The Newsletter November 2002
of the Conservation Committee of the Angeles Chapter (Email), Sierra Club
The Conservation Committee provides a forum for Club members to discuss impending conservation issues and coordinates efforts of conservation subcommittees with groups and sections. It meets every third Wednesday monthly, 7:30 pm at Chapter Headquarters. Contact the Chair by the end of the previous month for a place on the agenda.
2002 Conservation Management Committee
Another Administration Anti-Women Snub
Archaeological Treasures Ruined in Los Padres National Forest
Bush Administration Announces Northwest Forest Plan Overhaul
Conservation Committee Calendar
Ecological Effects of Fishing in Marine Ecosystems
Energy Development Fragments Public Lands
Environ Resolution Passed Angeles ExComm (10/27/2002): Formation of an Environmental Justice Comm
Frightening Forest Planning Regulations Soon to be Released
Legislative Report from Sierra Club California
Newsletter Joins the Electronic Age
Sierra Club Committee Contacts
Sierra Club's Endorsed Candidates and Bonds Fare Well In California Election
Southern Nevada Wilderness Bill Passes!
Newsletter Joins the Electronic Age
Postage and paper costs are going up, as are many other Chapter costs. Money without restrictions on how it can be spent is becoming more scarce.
To save money, most of the copies of the Newsletter will be sent out electronically. The electronic newsletters should arrive sooner. The Newsletter might eventually be available on a Chapter web page.
• HTML presents formatted text, with electronic links to the index, the Chapter web page, and other sources of information. Articles could be downloaded to a file, and a printer. (We are working hard on learning more formatting!)
• Hard copy is available for those who are technically challenged or simply don’t want to be bothered. We ask a donation to $20/year to (almost) cover costs of printing and mailing. These copies will be mailed first class. If you want to receive this newsletter by postal mail, notify Lori Ives.
We have e-mail addresses for many. We need more. Please email them to ivesico@earthlink.net. Unless we are instructed otherwise, an electronic newsletter is in your future.
The Newsletter is sent automatically to all activists who hold any of the following positions in the Angeles Chapter or its entities: ExComm, Chair, Conservation Chair, Newsletter Editor, Political Chair, Conservation Subcommittee Chairs, as well as others (throughout the state) who request it. If you no longer hold the Club office with the automatic pull and wish to continue to receive this newsletter, notify Lori, email <ivesico@earthlink.net> or phone 909-621-7148 or fax909-624-7983. Otherwise you will probably be dropped. If you doubt your status, ask Lori.
Return to Index
2002 Conservation Management Committee
Al Sattler/Chair, Bonnie Sharpe/Vice Chair, Jay Matchett/Treasurer, Jeff Yann/Secretary,
Robin Ives/Newsletter, Judy Anderson, John Monsen, Lynne Plambeck, Rudy Vietmeier
Lori Ives (non-voting): Publisher/Circulation
Archaeological Treasures Ruined
in Los Padres National Forest
Supervisor Retaliated Against Employee Whistleblowers
Los Padres National Forest leadership ignored staff experts to repeatedly approve projects that damage and destroy priceless cultural artifacts, according to a white paper released by the California Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (California PEER). Ruined Relics: Crumbling Cultural Resource Protection at Los Padres National Forest, written by former Los Padres employees and volunteers, explains how Forest Supervisor Jeanine Derby has violated federal law by promoting recreational uses of the forest at the expense of its cultural resources.
Los Padres National Forest holds one of the nation's most valuable collections of historic and prehistoric sites. As the ancestral home of Chumash, Salinan, and Esselen Indian Tribes, the Forest is teeming with artifacts documenting 8,000 years of cultural evolution. But construction projects, fire-prevention practices, motorized vehicle trails, cattle grazing and recreational uses have contributed to permanent damage of irreplaceable scientific treasures.
Ruined Relics describes how Forest archaeologists disclosed numerous violations to the State Office of Historic Preservation in the mid-1990s. Derby and other Forest leaders subsequently retaliated against the whistleblowers, relieving them of their responsibilities and replacing them with less experienced but obedient employees. Since that time, unnecessary damage to cultural sites continued unabated, including:
● The destruction of a prehistoric village when a road was built without a construction monitor,
● Allowing off-highway vehicles to run roughshod across thirty historic and prehistoric archaeological sites,
● Permitting cattle to trample major archaeological deposits and damage ancient rock paintings.
In addition, the archaeologist who established the Forest's award-winning volunteer program has been banned from participating in the program. Once the heart of Los Padres' cultural resources program, “Partners in Preservation” has essentially been abandoned. Damage reported by volunteers goes unaddressed.
“Every artifact destroyed today represents information lost to the world forever,” commented California PEER Director Karen Schambach. “The stewardship of irreplaceable cultural resources should only be entrusted to those who appreciate their value and are committed to their preservation.”
Frightening Forest Planning Regulations
Soon to be Released
After the elections, the Forest Service will release a draft of new language for the regulations that guide forest management plan revisions. These revised regulations would render forest plans meaningless and could end meaningful long-term landscape level planning. Legitimate forest management plans are critical to working toward the sustainable use of our national forests, protecting species, ensuring forest management is scientifically sound, and allowing the public to determine how they want their federal lands to be used. All these critical management tools would be eliminated by the revised regulations.
• Under the proposed regulations forest management plans would be worthless because projects would not have to be consistent with the plan and interim amendments lasting four years could be issued without public review.
• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental assessments and environmental impact statements would not have to be done for forest plans under the proposed regulations. This provision eliminates the need for consideration of alternative plans.
• Requirements for species viability are minimized in the proposed regulations and species protection is based on scientifically unsound concepts. It was the species viability requirement that led to the protection of spotted owl habitat in the Pacific Northwest.
• The role of science and the public in revising forest plans would be reduced through the elimination of requirements for independent scientific review and advisory panels and through the elimination of NEPA documentation and the introduction of restricted guidelines for comments.
Northwest Forest Plan Overhaul
Timber Industry Lawsuit May Lead to Loss of Protection for Wildlife
The Bush administration today (10/21/2002) announced they will prepare a plan to stop surveying for rare and uncommon wildlife associated with mature and old growth forests of the Pacific northwest. The announcement follows a settlement agreement reached in a lawsuit filed by the timber industry against the Forest Service and BLM.
Conservation groups have questioned the settlement agreement and proposed forest plan amendment on several grounds:
1. The timber industry's legal claims had very little merit, and before the judge could even rule, the Bush administration settled with the industry in secret talks that excluded conservation groups who were granted intervention in the lawsuit.
2. The relationship between the timber industry and the Bush administration is suspect, because the northwest timber industry donated more than a million dollars to the Republican party during a Bush campaign visit to Portland in May 2000. The normal adversarial roles in this litigation may not have been present and the Bush administration may not have “zealously represented” the public interest as they are ethically required to.
3. The proposed plan to curtail protection for scores of rare and uncommon species associated with old-growth forests will return northwest forest management to a state that the courts found to be illegal.
4. Curtailing species protection will undermine the very purpose of the Northwest Forest Plan which is to provide a safety net for wildlife associated with the endangered old-growth ecosystem. The intent of the Northwest Forest Plan is to avoid Endangered Species Act listings by taking steps before species are faced with extinction. Removing the safety net of the forest plan could lead to scores of species being protected under the Endangered Species Act. This is exactly the opposite of what the timber industry wants.
Conservation groups have advocated an alternative forest plan that would protect the remaining mature and old-growth forest and refocus the Forest Service and BLM on restoration of forests and watersheds.
“Our alternative will get the agencies out of the controversial business of old forest liquidation and instead put thousands of rural residents to work maintaining roads, restoring streams and thinning many of the young tree plantations that resulted from past decades of intense clearcutting.” Said Doug Heiken of Oregon Natural Resources Council.
“This restoration plan enjoys broad public support and deserves serious consideration.” James Johnston of Cascadia Wildlands Project, “In fact, some forests are already moving toward restoration. The Siuslaw National Forest does mostly restoration and thinning and they were one of the most profitable National Forest in the country in 1998. The Eugene District BLM did not have a single timber sale appealed this year, primarily because they focused on thinning young stands instead of old-growth logging.”
“The Bush/timber industry alternative is not a credible policy for our public forests,” said Peter Nelson of Biodiversity Northwest, Letting the timber barons manage our public lands without concern for wildlife will be a disaster. We tried it in the past and it led to massive clearcutting, polluted drinking water, and salmon streams clogged with sediment. Scientists found many species becoming endangered. Let's NOT go back to the dark ages of indiscriminate clearcutting.”
“Conservationists support a different approach than the timber industry,” said Dave Werntz, Science Director of Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, “Instead of abandoning protective rules, the government should protect mature and old-growth forest habitat and redirect agency efforts toward watershed restoration including thinning young plantations. This will protect the most valuable habitat, reduce the need for surveys, and help rural communities by creating jobs, while producing some log volume as a by-product of restoration.”
“The courts have already ruled that wildlife surveys are an essential part of Northwest Forest Plan and that the plan represents the minimum legal protection for our ancient forests,” said Heather Brinton of Western Environmental Law Center representing several conservation groups in a related case challenging earlier efforts to weaken protection of old-growth forests and wildlife. “Why go back to a system that was found non-compliant with the law?”
“Now that the government is reconsidering its earlier analysis of the forest plan, let's stop implementing the failed logging policies of the past until all these alternatives are considered,” noted Penny Lind, Executive Director of Umpqua Watersheds. “It's time to protect our mature and old growth forests now.”
Southern Nevada Wilderness Bill Passes!
Barbara Boyle, Field Office
HR 5200 passed the US Senate this evening (10/17/2002) around 10 pm, having passed the House the evening before. The bill will now go to President Bush, who has indicated he will sign the bill.
This legislation protects nearly half a million acres of new wilderness in the Mojave Desert country of Clark County, Nevada. It also creates the Sloan Canyon National Conservation area, protecting rare petroglyphs close to urban Las Vegas.
This achievement could not have come about without extraordinary work by Nevada Sierra Club volunteer leaders and staff, with crucial and timely help from Melinda Pierce, Carl Pope, and others. Special thanks go to: Marge Sill, Roger Scholl, Ellen Pillard, and no doubt hundreds of other Chapter leaders who wrote letters, lobbied, showed up at public events, and continually pressed for more and better protections. A very special thanks to Jane Feldman, whose excellent knowledge of both the land use (and abuse) deals abounding around Las Vegas, as well as the County's Habitat Conservation Plan, enabled Sierra Club to take a strong stand against harmful provisions in the bill and remove or minimize most of the bad ones.
Kudoes also to our fantastic wilderness organizer, Carrie Sandstedt, whose infusion into the coalition campaign early this year caused a giant leap in morale and grassroots output.
While the Sierra Club played a strong and important role, we had a terrific team to work with in the Nevada Wilderness Project, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Wilderness Society, Wilderness Support Center, and many more groups and individuals, too countless to name, who worked together in a very positive way to achieve our common victory.
The bill comes at a time when we sorely need something positive to hang onto, and despite some unwanted provisions, overall it represents a huge and important addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Another Administration Anti-Women Snub
Molly Ivins, Creators Syndicate
The latest in a long line of anti-woman decisions by the Bush administration is, for once, getting some attention—in part because of the sheer cheapness of the move.
President Bush has decided not to send the 34 million dollars approved by both houses of Congress for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA).
The fund provides contraception, family planning and safe births, and works against the spread of HIV and against female genital mutilation in the poorest countries of the world. Thirty-four million dollars goes a long way in the parts of the world where more than 600,000 women die every year from pregnancy and childbirth, many of them children themselves.
Of course, our poor government is so broke that it can't afford to waste $34 million on women in poor countries. It has more important things to do, like spending $100 million on “promoting marriage.”
Two women—Jane Roberts, a retired teacher in California, and Lois Abraham, a lawyer in New Mexico—have started a splendid symbolic protest, and it is spreading by e-mail, fax, newsletters and all kinds of women's groups. The organizers are looking for 34 million “Friends of UNFPA” to send $1 each to the United Nations (FPA) at 220 East 42nd Street, New York NY 10017.
Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, director of the UNFPA, said the $34 million US contribution would have helped prevent 2 million unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 induced abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths and 77,000 infant and child deaths.
We don't have $34 million to save the lives of poor women, but Bush wants to spend $135 million on abstinence education, which doesn't work.
According to that fountain of misinformation, the Rev. Jerry Falwell: “This announcement angered school sex educators, who concentrate on teaching our nation's students that they should explore their sexuality and ignore the consequences. But Mr. Bush said government can teach children how to exhibit sexual control.”
Actually, sex education is entirely about the consequences of “exploring sexuality,” and it works. The Guttmacher Institute published a report last week showing that the abortion rate is down by 11 percent precisely because young people are getting more education about sex. One would think the anti-abortion forces would be grateful. Instead, there is every indication that in addition to taking away a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion, the Bush administration is going after contraception.
Bush now wants to make W. David Hager chairman of the Food and Drug Administration's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Hager is an ob-gyn from Kentucky who wants the FDA to reverse its approval of RU-486, the “abortion pill.”
Although Hager is the editor of a book that includes the essay “Using the Birth Control Pill is Ethically Unacceptable,” he told Maureen Dowd of The New York Times that he does not agree with the essay. Then why include it? He does not prescribe contraceptives for single women, does not do abortions, will not prescribe RU-486 and will not insert IUDs. Hager believes that headaches, PMS and eating disorders can be cured by reading Scripture. I do not want this man in charge of my health policy.
It took almost all of human history for the population of the globe to reach 1 billion people in 1800. It took only from 1987 to 1999 for world population to grow from 5 billion to 6 billion. At current rates, we will reach 13 billion by the middle of the 21st century. Ninety-five percent of this growth will be in Africa, Latin America and Asia.
Studies estimate that by 2025, two out of every three people on Earth will live in water-stressed conditions. The stress on global resources is already apparent.
While we spend trillions of dollars on weapons, the military and homeland security, the real threats — water scarcity, climate change and population growth — advance unchecked.
Ecological Effects of Fishing in Marine Ecosystems
(October 28, 2002) Beneath the oceans’ surface are some of Earth’s most diverse and productive ecosystems — colorful coral reefs, dense kelp forests, and vibrant estuaries. Increasingly, these habitats are straining from the weight of pollution, coastal development, and harmful fishing practices, endangering the ecological and economic benefits they produce.
In a new report, Ecological Effects of Fishing in Marine Ecosystems of the United States, prepared for the independent Pew Oceans Commission — the latest in a series of science reports on the threats facing the nation’s oceans — scientists find that many current fishing activities are harming the very ecosystems on which future fishing depends, and that these phenomena are worsening. Leon Panetta, chair of the Pew Oceans Commission, released the report today in Santa Barbara, California, in conjunction with the California and the World Ocean Conference.
“This report is one of many that has been presented to the Commission for our consideration as we arrive at our final recommendations.” said Panetta. “For centuries, we have viewed the oceans as an infinite resource beyond our capacity to harm. We now know that this is not true. Our oceans are more vulnerable and more valuable than we ever imagined. If we want to sustain America’s proud fishing industry, then we need to take a hard look at how pollution, development, and fishing activities are harming the oceans.”
In their report to the Commission, authors Paul Dayton of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Simon Thrush of the National Institute of Water and Atmosphere Research (New Zealand), and Felicia Coleman of Florida State University, find overwhelming evidence that the unintended consequences of fishing on marine ecosystems are “severe, dramatic, and in some cases, irreversible.”
The authors find that certain fishing activities can:
• Deplete populations, which alter food webs and ecosystems;
• Remove top predators, thereby disrupting predator-prey relationships;
• Endanger marine mammals, seabirds, sea turtles, and certain species of fish; and
• Alter the structure, function, productivity, and resilience of marine habitats.
“If we are serious about saving our fisheries and protecting the sea’s biodiversity, then we need to make swift, and perhaps painful, decisions to preserve and maintain the oceans’ ecosystems,” said Dr. Dayton, lead author on the report. “The time has come to reorient fishery management around the goal of protecting ecosystems and to instill flexible management that emphasizes caution.”
The report’s authors address three primary threats to the long-term health of ocean ecosystems: overfishing, bycatch (the incidental take of nontarget species), and habitat damage.
Overfishing
Worldwide, some 25 to 30 percent of all commercial fisheries are experiencing some degree of overfishing, with an additional 40 percent heavily or fully exploited. In the United States, the federal government knows the status of only one-third of the stock it manages, of which a third are overfished or experiencing overfishing. The report finds that a significant ramification of overfishing is the decreased prey available to predators, often times resulting in a ripple effect throughout an ecosystem. This phenomenon is compounded by what is often called “serial overfishing,” where fisherman move from one species to the next as populations decline. A final concern is what is termed “fishing down the food web,” where fishing shifts from higher trophic levels to lower trophic levels, resulting in a top-down ecological disruption.
Bycatch
Scientists estimate that up to 25 percent of the world’s fisheries catch is bycatch—invertebrates, fish, seabirds, turtles, and marine mammals accidentally captured along with target species and discarded dead or dying. Bycatch has severely depleted most species of turtles, many marine mammals, several species of albatross, and several skates and rays. The report finds that bycatch extends the ramifications of fishing to a much wider sector of ocean life, with repercussions to the functioning and diversity of ecosystems.
Habitat Disturbance
Protecting essential habitat from human activities is a vital component of successful fishery management. Fishing activities can have temporary and long-term effects on habitat that is critical to the various life stages of exploited species. The seas ’ rocks, ledges, seagrass beds, sponge gardens, and shellfish beds contribute to the growth and survival of juvenile fish and serve as the focal point for foraging and spawning adults.
The authors propose a new approach to fishery management based upon (1) a major commitment to understanding and monitoring ocean ecosystems and (2) a proactive and adaptive approach founded upon ecosystem-based planning and marine zoning. This begins by reorienting fishery and ocean management programs toward the primary goal of protecting natural resources. It also requires an increased investment in ecosystem research and monitoring to better address the trade-offs that result from management decisions. Finally, a new approach to fishery management must move from the current single-species model to one that considers the entire ecosystem.
“Poor information on bycatch, discarding, and basic life history are the bane of fisheries scientists,” said Dr. Coleman. “Couple this with ineffective regulations, nonexistent brakes on developing capacity, and inadequate support of law enforcement, and disaster ensues. If we are to ensure sustainable fisheries—both commercial and recreational—we must shift fishery management’s emphasis from a single-species approach focused on short-term benefits to an integrated approach that acknowledges the tradeoffs we are willing to accept in our choice of management options.”
The independent Pew Oceans Commission is conducting the first review of polices and laws needed to sustain and restore living marine resources in over 30 years. The Commission includes leaders from the worlds of science, fishing, conservation, business, and politics. For the past two years, Commission members have traveled to coastal communities to talk to people about the problems facing our oceans and to explore new ways to address them. Ecological Effects of Fishing is the latest in a series of reports prepared for the Commission to inform their deliberations. Previous reports covered marine pollution, coastal sprawl, introduced species, and aquaculture. The Commission will release additional reports and white papers on fishery management, marine reserves, and the economics of fishing in the coming weeks.
The Pew Oceans Commission will present its final recommendations for a new national ocean policy to Congress and the nation in early 2003. Information about the Commission, including copies of its science reports, is available online at www.pewoceans.org.
Energy Development Fragments Public Lands
WASHINGTON, DC (ENS)—Oil and gas development causes habitat fragmentation that extends far beyond the physical structures of the oil or gas field, argues a new analysis by The Wilderness Society. The environmental group also released figures suggesting that Bush administration estimates of the economically recoverable oil and natural gas deposits on public lands may be unrealistically high.
The Wilderness Society reports demonstrate a method for evaluating the negative ecological impacts of energy exploration and extraction on wildlife and habitat. Federal land management agencies should adopt these methods for reviewing all proposed oil and gas development projects, the group says, particularly those on sensitive public lands.
“The current administration's National Energy Plan calls for greatly expanding the amount of public land that is open for gas and oil drilling and includes steps to increase access to federal land,” said The Wilderness Society's Chris Weller. “But up to this point, little of the debate has focused on the significant ecological impacts associated with these activities. Habitat fragmentation is one of the hidden costs that need to be factored into responsible, science based public land management decisions.”
Fragmenting Our Lands: The Ecological Footprint from Oil and Gas Development, by Weller, Janice Thomson, Pete Morton and Greg Aplet, uses a case study in the Big Piney-LaBarge oil and gas field in Wyoming to demonstrate the type of analysis that can reveal the potential environmental impacts of energy projects.
More than 3,000 oil and gas wells have been drilled in the Big Piney-LaBarge in the Upper Green River Basin, which is managed primarily by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The BLM has also authorized some 4,500 permits for new wells.
The physical area of oil and gas infrastructure—such as roads, pipelines, pads and waste pits—at Big Piney-LaBarge consumes seven square miles of habitat. But Wilderness Society scientists found that the effects of that infrastructure cover a much larger area.
The entire 166 square mile landscape of the field is within one-half mile of a road, pipeline corridor, well head, retention pond, building, parking lot or other component of the infrastructure. About 160 square miles, or 97 percent of the landscape, fall within one-quarter mile of the infrastructure.
The effect of this development on wildlife is devastating, The Wilderness Society argues. For example, there is no place in the Big Piney-LaBarge field where the greater sage grouse, a potential candidate for the threatened and endangered species list, would not suffer from the effects of oil and gas extraction.
“The Upper Green River Basin is home to at least 25 threatened or endangered species, and the devastating effect of habitat fragmentation on many of these species is well documented,” said Thomson. “Yet proposed oil and gas projects are moving forward without adequate evaluation of the far reaching impact they have on wildlife and these magnificent and important lands.”
The Wilderness Society recommends that all proposed oil and gas projects undergo a thorough spatial analysis to reduce their ecological impacts. These analyses should be performed before new energy products are begun, the environmental group says, and land managers should assemble regional habitat use data for all wildlife species that energy development might affect, including threatened or endangered species.
Land managers should also look at how energy projects might fragment wildlife habitat, and integrate information about habitat use and fragmentation into management plans for all new oil and gas fields on federal lands, and new development in existing fields.
“If four scientists operating on a shoestring budget can complete the fragmentation analysis in less than six months, so can federal agencies with multi-million dollar budgets,” said Morton. “It is the least they should do to protect wildlife, fisheries and the other multiple resources provided by the public estate.”
The Wilderness Society says that federal land managers should also take a second look at whether many energy projects make economic sense. A new analysis by the environmental group suggests that many proposed projects will produce very little oil or natural gas—not enough to justify the environmental damage they will cause.
“The Administration's National Energy Plan to open more western public lands to gas and oil drilling is based on inherently flawed assumptions,” said Morton, lead author of the study. “If we're going to have an honest public debate over energy extraction from our nation's wildlands, the administration must stop exaggerating the amount of gas and oil that is economically viable to recover.”
The Wilderness Society analyzed the economically recoverable gas and oil on national forest roadless areas in six Rocky Mountain states: Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Montana, New Mexico and North Dakota. The analysis determined that economically recoverable gas in these areas would meet total US gas consumption for about nine to 11 weeks, while economically recoverable oil in those areas would meet total US oil consumption for less than 24 days.
The report, Energy and Western Wildlands: A GIS Analysis of Economically Recoverable Oil and Gas, reflects more than 18 months of research by Wilderness Society scientists and economists. The study was prompted in part by the administration's stated intention to expedite gas drilling projects in the west.
The report's analyses are based on US Geological Survey (USGS) estimates of “economically recoverable” gas— defined as technically recoverable gas that is estimated to be profitable to extract—which the federal Congressional Research Service has said is the appropriate basis for policy analysis.
However, the Bush administration regularly cites estimates for technically recoverable gas and oil, rather than economically recoverable supplies, leading to overestimates of the energy potential of western public lands, The Wilderness Society says. USGS scientists estimate that less than 20 percent of the technically recoverable gas in the Rockies can be economically recoverable.
“If technically recoverable amounts were relevant, we would be producing oil from oil shales in Colorado,” said Morton. “But the oil shale bust of the 1980s is a historical lesson of why decision makers and communities must consider economics when evaluating public land policies.”
The Wilderness Society also analyzed recoverable gas and oil resources in 15 national monuments managed by BLM, located in Arizona, Colorado, California, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Montana and New Mexico. These monuments combined contain less than seven days of gas use and 15 days of oil use for the United States, the report shows.
An additional analysis in the study focused on three recent reports that suggested that large amounts of undiscovered gas and oil resources are currently off limits to development, primarily because of environmental stipulations in government leases. The analysis found that the reports failed to take into consideration a number of criteria, including the full cost of bringing the resources to market.
“The bottom line is that environmental stipulations do not pose a major roadblock to exploration and development of potential energy resources on public land,” said Morton. “In actuality, a relatively large area in the western United States is available to leasing, but that a huge percentage of gas in the region will not be developed because of economic constraints, not government regulations.”
The Wilderness Society recommends that federal managers begin using estimates of economically recoverable resources in evaluating land use alternatives. Economic analyses should also involve a full accounting of the environmental costs, the group says, and lease holders should be required to post sufficient bonds to ensure that they can afford to clean up their sites after they run out of recoverable oil and gas.
“History has shown that the costs of restoring abandoned drill sites have been much greater than the posted bonds,” said Morton. “Increased bonding requirements will provide taxpayers with assurance that there will be sufficient money to pay for damage to public land that is caused by gas and oil extraction. Increased bonding requirements will also help weed out those 'bad actors' whom many in industry seem concerned about, yet no one seems to know.”
The Wilderness Society report, Fragmenting Our Lands: The Ecological Footprint from Oil and Gas Development, is available at: http://www.tws.org/newsroom/report_fragmenting101402.htm
The report, Energy and Western Wildlands: A GIS Analysis of Eonomically Recoverable Oil and Gas, is available at: http://www.tws.org/newsroom/report_energy101402.htm
Legislative Report from Sierra Club California
Bill Magavern, Senior Legislative Representative
Sierra Club California’s efforts in the state Capitol this year resulted in some noteworthy successes, although much- needed actions to protect the environment were often blocked by business lobbies and their political allies. Our hard-working volunteer Legislative Committee took positions on almost 200 bills, and staff and contract lobbyists carried the pro-earth message to the Legislature. With a brand-new web-based action network combined with another jam-packed Lobby Day, we activated our members to increase our clout with elected officials, and we plan to step up the grassroots activity next year.
California’s environmental movement made national, even international, news over the summer with the enactment of AB 1493 (authored by Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills), which has set the Air Resources Board working on the first-ever limits on greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. We are now engaged in the long struggle to implement the law, with the goal of having significantly cleaner new vehicle fleets in seven years.
Smart growth advocates scored a significant win with the signing of AB 857, authored by Assembly Member Patricia Wiggins (D-Santa Rosa) and supported by environmental, labor and social equity groups. The new law establishes state growth priorities that favor infill development and more compact suburban growth and protect the most valuable natural and agricultural resources.
Californians will enjoy improved access to coastal areas due the passage of SB 1962, by Sen. Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles). The law requires the Coastal Conservancy to preserve opportunities for new public accessways along the coast. Too often wealthy landowners resist allowing the public to enjoy access to some of our finest beaches.
Two toxics bills rode the support of both environmentalists and waste management companies to majorities in the Assembly only to be vetoed by Governor Davis. SB 1970, authored by Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles), chair of the Urban Landfills Committee, and sponsored by Sierra Club California and Committee to Bridge the Gap, would have required that radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons plants go only to facilities designed and licensed to take radioactive wastes. The bill would have reversed the radioactive waste deregulation carried out by Davis’ Department of Health Services, which has allowed radioactive wastes to go to metal recyclers, local landfills, schools and parks. SB 1523, authored by Sen. Byron Sher (D-Palo Alto), chair of the Environmental Quality Committee, and sponsored by Californians Against Waste, would have established a small recycling fee on the sale of computer monitors and televisions with cathode ray tubes, which contain toxic lead.
As Californians continue to pay for the hangover from last year’s electricity crisis, the Legislature and Governor moved to restore our state’s position as a worldwide leader in clean renewable energy resources like solar and wind power. SB 1078, another Byron Sher bill, will reduce both the pollution and price volatility of fossil and nuclear fuels by requiring electricity sellers to derive 20% of their power from renewable sources. Unfortunately, opposition from utilities forced some weakening of the bill, which establishes what is known as a “Renewables Portfolio Standard.”
Because of opposition from the timber lobby and some labor unions, we were unable to get a bill to Governor Davis on forestry reform. SB 234, authored by Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) would have revamped the make-up of the Board of Forestry, an important first step. However, SB 234 failed in the Assembly on the final day of the legislative session.
One of the hardest fought and most extensively negotiated bills of the year was SB 482 (Kuehl). This legislation facilitates a water transfer between the Imperial Irrigation District and the San Diego Water Authority. The Sierra Club worked hard to prevent lasting damage to the Salton Sea, and our advocacy resulted in amendments that limited the scope of the repeal of the Fully Protected Species statutes. Governor Davis signed SB 482.
Sierra Club California represents the over 200,000 Sierra Club members in California at the State Capitol. For questions regarding the legislative program, please contact Marianne Batchelder at 916-557-1100, ext. 107 or by e-mail at batchelder@sierraclub-sac.org
Sierra Club's Endorsed Candidates and Bonds
Fare Well In California Election
94% of Sierra Club California's endorsed candidates for statewide office, Congress and State Legislature triumphed in the November 5 general election. In addition, voters approved Sierra Club-backed bond measures to fund clean water programs and affordable housing. We thank all of our members who volunteered in these campaigns; your precinct walking, phone calling, and envelope stuffing provide the muscle of our political program.
With small shifts in the US Senate delivering majority control of both houses of Congress to the anti-environment Republican leadership, California now holds many of the hopes of environmentalists across the country. Despite our frustration with the often-slow pace of progress in our state, we look truly golden in comparison to the rollbacks underway in Washington DC. Just as California has taken the lead with a pioneering law on greenhouse gas emissions, so we will now seek to assert state leadership on a number of other problems that are not being addressed at the federal level.
In all eight of California's statewide offices on the ballot this year, candidates endorsed by Sierra Club California won. Governor Gray Davis, Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante, Attorney General Bill Lockyer and Treasurer Phil Angelides all won re-election with our support. Businessman Steve Westly led narrowly for Controller as of November 7, although absentee ballots could change the outcome. State Senator Jack O'Connell will be the next Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Assembly Member Kevin Shelley takes over as Secretary of State. John Garamendi returns to the Insurance Commissioner's post he left eight years ago.
Twenty-four of our endorsed candidates for State Assembly won; three lost. We expect the new Assembly to be slightly more sympathetic to environmental concerns than the outgoing one because the Business Democrat Caucus, which often opposes ecological legislation, has suffered significant losses. The State Senate, under the leadership of president pro tem John Burton (D-San Francisco), will remain a favorable place for pro-earth bills, as all nine of our endorsed candidates won re-election.
Redistricting took the drama out of Congressional races in California, as all incumbents were re-elected easily, including 26 with our endorsement and one who prevailed over a challenger we had backed. In the one new seat added to the California delegation by reapportionment, Democrat Linda Sanchez, endorsed by the Angeles Chapter, won the right to represent a southern Los Angeles County district, joining her sister, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, who was re-elected to her Orange County seat with our support.
Sierra Club California represents the over 200,000 Sierra Club members in California at the State Capitol. For questions regarding the legislative program, please contact Marianne Batchelder at (916) 557-1100, ext. 107 or by e-mail at batchelder@sierraclub-sac.org
Environmental Resolution Passed by Angeles ExComm
(10/27/2002)
Formation of an Environmental Justice Committee
The Executive Committtee of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club authorizes the creation of a Chapter-wide standing committee on Environmental Justice.
The Environmental Justice Committee is charged with working on environmental issues in the under-represented communities in the Chapter territory, and in communication with the Chapter’s Conservation and Political Committees in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, as well as the Southern California Field Office and its staff.
The Environmental Justice Committee is charged with encouraging activists from the Central Group and the Airport-Marina Group and other members who participated in the Belmont appeal to continue working in the Temple-Beaudry neighborhood, as well as building chapter-wide awareness of environmental justice issues.
Proposed Resolution (Orange County)
Saddle Creek & Saddle Crest Developments
The Orange County Conservation Committee recommends that the Sierra Sage Executive Committee adopt a resolution opposing the Saddle Creek & Saddle Crest proposed housing developments, as currently proposed, which lie within the Foothill/Trabuco Specific Plan (FTSP) area in Trabuco Canyon.
Background:
In August 2002, the County of Orange distributed Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 578 (“EIR”) for the Saddle Creek & Saddle Crest projects for development of 162 single-family homes on 598 acres. The proposed non-contiguous developments lie within the FTSP area. The FTSP was enacted in 1991 by the Orange County Board of Supervisors to set forth goals, policies, land use district regulations, development guidelines, and implementation programs in order to preserve the area's rural character and to guide future development in the Foothill/Trabuco area. Among the many resource protection provisions in the FTSP, the following development guidelines are set forth: i) preserve the rural character of the area and provide a buffer between urban development and the Cleveland National Forest, ii) preserve significant landform, biological, and scenic resources, iii) preserve significant biological resources, including oak woodlands, riparian areas and wildlife mobility corridors, and iv) preserve the oak tree canopy along Live Oak/Trabuco Canyon Road. The FTSP Resource Overlay Component states “oak woodlands shall be preserved in an undisturbed state to the greatest extent possible while still allowing for reasonable development.”
The Saddle Creek & Saddle Crest developer has proposed sweeping amendments and exemptions to the FTSP's resource protection provisions—in particular those provisions concerning grading limits and oak woodland preservation. The developer's current plans for the 162-unit development call for destruction of 493 oak and sycamore trees, of all ages and conditions, to be replanted with acorns and seedlings. In addition, the site is adjacent to Aliso Creek, listed as a Category I Priority Impaired Water Body in the EPA's National Water Quality Report (2000). According to the EIR, the projects admittedly “…potentially impact the existing water quality in Aliso Creek…” and “could result in long-term water quality impact due to the addition of urban pollutants typical of urban runoff…”
Arguments For:
The FTSP's resource protection guidelines should be applied to all proposed developments in the area, not amended for individual developers. Adherence to the FTSP will ensure that Orange County's significant landform, biological, and scenic resources are preserved, and that the buffer between urban development and the Cleveland National Forest is maintained. As recently as August 2002, the San Diego Superior Court struck down the County of Orange's attempt to amend the FTSP for the “Rancho Potrero Leadership Academy,” stating the attempt was “arbitrary and capricious” and that the carving out of a special district exempt from the FTSP rendered the FTSP internally inconsistent.
The project location is within one mile of the Cleveland National Forest. The mass grading and oak woodland destruction scheduled for this project are not consistent with the FTSP's goal to “provide a buffer between urban development and the Cleveland National Forest.” Such destruction is the antithesis of one of the main operative goals of the FTSP—preservation. According to the developer, without the FTSP amendments as requested, the project will be (economically) infeasible. The developer should submit a plan that is compliant with the FTSP, irrespective of whether the compliant plan provides the economic return the developer desires.
Surrounding residents and the Foothill Trabuco Specific Plan Review Board have voiced strong opposition to the proposed plan. The FTSP Review Board voted to recommend that the Planning Commission consider only the three lower impact alternatives in the EIR, all of which the developer has stated are infeasible. The Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to hear these projects on December 4.
Arguments Against:
The FTSP's guidelines include a provision for development potential, namely, “to ensure at least some development potential on each individual property.” Developers should be given a reasonable opportunity to relax the FTSP's resource protection provisions to provide housing for Orange County residents and assure reasonable economic return on their investment.
Proposed Resolution
Sustainability Audit of Sierra Club Practices
Population/Consumption Committee
Be it resolved that the Sierra Club Angeles Chapter recommend that all Chapter, Group, Section and Conservation chairs conduct a sustainability audit of Club practices. This should include the following:
Energy use:
1. Are meeting places easy for public transportation? Walking? Cycling?
2. Can business be transacted without driving? Conference calls, Internet? When not, is carpooling routinely strongly encouraged?
3. Are Sierra Club offices too warm in the winter or too cold in the summer? Do they use compact fluorescent bulbs?
4. Are office appliances shut off when not in use? Are they energy efficient?
Clean Water/Land Use:
1. Do Sierra Club functions favor/encourage food that is organic and low on the food chain (vegan)?
Forests/Land Use:
1. Is more paper being used than is absolutely necessary?
2. Is paper reused?
3. Are Chapter and Group newsletters printed on recycled paper? Are Xeroxed copies on 100% recycled paper? Are both sides used?
4. Do Sierra Club events and offices use coffee mugs, cloth towels and reusable plates?
This audit will be carried out by the Population/Consumption Committee.
Discussion:
Americans are six per cent of the world's population, but we use 25% of the world's resources. Our consumption patterns are the model and goal of the rest of the world.
Arguments For:
The Sierra Club should lead by example. The audited items are the consumption side of our national campaign priorities.
Arguments Against:
Sierra Club activists are all ready overburdened with work and this would just add to it.
Proposed Resolution
Approval of Conservation Grants
Conservation Management Committee
The Conservation Committee of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club recommends that the Executive Committee of the Chapter adopt a standing rule that it will either approve unchanged the entire recommendation for a conservation grants package, or return it to the Conservation Committee for further consideration.
Background:
The Conservation Committee, by action of the Executive Committee, has a similar rule: it will either approve unchanged the entire recommendation for a conservation grants package, or return it to the Conservation Budget Committee for further consideration.
Usually the Conservation Grants Committee has to deal with a package of applications for conservation grants that add up to more than three times the amount of funds available. It must read and weigh all the individual applications, and then apportion the available funds among them.
Meetings of the Conservation Budget Committee are open to all Sierra Club members, but delegations to present oral arguments in favor of individual applications are discouraged. The Conservation Budget Committee relies on the written applications. It may wish to address questions about the application to individual applicants. Guests of the Conservation Budget Committee are expected to restrict their statements to answers to questions. They may not argue for or against any application. Members of the Conservation Budget Committee face similar restrictions. Their comments are restricted to answers to questions whenever an application comes in which they have an interest—either financially, or because they are involved in the requesting entity.
When the recommendation from the Conservation Budget Committee comes up before the Conservation Committee, any Club member can speak up about the amount granted to any entity. Members of the Executive Committee are encouraged to attend the Conservation Committee and express any concerns that they have at that time. In the end, the Conservation Committee votes the package up or down.
Before this year, the Executive Committee followed the same procedure about conservation grants. The Executive Committee cherry picked among the recommendations that came before it for Grant Cycles 2 and 3 of 2002.
Arguments For:
The Conservation Budget Committee is the only body that reads individual applications and acts on the total array of grants requests. This is a time consuming process that requires more time than is available to the Conservation Committee or the Executive Committee. Many of the 25 member Executive Committee are unfamiliar with issues involved.
The Executive Committee should rely on the work done for it by its subcommittees, and not attempt to revisit their work in detail as a committee of the whole. Otherwise, it becomes bogged down in minute details that greatly lengthen its meetings and prevent it from giving the attention needed to deal with other important Chapter business.
If it becomes known that the Executive Committee will approve or reject each individual application that is included in the package, each entity that is unhappy about the amount of money that has been awarded it can be expected to turn up at the Executive Committee to argue its case, or to recruit someone on the Executive Committee to make its argument for them.
Arguments Against:
The Executive Committee should not tie itself down in procedures that prevent its members from speaking out and acting on issues that concern them.
Proposed Resolution
Membership Rules for Chapter Entities
Conservation Management Committee
To qualify as a Sierra Club entity, a body must be authorized by an appropriate Sierra Club entity, all its officers must be current members of the Sierra Club, and only Sierra Club members may vote on resolutions that affect Sierra Club actions or policy. The entity must have a definite rule stating who is a member of the entity.
Background:
Standing Rule 4-1-2 of the Club’s Board of Directors provides:
In order for a person to hold any volunteer leadership position at any level of the Club—including membership on a national committee, Regional Conservation Committee, Sierra Club Council, or chapter, group or section committee—that person must be a member of the Sierra Club. No individual shall be added to the Club's leadership roster until he or she has become a member of record.
Arguments For:
The standing rule that is reproduced above does not address ad hoc task forces that reach out into the community to create a broad-based force to achieve a desirable goal. Often Sierra Club membership is not required to participate. Sometimes someone is accepted as a member of the task force after she or he attends a specified number of meetings.
It seems desirable to recruit people on that basis, and to make them welcome in the task force, but they should not be allowed to vote on matters that affect the Sierra Club unless they are Sierra Club members.
Arguments Against:
We need fewer complicated rules, not more.
Sierra Club Legislative Hotline: 202-675-2394
Sierra Club National Office: 415-977-5500
Sierra Club Sacramento Legislative Office: 916-557-1100; fax 916-227-9669
Sierra Club WorldWideWeb: http://www.sierraclub.org
White House: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC 20500
202-456-2461(fax); 202-456-1111 (Comment Line);
Bush's e-mail: president@whitehouse.gov; Cheney's e-mail: vice-president@whitehouse.gov
Legislative Addresses:
US Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121
House Office Bldg, Washington DC 20515
Senate Office Bldg, Washington DC 20510
California Capitol: 916-322-9900
There are two important discussion lists for Angeles environmental activists:
the Angeles Chapter Conservation list <angeles-conservation@lists.sierraclub.org>and
the California/Nevada <calif-activists@lists.sierraclub.org>
To subscribe a list, send an email message to <listsserve@lists.sierraclub.org>
with the message “subscribe angeles-conservation” and/or “subscribe calif-activists”.
The Angeles Chapter’s website is www.angeles.sierraclub.org.
To leave the a list, send an e-mail to<listserv@ lists.sierraclub.org> and, in the text of your message (not the subject line), write: “signoff calif-activists” or “signoff angeles-conservation”
Sierra Club Committee Contacts
Air Committee, Bob Palzer—bob.palzer@sierraclub.org
Wetlands Working Group, Robin Mann—robin.mann@sierraclub.org
Water Committee, Albert Ettinger—aettinger@elpc.org
Environmental Justice Committee, Phaedra Pezzullo—phaedra@email.unc.edu
Genetic Engineering Committee, Laurel Hopwood—laurel.hopwood@sierraclub.org
Waste Committee, Jim Mays—jmays@ulster.net
Sprawl Committee, Tim Frank—tim-frank@msn.com
CAFO/Clean Water Committee, Hank Graddy—hank.graddy@sierraclub.org
Community Health Committee, Michael McCally—michael.mccally@mssm.edu
Workplace Environment Committee, Les Reid—lesreid@frazmtn.com
ECL/End Commercial Logging on Federal Public Lands Cmte, Connie Hanson—chcccpn@aol.com
Visitors must park inside the building weekdays and week-nights. The outside lot is reserved for monthly parking and requires a keycard entry through a gate. There is no attendant. Gates are closed 24 hours a day during the week.
Weeknights: You may park free inside the building after 5:30 pm. Be prepared to show your membership card or one of our parking passes, available at the front desk in the Chapter office. Take a ticket when you enter through the gate; present it at the parking office near the elevators, and sign it. The ticket machine at the front gate may be turned off after 7 pm. If so, buzz the attendant and say you are going to a Sierra Club meeting. There is no entry after 8 pm. The outside gate is up after 8 pm.
Weekends: No parking inside the building.
Saturday: Attendant is expected to be on duty from 8 am to 3 pm. You may park free, showing Sierra Club affiliation as above. Tickets may be validated at the Chapter office. Outside gates are down all day.
Sunday: Outside gates are up; there is no attendant.
Linda Hoyer
Motions should be submitted in advance, together with objective background material and supporting and opposing arguments, both to the Committee Chair and Newsletter Editor, for distribution with the agenda. Other motions will be postponed for action at a later meeting unless the motion is submitted in writing and unless the Committee votes an exception to ordinary procedure. Motions needing further action by the Angeles Chapter ExComm or some higher level of the Sierra Club should start out: “The Angeles Chapter Conservation Committee recommends that the Sierra Club...”
Angeles Chapter Conservation Committee
Al Sattler, Chair, 310-831-0032 <alsattler@igc.org>
Angeles Chapter Office, The Equitable Building
3435 Wilshire Blvd #320, Los Angeles CA 90010-1904
7:30 Introductions — Welcome all visitors
7:40 Conservation Coordinator Report
7:50 Whitebird resolution
8:00 Conservation Committee Resolutions
8:10 Sustainability Resolution
8:25 Election of Conservation Committee officers for 2003
8:35 Ballona/Appeal of election/appointment of officers to Conservation Comm (Kathy Knight)
9:05 Orange County Report
9:20 Other
9:30 Adjourn
Orange County Conservation Committee
Carole Mintzer, Chair, 714-288-2829, <cmintzer@socal.rr.com>
Location: Inn at the Park in Irvine
From the north, come down 405 to 73 and off at University. Turn left and pass Campus and turn right on Harvard. Follow Harvard as it bends and look for Marquette. The Inn is at 10 Marquette, which is on the corner of Harvard and Marquette. It's behind a steel fence.
From the south, get off 405 at Culver and go left. Follow Culver past Michelson and University and turn right on Harvard. Take Harvard to Marquette. It's on your right.
Agenda — November 19, 2002
7:00 Introductions and Announcements
7:15 Conservation Staff Report; OCTA Master Plan (Chris Koontz)
7:30 Mountain Lion Celebration planning (Laura Cohen)
7:40 Saddleback Canyons Task Force (Rich Gomez)
7:50 Resolution opposing Saddlecreek /Saddlecrest developments (Gloria Sefton)
8:10 Dana Point Headlands Task Force (Celia Kutcher)
8:20 Hobo Aliso Ridge Task Force (Penny Elia)
8:30 Friends of the Foothills (Bill Holmes, Paul Carlton)
8:40 Santa Ana Mountains Task Force (Paul Carlton)
9:00 Adjourn
Conservation Committee Calendar
NOVEMBER 2002
Tue Nov 19 Orange County Conservation Committee (7:00 pm) 3rd Tue
Wed Nov 20 Chapter Conservation Committee (7:30 pm) 3rd Wed, Chapter Office
Wed Nov 20 Santa Ana River Estuary and Bluffs Task Force (7:15 pm) 3rd Wed, Terry (949-548-5636)
Sun Nov 24 Chapter ExComm (1:00 pm) Chapter Office
Wed Nov 27 Forest Task Force, (7:30 pm) alt 4th Wed (odd months), Chapter Office
DECEMBER 2002
Mon Dec 2 Conservation Committee Mgmt Mtg (7:30 pm) Chapter Office
(date may change, call 310-831-0032)
Tue Dec 3 Sierra Club Ballona TF (7:00 pm) 1st Tue, Ken Edwards Ctr, 1527 4th St, Santa Monica
Thu Dec 4 Orange County Political Comm, (7:10 pm) 1st Thu, Chuck Buck (714-773-1075)
Mon Dec 9 Orange Hills TF (7:15pm) 2nd Mon, 217 E Chapman Ave, Orange, Chris Koontz (714-606-0453 or ckoontz@usc.edu)
Mon Dec 9 Santa Monica Mtns TF (7:30 pm) 2nd Mon, call Chair Mary Ann Webster (310-559-3126)
Tue Dec 10 Transportation Subcommittee (7:30 pm) 2nd Tue, Chapter Office
Tue Dec 17 Orange County Conservation Committee (7:00 pm) 3rd Tue
Wed Dec 18 Chapter Conservation Committee (7:30 pm) 3rd Wed, Chapter Office
Wed Dec 18 Santa Ana River Estuary and Bluffs Task Force (7:15 pm) 3rd Wed, Terry (949-548-5636)
Mon Dec 30 Conservation Committee Mgmt Mtg (7:30 pm) Chapter Office
(date may change, call 310-831-0032)
JANUARY 2003
Thu Jan 2 Orange County Political Comm (7:10pm) 1st Thu. call chair: Chuck Buck (714-773-1075)
Sat-Sun Jan 4-5 Chapter ExComm Retreat
Tue Jan 7 Sierra Club Ballona TF (7:00 pm) 1st Tue, Ken Edwards Ctr, 1527 4th St, Santa Monica
Sun Jan 12 Cal/Nev RCC, Southern Section, (10 am) Chapter Office, 909-624-5522
Mon Jan 13 Orange Hills TF (7:15pm) 2nd Mon, 217 E Chapman Ave, Orange, Chris Koontz (714-606-0453 or ckoontz@usc.edu)
Tue Jan 14 Transportation Subcommittee (7:30 pm) 2nd Tue, Chapter Office
Wed Jan 15 Santa Ana River Estuary and Bluffs Task Force (7:15 pm) 3rd Wed, Terry (949-548-5636)
Wed Jan 15 Chapter Conservation Committee (7:30 pm) 3rd Wed, Chapter Office
Tue Jan 21 Orange County Conservation Committee (7:00 pm) 3rd Tue
Wed Jan 22 Forest Task Force, (7:30 pm) alt 4th Wed (odd months), Chapter Office
FEBRUARY 2002
Mon Feb 3 Conservation Committee Mgmt Mtg (7:30 pm) Chapter Office
(date may change, call 310-831-0032)
Tue Feb 4 Sierra Club Ballona TF (7:00 pm) 1st Tue, Ken Edwards Ctr, 1527 4th St, Santa Monica
Thu Feb 6 Orange County Political Comm (7:10 pm) 1st Thu, call chair: Chuck Buck (714-773-1075)
Mon Feb 10 Orange Hills TF (7:15 pm) 2nd Mon, 217 E Chapman Ave, Orange, Chris Koontz (714-606-0453 or ckoontz@usc.edu)
Mon Feb 10 Santa Monica Mtns TF (7:30 pm) 2nd Mon, Chair Mary Ann Webster (310-559-3126)
Tue Feb 11 Transportation Subcommittee (7:30 pm) 2nd Tue, Chapter Office
Tue Feb 18 Orange County Conservation Committee (7:00 pm) 3rd Tue
Wed Feb 19 Chapter Conservation Committee (7:30 pm) 3rd Wed, Chapter Office
Wed Feb 19 Santa Ana River Estuary and Bluffs Task Force (7:15 pm) 3rd Wed, Terry (949-548-5636)
Sun Feb 23 Chapter ExComm (1:00 pm) Chapter Office
Wed Feb 26 Public Lands Committee, (7:30 pm) alt 4th Wed (even months), Chapter Office