• Debbie Cook, former Mayor of Huntington Beach and current Huntington Beach City Councilmember, will talk about how YOU can be more effective at communicating with elected officials.
• Mark Massara, Sierra Club California Coastal Program Director, will talk about how to effectively address quasi-judicial bodies such as the Coastal Commission, the importance of staff reports and how to get a staff report to include information that you think is important for the decision-makers.
• Mike Bonin, Chief of Staff to LA City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, former staffer for US Congress Rep. Jane Harman and LA City Councilmember Ruth Galanter, will speak on "Being Effective at Communicating with Elected Official Staff."

• Building a Coalition & Staying Power
• How to avoid Going to Court
• Making a Public Records Act request
• How to get your Lawsuit Approved to have Sierra Club's Name on it
• Grassroots organizing — what it is and how it can help you win
• Including Environmental Justice in Your campaign organizing
• Getting Your Message Heard — dealing with the news media
• Talking to State Legislators — what they can do for you and coordinating with our state lobbying office

Note: if you are a member of the Conservation Committee (a group or section conservation chair or a chair of a chapter conservation committeee), plan on staying until 6 pm. We will have a Conservation Committee meeting from 5-6 pm to approve grants and complete other business actions.

• Urbanization exposes more and more people to new diseases after they migrate to cities from their traditional rural homes.
• Globalization, and the increasing number of people traveling, guarantees that diseases developing in one place will soon spread everywhere. Environmental changes, including global warming, make it easier for diseases to spread, including older diseases such as malaria, and newer maladies such as AIDS, West Nile virus and Lyme disease.
• Erratic government health policies, coupled with drug-resistant diseases, are leading to a resurgence of old diseases such as tuberculosis, cholera and pneumonia.
• Urbanization and population growth threaten nature and the environment more today than during any previous era in world history. In the last 50 years, the Earth has lost 20 percent of all agricultural lands, 25 percent of all topsoil and 33 percent of its forests. Thousands of species of plants and animals have become extinct.

By the end of this century, as many as two-thirds of all species left on Earth today could disappear, perhaps matching the extermination that occurred when all dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago.

When loss of habitat kills predators, populations of insects, rats and mice increase. So do the diseases they spread. Meanwhile, as cities spread into wildlife regions, diseases once confined to animals begin to infect humans.

Rural people moving to cities typically crowd into the poorest, least-sanitary neighborhoods. On the other hand, city-dwellers are more easily reached by vaccination campaigns. Health expenditures per-capita reveal huge disparities across the globe. The 15 healthiest nations, according to the U.N. Health Development Index, spend between $1,845 and $4,887 per-capita on health care each year. Those nations include: 10 European countries, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan and the United States. The United States spends by far the most, but ranks only eighth on the index.

The 15 least-healthy nations spend between $12 and $127 per capita annually. All of those countries are in Africa, ranging from the Democratic Republic of Congo, which spends least in the world, to Cote d’Ivoire. With so many wars and disputes around the globe grabbing attention, world health policy easily slips from the foreground. But these gloomy predictions should cause leaders to wake up to the need for better measures to protect species, habitats, wilderness and ultimately human life.

• Air Toxics — focus has been on getting MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) standards for various industry sectors — EPA focus will now shift towards monitoring, enforcement, and consideration of environmental justice issues — the industry organization urged its members to "watch out" if they have infractions in these areas
• New Source Review enforcement will shift away from coal-fired power plants to other industry sectors (TBA)
• EPA is wrapping up existing enforcement actions against refineries
• Continuing to assist tribes with multi-media and enforcement issues
• Focus on Combined Sewer Overflows and storm water in the North East
• Studying some CAFOs — a few criminal investigations — no comprehensive enforcement plan at this point
• Aggressive enforcement against mineral processing facilities — have already begun inspection and prioritization of mining sites — all 18 phosphoric acid facilities must be in compliance or be referred to the Dept. of Justice.
• Most significant enforcement — with the broadest impact — will be against facilities with inadequate or no financial assurance under RCRA (hazardous waste management), CERCLA (superfund), TSCA (toxic substances like PCBs), and SDWA (safe drinking water) — US EPA will provide training to states and regiouns and provide proposed model rule language addressing the cost of closure, post-closure, liability coverage for sudden releases, and corrective actions.

For nearly three years, I idly wondered about the mysterious Invasive Exotics Chair, Bill Neill, listed on the back of the Orange County Native Plants Society newsletters along with the rest of our committee chairs. Shortly before Christmas, I had the opportunity to accompany him on his rounds at Featherly Regional Park in Yorba Linda. Our conversation overturned many of my preconceptions.

I had imagined that he went into an area to eliminate multiple species of non-native plants, but that';s not the way he operates. He goes in to a particular area with a defined plan for eliminating one or more specific species. Once he commits himself to an area, he makes repeat visits until they are brought under control. Initial visits focus on large specimens, while subsequent ones are aimed at seedlings. On this occasion, he targeted castor bean (Ricinis communis), spraying plants at the base so that overspray would be less likely to harm adjacent natives.

Bill’s hit list, in his own words, includes weed species that eventually will displace the native flora entirely, yet provide poor habitat for wildlife. Castor bean, he says, has been prominent in the news recently as the source of ricin, a potent poison implicated in bioterrorist threats. With its enormous tropical leaf, castor bean is very shade-tolerant and it easily shades out adjacent native plants. Castor bean is not restricted to riparian areas, but it thrives there. Large mature plants are highly susceptible to herbicide, and thus can easily be controlled, but the large seed can remain viable for years after the parent tree is gone. He cites an incident where two children died from ingesting castor bean seeds, which they ate like pinyon nuts gathered on a family outing and another where a horse died from eating castor bean leaves.

Through research at various public agencies websites, he found out that castor bean poisoning is harmful to multiple organs: breathing vaporized ricin causes pulmonary edema; skin contact produces dermatitis; ingestion of leaves or seeds — which are even worse — leads to gastrointestinal hemorrhage plus liver, spleen and kidney failure. Castor bean poisoning is slow-acting and difficult to diagnose. It has no antidote.

Once the parent plant has been eradicated, the larger job will be controlling successive waves of castor bean seedlings that sprout from the persistent seed bank. Because the seed is relatively large and immobile, most seeds produced in previous years will remain under the parent tree canopy or short distances downslope, sprouting initially as dense carpets of seedlings after the parent dies. The seeds are newly exposed to sunlight during spring months.Furthermore, the seeds can remain viable for at least a decade.

Bill’s hit list contains only one cereal, the giant reed (Arundo donax), noted for its abundant thirst for ground water. It is uniquely virulent in its ability to destroy riparian habitat. Resembling a cross between dwarf bamboo and giant corn stalks, Arundo grows to heights approaching 30 feet and forms impenetrable thickets that shade out small trees and shrubs. Large trees are eventually killed by fire because Arundo is highly flammable and converts riparian corridors from natural fire breaks to fire conduits. Add to this the fact that Arundo is a water thief. I could show you a 10-acre stand of solid Arundo near the Rio Hondo channel that is completely impenetrable and devoid of trees and wildlife. Arundo is exceptionally shade-tolerant and expands slowly but inexorably where introduced intentionally, by accident or by flooding, until it becomes abundant enough to carry hot wildfires though a riparian corridor, which kills the native trees.

Another water thief, the tamarisk or saltcedar tree (Tamarix ramosissima), provided the motivation that eventually led to a career switch from petroleum engineering to professional herbicide applicator during 1998-1999. Bill became concerned about its proclivity for invading and taking over desert springs. He says that throughout much of the Colorado River and Rio Grande watersheds, tamarisk has become the dominant plant species, replacing native riparian trees such as cottonwood, willow and mesquite. In Death Valley, where he got started, he observed that National Park Service staff had started removing tamarisk from Eagle Borax Spring in the early 1970s because the spring was drying up. Removing the tamarisk brought the return of surface water and native reeds and waterfowl, and mesquite trees regained their vigor. It was an impressive example of ecological restoration.

Inspired by this recovery, Bill earned his herbicide applicator';s license in 1983, and started to organize volunteer work parties to remove tamarisk from desert springs and riparian areas throughout the California desert and occasionally in neighboring states. He is currently one half of a partnership named Riparian Repairs, working as a contractor funded by various grants throughout southern California. Orange County California Native Plant Society is one of his sponsors for volunteer work. Orange County parks where he does volunteer work are Carbon Canyon Regional Park, Featherly Regional Park, Craig Regional Park, Santiago Oaks Regional Park, Irvine Regional Park, Caspers Wilderness Park and Peters Canyon Regional Park. In addition to his other efforts, he now performs contract work at Shipley Nature Center in Huntington Beach, following several years of volunteer weed control work there.

The risks posed by herbicides raise a number of hotly debated questions: Can we be certain that none of them are dangerous to humans? To farm animals? To wildlife ecosystems? To soil microorganisms? How long do they persist in the soil? Are herbicide testing procedures adequate? Should manufactured herbicides be replaced by naturally derived ones? Should the use of herbicides be curtailed in favor of mechanical methods of weed control?

Let's begin with a look at testing procedures.

Since it is not feasible to test herbicides on every organism that might be affected, and certainly not on human subjects, researchers use so-called surrogate species as stand-ins. These can include fish, newts, salamanders, crustaceans (such as the minute water flea), tadpoles, adult toads and frogs, rats, mice, and (particularly for eye testing) rabbits.

Pesticide manufacturers conduct testing. It generally takes seven to ten years to bring a product to market, because tests examine long-term effects on at least three generations of the specimens studied. Apart from obvious, acute toxic effects, researchers also assess the possibility of mutation leading to birth defects (including the inability to successfully reproduce), cancer-causing potential, and persistence in the environment. In California — the state with the most rigorous requirements — test results are reviewed by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, the web site is http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/. The national overseer is the Environmental Protection Agency.

The possibility exists that some drastic toxic effect — akin to that of DDT — may have been overlooked, but thus far nothing significant has turned up for common herbicides used today. That does not mean that a given product is safe under all conditions. For example, certain herbicides used where food crops are grown may only be sprayed after the crop has been harvested. Some of the sprays Bill uses are not allowed for applications where they could enter ponds or waterways, because of toxic effects on fish, amphibians, or aquatic vegetation. Species that live in water are vulnerable to skin contact, ingestion or inhalation of pesticides. Products intended for use around water must undergo additional testing to be awarded a type of license known as aquatic registration.

Very often, herbicides are mixed with other substances, such as refined vegetable oil (for bark penetration) or surfactants (for leaf penetration). In some cases, these surfactants are more toxic to animal life than the herbicide, and their presence places restrictions on how the herbicide may be used.

Opponents of manufactured pesticides argue that they should be replaced with less harmful natural plant-based products. For example, as a science fair project, a fourteen-year-old school girl experimented with using oleander extract to kill Arundo with great success. Other natural toxins that have been suggested are those present in chrysanthemums, in castor bean, and in poison hemlock (Conium maculatum). But because of their extreme toxicity, these natural extracts create far more problems than any herbicide currently in use — to the public, to the ecosystem where they might be applied, and to the health of the person applying them.

In addition to the seven to ten year time span required to test accepted pesticides, Bill states that manufacturers spend forty to eighty MILLION dollars to satisfy EPA requirements and to bring a new, active ingredient to market. A company attempting to sell one of these natural extracts would first have to undergo the complete testing process, required since the extract';s intended use would be as a pesticide. It is possible that some suitable substance will be found and will survive the rigorous testing procedures, but that hasn’t happened thus far.

Disregarding their potential as pesticides, we don't even know how much risk these plants pose to the public in their natural state, proliferating along stream banks and in other natural areas. In short, we know a lot about the properties of manufactured herbicides, but nearly nothing about natural plant extracts, except for their extreme toxicity. We cannot conclude here that Mother Nature knows best.

Bill has concerns about health risks to himself from working around these toxic species. He researched the subject extensively, but found almost no hard data. Personal protection that he uses in the field includes gloves, long sleeves, and safety glasses with side shields. He cleanses the gloves after each use.

Another option advocated by herbicide opponents is to replace chemical treatments with mechanical removal of invasive plants. Options include tarping, cutting, or digging them out. This can be successful with small infestations and a large volunteer crew, but while there are exceptions, it is usually not feasible where the weeds are widespread.

In conclusion, we may not love the idea of spraying herbicides in our wild areas, but for the time being it is the most effective method of weed eradication.

Say No to Toxic Mine Waste in Alaska's Lower Slate Lake

We beat Cyprus! Yeah, boyee! The Mediterranean island nation comes in at 29th in a landmark pilot study ranking countries by their environmental performance. The US comes in at a blazing 28th — just behind most of Western Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, Costa Rica, Chile, and, uh, Slovakia. The 2006 Environmental Performance Index — jointly produced by Yale and Columbia Universities — ranks New Zealand No. 1 for overall success in attaining such environmental goals as sustainable fisheries and greenhouse-gas emission cuts. The US scored at the top for environmental health factors like indoor air pollution and sanitation, but poorly on agricultural, forest, and fisheries management. The final report will be released at the World Economic Forum, the exclusive annual summit of business and policy pooh-bahs taking place this week in Davos, Switzerland.

Proposed New City in Shavers Valley Will Have its First Hearing

A southern California developer, GLC, is trying to destroy the beauty and ecology of Shavers Valley — a place that is of great importance to Coachella Valley residents and people worldwide. The new city is proposed 15 miles east of Indio. If the developers have their way, around 7,000 acres of rooftops and pavement, 15,000 new houses, golf courses and resorts and 45,000 new people will move into an undeveloped and wild part of the desert. Shavers Valley sits between Joshua Tree National Park and the Mecca Hills and Orocopia Mountains Wilderness Areas. A city located there would destroy over 7,200 acres critical to the survival of the threatened desert tortoise and vital to bighorn sheep and other wildlife as they travel between Joshua Tree National Park and Mecca Hills wilderness . It would also destroy recreational and aesthetic opportunities, precious groundwater, springs and seeps, and important Native American cultural sites.

The Coachella Valley Association of Governments, local governments and stakeholders have worked together for over 10 years to develop a vision of the development and conservation future of the region. This plan (called the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, or “Habitat Plan” for short) would collapse in the face of GLC’s new city. The new city would undermine 10 years and countless hours of conservation planning efforts by local Coachella Valley governments and stakeholders, squander the over $6 million of public funds spent on the Habitat Plan to date, and reduce the amount of allotted development available for projects in existing communities.

PG&E Proposes Climate Protection Tariff

PG&E'S Customers Will Pay Modest Premiums and CPT Program Cost

Enrolled customers will pay a volumetric premium of about $.0025 per kilowatt-hours (kWh) and $.065 per therm, which amounts to approximately $4.31 a month for the typical residential customer who takes both gas and electric service from PG&E, or about 3.0 percent of their monthly bill. The program's administrative and marketing costs — $16.4 million over the first year start-up and three years of program operation for 2007-2009 (a total of four years) — will be spread across all PG&E customers who would pay less than 4 cents a month (for the typical residential customer), which represents a 0.03 percent monthly bill increase. These costs include the California Climate Action Registry's incremental costs associated with its participation in the CPT program.

Public Input, Independent Review and Reporting Are Key CPT Features