While State and Federal elections went off relatively well this month, the same cannot be said for election of officers of the California Coastal Commission. As reported in the San Diego Union Tribune and Associated Press, California Resources Secretary Mary Nichols was contacting Coastal Commission members and urging them to delay re-election of Commission Chair Sara Wan. Secretary Nichols called the Commission "deeply divided" and urged commissioners to delay election of officers because newly re-elected Governor Gray Davis plans changes to the Commission.

This comes on the heels of Davis' delay in reappointing his most effective Coastal Commission member, Chris Desser. Hundreds of Californians have called, emailed and sent letters to Davis urging Desser's reappointment. Meanwhile, the governor has reappointed his other three commission members, including pro-development commissioners Greg Hart and Cynthia McClain-Hill.

Underlying the wrangling over the commission's election of officers is the fact that in her three years of service, Commission Chair Sara Wan has allowed the public equal participation in commission development decisions. She has tried to create a level playing field, where the public gets the same time allotments as developers. It hasn't always been that way. Generally, the Commission Chair makes the rules and often, public participation has been virtually nonexistent. It should not be surprising that developers, who are used to controlling public hearings, are upset about Wan's administration of the commission. With many large-scale coastal developments due to be debated by the commission over the next year (ex: Arco's 15-year effort to build a luxury golf course along a mile of oceanfront habitat on the Naples Ranch in Santa Barbara is set for December 11), developers are jumping at the chance to oust Wan.

On November 7th 2002, the Commission voted 7-5 to postpone the election of officers until its December meeting in San Francisco. Commissioners Dettloff, Reilly, Nava, Desser and Wan voted to re-elect Wan as Chair. Commissioners Peters, Woolley, Kruer, McClain-Hill, Potter, Hart and Burke voted to delay the election.

Of the vote, Commissioner Shirley Dettloff stated, "I am appalled by the action this commission just took. To say it wasn't influenced by outside forces is a sham."

Publicly, Commissioners Dave Potter and Cynthia McClain-Hill claimed at first that the postponement was nothing more than a routine delay. Yet almost simultaneously they announced a campaign to elect Potter as chair. While Potter has since stated in the Monterey Herald that he resents being characterized as a pro-development vote on the Commission, the fact is that Potter, along with Hart and McClain-Hill, remain at the bottom of the Commission's conservation voting scorecard.

Potter, in defense of his campaign to be Commission Chair says, "I've never seen the Commission so dysfunctional....it's gotten unnecessarily ugly."

McClain-Hill adds that she finds Wan's vocal support for the coast "patently offensive to me." (San Diego Union-Tribune, November 7, 2002).

Potter adds, "There's nothing in the weeds here except the natural succession of leadership." (Associated Press, November 8, 2002). Potter's quote may sound good, but it isn't correct. In fact, Commission Chairs have traditionally served until they leave the commission. Over the last fifteen years only one Commission Chair has been removed by a vote of the commission, and that was Republican Lou Calcagno when Democrats regained control of the commission back in 1997. In reality, Wan is being punished for her democratic principles in even scheduling an election of officers. At least two Chairs in the last 15 years (Tom Gywn and Carl Williams) served for years without any election at all.

Potter and McClain-Hill also ignore that the fact that local elected officials have not served as Commission Chair for 15 years for good reason. Potter, like other local officials, is required to miss at least one day of the commission meeting every single month because he must attend Monterey Board of Supervisors meetings. It has proved to be much more functional to have citizen members of the commission serve as Chair since they can actually attend the whole meeting.

Last, the efforts of Potter and McClain-Hill to paint Wan as being "too environmental" are nonsense. Wan's long history of public interest coastal protection work should be viewed as an asset. The commission still approves approximately 1,000 new developments every single year. While Wan has worked hard to try to reduce the senseless damage of the coast, development of it still races ahead. Most people believe the commission exists to protect the coast, not try to develop it faster. Californians are often astonished to learn that developers even serve on the commission. Based upon their voting records, when McClain-Hill says that Potter "would be a more effective chair because he is more even-handed," what McClain-Hill really means is that she wants Potter for Chair because he, like her, is a pro-development vote on the Commission (quote from Associated Press, November 8, 2002).

An intense lobbying campaign is now underway.

Potter, McClain-Hill and Hart support Potter for Chair because all three have pro-development voting records. Wan is the subject of a removal campaign because developers resent her desire to protect the coast. Wan is being cast as an extremist because she supports the coast. The Chair is an important piece in the coastal protection puzzle because the Chair makes the rules regarding the commission's agenda and how meetings are to be structured. For example, a chair that structures meetings to reduce public participation would assist developers in a big way.

And given Commissioner Desser's support for an independent and balanced Commission, it is especially worrisome that Davis has not made her re-appointment.

If Governor Davis wants to create an environmental legacy in his second term, a good place to start is with the Coastal Commission. Given the State's budget situation, there will be few initiatives that require new funds over the next year. Keeping the commission in a strong position to protect coastal resources does not cost the State anything. The Governor can help maintain a balanced commission by re-appointing Chris Desser. And even if he continues to refuse to remove the problematic McClain-Hill and Hart, the Governor could at least appoint good alternate commissioners for them (both McClain-Hill and Hart lack alternates).

Amazing New Website Allows Public to Focus on California Coast

When activist Kenneth Adelman sets his mind to something, expect results. A year or so ago Ken found himself wondering what he might do to assist in protecting California's coast. Various things were kicked around, among them the lack of a detailed, accessible, comprehensive aerial photographic survey of the California coastline. While the State of California has periodically taken such photos, they are usually at high altitude and lack specificity.

So Ken mulled it over a bit and then set out to photograph the entire coastline from a helicopter, using digital imagery and GPS identification. You can see for yourself the results of the project at www.californiacoastline.org. While the work isn't done yet, it is nonetheless very impressive.

A word of caution: the website is only useful if you have a high-speed modem. Because the photos provide such great detail, they are big and difficult to open unless you are on a DSL, cable line or T1 computer server. However, the visual feast is well worth the investment. Have you ever wondered what Trinidad Head looks like? Or Pt St George? Or Pt Conception? How about all those miles of coast where access is limited or prohibited? It's all there, in bright beautiful full color. You can check out your own house, or your neighbor's house. Better yet, you can view coastal destruction, wetlands fill, or count the number of rocks on an unpermitted seawall. Over 7,000 photographs are now online.

For example, for a very detailed examination of Wendy McCaw's house in Hope Ranch and the public accessway there at issue, check out photograph number 3201.

Return to Index

The Bush Administration officially released forest planning regulations today (12/6/02) that propose to weaken protections for fish and wildlife while greatly limiting scientific review and public involvement in forest management decisions. Most alarming, however, is a provision that allows Regional Forest Supervisors to issue four-year interim forest plan amendments that can circumvent all public involvement, and that cannot be appealed or objected to. Environmentalists are calling for the regulations to be withdrawn.

"The Administration should go back to the drawing board and not just listen to the timber industry next time around. If these draft regulations are implemented, the Forest Service won't have to worry about concerned Americans bothering them with their comments any longer because meaningful public participation will be a thing of the past," said Steve Holmer, campaign coordinator for the American Lands Alliance. "Instead of the public deciding the fate of public lands, under the Bush Administration's plan the resource extraction industries and agency bureaucrats will call all the shots."

"The regulations also add new requirements that eliminate consideration of public comment by postcard, form e-mails or other mass mailings and require the public to cite specific laws, regulations or policies when commenting on a proposal," said Holmer. "Rather than making it easier for the public to be involved, the Forest Service is placing high hurdles in their path while at the same time blindfolding the public by withholding essential scientific input and information about likely environmental impacts," said Holmer.

Environmentalists are also condemning comments made by Forest Service Associate Chief Sally Collins who repeatedly remarked (The Washington Post, Fox News) last week that a citizen needs to have a PhD to understand the forest planning process to justify "streamlining" the process. However, tens, if not hundreds of thousands of concerned citizens are currently involved in dozens of forest planning efforts across the nation.

"Millions of Americans have participated in the forest planning process since its inception—two million commented in support of roadless area conservation alone and thousands more are now going to meetings and writing their comments," said Steve Holmer, campaign coordinator for the American Lands Alliance. "The problem hasn't been that most of these people don't have Ph.D's, the problem is that the Forest Service won't listen to what the vast majority of these people are saying which is that they want the National Forests protected for recreation, the opportunity for solitude and the clean water and abundant fish and wildlife that they provide and not to see them destroyed by the logging industry."

"Sally Collins is talking out of both sides of her mouth because at the same time she is saying the process is too complicated for the American people to understand, the agency is proposing onerous new technical requirements that will disqualify most public comments.," said Holmer. "Instead of insulting the American people and defending the Bush Administration's attempt to rollback the 1976 National Forest Management Act with these new planning regulations, any Forest Service leader with an ounce of integrity would resign and speak out about the threats now being posed to the National Forests by the Bush Administration led by former timber industry lobbyist Mark Rey."

"The Forest Service likes to think that they know best," said Holmer. "But the fact is that numerous threatened species continue to head for extinction due to their gross mismanagement of the forests. The last thing that is needed is regulations that give more discretion to this agency."

Comments will be due on March 6.

For additional information please see:
http://www.americanlands.org/bush_regulations.htm
http://www.defenders.org/forests/forest/regulations.htm
http://www.tws.org/newsroom/pdf/forestregs_proposal_analysis.pdf

The federal register notice is available at:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov /2002/02-30683.htm 

American Lands

Forest Service Proposes Extensive Cutting of Trees
in Giant Sequoia National Monument

In early December, the US Forest Service proposed plans to set aside logging restrictions, imposed to protect wildlife habitat and watersheds in the Sierra Nevada. It released an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the 329,000-acre Giant Sequoia National Monument that recommends the least protective of the six management alternatives that had been studied. The proposal would allow commercial logging of trees up to thirty inches in diameter.

In December 2001, the Forest Service had adopted the Sierra Framework as its guide for the management of all its forests on the Sierra Nevada. The Sierra Framework contained strict restrictions on the cutting of trees with diameters up to thirty inches.

The Giant Sequoia National Monument was created to protect the old growth Sequoias. The new EIS would spare the old growth trees, but leave them in danger from the wind as the trees around them were removed. The monument was explicitly established to preserve the entire ecosystem where the Sequoias grow. The new EIS subverts this intent.

Congress has passed Sam Farr's bill to add 57,000 acres in Monterey County to wilderness designation, and President Bush has signed the bill!

The Big Sur Wilderness Conservation Act of 2002 includes 37,000 acres in the Ventana Wilderness of the Los Padres National Forest. Land in the Silver Peak Wilderness, southwest of Ft. Hunter-Liggett, and the Pinnacles National Monument comprise the other 20,000 acres designated in the bill.

With the National Monument status for most of the offshore islands in Monterey County, which was also achieved through Congress by Farr, the new wilderness protections will cover almost all the Northern Los Padres National Forest and the Big Sur Coastal Zone. Nine State Parks, and two University of California research reserves are in the zone, also. This presents unique opportunities for research of both terrestrial and marine environments in one of our planet's rarest areas.

The Big Sur Wilderness Conservation Act is a significant accomplishment. Sam is a real hero for getting this done. Moreover, he is enriching a fine legacy. Friends of his father, Fred Farr, should be thought of at this time, too. Margaret Owings, for example, who started Friends of the Sea Otter and also Friends of the Mountain Lion, brought the need for protecting this area to the county's, the state's and the world's attention several decades ago. With Fred Farr, who was then a California State Senator—carrying the bill, Owings persuaded the California Legislature to create the California State Sea Otter Game Refuge, a landmark act. With her husband, Nathaniel, she led the fight for a land use plan for Big Sur that prohibited billboards preserved views and rural character for the region. The foresight and perseverance of these conservation pioneers set the stage for the bold citizens' initiative to create the California Coastal Act, and for Rep. Leon Panetta's work in creating the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

With the passage of this Wilderness legislation, it is an appropriate occasion to salute the work of the Ventana Wilderness Alliance (VWA), too. This group arose from hikers who wanted to protect the Northern Santa Lucias, organized on the Internet, rallying conservationists from many places who care about this unique coastal mountain range. The VWA is now a significant force for conservation in our region. http://www.ventanawild.org. VWA worked with Sam from the beginning on this bill.

On 10/23/02, the California Fish and Game Commission voted to create the largest marine protected area on the West Coast of the United States. The vote bans fishing within 12 areas totaling 175 square miles. Though the areas are already within the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, the sanctuary does not prohibit fishing and thus has not helped to reverse the collapse of fisheries spreading across the West Coast.

The waters of the Channel Islands are especially important to the boccacio (also called red snapper) and white abalone. The abalone was listed as endangered species in May 2001 in response to a petition filed by the Center for Biological Diversity. It is the first marine invertebrate to be listed as an endangered species. It has declined by over 99% due to overfishing and could be extinct within a decade unless extraordinary recovery measures are implemented. The Channel Islands support the most important remaining abalone populations. The Center, NRDC, and Ocean Conservancy filed a petition to list the boccacio as an endangered species in January 2001. It was once was the dominant rockfish caught by trawlers on the Pacific coast but is now set to be the first commercial marine species to be listed as an endangered species. It has declined by 98% decline since 1969.

The new no-fishing reserve, however, is not large enough for the white abalone, boccacio, angel shark or other declining marine species. The Center will continue campaigning to ensure the federal portion of the National Marine Sanctuary is also protected from overfishing. When this occurs, the safe haven will cover 426 square miles, making it the largest marine protected area in the United States

Mark Massara, California Coastwatcher, October 2002

The Southern California Forests Committee of the California Regional Conservation Committee will meet on Saturday, December. 14, 2002, at 9:45 am at the Angeles Chapter Office.

Among the items to be discussed are:
* Fire Closures on Four Forests—What has the effect been?
* California Wild Heritage Campaign.
* Forest Reports: Cleveland NF, Los Padres NF, San Bernardino NF, Angeles NF.
* Draft 4 SoCal Forests Citizens Inventory of Roadless Areas.
* Conservation Alternative Update and How to Best Organize for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the proposed Management Plan for the four Southern California National Forests.

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.

Opposition to Canyon Hills Development Proposed by Whitebird, Inc.
The Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club opposes the 887 acre Canyon Hills Development proposed by Whitebird, Inc. in the Verdugo Mountains of Los Angeles County. $250 is allocated to prepare a Sierra Club brochure.

Legislation to Prohibit Toll Roads and Bullet Trains Through State Parks
The Angeles Chapter requests that Andrew Lichtman continue to represent the Sierra Club in drafting state legislation to discourage the routing of transportation corridors of any kind (wherever located, whenever planned and whether or not just for automobiles) through state parks.

Hobo Aliso Ridge CEQA Suit Analysis
The Executive Committee lifts the restriction on the grant allocated for the Laguna Beach Hobo Aliso Ridge potential lawsuit. A $1000 allocation is allowed to evaluate the possibility of a CEQA suit.

Return to Index

Forest Task Force Meeting to Discuss Fire Impacts

The recent Curve and Williams fires burned in an area covering almost 10% of the Angeles National Forest. Join us on Wednesday, January 22, for the Forest Task Force meeting as Angeles Forest Supervisor Jody Cook and her fire staff discuss the impact of the recent fires on everything from watershed and wildlife to hiking trails and wilderness. After the presentation by Supervisor Cook, National Sierra Club Board member Chad Hanson will join the discussions as we explore what fire management policies are best for the long-term health of our national forests. There will also be an update on wilderness legislation and strategies to combat new Bush Administration efforts to undermine environmental laws protecting our forests. The program will begin at 7:30 pm at the Sierra Club Offices at 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 320. Contact John Monsen at wildernessjfm@aol.com for details.

Return to Index

Hansen Files Bill to "Restore Original Intent of ESA"
Exempts private property, military lands and all plant life from ESA

Retiring House Resources Chairman James V. Hansen has filed a bill that would exempt military lands, private property and all plant life from the Endangered Species Act. Hansen called the bill "a shot across the bow from a retiring chairman" and a blueprint for bold changes that reflect what Congress originally intended when it passed the law more than 30 years ago. "I'm just greasing the wheels for change here, giving my colleagues something they can act on swiftly in the next Congress," Hansen said.

"Growing problems with the ESA cost consumers and taxpayers more than a billion a year in litigation, lost profits, lost jobs and rising operating costs for both government and business, according to estimates from private groups," Hansen said. "In some instances, private property owners can't walk their own property. Some military bases can't use their own land for mission-critical training at a time when America is on the verge of war."

"Congress crafted this law nearly 40 years ago to protect large species like the grizzly, wolf and bald eagle from extinction. Frankly, the ESA hasn't done a particularly good job of protecting anything but lawyers' pocketbooks. Outlawing DDT did more for our wildlife than the ESA has done."

"Meanwhile roads have been stalled, homes lost, countless jobs forfeited and thousands of acres locked up because of this ham-fisted law. Republicans and Democrats have long recognized that something needs to be done to fix the Endangered Species Act. I'm just making it easy for everybody next year by dropping a bill now with the three simple changes that could fix this law."

"If we exempt private property, military lands and all plants from the ESA, we would, in short order, have a more prosperous and secure nation and still have a healthy and abundant wildlife. We would create thousands of jobs, jump-start our economy, free up our clogged court system and still protect our wildlife. I'd wager my federal pension you could make these changes and the populations of threatened and endangered species would remain the same. The numbers didn't improve when we started stripping people of their rights. I doubt they'll go down any once we restore those rights."

Return to Index

Clean Water and Coastal Protection Bond 2002 (Proposition 50) Passes!

Proposition 50, the Clean Water and Coastal Protection Bond 2002, was enacted by California voters on November 4th. What does it mean?

To start, Proposition 50 allocates $950 million dollars to purchase coastal private property, much of which can be developed under existing law. Of that, $120 million goes to the State Conservancy and $40 million to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy in order to acquire, protect and restore coastal rivers, wetlands and watershed lands. Another $20 million is dedicated to the San Francisco Bay. The remaining $750 million is going to the California Wildlife Conservation Board for acquisition, protection and restoration of coastal rivers, wetlands and watershed areas throughout California.

Hopefully this bond will lay to rest development efforts at Bolsa Chica, Ballona, downtown Malibu and the Hearst property at San Simeon. The voters have shown once again that if politicians and decision-makers will resist the temptation to allow development of these sensitive resource areas, the public will vote to put up the money to buy them. You can check out the Proposition 50 website at http://www.prop50.net/. You can also check out the Wildlife Conservation Board website at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wcb/.

The San Diego Union-Tribune reported on November 3, 2002, that legal and illegal sand-mining operations in Baja California are endangering the environment there. The fine porous sand that covered many riverbeds in Baja California have been hauled away, leaving dried silt and crumbling river banks. Much of the sand has gone to the United States to make concrete and asphalt. The American construction industry finds that ocean sand is too salty, and that US environmental regulations on mining sand are far tougher than in Mexico.

The sandy river beds are crucial habitats for plants and animals. In addition, they act as natural filters for Baja California’s freshwater aquifers.

The sand is hauled by train and barge across the border to the United States—more that 850,000 tons a year. Mexican environmental controls are weak and enforcement agencies are understaffed

Return to Index

Prepared for the Campaign for America's Wilderness, National Hispanic Environmental Council, California Wild Heritage Forest Campaign, New Mexico Wilderness Coalition, and the Arizona Wilderness Coalition by Sergio Bendixen, Bendixen & Associates

May 13, 2002

Executive Summary
This study is one of the first to focus on the attitudes of the Hispanic electorate toward environmental and conservation issues. It clearly indicates that the "conventional wisdom" about a "Latino lack of interest" on these issues is incorrect. The poll shows a strong level of support for significantly increasing wilderness areas in California, Arizona and New Mexico. There is also evidence that support for environmental issues among the Latino electorate has roots in its culture.

Methodology
The results and findings in this executive summary are based on 800 telephone interviews conducted in California, Arizona and New Mexico. All respondents considered themselves Hispanic or Latino and were registered to vote in one of the three states. Bilingual personnel conducted all interviews from April 29th to May 7th of 2002. The margin of error for the California sample of the study (500 interviews) is four percentage points. The margin of error for the Arizona and New Mexico samples (150 interviews in each state) is eight percentage points.

1. There is a very strong level of support among Hispanic voters in California, Arizona and New Mexico for a proposal that will soon be considered by the United States Congress to increase the amount of wilderness in the three states. Eighty-one percent of Latino voters in California, 75 percent in Arizona and 72 percent in New Mexico indicated that they favor such a proposal. Support is solid among most demographic categories and does not vary with political party affiliation. More than seven voters in ten also say they are more likely to support a Congressional candidate who supports significantly increasing wilderness areas.
2. There is strong support among Hispanics to set aside a significant portion of land as wilderness area. A majority feels that at least 20 percent of land should be saved as wilderness in each of the three states. Almost half of New Mexico's Hispanic voters think at least 30 percent of the land should be saved as wilderness, and nearly two-fifths of Hispanic voters in both California and Arizona think at least 30 percent of land should be preserved.
3. Preserving wilderness areas is an important value to Hispanic voters with roots in Latin American culture, in its commitment to family and even in religious concepts. More than 90 percent agreed that "... wilderness areas are part of God's creations and we have a moral responsibility to ... protect them" and over two-thirds strongly agreed that "if we don't protect the wilderness now, ... beautiful natural areas will disappear before our children and grandchildren have a chance to enjoy them."
4. Hispanics residing in these three states are much more likely to go camping or hiking than they are to go hunting or fishing or to use an off-road recreational vehicle—preferences that impact on their political attitudes on the "wilderness proposal." More than seventy percent of Latinos interviewed indicated that they go camping or hiking a few times a year while less than a third of Latinos in California and Arizona said that they ever go fishing or hunting. Therefore, it is not surprising that "allowing outdoor activities such as camping and hiking ... in the wilderness areas" was the proposal description that made more New Mexico and Arizona Latinos "much more likely" to support it. In California, the argument of proposal supporters that "campers and hikers ... would have full access to wilderness areas" overwhelmingly defeated (72 percent to 19 percent) the argument of opponents that "people would be prohibited from using mountain bikes, jeeps and off-road vehicles in wilderness areas." The Hispanic electorate in these three states tends to be from the lower socio-economic class and the large majority does not own an off-road recreational vehicle.
5. Images of "clean drinking water" and "wild rivers" would be most effective to convince California Latino voters to support the proposal to increase wilderness areas in the state. "The national forests are the source of much of our drinking water" was the statement that made more California Hispanics (83 percent) "much more likely" to support the proposal and they ranked "loss of wild rivers" as their top environmental concern. The study found similar results in Arizona and New Mexico.
6. Support levels for the "wilderness proposal" increase after respondents are presented with a description of the proposal and with the arguments of its proponents and opponents. The level of support reaches 89 percent in California (81 percent before arguments), 83 percent in Arizona (75 percent before arguments) and 82 percent in New Mexico (72 percent before arguments). New immigrant voters, those who became U. S. citizens after 1995, are most likely to be influenced by the descriptions and arguments presented during the interview. The argument that "there would be no additional cost to taxpayers for increasing the wilderness areas" strongly resonates with Latino voters in all three states.
7. Farmers and church leaders have the highest level of credibility with Latino voters on issues related to the "wilderness proposal" in all three states. California Hispanics could also be positively impacted by conservation organizations like the National Hispanic Environmental Council and by well-respected personalities like Edward James Olmos. Hunters, as a group, have the least credibility on these issues with Hispanic voters.
8. Spanish-language media should be an important component of any strategic communications plan designed to present the "wilderness proposal" to the electorates of these three states. Forty-eight percent of California Latino voters watch Spanish-language television programs and 57 percent listen to Spanish-language radio. The numbers for Arizona and New Mexico Hispanics are somewhat lower but still significant. This finding is especially important considering that the demographic group most likely to be influenced by information on the wilderness proposal is made up of recent immigrants that are Spanish-dominant.
9. The Latino electorates in California, Arizona and New Mexico have important differences. Forty-nine percent of registered Latino voters in California were born in Mexico or Central and South America while 92 percent of New Mexico Hispanic voters were born in the United States. Thirty-three percent of Arizona Hispanic voters are foreign-born. It should also be noted that half of all foreign-born California Hispanic voters became citizens after 1995. The California Hispanic electorate is also younger than its counterparts in Arizona and New Mexico.

Return to Index

Action Directory

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

Return to Index

E-mail Discussion Lists

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”

Return to Index

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

Return to Index

Parking at the Chapter Office

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

Return to Index

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/Grants Committee (2002)
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

Agenda — December 18, 2002
Angeles Chapter Office, The Equitable Building
3435 Wilshire Blvd #320, Los Angeles CA 90010-1904

7:00pm  Potluck Holiday Party
7:30     Introductions –Welcome all visitors
7:40     Conservation Coordinators Report
    Action Items
7:55   Azusa: Studio 606 (Jeff Yann)
8:05   $500 each to be added back into allocations for campaigns of Friends of the Foothills TF, Forest TF, and San Gabriel Valley TF (these task forces had their allocations cut by $500 each in order to fit allocations within money thought to be available)
    Updates/Reports:
8:10   LA County Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) (Jeff Yann)
8:15   Conservation Committee Newsletter (Robin and Lori Ives)
8:35   Orange County Report
8:45   Adjourn

return to Index