken. I do understand just the residents opposition doesnt matter at all.

The project is to Mine sand for local construction. Currently 35-40% is imported from Imperial County or Mexico. But both of those locations are about 30 minutes to an hour from this project

Its not Gold, Silver, Uranium or anything that valuible. Its sand. And the bastards trying to get the sand dont own the proerty they are ina 99 year lease that started out as a golf course Idea . Now we are here.

They like to mask themsleves as an Enviromentally freindly mineing company
They call it "Enviromine"

they also like to point out they will be adding horse trails and restoration. We already have horse trails and the Valley is pretty much natural.

here is the link to the AEIS

again, thanks for your advice

http://lcpg.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/6...ln-367aeis.pdf

[hutash]

"70% of the Property WILL NOT be Disturbed by Mining."

Now that is how you put a positive spin on destroying 30% of the area.

[Game Over]

Best of luck. My wife's place is on the rim of the SD river valley overlooking the magnificent Qualcomm and the 15/8 junction. Anyhow that gravel/sand operation just down river of Mission Trails park makes huge clouds of dust. I think I may have pics of the some dust clouds I'll try to dig for them if they would be helpful when trying to show the impact as I assume the operation would be similar.

[1000-oaks]

Could see an issue with big gravel mines that cut into hillsides and remove small mountains, but how is pulling sand out of the bottom of a dry riverbed bad for the environment? Won't create nearly as much dust as cutting a hillside does. If they spill some, what's the harm? One rain and spilled sand is back to the bottom of the valley. Think of all the unnecessarily burned hydrocarbons if they have to truck in sand from an hour away.

I totally get the not-in-my-backyard thing and by all means fight it, but to call removing sand "environmental damage" loses credibility with the public at large and weakens campaigns against real environmental damage.

[char]

On a global scale construction grade sand it actually fairly valuable (it's not gold but...) and there is supposedly a thriving black market destroying beaches and removing needed sediment from river systems.

[Tahoe Bromide]

Like most other natural resources, sand isn't unlimited. Someone mentioned the market driving this. Yup. The easiest sand in most places has been "harvested".

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/illegal-sand-mining/

[406]

From what I have seen in CA, if something is zoned for a specific use, and the developer has $$$ to litigate, there is no stopping the project.

Sounds like the sand is only there due to a dam and that the area is zoned for sand mining.

interesting article on the subject, from http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topic...-by-mining-it/

Environmentalist Wants to Save an East County River Basin – by Mining it
Ry Rivard | August 11, 2015

Michael Beck is one of the county’s leading environmentalists. He is also championing a major mining operation in East County.

In Beck’s view, the best way to save what’s known as the El Monte Valley is to temporarily destroy it.

In many nearby residents’ view, Beck is on a misguided mission to secure his legacy as a preservationist and has been bamboozled by a mining company with an Orwellian name.

The mining company Beck supports goes by the name El Monte Nature Preserve LLC. The owners of the company are seeking permission from the county to tear up a three-mile stretch of the San Diego River basin and remove 10 million tons of sand from it over the next 15 years. The sand, which sits on land owned by the Helix Water District, is valuable because it could be used for concrete.

In Lakeside, the nearest town to the project, many residents are unhappy with the sand mine because it would clog their streets with up to 250 trucks per day, dust up their air and destroy an informal system of trails equestrians use every day.

Some residents are also very unhappy with Beck, who is chairman of San Diego River Park Foundation, a director of the Endangered Habitats League and vice chairman of the County Planning Commission.

The dried-up river left sand, and non-native plants took root. Beck wants to kill them, pull them out and restore it as the natural landscape it was a century ago.

If all you have to do to make it happen is let a mining company truck out perhaps a few hundred million dollars’ worth of sand, so be it.

But residents are not buying that 15 years of mining will be worth what they consider an uncertain gain. As the mining company itself has pointed out, the valley has been mined three times since the 1940s with no attempts at reclamation.

“The thing that has put a bad taste in their mouth is not a single sand mining company in Lakeside has fulfilled its promise – not a single one of them,” said Karen Ensall, a member of the Lakeside Community Planning Group and president of a horse-riding club, the Lakeside Frontier Riders.

As the valley is mined for sand, Nature Preserve LLC will destroy a system of trails in the valley but has promised to begin restoring the habitat. When the mining is finished in 2031 or thereabouts, the company plans to turn over the land to another nonprofit Beck is affiliated with, the Endangered Habitats Conservancy, and put a few million dollars into an endowment to restore the land.

Beck says this arrangement will ensure the valley is restored to the sort of place it was before the El Capitan Dam was built in 1935 and stunted the natural flow of the San Diego River. To Beck, the sand that’s in the valley doesn’t belong there; and most of the plants that are there don’t belong there, either.

The valley’s invasive plants – mainly tamarisk, a shrub – are not necessarily unattractive and they’ve been there a while. But that doesn’t mean they should be allowed to remain, Beck said.

“They don’t get credit for being native because they’ve been around for 100 years,” he said.

The only way Beck said anyone can realistically pay for such a massive restoration project – across 500 acres of the valley floor – is revenue from the sand mining project.

Beck believes he’s found a solid partner in Nature Preserve LLC and one of its leaders, Bill B. Adams.

Adams, the developer, said his company is not like those previous operators. He said his work with Beck is helping to avoid being tied up in court fighting environmentalist opposition.

“We’re hopefully going to have the money end up in plant material rather than legal fees,” Adams said.

In a letter to the San Diego River Conservancy, Adams said there’s $2 billion worth of sand and land in the El Monte Valley. But Adams said he only wants part of that sand, about 15 percent, and will donate the land when he’s done mining.

If Nature Preserve LLC can’t develop the land, Beck warned that another mining company will – and that other company could spend decades mining the site. The land is currently zoned for sand mining.

Adams and his partners have already dumped $40 million into the El Monte Valley property, which is owned by the Helix Water District but which Adams and his partners have leased and are now in a position to buy. Back in 2000, Adams and his partners tried to build a golf course there – two 18-hole courses, actually. But the economic downturn killed the project.

By 2007, the golf course developers were working with Beck and the Endangered Habitats Conservancy on a sand mining and habitat restoration project. The name of the sand mining company then? El Capitan Golf Club LLC.

Opponents of the mining project are hoping to stall the approval until Adams and his partners’ option to buy the land expires in 2017, at which point Helix will take back control of the land.

[DJSapp]

FWIW, having a local source of good quality concrete sand will save the local economy millions of taxpayer dollars. My company does work in the area, and if you think bringing in sand from Mexico or Imperial County is only a half hour extra of driving, you're sadly mistaken. Imp County is best case 2 round trips in a 10 hour day, Mexico is likely one due to time spent crossing the boarder. And since the drivers are union, you have to pay these guys their full 8 hours at $90/hour, for 25 tons of sand.

Those larger jobs down there consume hundreds of millions of tons of sand per year, and it's coming out of taxpayer monies. As others have said, if they have money to litigate, it will go forward regardless it's just a matter of time. The best thing you can fight for is to change the agreement to put 100% of their initial profit into an escrow account for the restoration, so it will actually happen.