September 2008

Email items, articles, graphics to Publisher/Webmaster: Lori Ives; Editor: Robin Ives

On July 25, the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a document that could eventually return steelhead salmon to the Santa Clara River. In a document that will have major effects on future operations at the Vern Freeman Diversion facility near Santa Paula by the United Water Conservation District, the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a final biological opinion concluding that future operation of the facility in the proposed manner could jeopardize the existence of the Southern California steelhead.

A biological opinion is a technical document written after in-depth study by wildlife agency scientists that reviews the proposed human impacts to an endangered species. The agency then determines whether that species can continue to survive. This biological opinion also laid out a set of actions, termed a "reasonable and prudent alternative," that United could take to avoid the likelihood of steelhead extinction. This fish was once plentiful in local rivers but is now listed as endangered.

The Freeman Diversion is owned by the United States Bureau of Reclamation and operated by United Water. Starting in May 2005, the National Marine Fisheries Service has been in formal consultation with the bureau under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act on how diversion operations (including the existing fish ladder) affect the steelhead and its critical habitat.

The service document was issued as a result of the need for new operational procedures at the diversion. Under the Endangered Species Act, the bureau must consult with the service if facility operation involves impacts to an endangered species that is within the service's jurisdiction, as is the case for anadromous species that spend portions of their life cycles in the ocean.

A fish ladder does currently exist at the facility. But it has not allowed successful passage over the past decades of steelhead migrating upstream from the ocean. The Santa Clara is deemed one of the most important rivers in Southern California for steelhead recovery. The 122-page biological opinion does not specifically define what changes are needed at the facility, but instead calls for convening of a panel of experts to establish interim physical modifications to the facility (to be operational by Dec 21) as well as long-term modifications to be complete by Dec 31, 2011 when the bureau's discretion over operation of the diversion lapses.

Recovery of steelhead runs in the Santa Clara River has long been a top priority for the Friends of the Santa Clara River. The southern steelhead was listed as endangered about 10 years ago. Since then, there has been a plethora of meetings, discussions, issuance of formal and informal documents and studies. But effective action has not ensued, as evidenced by the fact that only a handful of adult steelhead have been observed in the Santa Clara River in recent years.

Friends of the River believes it is time — in fact, way past time — to take the appropriate action.

Potential return of the steelhead to their ancient spawning grounds in the Santa Clara River watershed is exciting news that would not have occurred without the Endangered Species Act. Now proposed rule changes could eliminate such progress toward species protection.

Under the current regulations, federal agencies must consult with scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine whether a project is likely to harm endangered species or habitat.

Because these regulations are administrative and not legislative, they won't need the approval of Congress.

Friends of the Santa Clara River joins with thousands of other local conservation groups and individuals across the nation in asking President Bush to rescind such inappropriate rule-making and let our independent wildlife scientists do their jobs.

Without proper checks and balances, these new rules may simply mean extinction for many of our beautiful and rare plants and animals throughout the United States always.

Park[ing] Day 2008 hits the streets of Los Angeles on Friday, September 19, 2008 as artists, designers and activists throughout the city step up to the curb, put a quarter in the meter, and transform curbside metered parkings spots into temporary public parks.

Join us in engaging our community in a dialogue about public parks and open space, how it is allocated, how much urban open space we need and how our streets are currently being used.

Join us in creating community by taking to the streets and partnering with your neighbors in developing innovative uses of our public space.

Join us in revitalizing our community by putting the public back into public space.

Join us on Friday, September 19, 2008, create your own park in a parking space near you.

Homes and other buildings are America's largest consumers of energy and a major contributor to global warming. That's why the Sierra Club's Cool Cities Campaign is joining with local governments, businesses, and energy-efficiency advocates to support a bold new proposal to adopt "green" building codes for new homes: the Thirty Percent Solution.

Next month, building-code officials from around the country will meet in Minneapolis to vote on whether to strengthen building-code energy-efficiency standards in new homes by 30 percent. By 2030, that would save an estimated 8 quadrillion BTUs of energy and $88 billion in energy costs; reduce CO2 by 464 million metric tons; and create new clean-energy construction and service jobs in the building trades and energy-efficiency product industries.

Warmer temperatures and longer dry spells have killed thousands of trees and shrubs in a Southern California mountain range, pushing the plants' habitat an average of 213 feet up the mountain over the past 30 years, a UC Irvine study has determined.

White fir and Jeffrey pine trees died at the lower altitudes of their growth range in the Santa Rosa Mountains, from 6,400 feet to as high as 7,200 feet in elevation, while California lilacs died between 4,000-4,800 feet. Almost all of the studied plants crept up the mountain a similar distance, countering the belief that slower-growing trees would move slower than faster-growing grasses and wildflowers.

This study is the first to show directly the impact of climate change on a mountainous ecosystem by physically studying the location of plants, and it shows what could occur globally if the Earth's temperature continues to rise. The finding also has implications for forest management, as it rules out air pollution and fire suppression as main causes of plant death.

"Plants are dying out at the bottom of their ranges, and at the tops of their ranges they seem to be growing in and doing much better," said Anne Kelly, lead author of the study and a graduate student in the Department of Earth System Science at UCI. "The only thing that could explain this happening across the entire face of the mountain would be a change in the local climate."

A new report, written by Sarah E Reed & Adina M Merenlender of the Department of Environmental Science, Policy & Management, University of California, Berkeley, suggests that even the most sensitive forms of tourism might be bad for wildlife.

Protected areas around the world were created with the goals of preserving biodiversity and providing nature-based recreation opportunities for millions of people. This dual mandate guides the management of the majority of the world's protected areas, but there is growing evidence that quiet, non-consumptive recreation may not be compatible with biodiversity protection. We combined non-invasive survey techniques and DNA verification of species identifications to survey for mammalian carnivores in 28 parks and preserves in northern California. Paired comparisons of neighbouring protected areas with and without recreation revealed that the presence of dispersed, non-motorized recreation led to a five-fold decline in the density of native carnivores and a substantial shift in community composition from native to non-native species. Demand for recreation and nature-based tourism is forecasted to grow dramatically around the world, and our findings suggest a pressing need for new approaches to the designation and management of protected areas.

The Sierra Club Angeles Chapter is a sponsor of the ‘Festival of the Himalayas” Himalayan Arts and Culture Festival that will be held at the Pacific Asian Museum on September 28 from 11 am to 5 pm in the Pacific Asia Museum, 46 North Los Robles Avenue, Pasadena CA 91101.

The Sierra Club has also been invited to participate with an outreach table at the Himalayan Arts and Culture Festival. This festival will be attended by 2500 to 3500 hundred and it would be a great outreach venue. Please let me know if you or anyone in your group is interested in tabling at this event. We have folding tables, materials and pamphlets that you can use for your tabling.

The unique aim of the Festival is to enhance environmental awareness by focusing on the importance of preserving the unique eco-system of the Himalayas. A local sherpa who has climbed Mount Everest will speak about his experience in an illustrated talk. Our Sierra Club member Elizabeth Pomeroy will also bring her experience on the Himalayas to the audience at the festival. Educational activities and materials will illustrate similarities between the Himalayas and our San Gabriel Mountains and help participants realize that they must play a role in the conservation of their local environment. (A front-page article in the Los Angeles Times on April 20, 2008 on the effects of climate change in the Himalayas emphasized the importance of the region as a bellwether for the planet.)

With the pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for his running mate, John McCain's race towards the Bush administration's failed energy policy is now complete. John McCain was once willing to stand up to his own party, but now that he is running for President, he supports the same Bush policies and powerful special interests that put us in the grip of the oil companies. One of the last remaining independent policies putting him at odds with Bush was his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, yet he has now picked a running mate who has opposed holding Big Oil accountable and been dismissive of alternative energy while focusing her work on more oil drilling in a wildlife refuge and off of our coasts.

Palin herself told Roll Call earlier this week, “When I look every day, the big oil company's building is right out there next to me, and it's quite a reminder that we should have mutually beneficial relationships with the oil industry.” (Roll Call, 8/25/08)

No one is closer to the the oil industry than Governor Palin. Along with her support for drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and off our coasts, she also opposes a windfall profit tax on the richest oil companies. Under her leadership, Alaska has sued the federal governent for considering listing the Polar Bear as a threatened species even though global warming threatens its very existence. She has been dismissive of alternative energy, saying "alternative-energy solutions are far from imminent and would require more than 10 years to develop" (The Post and Courier, Charleston, SC, 8/16/08), when in reality it is the oil she would like to drill that would take a decade to bring to market.

Senator McCain has lost any chance of having a balanced or moderate ticket with this choice and has instead opted for the same, business-as-usual reliance on the outdated oil companies that has been the hallmark of the Bush-Cheney administration. On the third anniversay of the hurricane that knocked loose oil rigs and spilled millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf Coast that is bracing for another hit, McCain is sending a terribly indifferent message by selecting a candidate who only repeats Big Oil's talking points.

Senators Obama and Biden share the common goals of putting America back to work by building a balanced clean energy economy, taking on Big Oil and meeting the challenge of global warming. Under their leadership, our economy can become stronger, and our world cleaner and safer.

Air Pollution, Asthma — Near LAX Too!
(As Well as the Port Complex/Oil Refinery Region)
by Tom Politeo

As someone who's looked very closely at the methodology used in these studies — it is very clear that certain areas are hot spots. However, it is not an exact science with respect to measurement nor the assessment of risk. The MATES studies conducted by the AQMD shows the worst air for cancer risk in the ports, for example. Other studies show the worst air is in the interior valleys (Riverside/San Bernardino).

The differences are due to several factors. Methods of study and estimation, and health endpoints being studied. the worst air for cancer, asthma and cardio problems aren't going to be in exactly the same areas, since the pollutants which most aggravate each disease aren't exactly the same.

It is also relative to the sensitive receptor. That is, if you have asthma, the worst air for you will be based on asthma risk factors, not cancer risk factors.

Obviously, however, air near the biggest polluters, which include the air and seaports, areas with large concentrations of trucks and trains (so-called inland ports) and refineries will be the worst off. The bigger the facilities, the worse the air.

The worst air in the SCAQMD MATES-II study is in and by the ports. If you remove diesel particulate pollution and only that one source, the worst air is by the airport (not the refineries). However, the airport has consistently bad air quality — whereas the refineries have spikes when they flare. No one looks at how these play out with respect to different risks.

The bottom line is that we need to work to clean up all these pollution sources. Of these, aircraft and large ships may be the hardest to clean up. Further, even if you live in the Southern California areas with the "cleanest" air, chances are your air is unacceptably bad. There is no area of acceptable air quality in the LA basin.

We've been working closely with LBACA — the Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma and the American Lung Association.

The US Environmental Protection Agency considers PFOA a likely human carcinogen known to induce testicular and mammary cancers in animals. Two studies conducted by professors at UCLA and Johns Hopkins and published in leading journals last year have linked PFOA exposure among the general population to low birth weight. Perfluorinated chemicals, including PFOA, are also associated with altered male reproductive hormones, and effects on the liver, thyroid gland, and immune system.

And, unlike other pollutants, which break down in the environment eventually, PFOA and other PFCs don't, according to EPA. Every molecule that is produced today will be around forever, continually redistributing throughout the environment. As a result, it is in the bloodstream of virtually every person in the country — including children still in the womb.

The bill was targeted for defeat by DuPont and other chemical companies, who threw an army of lobbyists against it. A coalition of environmentalists, consumer organizations and labor unions pushed it over the top. Schwarzenegger has not said if he will sign it.

Wind Turbines Make Bat Lungs Explode

"Beware: exploding lungs" is not a sign one would expect to see at a wind farm. But a new study suggests this is the main reason bats die in large numbers around wind turbines. The risk that wind turbines pose to birds is well known and has dogged debates over wind energy. In fact, several studies have suggested the risk to bats is greater. In May 2007, the US National Research Council published the results of a survey of US wind farms showing that two bat species accounted for 60% of winged animals killed. Migrating birds, meanwhile, appear to steer clear of the turbines.

Why bats — who echolocate moving objects — are killed by turbines has remained a mystery until now. The research council thought the high-frequency noise from the turbines' gears and blades could be disrupting the bats' echolocation systems. In fact, a new study shows that the moving blades cause a drop in pressure that makes the delicate lungs of bats suddenly expand, bursting the tissue's blood vessels. This is known as a barotrauma, and is well-known to scuba divers.

"While searching for bat carcasses under wind turbines, we noticed that many of the carcasses had no external injuries or no visible cause of death," says Erin Baerwald of the University of Calgary in Canada.

Baerwald and colleagues collected 188 dead bats from wind farms across southern Alberta, and determined their cause of death. They found that 90% of the bats had signs of internal haemorrhaging, but only half showed any signs of direct contact with the windmill blades. Only 8% had signs of external injuries but no internal injuries.

The movement of wind-turbine blades creates a vortex of lower air pressure around the blade tips similar to the vortex at the tip of aeroplane wings. Others have suggested that this could be lethal to bats, but until now no-one had carried out necropsies to verify the theory.

Baerwald and her colleagues believe that birds do not suffer the same fate as bats — the majority of birds are killed by direct contact with the blades — because their lungs are more rigid than those of bats and therefore more resistant to sudden changes in pressure.

Bats eat nocturnal insects including agricultural pests, so if wind turbines affected their population levels, this could affect the rest of the local ecosystems. And the effects could even be international. "The species being killed are migrants," says Baerwald. "If bats are killed in Canada that could have consequences for ecosystems as far away as Mexico."

One solution could be to increase the minimum wind speed needed to set the blades in motion. Most bats are more active in low wind.

Chapter Conservation Committee Draft Agenda
Chair: Judy Anderson <judyanderson@earthlink.net>
Meeting will be digitally recorded for preparation of minutes
Conference call access (866) 501-6174; Code: 1000400#

Wednesday, September 17, 2008 — 7:15 pm
Chapter Office, 3435 Wilshire Blvd Ste 320, LA 90010-1904

Useful Information

Visit the Angeles Chapter's web site at http://www.angeles.sierraclub.org/

Sierra Club Legislative Hotline: (202) 675-2394
Sierra Club National: www.sierraclub.org (415) 977-5500
Sacramento Legislative Office: www.sierraclub.com (916) 557-1100; fax (916) 557-9669
Environmental News in Sacramento - Rough and Tumble www.rtumble.com
Desert Report Web Page www.desertreport.org

Sierra Club World Wide Web: http://www.sierraclub.org
Angeles Chapter site: http://www.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://www.clubhouse.sierraclub.org/

ACTION DIRECTORY
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: 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
Your representative: House Office Bldg, Washington DC 20515 - http://www.house.gov/writerep

California Capitol Switchboard: (916) 322-9900
Gov Arnold Schwarzenegger: governor@governor.ca.gov (916) 445-2841, fax (916) 445-4633;
State Capitol Bldg, Sacramento CA 95814
Need help contacting your US representatives?
Need help in 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

The RedBook (California/Nevada Directory) is available online. It includes the GreenBook (Handbook of Sierra Club California Bylaws and Standing Rules) Email Lori Ives (lori.ives@angeles.sierraclub.org) for the online address and password. Send your membership number, your position in the Club, and your reason for needing the information. A paper edition ($25) is available on special order.

E-MAIL LISTS: There are four important discussion lists for Angeles environmental activists:

Angeles Chapter Conservation Newsletter Listserve Angeles Cons-News angeles-conservation@lists.sierraclub.org

Angeles-Alerts Listserve angeles-alerts@lists.sierraclub.org
California/Nevada Activists calif-activists@lists.sierraclub.org (moderated list for announcements)
California/Nevada Activist-Forum calif-activists-forum@lists.sierraclub.org (unmoderated discussion list)

Subscribe to California Activists: calif-activists-request@lists.sierraclub.org
Subscribe to California Activists Forum: calif-activists-request@lists.sierraclub.org
For either list, send your name, email address, Sierra Club membership number, your position in the Club.

Subscription is processed by one of the list owners, usually the same day.

Subscribe to the listserve: send an email to listserv@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 listserv@lists.sierraclub.org. In the text of your message (not the subject line), write: "signoff calif-activists" or "signoff angeles-conservation" or "signoff angeles-alerts"

Sponsored by Sierra Club, LA Dept of Recreation and Parks, Humane Society of the United States, Canada Goose Project, others.

No admission charge. Modest lunch provided for attendance at afternoon workshops.

See CALTRANS explain the "Wildlife Corridor Bridge over the 405 Freeway"

Hear Nobel Peace prize recipient Dr. Danny Harvey explain "The Race to Save Our Wildlife"

Participate with students from North Hollywood High School Zoo Magnet, " Our World Inherited from You"

Have Fun with Wildlife Rehabilitators and animal friends

http://www.gmnac.com/ESTFSignup.html Reservations/Questions? 818-769-1521 (Photo by Michael Caroff)

The Chapter Conservation Committees

The Angeles Chapter Conservation Committee and the Orange County Conservation Committee (click for agendas) provide forums for Club members to discuss impending conservation issues and to coordinate efforts of conservation subcommittees with groups and sections. They meet monthly every third Tuesday (Orange County) and third Wednesday (Angeles Chapter). Contact the Conservation Committee Chairs by the end of the previous month for a place on the agenda. Suggested deadline for newsletter submissions is 16 days before the Chapter meeting.

Motions should be submitted in advance, together with objective background material and supporting and opposing arguments, both to the Chapter Committee Chair and the Orange County Committee Chair and Newsletter Editor (Robin Ives ives@ivesico.net), 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 (by a two-thirds majrity) an exception to the 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..."

This Electronic Conservation Newsletter is emailed automatically, free by listserv, 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, or Newsletter Editor, Conservation Subcommittee or Task Force Chair. Additionally, many activists throughout the Chapter and state receive it.

The Newsletter may be read on the chapter website: http://www.angeles.sierraclub.org/environmental/newsletter.asp.

Postal copy is available 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 $25 (payable Angeles Chapter, Sierra Club) to (almost) cover costs, to: Conservation Newsletter, 112 Harvard Ave PMB 297, Claremont CA 91711.

Sierra Club Angeles Chapter Conservation Committee
112 North Harvard Avenue PMB 297
Claremont CA 91711-4716

RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED