by Jeff Ruch, Executive Director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), responding to a new National Park Service order that all top civil service positions—including park superintendents and program managers—must first be approved by a Bush administration political appointee.

1. In response, the NTWC is urging the Forest Service and its local forest managers to adopt the following measures:

   Require that designated off-road vehicle routes be manageable and enforceable, minimize damage to wildlife habitat, and head-off conflicts with other forest users and neighbors.
2. Adhere strictly to the Presidential Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 requiring that “[off-road vehicle] areas and trails shall be located to minimize damage” and “conflicts.” The new regulations shirk this responsibility by directing agency staff to designate routes “with the objective to minimize” these avoidable problems.
3. Assess which trails are best suited for hiking, biking and horseback riding, which routes are sustainable for off-road vehicle routes, and which roads are needed for public access by assessing the impacts of vehicles on wildlife, water, neighbors, and other forest users.
4. Dedicate funds for implementation and enforcement of trails, routes, and roads.
5. Require that “collaboration” to designate routes be balanced so that the millions of “quiet recreationists” and other stakeholders are heard—including, hunters and anglers; homeowners, ranchers and farmers; outfitters, guides, and other small business owners; and hikers, equestrians, and mountain bikers.

The Sierra Club’s Vision for the Rio Hondo

The Angeles Chapter’s San Gabriel River Campaign has been working for many years to create a different vision for the urban rivers—a stark contrast to the concrete channels so well known to most residents. In 2003, during walks down the Rio Hondo, we discovered a two acre strip of land near Rosemead Blvd that perfectly suits this mission. Better yet, we discovered that the City of El Monte already had a Prop A grant from Supervisor Molina with no specific plans for the park. All this occurred as Amigos de los Rios, an organization initiated by the Sierra Club, became an independent non-profit with capability to design and build the park. Lashbrook Park became Amigos’ first park contract.

In the past month, more than 100 new trees, including one beautiful 96“ box specimen oak, have been planted along the Rio Hondo where no trees have existed for decades. Nearly 500 small plants remain to be planted to fill in the understory. Volunteer events are being organized by Amigos de los Rios for all Saturdays in November. All Sierra Club members (and non-members, too) are invited to help complete the vision for a park that will serve as a model for urban river restoration in Los Angeles.

The park is located upstream of Rosemead Blvd in El Monte. From either the San Bernardino (I-10) or Pomona (SR-60) Freeway exit Rosemead and travel to Garvey Avenue (south from the 10, north from the 60). Turn east on Garvey and turn left on Lashbrook Avenue about 1,000 feet east of Rosemead. Park at the end of Lashbrook Avenue where it meets the Rio Hondo. For more information, contact Jeanie Olander, Amigos project Manager on-site at (323) 620-1487.

New York Times Editorial on Pombo

October 30, 2005 — Richard Pombo has had a hard time keeping himself out of the news lately. In late September, a watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Mr. Pombo, a seven-term House member from California, one of the 13 most corrupt politicians in Congress. Three weeks later the Center for Public Integrity accused him of taking junkets paid for by the International Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources—the kind of organization, heavy with corporate donors, in which the word "conservation" is a wink to the wise. And last week the League of Conservation Voters accused him of selling out to a long list of corporate interests.

But what has really put Mr. Pombo on everyone's radar is the steady stream of environmentally destructive legislation flowing from the House Resources Committee, which he runs. The legislation would undermine environmental safeguards and raise broad new threats to endangered species and public lands.

Mr. Pombo, of course, makes no apologies. First elected in 1992—he was a first-term city councilman in Tracy, California, at the time—he is philosophically an outspoken product of the extreme property rights movement. He once liked to claim, falsely as it turned out, that his rights had been trampled by environmentalists and by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act.

He came to Congress as a result of redistricting. With luck he will leave the same way. The 11th District, once largely agricultural, has been overwhelmed by development; and while the East Bay and Central Valley are still nominally Republican, it is far from certain that they will continue to support a man of Mr. Pombo's radical turn of mind.

In 2003, thanks to the support of the hard-nosed Republican leader Tom DeLay, he became, at age 42, the Resources Committee chairman and thus the bottleneck through which most legislation involving energy and the environment must pass.

Mr. Pombo has more than lived up to Mr. DeLay's expectations, pure in ideology, tough in legislative combat.

In September, he engineered floor approval of a bill that would completely undermine the Endangered Species Act, which is something he has wanted to do since arriving in Washington. And last week, in a tour de force, he engineered committee approval of a budget bill that is ostensibly meant to raise federal revenues but in fact represents a major assault on the public
lands.

Schwarzenegger to Pombo: Hands Off California Coasts
Governor Gives Voice to California's Efforts to Protect Coast from Off-Shore Oil Drilling

Sacramento —Thursday, Nov 3, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today sent a letter to House Resources Committee Chair Richard Pombo strongly opposing the California Congressman's efforts to expand oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and lift the 25-year ban on off-shore oil drilling in California and other coastal states. Next week, the House of Representatives is expected to vote on Congressman Pombo's proposal as part of a Budget Reconciliation package, a process which has drawn additional criticism for being a backdoor way to make broad public policy without a lot of public scrutiny.

In response to the Governor's letter, the Sierra Club issued the following statement by Carl Zichella, Regional Director for California/Nevada/Hawaii:

"The Sierra Club is grateful to the Governor for reminding Representative Pombo that his ill-advised attack on our coast has virtually no support in California. Protecting our coast from more offshore drilling has always been a bipartisan effort. It is about what is best for our state’s environment and our $42 billion a year coastal economy.

"Mr. Pombo has now been rebuked for this oil industry power play by virtually every major California newspaper, the California legislature, and nearly every responsible elected leader in the state, including the Governor. He seems to care more about what the oil companies want than what is best for California. He should remind himself he represents a congressional district in California, and not one in Texas.

"We cannot continue to repeat the same mistakes of the past, nor can we drill our way to energy independence. America deserves a sound energy policy that looks beyond vulnerable offshore energy infrastructure and embraces energy efficiency, conservation and renewable energy sources while protecting our beaches and vibrant coastal economies. As his letter indicates, Governor Schwarzenegger recognizes that the best way to rid ourselves of dependence on fossil fuels is through conservation and more renewable sources.

"The Sierra Club strongly opposes any efforts to weaken or revoke the bipartisan moratorium on offshore drilling that has protected California's coast for a quarter century, and we thank the Governor for his leadership in the fight to protect our natural heritage."

Stop the Biggest Corporate Land Grab in US History

Pombo "Mining" Proposal Would Sell All Public Lands Not Specifically Exempted

Rep Richard Pombo (R-CA), chair of the House Resources Committee, is trying to eviscerate existing US mining laws so that multinational corporations can buy all of our public lands—whether they contain minerals or not (except those withdrawn for another purpose like a National Park).

Weakening the existing mining law would be a pretty amazing feat—the existing statute was signed into law by President Ulysses S Grant in 1872. It was basically a land giveaway intended to induce people into settling the West by allowing citizens to buy mineral bearing public lands for $5/acre, or less.

133 years later, Rep Pombo is proposing to change the mining law to allow corporations to purchase any public lands not withdrawn for another purpose—whether the land in question contain minerals or NOT. Hundreds of millions of acres of public land would be up for grabs under a mining law that would no longer be about mining. Lands supposed to be held in trust for
all Americans, now and for future generations, would be sold off in a public lands fire sale.

Ostensibly, Rep Pombo is trying to raise revenue with his proposal. But his initiative specifically prohibits a royalty that would raise more than twice as much money ($350 million over 5 years) as he claims his proposal would generate ($155 million over 5 years).

November ExComm Meeting Reminder; November 20
Reception for Michael McCloskey

by Virgil Shields

This a reminder that our November ExComm meeting will occur on Sunday November 20th and not on our usual 4th Sunday due to the Thanksgiving holiday weekend. Also as a reminder, we will have as a special guest, our past (retired) Sierra Club Executive Director, Michael McClosky, who was the second Executive Director after David Brower. He will address our ExComm during the end portion of the meeting. We will have a reception in the Chapter office at approximately 4:45 pm. He will also have copies of his recently published book titled, In the Thick of It: My Life in the Sierra Club available for purchase. Our members are always invited to attend ExComm meetings to observe the inner workings of our Chapter.

Comments About Water Provoke Los Angeles Proconsul

Randal C. Archibold, a writer for the New York Times, reported on October 27 that a store in Bishop, California displayed a new mural in its window that depicts an idyllic Owens Valley with a lush meadow, a surging river and snow-capped mountains, but there was one jarring detail—a big rusty drainpipe etched with the letters LADWP, for Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, sucking the color and, metaphorically, the water out of the vista.

The mural, called "Drain," seeks to portray, in a trompe l'oeil way, the fact that Los Angeles virtually bought the river here a century ago and diverted much of its water more than 200 miles south to develop the parched, dusty town that has become the nation's second-largest city. That deft move was depicted, with some Hollywood distortion, in the 1974 movie "Chinatown."

What has happened since the mural went up on the side of a commercial building early in October suggests that although the water wars that defined the settling of the West have quieted, the hard feelings remain very much alive.

Many in town, long regarding their relationship with Los Angeles as somewhat like colony to court, nod approvingly at the work. But the Los Angeles water agency, one of the biggest property owners around here, is not happy and has retaliated with fury.

It canceled a $500 donation to the Bishop Mural Society, which approved the work, and promised in a letter from its regional manager, Gene L Coufal, to "more closely scrutinize all requests for assistance throughout the Owens Valley," something many in town take as a threat.

"It's unfortunate that at a time like this with so much terrorism, violence, hatred and war in the world, such a false and negative depiction of Los Angeles's Owens Valley water-gathering activities would be produced," Mr. Coufal wrote.

Another official, Brian Tillemans, the watershed resource manager, said the mural failed to take into account the agency's good stewardship of land it owned.

"Los Angeles has kept the watershed undeveloped and in good condition to protect the water supply of Los Angeles from urbanization, pollution and other threats," Mr. Tillemans wrote in a letter to The Inyo Register, noting, among other points, the benefits to recreation and wildlife in the valley.

Lynette McIntosh, who owns Window Fair, the store where the mural is painted, said Mr. Coufal's wife had warned her that employees of the utility would not shop there, though later she apologized "for the way she acted."

The town is astir with rumors that utility employees have threatened to boycott other businesses with connections to the mural society. The president of the society, Barbel Ackermann-Williams, declined to comment on such talk, but defended the mural as "both beautiful and historically correct."

"Public art has caused controversy throughout the ages, though it was unintentional in this case," Ms. Ackermann-Williams said. Earlier, Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa of Los Angeles promised to improve relations with the valley, which has for decades tangled in court with the city over water diversions. Joe Ramallo, a spokesman for the mayor, said that Mr. Coufal's "letter should not have been sent" and that Mr. Villaraigosa "welcomes projects like this."

Deputy Mayor Nancy Sutley said the mayor had expressed his dismay to managers at the water department. A spokeswoman for the agency would not comment on the mural.

John Pugh, the San Francisco Bay Area artist who painted the work as part of a series of historical murals going up all over this small town, said he meant no ill will toward Los Angeles.

Although Mr. Coufal wrote in his letter that "it's obvious the scenes depicted in the mural are not realistic portrayals" of the valley then or now, Mr. Pugh said they were based on scores of photographs and paintings. The scene depicted is a composite image inspired by sites around the valley, he said.

"It was meant to be edgy," Mr. Pugh said, "but it was a historical concept mural that has been transformed into a historical, political issue."

Although there may not actually be a rusty drainpipe like the one in the picture—Mr. Pugh said the drainpipe idea came to him one day while taking a shower—he said people would understand the metaphor.

"I am not unhappy it has become controversial," he said of his work, if only because people are talking about their feelings. "By keeping it quiet, it is like a dysfunctional family."

Jerry Core, the owner of a title company and the building with the mural, covered most of Mr. Pugh's $30,000 fee. Mr. Core also reimbursed the mural society for the $500 that the water department declined to provide.

"A picture says a thousand words I guess," Mr. Core said, "and this one I guess hits very close to home."

John Walton, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who has written on the water wars, said the mural was a fair representation of Los Angeles's taking water from the valley. But Professor Walton said the mural fed into the legend that the valley would have been an agricultural wonderland if Los Angeles had not intruded.

Two things are true," he said. "LA forcibly acquired the water, and the agricultural economy of the valley was always precarious. The first fact has led many to romanticize the second." Barbara Ferrey-Laughon, the president of the Chamber of Commerce and the former editor of The Inyo Register, said the subject was so sensitive that it would have been nearly impossible to create a painting about it without upsetting somebody. "I think a lot of the wounds that occurred in the water wars haven't healed," Ms. Ferrey-Laughon said. "They are covered over for a little bit, and then something like this picks at it."

Christopher Stube, a landscape artist who recently dropped by to inspect the mural, said he had mixed feelings. But like many others, Mr. Stube said the Los Angeles water officials had overreacted and "would have done themselves a favor if they just ignored the mural."

Council Takes Control of Owens Pact amid Rising Cost

The City Council has voted to assert jurisdiction over a $103 million contract for dust mitigation at Owens Valley Lake as officials expressed concern about mounting costs.

The council's unanimous vote on the item—which had previously gone before the Board of Water and Power Commissioners —came as the price tag for the Department of Water and Power project has more than tripled to $400 million. "It has become this place we're throwing money at," said Councilwoman Janice Hahn.

The project is a legacy of Los Angeles' diversion of Owens Valley water in the early 20th century. The diversion fueled the growth of Los Angeles but caused serious dust pollution in the Owens Valley as the lake dried up.

Legislation and litigation have led to efforts by Los Angeles DWP to mitigate the situation.

Estimates in 1998 suggested the project would cost about $120 million, said Richard Harasick, who directs the dust mitigation efforts for the DWP.

"There wasn't much known at that time about what that project would entail," he said.

Councilman Greig Smith added that the costs could have been driven up by the city's handling of litigation related to the project.

But Councilman Tony Cardenas, who asked that the council assert jurisdiction over the contract, said he wants to probe deeper into city policy surrounding the project and the reasons for the rising costs.

"I don't care if it's a $10 million or a $103 million contract," Cardenas said. "The bottom line is how does it fit: Are we convoluting ourselves into spending money and getting more and more contracts or are we arriving at a resolution effectively and appropriately?"

The contract now goes to the council's Commerce, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which Cardenas chairs. He said it could return to the council in a matter of weeks.

The project timeline could be affected if a delay is extended, Harasick said.

Walden Logging Bill Introduced November 3

Representative Greg Walden (R-OR-2) and Brian Baird (D-WA) have introduced a bill that would sweep aside protections for forests, fish and wildlife in order to rush logging and roadbuilding after normal, natural events that occur in National Forest. The bill would eliminate meaningful environmental review and cut the public out of decisions that would harm America’s public forests. The Walden bill is an extreme example of what happens when money from the logging industry influences politicians that are entrusted with protecting America’s natural heritage.

The bill is so unreasonable that almost any kind of natural event (from rain storms, droughts and windstorms to fires, floods and volcano eruptions) would trigger logging exemptions from current environmental protections. It’s like saying that every time you brush your teeth the dentist gets to pull one of your teeth without asking—as these natural events occur every day and all throughout the year, in our forests.

There will be a Congressional hearing on November 10, 2005 on the Walden bill. That day, the Resources Committee could also vote on the bill and send it to the House floor for a vote. We have heard that the bill is on a fast track and that Walden is attempting to pass the bill on the House floor this year.

Meanwhile, Representative Tom Udall (D-NM) has introduced an alternative bill called the "National Forests Rehabilitation and Recovery Act" (H.R. 3973). The Udall collaboration bill is a cautious, common sense approach, to studying the best responses to natural disturbances on forest ecosystems based on science and community collaboration. The Udall collaboration bill sets up five pilot projects to test rehabilitation needs after natural events on National Forests. The projects are required to comply with current environmental protections and are monitored by a national scientific committee.

Laguna Beach Developers Remove Vegetation
Without Permits

The Los Angeles Times on October 27 reported that builders planning a site near the Montage in Laguna Beach, after a pledge to respect the ecosystem, began to remove vegetation without permits.

One week after holding a town hall meeting and pledging to be "environmentally sensitive," developers planning a sister property to the oceanfront Montage resort in Laguna Beach are under fire for clearing a couple of acres of brush from riparian habitat without a permit.

"You can't just take a bunch of people up there with chain saws and weed whackers and have at it," said Penny Elia, president of the Hobo Aliso Neighborhood Assn. "What part of playing by the rules don't they understand?"

The discovery came just days after the Athens Group and partners of the Montage Resort & Spa held a series of community meetings in Laguna Beach touting their commitment to the environment.

The developers have been trying to calm the waters with environmentalists and others since it was revealed last year that they considered building portions of an 18-hole golf course on county parkland. Those plans have since been abandoned.

The developer unveiled the latest proposal to redevelop the Aliso Creek Inn just southeast of the luxury Montage. Their plans include a 90-room, Craftsman-style lodge, a redesigned nine-hole golf course and condominiums. They also include up to 11 homes to be built on property known as Driftwood Estates—the site where brush was cleared without permission from any government agency—and designate about 250 acres as open space.

Officials from the Athens Group apologized Wednesday, describing the brush clearing as an innocent mistake committed under the watchful eye of both a biologist and a city Fire Department battalion chief. And Laguna Beach City Manager Ken Frank defended their actions: "If it's anybody's fault, it's our fault."

Residents and members of local environmental groups discovered the cleared land last weekend while hiking trails and visiting the property. Elia fired off an angry e-mail to Montage officials asking for an explanation. She also alerted the Coastal Commission, the state Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

The area is considered a "very high value" habitat," Elia said, and brush clearing could have removed endangered plants. "They can spin it all they want, but they have done a very destructive thing," Elia said.

In a letter to the city, the Athens Group said it cleared the land at the request of neighbors who feared the overgrown brush posed a fire hazard. Before thinning the brush, Athens Group officials met with Laguna Beach Fire Department Battalion Chief Kris Head, who inspected the area and "concurred with the proposed treatment."

"It is not, and never was, our intention to circumvent the regulatory requirements of managing our property," wrote Martyn Hoffmann, Athens Group director of forward planning.

Frank said he did not believe there was any intent to skirt the rules. "They thought they were doing a community service for the people who live in the area who don't want their houses burnt," he said.

The area, city officials noted, is not pristine and untouched. In the past, goats were used to thin weeds and brush there.

But Mark Massara, the Sierra Club's coastal director, said the explanations fall short: "These people have lawyers and biologists at their disposal. There's simply no excuse for a developer and real estate owner to make such elementary and fundamental errors."

The Athens Group now plans to obtain necessary approvals by submitting a plan to the city's Design Review Board. In addition, three consulting biologists visited the site Wednesday to help prepare a report requested by the city and other state and federal agencies.

"Without a report, it's really hard to tell what happened—whether there were any endangered species," said Ann Larson, city planning administrator.

Even if no protected species were destroyed, residents said, they were disheartened by the Athens Group after feeling last week that the developer was committed to protecting the environment.

"I am totally surprised and disappointed," said Bill Rihn, president of the South Laguna Civic Assn. "They got off to such a good start with such good feelings. To do something like this is kind of beyond belief."

Ask The Forest Service To Improve Its Forest Plans
For Southern California
by Joyce Burk
Chair, Southern California Forests Committee

I need your help in asking the highest ranking Forest Service official in California to improve the new forest management plans the agency recently issued for Southern California's four national forests: the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres and San Bernardino.

Unfortunately, the plans leave our forests at risk and fail to meet the needs of the majority of forest visitors. In particular, the plans have received low marks for limited new wilderness recommendations, a recreational emphasis on off-road vehicles, and land designations that leave the door open for destructive development such as toll roads, hydroelectric dams, oil wells and power transmission lines.

Please visit the Southern California Forests Campaign's website right now to send an email to a key Forest Service official. It will only take a few minutes. The web link is: http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/socalforests/forest_service_letter.asp .

Behind Gold's Glitter
Torn Lands and Pointed Questions

The New York Times reported on October 24, 2005 that there has always been an element of madness to gold's allure. For thousands of years, something in the eternally lustrous metal has driven people to the outer edges of desire—to have it and hoard it, to kill or conquer for it, to possess it like a lover.

In the early 1500's, King Ferdinand of Spain laid down the priorities as his conquistadors set out for the New World. "Get gold," he told them, "humanely if possible, but at all costs, get gold."

In that long and tortuous history, gold has now arrived at a new moment of opportunity and peril.

The price of gold is higher than it has been in 17 years—pushing $500 an ounce. But much of the gold left to be mined is microscopic and is being wrung from the earth at enormous environmental cost, often in some of the poorest corners of the world.

And unlike past gold manias, from the time of the pharoahs to the forty-niners, this one has little to do with girding empires, economies or currencies. It is almost all about the soaring demand for jewelry, which consumes 80 percent or more of the gold mined today.

Consider a ring. For that one ounce of gold, miners dig up and haul away 30 tons of rock and sprinkle it with diluted cyanide, which separates the gold from the rock. Before they are through, miners at some of the largest mines move a half million tons of earth a day, pile it in mounds that can rival the Great Pyramids, and drizzle the ore with the poisonous solution for years.

The scars of open-pit mining on this scale endure.

The extravagance of the moment is provoking a storm among environmental groups and communities near the mines, and forcing even some at Tiffany & Company and the world's largest mining companies to confront uncomfortable questions about the real costs of mining gold.

"The biggest challenge we face is the absence of a set of clearly defined, broadly accepted standards for environmentally and socially responsible mining," said Tiffany's chairman, Michael Kowalski. He took out a full-page advertisement last year urging miners to make "urgently needed" reforms.

A months-long examination by The New York Times, including tours of gold mines in the American West, Latin America, Africa and Europe, provided a rare look inside an insular industry with a troubled environmental legacy and an uncertain future.

Some metal mines, including gold mines, have become the near-equivalent of nuclear waste dumps that must be tended in perpetuity. Hard-rock mining generates more toxic waste than any other industry in the United States, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The agency estimated last year that the cost of cleaning up metal mines could reach $54 billion.

A recent report from the Government Accountability Office chastised the agency and said legal loopholes, corporate shells and weak federal oversight had compounded the costs and increased the chances that mining companies could walk away without paying for cleanups and pass the bill to taxpayers.

"Mining problems weren't considered a very high priority" in past decades, Thomas P. Dunne, the agency's acting assistant administrator for solid waste and emergency response, said in an interview. "But they are a concern now."

With the costs and scrutiny of mining on the rise in rich countries, where the best ores have been depleted, 70 percent of gold is now mined in developing countries like Guatemala and Ghana. It is there, miners and critics agree, that the real battle over gold's future is being waged.

Gold companies say they are bringing good jobs, tighter environmental rules and time-tested technologies to their new frontiers. With the help of the World Bank, they have opened huge mines promising development. Governments have welcomed the investment.

But environmental groups say companies are mining in ways that would never be tolerated in wealthier nations, such as dumping tons of waste into rivers, bays and oceans. People who live closest to the mines say they see too few of mining's benefits and bear too much of its burden. In Guatemala and Peru, people have mounted protests to push miners out. Other communities are taking companies to court.

This month a Philippine province sued the world's fifth-largest gold company, Canada-based Placer Dome, charging that it had ruined a river, bay and coral reef by dumping enough waste to fill a convoy of trucks that would circle the globe three times.

Placer Dome, which also runs three major mines in Nevada, answered by saying that it had "contained the problem" and already spent $70 million in remediation and another $1.5 million in compensation.

Some in the industry have paused to consider whether it is worth the cost—to the environment, their bottom line or their reputations—to mine gold, which generates more waste per ounce than any other metal and yet has few industrial uses.

The world's biggest mining company, Australia-based BHP Billiton, sold its profitable Ok Tedi mine in Papua New Guinea in 2001 after having destroyed more than 2,400 acres of rainforest. Upon leaving, the company said the mine was "not compatible with our environmental values."

After tough lessons, other companies, like Newmont Mining, the world's largest gold producer, are paying for more schools and paying more to ease social problems around its mines.

"I don't think any of our members want to be associated with a bad operation—notwithstanding it would hurt their ability to open new facilities," said Carol L. Raulston, spokeswoman for the National Mining Association. "News goes around the world quickly now and there is no place to hide."

Critics say corporate miners have been cloistered from scrutiny because of their anonymity to consumers, unlike, say, oil companies, which also extract resources but hang their name over the pump.

Last year the mine watchdog group Earthworks began a "No Dirty Gold" campaign, marching protesters in front of fashionable Fifth Avenue storefronts, trying to change gold mining by lobbying gold consumers. "They just said to ask where the gold was coming from and whether it caused social or environmental damage," said Michael E Conroy, senior lecturer and research scholar at the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. "The repercussions in the mining media were huge—some said it was all lies, but retailers began to realize what their vulnerability was."

Mr. Kowalski, Tiffany's chairman, has tried to stay ahead of the controversy. He has broken new ground by buying Tiffany's gold from a mine in Utah that does not use cyanide.

But the largest sellers of gold are not luxury outlets like his, but rather Wal-Mart stores, and even Mr. Kowalski, a trustee of the Wildlife Conservation Society, hesitated to call any gold entirely "clean."

Gas Safety Measures Lose in Appellate Count

Los Angeles — Tuesday, Oct 25, 2005, the California Second Appellate District Court reversed a lower court's ruling on the first phase of the Playa Vista mega- development. The Appellate Court held that the City of Los Angeles violated the California Environmental Quality Act when it approved the methane gas mitigation system for Phase One in 2001. The ruling effectively sends the Playa Vista methane gas safety measures back to the Los Angeles City Council for reconsideration. The City Council has the authority to require a Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) on the matter.

Petitioners in the lawsuit include Grassroots Coalition, Environmentalism Through Inspiration and Non-Violent Action ("ETINA"), Spirit of the Sage Council and concerned local residents John Davis and Daniel Cohen.

The lawsuit contends that the methane gas safety measures are inadequate, unproven and cause significant environmental impacts. Though the ruling states that the gas safety measures may work, the Court found the gas safety measures may create serious environmental and safety issues of their own. The Court ruled that the City's and Playa Vista's characterization of the environmental and safety issues was misleading and inaccurate. "This victory sends a clear message that justice will prevail when citizen perseverance is supported by sound science. I'm hopeful that the new mayor and city councilperson will avail themselves of the facts and scientific evidence and utilize this opportunity to protect the public and the environment," said Sabrina Venskus, lead counsel on the case.

Over the last few months, three investigative reports by KNBC television Channel 4 have revealed that methane gas is leaking up into the buildings at Playa Vista. In addition, it remains a mystery as to whether the mandated venting wells exist. The wells are to be dug to 50 feet below the ground level and into the old Los Angeles Riverbed. "The NBC broadcasts show what we have been saying for several years: the City and Playa Vista have not proven that the gas safety measures are working," said Patricia McPherson, President of Grassroots Coalition.

Throughout the last four years of litigation, petitioners have also asked City and State agencies to investigate the connection between the Playa Vista's methane gas and the Southern California Gas Company's (Sempra) gas storage operations. The So Cal Gas Company's (Sempra's) operations are located directly adjacent to and underlying the historic Playa Vista project area. This gas storage operation is the only one of its kind in the nation located in such a densely populated metropolitan area. An alarming recent report prepared by the Safety Branch of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the agency charged with oversight for (Sempra) gas storage operations in Playa del Rey, states that there is a 50% likelihood that the gases surfacing at Playa Vista are storage gas. To date, there has been no independent state or federal oversight of oilfield gas migration hazards at the Playa Vista site. In addition, the City's original 1993 Environmental Impact Report had claimed that the oil field gases, later discovered by Grassroots Coalition in 1999, were non-existent.

The first phase of Playa Vista is still under construction. About half of Phase One has been built. Its plans include 3,246 units of housing and a small amount of commercial space, with one office complex (and one tenant, Electronic Arts). Two lawsuits were litigated in August of this year on Playa Vista's second phase, raising many issues, including the viability of the methane gas safety measures. The second phase proposes 2,600 more housing units and some commercial space.

Living with the Changing California Coast

The Executive Committee of the Angeles Chapter supports continuing the BRT dedicated peak-period bus-only lane on the one mile stretch of Wilshire Blvd. and supports Metro’s Upcoming/Planned Improvements between Wilshire/Western and Centinela/Wilshire in the City of Los Angeles.

The Executive Committee of the Angeles Chapter presents the following air quality recommendations to the Los Angeles City Council:

The Executive Committee of the Angeles Chapter appropriates $300 for the preparation of a significant report that will be used in contesting a proposed development in the Santa Monica Mountains.

Action Directory
Sierra Club Legislative Hotline: (202) 675-2394
Sierra Club National: (415) 977-5500
Sierra Club Sacramento Legislative Office: (916) 557-1100; fax (916) 557-9669
White House Comment Line: (202) 456-1111
White House Fax Line: (202) 456-2461
President George W Bush: president@whitehouse.gov
Vice President Dick Cheney: vice-president@whitehouse.gov
White House Address: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC 20500
US Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121
To contact your senators: Senate Office Bldg, Washington DC 20510 http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm
To contact your representative: House Office Bldg, Washington DC 20515 http://www.house.gov/writerep
California Capitol Switchboard: (916) 322-9900
Gov Arnold Schwarzenegger: (916) 445-2841; fax (916) 445-4633; governor@governor.ca.gov
      State Capitol Bldg, Sacramento CA 95814

Sierra Club Links
Sierra Club World Wide Web: http://www.sierraclub.org
Angeles Chapter site: http://angeles.sierraclub.org
Sierra Club California: http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/
Sierra Club Vote Watch Website: http://www.sierraclub.org/votewatch/
National Clubhouse activist resource site: http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/

Need help contacting your US representatives or finding out about legislation?
US House of Representatives: http://www.house.gov/
US Senate: http://www.senate.gov/
California State Assembly: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/
California State Senate: http://www.sen.ca.gov/
California State: http://www.ca.gov/state/portal/myca_homepage.jsp
California Legislative Information: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/
California Secretary of State voter information:
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections.htm

This Electronic Conservation Committee Newsletter is sent free, automatically, on email to all activists who hold any of the following positions in the Angeles Chapter or its entities: Executive Committee Member; Entity Chair or Conservation Chair, Political, and Newsletter Editor, Conservation Subcommittee or Task Force Chair. In addition, many activists throughout the Chapter and state receive it free by email, either by request or by position.  Distribution is approximately 350 by email, and 45 by postal hard copy. If you no longer hold the Club office with the automatic pull and wish to continue to receive it, email ivesico@earthlink.net. If we do not have your email address - please let us know. If you wish (and tell us), it will be tagged "private" and not printed or given out. The Newsletter (without upcoming resolutions) is available on the Chapter website at http://angeles.sierraclub.org/home.html Paper postal copy is available ($20/year payable Angeles Chapter, Sierra Club) for those who are technically challenged or simply don't want to be bothered. To receive The Newsletter by first class mail, send a donation of $20 to (almost) cover printing/mailing costs to Conservation Newsletter, 112 Harvard Ave PMB 297, Claremont CA 91711.

National's GoldBook provides information to chapters and groups on the differences between 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) funds; how to utilize and access charitable 501(c)(3) funds; how to get a project approved; fundraising plus much, much, more material on the Sierra Club. It is now available at the Clubhouse website. Go to  http://www.clubhouse.sierraclub.org/; follow the instructions for obtaining the password. The GoldBook can be found by clicking on A - Z List of Materials box, then on "G" under A-Z List of Documents, then on GoldBook, Educational Project Guidelines.
The California/Nevada Directory (RedBook) is available online. It also includes the Handbook of Sierra Club California Bylaws and Standing Rules (GreenBook). Contact Lori Ives for the online address and password. Send your membership number, your position in the Club, and your reason for needing the information. The paper edition ($20) is available on special order. Contact Lori for information.

E-Mail Lists: There are four important discussion lists for Angeles environmental activists:
Angeles Chapter Cons Listserve mailto:<angeles-conservation@lists.sierraclub.org>and
Angeles-Alerts Listserve angeles-alerts@lists.sierraclub.org
California/Nevada Listserve calif-activists@lists.sierraclub.org (moderated list for announcements)
California/Nevada Listserve calif-activists-forum@lists.sierraclub.org (unmoderated discussion list)
Subscribe to California Activists: calif-activists-request@lists.sierraclub.org
Subscribe to California Activists Forum: mailto:calif-activists-request@lists.sierraclub.org
For either list, send your name, email address, Sierra Club membership number, your position in Club (how are you active?)
Subscription is processed by one of the list owners, usually the same day.
Subscribe to Angeles-Alerts: email mailto:listsserve@lists.sierraclub.org with the message "subscribe angeles-conservation"
or "subscribe calif-activists"  or "subscribe angeles-alerts" Note: it's "listserv," not "listserve."
To leave a list, send an e-mail to mailto:to<listserv@lists.sierraclub.orgIn the text of your message (not the subject line), write: "signoff calif-activists" or "signoff angeles-conservation" or "signoff angeles-alerts"
The Angeles Chapter's website is http://www.angeles.sierraclub.org/

Angeles Chapter Conservation Management Committee
Gordon LaBedz/Chair (562) 494-6368, Bonnie Sharpe/Vice Chair/Grants Chair
Treasurer: Jay Matchett, Secretary:TBA, Newsletter Editor: Robin Ives
At Large: Marcia Hanscom, Faramarz Nabavi, Dean Wallraff
Publisher/Webmaster/Circulation (non-voting): Lori Ives
Rachel Myers/Conservation Coordinator Staff (non-voting)

Angeles Chapter Grants Committee
consists of the voting members of the Conservation Management Committee plus Judy Anderson and Rudy Vietmeier.

Angeles Chapter Conservation Committee
3435 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 320, Los Angeles CA 90010-1904

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..."

AGENDA — Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 7:30 pm

7:30 Introductions
7:40 Welcome New Staff
7:50 Late grant from Airport/Marina Group (Kathy Knight)
8:00 Chapter Endorsement of Water Quality Objectives - Water Consultant (Dave Czmanske)
8:25 County of Los Angeles Slope Density Ordinance - Verdugo Hills Group (Dean Wallraff)
8:45 Approval of grants
9:00 Election of 2006 Conservation Chair and Vice Chair
9:15 Adjourn

      No meeting in December. Next meeting January 25, 2006  

Orange County Special Events

JOIN US FOR A WELCOME DINNER FOR JENNIFER ROBINSON, OUR NEW CONSERVATION PROGRAM COORDINATOR (Note change in location)

• When: Tuesday November 15 before the OCCC at 5:30
• Where: We will be eating at a restaurant called Chinatown in the University Town Center.
  Located on the In & Out Burger side of the University Town Center. Directly across from the Inn at The Park:
  Jennifer Robinson is our new Conservation Program Coordinator. She started on Halloween and has been working hard ever since. I would like to introduce you all to Jennifer and give you a chance to get to know her. Please join us for dinner on Tuesday November 15 before the Conservation Committee meeting.
• Please RSVP to rachel.myers@sierraclub.org so I know how many people to make reservations for.

TRAINING: Amy Matthews, our compliance review coordinator, is now offering Compliance Training calls to interested staff and volunteers. On the call, she covers the basics on the four types of money the Sierra Club uses to further its mission: 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), EVEC (Environmental Voter Education Campaign), and SCPC (Sierra Club Political Committee). If you are interested in gaining more knowledge of these types of funds or how to use them, her next Compliance Training call will be November 16 at 11 am Pacific time. Send an email to compliance.review@sierraclub.org to sign up for the call, or to be placed on a list for another call scheduled at another time.

Orange County Conservation Committee

Dave Perlman/Chair, Rachel Myers/Conservation Coord (non-voting) http://angeles.sierraclub.org/ocosc/
LOCATION: Inn at the Park, 10 Marquette, Irvine. Take the 405 to Culver and go west towards the beach. Follow Culver past Michelson and University and turn right on Harvard. Take Harvard to Marquette and turn right. It's on the corner of Harvard and Marquette on the right hand side.

AGENDA — Tuesday, November 15, 2005

7:00 Welcome, Introductions, Announcements

7:10 Conservation Staff Report, introduction of new conservation coordinator (Rachel Myers)
7:20 Update on Orange Hills Task Force (Carole Mintzer)
7:30 Saddleback Canyons Task Force (Rich Gomez)
7:40 OSWP Task Force (Rich Gomez)
7:50 Discussion of possible Air Quality and Great Park Task Forces (Stephanie Pacheco)
8:05 Crystal Cove State Park update (Murray Rosenthal or TBD)
8:10 SAMTF; Revised Forest Management Plan (Paul Carlton)
8:20 Hobo - Aliso Canyon Task Force (Penny Elia)
8:35 Report on State Parks Commission Hearing on S. Ext. of Foothill Tollroad (Brittany McKee and others)
8:45 Sierra Sage and Orange County Political Committee Report (Gail Prothero)
9:00 Adjourn

Conservation Committees Calendar
Task Forces and others, if you have an upcoming meeting to be listed in this calendar:
In Los Angeles County, contact Lori Ives (ivesico@earthlink.net);
In Orange County, contact Dave Perlman (david@perlman.com)