Rebuttal to Critics

* The criticism by Mary Edwards and Esther Simmons of my Jan. 9 Valley Commentary article supporting the Sunshine Canyon Landfill (Letters, Jan. 16 and 23) deserves a response.

Turning most of Sunshine Canyon into a landfill will not represent the largest percentage removal of land from a county significant ecological area. The 542 acres in the canyon constitute only 2.5% of the 21,680 acres of SEA 20. SEAs are not protected by law from any sort of development. About half of several SEAs have been lost to development. A few have been totally lost. Defeating BFI in its attempt at expansion in Sunshine Canyon will not protect the entire remaining system of SEAs.

Should Sunshine Canyon eventually harbor an operating landfill, large-animal migration will continue across Newhall Pass. The present major migration route is between the I-5 overpass just north of the Weldon overpass. The passage would continue to direct animals into the forests in Weldon and Gavin canyons. These lead into the entire Santa Clarita Woodlands. Verification can be obtained from the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. Should Sunshine Canyon be an important part of the migration path despite the freeway barrier, its value will return after landfill closure.

Grasses, flowers and shrubs will grow on a filled and closed landfill. Herbivores of many species eat these plants and, in turn, become food for the raptors and other carnivores. Grasslands constitute a particularly important base to food chains. Plenty of forest will remain for cover and habitat.

Several neighboring canyons are more pristine than Sunshine Canyon and have more biological values. Members of the San Fernando Valley Audubon Society have been studying spotted owls, pygmy owls and other rare species in these canyons.

The mitigations attending the expansion of this landfill are not back-room deals. They are the results of careful deliberations between the county and BFI, which not only protect an unusually large amount of wilderness (950 acres) but also provide added protection to the local human environment. In a complex democratic society, compromise and mitigation are the keys and tools of solving problems such as Sunshine Canyon.

Years ago, I wrote lengthy responses to the environmental impact reports and proposed long lists of mitigations. I now realize that the mitigations were a waste of time and space as far as many opponents were concerned. However, other parts of my responses are avidly quoted by Mary Edwards. They may have been incorporated in briefs presented to various state courts.

During my assignment to O’Melveny Park, I once believed the persuasive arguments of the North Valley Coalition. It was the “in” thing in this community to fight the landfill and, for the sake of city and community, I was generally cooperative. However, my studies of the biology of the city park and the entire Santa Clarita Woodlands continued. In time, I concluded that Sunshine Canyon was not so unique or special at all. In addition, I was always a “pro-park” person rather than strictly “anti-dump.” These factors caused me to change course on the landfill issue. Biologists, including myself, are not static. With new knowledge, they modify their beliefs.

DON P. MULLALLY

Granada Hills