home of the wildlife conservation environmental and freedom activist

******************************
* WILD ALERT
* Wednesday, October 31, 2001
******************************

Dear WildAlert Subscriber,

Interior Secretary Gale Norton wants the American public to trust her.  
But in recent testimony before a Senate committee, Sec. Norton omitted
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service data showing that caribou in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge could be affected by oil drilling there --
data that she had asked her staff to provide -- and she added
erroneous data in support of her position.

DISTORTING THE FACTS
At its heart, the issue of drilling for oil in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge is about trust.  But Secretary Norton's own actions
undermine her standing to ask for that trust.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) broke the
story, detailing the error and omissions.  For instance:

**FWS: "There have been PCH [Porcupine Caribou Herd] calving
concentrations within the 1002 area for 27 out of 30 years"
**Norton: "Concentrated calving occurred primarily *outside* of the
1002 Area [Arctic Refuge coastal plain] in 11 of the last 18 years."
(emphasis added -- the word "outside" was substituted for "inside").

**Norton: "Surveys indicate that no calving occurred in the 1002 area
in 2001."
**FWS: Did not include 2001 data, as surveys had yet to be conducted.

**Norton: "There is no evidence that the seismic exploration
activities or the drilling of ... [an] exploratory well on Native
lands have had any significant negative impact on the Porcupine
caribou herd."
**FWS disclaimer omitted: "No studies were conducted to determine the
effects of the above activities on the PCH."

THE OTHER FOLKS WE'RE SUPPOSED TO TRUST
The oil companies and their supporters in Congress and the
administration want the public to believe that they can drill in this
pristine wilderness without harming the environment.  

**But from 1996 to 2000, those same oil companies spilled 1.3 million
gallons of oil and other toxic chemicals on Alaska's North Slope.

**The industry has pointed to the Endicott oil field near Prudhoe Bay
as an industry model for the type of drilling that occurs on the North
Slope and for the type of field that should be developed in the
Refuge.   Yet, even while lawmakers were praising this oil field,
British Petroleum and its subcontractor were illegally dumping
hazardous waste at the site -- a crime they later admitted to and for
which they were fined $22 million.

IT GETS BETTER
Likewise, pro-drilling lawmakers have asked for our trust.  But
they've continued to use erroneous and misleading information to
buttress their arguments in favor of drilling:

**They've wildly overstated the amount of oil that would likely be
recovered from the refuge and the number of jobs that could be created
from such drilling.  

**Lately, they've overstated the amount of oil we import from the
Persian Gulf and the contribution that oil from the refuge could make
in reducing our oil imports.  This is a manipulative effort to
capitalize on the terrorist actions of September 11 and America's war
on terrorism.

TAKE ACTION
More and more newspapers are picking up on this pro-oil campaign of
misrepresentations.  Let them know how you feel!  Send a letter to the
editor of your local paper and tell them:

- Sec. Norton wants us to trust her when it comes to oil drilling on
our public lands.  But she's misleading Congress and the public about
oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge, by omitting scientific data and
presenting false facts in congressional testimony.

- Sec. Norton and pro-oil politicians are wildly overstating how much
oil we can get from the Refuge, how many jobs it can create, and how
much oil we import from the Persian Gulf.  It's disingenuous, not to
mention a cynical manipulation of the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks.

- Big oil companies talk of environmentally sound oil drilling, while
they've spent the last few years dumping millions of gallons of oil
and other toxics in Alaska's North Slope.  

- Sec. Norton and her big oil allies haven't given us the straight
facts up to now.  Why should we trust them on all their wild promises
for the future?

FOR MORE INFORMATION
PEER press release detailing omissions/errors
http://www.peer.org/press/190.html (includes links to original FWS and
Norton documents)

PEER comparison of FWS and Norton statements
http://www.peer.org/alaska/Norton_comparison.html

Washington Post article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18216-2001Oct18.html

TWS factsheet: "Why you can't trust the oil companies"
http://www.wilderness.org/newsroom/pdf/oilcompanytrust.pdf (PDF, 23
Kb)


***************************************************************
For a full list of Action Items, visit
http://www.wilderness.org/whatcan/takeaction.htm

***************************************************************
An archive of past Wildalerts can be found at
http://www.wilderness.org/wildalert/wildalerts.htm

***************************************************************
WildAlert is an email action alert system brought to you by The
Wilderness Society to keep you apprised of threats to our wildlands --
in the field and in Washington.  WildAlert messages include updates
along with clear, concise actions you can take to protect America's
last wild places.  You are welcome to forward Wildalerts to all those
interested in saving America's wildlands.

FEEDBACK: If you need to get in contact with the owner of the list,
(if you have trouble unsubscribing, or have questions about the list
itself) send email to <action@tws.org>.

TO SUBSCRIBE: If you have been forwarded this message and would like
to subscribe to the list, visit
http://www.wilderness.org/forms/subscribe.htm or send a message to
wildalert@tws.org with 'SUBSCRIBE' in the subject line.

Founded in 1935, The Wilderness Society works to protect America's
wilderness and to develop a nation-wide network of wild lands through
public education, scientific analysis and advocacy.  Our goal is to
ensure that future generations will enjoy the clean air and water,
wildlife, beauty and opportunities for recreation and renewal that
pristine forests, rivers, deserts and mountains provide. To take
action on behalf of wildlands today, visit our website at
http://www.wilderness.org

EarthNet News
...a project of the Center for Environmental Citizenship

October 31, 2001  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This week in EarthNet, we shine the spotlight on a couple of corporations that
aren't acting responsibly.  But you can take action to hold 'em accountable!
Tell Bayer to stop feeding antibiotics to poultry and Shell to relocate
families adversely affected by a plant in Louisiana.  

And there's still time to win phat prizes -- including a mountain bike or a
raftin' trip for four -- in our annual drawing.  Purchase tix online at
http://www.envirocitizen.org/drawing until next Tuesday.  You get 2 tickets for
$5 AND you'll be supporting the efforts of this newsletter.  Such a deal!

--Susie Gorden, EarthNet Editor
mailto:earthnet@envirocitizen.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Corporate Corner 1: The UnBayerable Spread of Infection
2. Corporate Corner 2:  Diamond Residents Raise Some Shell
3. Quote of the Week
4. Letter to the Editor
5. Glimmer of Hope
6. Environmental Impact of War: Agent Orange
7. Jobs, Conferences and Gatherings
8. Activist Phone Book & EarthNet News Info

CORPORATE CORNER (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recent anthrax scare and the threat of bioterrorism have made it crystal
clear that we need to safeguard the effectiveness of antibiotics.
Nevertheless, the Bayer Corporation continues to use the antibiotic Baytril in
poultry farming.  This practice may ultimately decrease overall antibiotic
efficacy in treating human ailments because it increases the occurrence of
bacteria that are antibiotic-resistant.  An editorial in the New England
Journal of Medicine calls for an end to such uses.  "These studies and
editorial provide one clear message: antibiotic resistance is becoming a
serious public health problem in America, and the routine feeding of
antibiotics to healthy farm animals is an important cause of the problem," said
Tamar Barlam, M.D., an infectious disease specialist at the Center for Science
in the Public Interest.

A recent Food and Drug Administration statement requested that Bayer
voluntarily withdraw Baytril from the market, but Bayer is appealing the
decision.

TAKE ACTION NOW:  Urge Bayer to comply with the FDA's recommendations, using
the EarthNet Action Center at http://www.envirocitizen.org/

FOR MORE INFO: http://www.bayerwatch.com;
http://www.healthsci.tufts.edu/apua/Patients/patient.html;
http://www.ucsusa.org/food/ltr_wdbaytril.html;
http://www.keepantibioticsworking.com/

CORPORATE CORNER (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
People living in Diamond -- an African American community in Norco, Louisiana
-- have had enough of their lousy neighbors, Shell Oil.  

When Shell moved in more than a decade ago, it was soon obvious that it would
not be the good neighbor it had promised to be. Shell's operations now extend
to within 15 feet of the neighborhood and, thanks to all the nasty stuff they
put into the air, they can afford to extend even further, since property prices
have fallen drastically and no one wants to live there. There have already been
a number of explosions. The residents also face the more insidious risk of
cancer from exposure to toxins. But they have shown that they are as resistant
to pressure as their community's namesake and have been working to expose
Shell's unacceptable behavior.

Join the growing chorus of outraged citizens who demand that Shell relocate ALL
members of the Diamond community -- not repeat the intimidation and human
rights abuses they've carried out in Nigeria against the Ogoni people.

TAKE ACTION:  Tell Shell Oil to shape up and ship out, sending a FREE fax at
http://www.envirocitizen.org/

-- Thanks to CorpWatch for supporting this free service and Global Response for
alerting us to this alert!

FOR MORE INFO: http://www.labucketbrigade.org;
http://www.igc.org/cbesf/norco.html;
http://www.mcspotlight.org/beyond/companies/shell.html

QUOTE OF THE WEEK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The young do not know enough to be prudent, and therefore they attempt the
impossible, and achieve it, generation after generation.
--Pearl S. Buck, author

LETTER(s) TO THE EDITOR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All letters were in response to the *quote of the week* from Adena Cook in
October 15's EarthNet and Lina Nicolia's response in the last week's EarthNet.

Response to Adena Cook:
When I hear a chain saw it reminds me of the decimation of the Brazilian
tropical rain forest, where countless found medicines mingle with countless
unfound ones.  The chain saw, when not an early Saturday morning neighborhood
nuisance, also reminds me of the sound of snowmobiles legally tearing through a
habitat in a National Park.

If the sound of chain saws brings thought bubbles of progress to some, may I
put forth the proposition that progress, for progress' sake, is a phenomena
that needs to be watched and closely studied.
--Clay Teunis

In response to Lina Nicolia:
I'm not even sure what the Blue Ribbon Coalition advocates, but I think that it
is safe to say that I am not a supporter of their plight. However, I believe
that Lina took an aggressive tone against the opinion that Ms. Cook beholds.
Opinions, like diversity, are valuable, no matter how destructive and awkward
they may sound. To say that one "lives in complete harmony with nature" may be
the polar opposite of stating "the sound of a chainsaw warms my heart..and
means progress", but, there may actually be beauty in both. I frown upon the
old growth logging that remains, but the sound of chainsaw does not put a
hollow tickle deep inside my heart. I run them daily, building bridges,
puncheons, and turnpikes on trails throughout the northwest. Example: I may
testify against a Forest Practices Board decision for a specific logging
operation because of its greater ecological impact. Later that day I may bump
into a logger, let's say in Forks, Washington, and he explains to me the
madness of the lunatic, environmental, tree hugging movement. As mad as it
sounds, I will listen and respect his opinion. I will present mine in terms
that we may both understand, on the same level and mind frame. Respect is a
prerequisite for attempting to alter someone's opinion. Ms. Nicolia failed to
present this respect.
--Kyle Guzlas

In response to Lina Nicolia:
Mahalo (thank you) for your message. My sentiments exactly!
--Puanani Rogers

**If you're new to EarthNet, drop me a line and I'll send you copies of the
EarthNet News issues that started this war o' words.  Or maybe you've got
something else you want to get off of your chest?  Send your letters to
mailto:earthnet@envirocitizen.org
We reserve the right to edit for length, clarity, and purpose.

GLIMMER OF HOPE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proving that campus officials aren't always full of hot air, the University of
Pennsylvania announced that it's teaming up with local energy providers for
what will be the largest purchase of wind energy in U.S. history.  For more
information, check out http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/releases/2001/Q4/wind.html


ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF WAR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This week, our look at the environmental impacts of war continues, examining
Agent Orange.

Named after the orange band used to mark the drums in which it was stored,
"Agent Orange" was responsible for vast environmental destruction in Vietnam,
which can still be seen today. It is a simple herbicide used extensively during
the height of the Vietnam War as a defoliant to remove enemy cover.

By 1971, the United States had sprayed about 19 million gallons of the
defoliant over parts of South Vietnam as part of its military strategy. This
weapon of war has had tragic repercussions on Vietnam, obliterating a third of
its mangrove forests, which are now covered with dry scrub and grassland known
as "American grass."

After spraying millions of gallons of the defoliant over Vietnam, and exposing
its own soldiers to deadly dioxin, the US realized its mistake. This touted
miracle worker was found to contain dangerous, cancer-causing toxins --
affecting everyone who was in the vicinity of Agent Orange.

As we have already seen, war degrades not only the quality of our environment,
but also the quality of human life. For more than a generation, practically
every family in South Vietnam has been affected by birth defects, miscarriages,
illness and early deaths. Controversy over removing landmines in Vietnam has
heightened after evidence that their removal might also destabilize the Agent
Orange that has saturated much of the soil, releasing it into water systems.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://www.hatfieldgroup.com/featured/vietnam.htm;
http://www.lewispublishing.com/faq.htm;
http://www.vietnam25.org/index-ie-f.html


JOBS AND INTERNSHIPS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are a sampling of the over 200 environmental and activist jobs and
internships listed at www.envirocitizen.org/enet/jobs/index.asp!

The National Wildlife Federation is hiring a Regional Director in Atlanta, GA.
Find the job description at
http://www.envirocitizen.org/enet/jobs/detail.asp?id=3586

McHenry County Conservation District is looking for a Wildlife Resource Center
Intern in Wonder Lake, IL.  Find the job description at
http://www.envirocitizen.org/enet/jobs/detail.asp?id=3608

Act Now Productions seeks a Campaign Coordinator in San Francisco, CA.  Find
the job description at
http://www.envirocitizen.org/enet/jobs/detail.asp?id=3593


CONFERENCES, GATHERINGS AND VIEWINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lots more events listed at http://www.envirocitizen.org/enet/events/index.asp

WHAT: 2nd Campus Env. Leadersh. Summit of New England
WHERE: Brandeis University, Waltham, MA
WHEN:  November 9, 2001
FOR MORE INFO: http://www.envirocitizen.org/enet/events/detail.asp?id=916

WHAT: Working Lands Conference
WHERE: Delevan, WI              
WHEN:  November 8-9, 2001
FOR MORE INFO: http://www.envirocitizen.org/enet/events/detail.asp?id=949

WHAT: Wild Arts Festival        
WHERE: Portland, OR
WHEN: November 23-25, 2001
FOR MORE INFO: http://www.envirocitizen.org/enet/events/detail.asp?id=939
        

ACTIVIST PHONE BOOK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Capitol Switchboard: 202.224.3121
White House Comment Line: 202.456.1111
EarthNet Action Center: http://congress.nw.dc.us/cec
White House Address: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC 20500
Senate Address: US Senate, Washington, DC 20510
House Address: US House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515
**Look up e-mail addresses in a comprehensive congressional directory at
http://congress.nw.dc.us/cec/congdir.html or http://www.vote-smart.org/ce

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Write your own short articles for submission to EarthNet. We are particularly
interested in articles about student activism on your campus. The email
accounts for EarthNet News are:
For general comments: mailto:earthnet@envirocitizen.org
Submit Jobs/Internships/Volunteer listings at
http://www.envirocitizen.org/enet/jobs/add.asp.
Submit Events at http://www.envirocitizen.org/enet/events/add.asp.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to our listserv, EarthNet News, go to
http://www.envirocitizen.org/subscribe.html, or send an email to
mailto:earthnet@envirocitizen.org with the subject subscribe

Landscope: News and Views from American Lands

October 31, 2001

GAO Study Found Forest Service Timber Subsidy Report Unreliable

Responding to concern over money-losing timber sales during the 1980's,
Congress, the Forest Service and the General Accounting Office (GAO)
developed a system to track timber sale costs called the Timber Sales
Program Information Reporting System (TSPIRS).  On October 22, 2001, the
GAO released a report finding that the Forest Service's TSPIRS reports
were unreliable, not released in a timely manner and did not provide the
basic cost accounting information needed to determine the net cost of
the logging program.  The report was requested by Representatives George
Miller (D-CA) and Cynthia McKinney (D-GA).  The Representatives asked
the GAO to prepare a report detailing the budgetary impact of the Forest
Service timber sale program and to update their previous reports on the
timber sale program, which revealed more than $2 billion in taxpayer
losses between 1992-1997.

The GAO concluded that it was "impractical, if not impossible, for us or
anyone to accurately determine the Forest Service's timber sales program
cost."  The report further accuses the Forest Service of "serious
accounting and financial reporting deficiencies."  The report found that
the Forest Service is using accounting practices that hide the costs of
the timber sale program - such as charging timber sale program costs to
other programs or charging staff time based on the budget, rather than
actual time spent on the program.  Charging employee time to another
accounts also hid costs of the timber sale program.

These GAO findings are very disturbing, as the Forest Service continues
to make the case for using the money loosing timber sale program to
restore forests; now without any accountability to the public.  For more
information, contact Anne Martin mailto:annem@americanlands.org.  For a
copy of the GAO report see: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d011101r.pdf.


Forest Service Proposes to Reduce Public Participation in Forest
Management

On September 20, 2001, the Forest Service proposed to reduce public
participation in decisions affecting National Forests.  The proposal
will allow the Forest Service to increase the use of Categorical
Exclusions (a method of avoiding conducting environmental analysis) and
will eliminate the public's opportunity to comment on and file
administrative appeals of many Forest Service projects.

Forest Service regulations currently prohibit the use of a Categorical
Exclusion whenever extraordinary circumstances, such as roadless areas,
threatened and endangered species habitat, and Research Natural Areas,
are present.  The Forest Service proposes to eliminate this restriction,
enabling them to allow off road vehicles in roadless areas and timber
sales in endangered species habitat without public comments or appeals.  
Get more information, a sample letter and send a free fax at
http://www.heartwood.org/CE.html.

Written comments to the Forest Service must be received by November 19,
2001 and sent to: Director, Lands Staff, 4th Floor-South, Mail Stop
1104, Sidney R. Yates Federal Building, Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box
96090, Washington, DC 20090-6090.  To send electronic mail
to:landsidce@fs.fed.us.  For more information contact Joshua Martin at
812-233-5456, mailto:joshua@americanlands.org.

FUDGING THE FACTS: Norton draws fire for Senate testimony

ENVIRONMENTAL ROLLBACKS: Special interests on the move

PUBLIC MANDATE: Overwhelming support for restoring grizzlies

DOLPHIN-SAFE TUNA: Defenders goes to court to protect dolphins

RESTORING FISHERS: They return to wilds of Tennessee

SAVING SEA OTTERS: Scientists can't explain decline of species

Special Financial Benefits for DEN readers!

1. FUDGING THE FACTS: Norton draws fire for Senate testimony Defenders of Wildlife and seven other major environmental organizations called this week for the Senate to investigate whether the Interior Department is withholding scientific information critical to the congressional debate over whether to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development. In a letter to Senate leaders, the organizations pointed to recent news reports that have raised serious questions about whether Congress has been fully informed on the issue now before the Senate. Those news reports revealed: That the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has warned in two internal reports that opening the Arctic refuge to oil development might violate an international agreement to protect polar bears, but those reports have never reached Congress. That in Senate testimony, Norton left out scientific data from the Fish and Wildlife Service showing that drilling would harm caribou. She also provided erroneous data. "It appears that when Secretary Norton says policy will be based on sound science, she really means science that sounds good to her," Defenders Vice President Robert Dewey said. "Members of Congress need the Secretary of the Interior to play straight with them on polar bears, caribou and other wildlife that would be harmed by drilling in the refuge, and it's not clear that she is." Click here to read the news release: http://www.defenders.org/releases/pr2001/pr103101.html Support is growing for protecting America's greatest wildlife sanctuary. Some of the largest unions in organized labor – including the Service Employees International Union threw their support today behind the save-the-Arctic effort. But Big Oil and its allies in Congress are beating the drum again for an energy bill that opens the refuge to drilling. They insist that drilling would strengthen national security, and they're demanding that the Senate take up the bill. The House passed it last summer. Newspapers across the country are denouncing the pro-drilling crowd for exploiting our national crisis. The Portland Oregonian called it "an unseemly oil rush," and the New York Times said, "Plainly, the road to reduced dependence leads in a different direction — toward conservation (meaning increased efficiency) and development of non-oil energy sources." For more on this issue, visit www.SaveArcticRefuge.org. And check our main Web site, www.defenders.org, daily for news updates on this issue and others. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ROLLBACKS: Special interests on the move With the nation focused on our national emergency, special interests are quietly trying to undermine many of our environmental protections. Just last week, the Bureau of Land Management reversed stricter environmental standards on gold, copper and lead mining operations. For the first time, these standards would have given federal officials the power to block mines likely to cause "substantial irreparable harm" to water quality and other natural resources. As the New York Times said in an editorial: "It is difficult at a moment of crisis to devote much thought to things like mining rules or snowmobile bans. But if the president's top officials have time to undermine environmental regulations, the public needs to pay attention as well." 3. PUBLIC MANDATE: Overwhelming support for restoring grizzlies With DEN members leading the way, the public has overwhelmingly voiced its support for bringing grizzly bears back to the remote Bitterroot Mountains along the Idaho-Montana border. But Secretary Norton says she may ignore this strong public mandate. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service received more than 28,000 written comments on Norton's decision to scrap the recovery plan -- which is critically important for the long-term survival of grizzlies in the Lower 48 states. More than 97 percent opposed her decision, the agency said. Thanks to members of DEN who sent 12,594 comments. The agency said 98 percent of Idahoans and 93 percent of Montanans who commented want the reintroduction to proceed. But Norton spokesman Mark Pfeifle said the reintroduction plan was "never a public opinion contest." Defenders Vice President Bob Ferris pointed out that Secretary Norton promised during her Senate confirmation hearings to enforce the Endangered Species Act. "That law requires Secretary Norton to restore imperiled species like the grizzly bear, and the Bitterroots offer the best potential habitat in the Lower 48 states," Ferris said. "Now, the people have spoken on this issue, and we expect our public officials to abide by the law and by the will of the people. The secretary tends to listen only to those who agree with her, even when that's less than 3 percent of the people." Help save grizzly bears from extirpation. Tell Secretary Norton that you support restoring grizzlies. Click here http://www.saveourbears.org to urge her to allow this critical project to go forward. 4. DOLPHIN-SAFE TUNA: Defenders goes to court to protect dolphins Defenders has gone to court to try to force the federal government to abide by the law that established "dolphin-safe" labels on tuna cans. In the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, some schools of yellowfin tuna associate with dolphins, and fishermen have found that setting nets around dolphins is a lucrative way to catch the tuna swimming nearby. But the practice kills dolphins. Since the 1950s, more than 7 million dolphins have died from this fishery. Dolphin-safe tuna labels, one of the significant environmental protections of the 1990s, helped cut the number of deaths of dolphins by tuna-fishing operations by 90 percent. But now, the federal government, bowing to pressure from Mexico and other nations, has signed an international agreement that weakens this protection for dolphins. Under that agreement, tuna can be labeled dolphin-safe even when dolphins are killed or injured by this fishing practice. Led by William Snape, the organization's vice president for law and litigation, Defenders is challenging the agreement in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York City. For more information, click here http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/new/dolphins.html 5. RESTORING FISHERS: They return to wilds of Tennessee 6. SAVING SEA OTTERS: Scientists can't explain decline of species Scientists are not sure why sea otters are steadily declining along the California coast. The potential causes are disease, drowning in fishing gear, lack of food and habitat degradation. Whatever the cause, the population of southern sea otters has fallen to less than 2,000. Research is desperately needed. Yet repeated federal budget cuts have eliminated money for even the most basic studies. Sea otters are what's known as a keystone species, meaning the health of the entire marine ecosystem depends on their survival. Visit www.saveseaotters.org to learn how you can help. And watch our new animation about the sea otter and the possible causes of its decline. 7. Special Financial Benefits for DEN readers! As a supporter of Defenders of Wildlife, we can offer you special benefits we have negotiated with the companies below. Besides the value you'll receive, each of these partners will make a contribution to Defenders at no additional cost to you to fund our programs. For the next 30 days, you can apply for a Defenders of Wildlife credit card with an introductory 0% Annual Percentage Rate (APR)* on all cash advances, including balance transfers, for the first 9 months!* In addition you can select from one of 11 beautiful wildlife images for your personal card to showcase your love for America's wildlife. To apply, simply click on : http://www.webapply.com/defenders-wwb3. Special rates are available through MBNA America Bank, N.A. for Certificates of Deposit Accounts, Individual Retirement Accounts, and Money Market Deposit Accounts. All have the full protection of FDIC insurance up to $100,000 per depositor. For more information go to www.mbna.com/goldportfolio/rates/defenders or call MBNA toll free at 1-800-900-6653. If you call, please mention priority code JA03P so that they know you are a Defenders' supporter entitled to the special rates. Save on the cost of checks that your bank charges you. Order checks featuring beautiful images of wolves or dolphins at great prices. Go to: http://www.defenders.org/village/checks.html. Tired of pop-up advertising? Worried about your online privacy or the reliability of your Internet service provider? Get linked! Sign up with EarthLink and get 30 free days of Unlimited Access (a $21.95 savings). Then just pay $21.95 per month. EarthLink will also make a contribution of $20 in your name to Defenders to help underwrite its wildlife programs. Go to http://cgi.earthlink.net/joinnow/dw/index.jhtml?RN=400063534 Free information on making a will and other areas of estate planning from a renowned national expert. Go to http://www.defenders.org/donate/legacy/main.html CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE TO DENLINES DENlines is a bi-weekly publication of Defenders of Wildlife, a leading national conservation organization recognized as one of the nation's most progressive advocates for wildlife and its habitat. It is known for its effective leadership on endangered species issues, particularly predators such as brown bears and gray wolves. Defenders also advocates new approaches to wildlife conservation that protect species before they become endangered. Founded in 1947, Defenders is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization with more than 400,000 members and supporters. To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to denlines@defenders.org and put the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. Defenders of Wildlife 1101 14th Street, N.W. Suite 1400 Washington, DC 20005 Copyright Defenders of Wildlife 2001

TAKE ACTION NOV 7TH!  EXPOSE CITIGROUP TO THE LIGHT OF THE SUN!

In this Post :
#1 Update on Nov 7th day of action
#2 CASE STUDY Peru : Camisea Gas Field
#3 CASE STUDY Ecuador : OCP Pipeline

Attached in WORD - Nov 7th organizing packet with tons of great resources
like guerrilla theater ideas, sample press and outreach materials.  The
guide is focused on Citigroup and Global Warming but has useful resources
for all aspects of the Citi campaign.  Many thanks to the Hot an' Bothered
Climate Campaign for their work compiling it!

************************************
#1 ACROSS NORTH AMERICA PEOPLE MOBILIZE FOR NOVEMBER 7TH

A great coalition of groups including Rainforest Action Network, Free the
Planet, Powershift, SEAC, the Hot n' Bothered Climate Campaign and dozen of
local groups have been mobilizing for the November 7th Shining the Light on
Citi Day of Action.
Already we've heard from people in over 40 cities saying they are planning
on taking action on November 7th and we're hoping to hear about a whole lot
more!  We've heard reports of phone zap tables, campus credit card cut ups
and lots of visits to local Citi branches!  Many people are focusing on
Citigroup's investments in fossil fuels and global warming.   In others
places people are using the sun to EXPOSE Citi's destructive practices
across the board from forest destruction to predatory lending, sex
discrimination to global poverty.

It's not to late to organize an action in your community.  Even if its just
you and a few friends join the fun and do a symbolic delivery.  It's easy.
Make a cardboard sun. (instructions are in the attached organizing packet or
find them at
http://www.ran.org/ran_campaigns/citigroup/shinethesun/sunmask.html) Then
write Citigroup CEO Sandy Weill a message on it telling him to stop
investing in destructive fossil fuel projects (like the 2 profiled in the
case studies below) and start investing in clean renewable energy.   Let him
know that you won't be doing business with Citi and that you are spreading
the word about their destructive activities.  Then head down to your nearest
Citi branch and drop it off.  It's a simple action and as it happens all
around the US and Canada its going to send a strong message to Citigroup to
clean up their act.

Find the nearest Citi branch to you :
http://www.citibank.com/branches/
http://www.citifinancial.com/branchlocator/
http://locator.ssbbranches.com/
http://www.citibank.com/citimortgage/mymortgage/landings/index8.htm?td=noRef
er

Other simple but profound actions you can take are : write a letter to the
editor of your local paper or submit an op-ed.
There are samples of both in the attached organizing packet.   Perform some
educational theatrics and hand out flyers to Citi customers.  Alert the
media to your actions.  Have fun and spread the word that Citigroup is the
world's most destructive bank!

Let us know what you are organizing and we can help spread the word to the
media and connect you with other local activists.
CONTACT Rainforest Action Network at 415-398-4404/1-800-989-RAIN or email us
at organize@ran.org

************************************
#2
Case Study:  Camisea Gas Field Project

Citigroup’s role: Financial Advisor to the consortium on both upstream
production sites and downstream transportation concessions

Project Sponsors: Hunt Oil, Pluspetrol, SK Corporation

Location:  Camisean jungle on the Urubamba River
Peru, South America

Profile:  The Camisea Gas Field Project is an effort to build an
infrastructure to recover, process and transport natural gas liquids from
the Camisea gas field.  The field has an estimated 8.7 trillion cubic feet
of gas reserves and 600 million barrels of oil and liquid gas reserves.
Project plans call for 400 million cubic feet of gas and 20,000 barrels of
liquid petroleum per day which will be transported by two trans-Andes gas
and liquid pipelines to processing plants on the Pacific Coast. The
international consortium responsible for the project has a 40-year
concession to exploit gas and a 30-year concession to extract Camisea oil.
This lengthy duration of this project is likely to guarantee ongoing
environmental damage to the delicate ecosystems of Peru.  Construction of
the gas pipeline was scheduled to begin in December 2003; however all
parties involved are hoping to accelerate the start date by seven months.



Environmental Destruction:
*The Camisean rivers and streams are becoming contaminated with drilling
waters containing metals and hydrocarbons, harming aquatic species and human
communities.
*On-going fuel spillage at nearby operation centers further contaminate the
local environment.  Some spills have been recorded to spread hundreds of
kilometers along rivers, affecting vast areas of rainforest and aquatic
ecosystems.
*The project is responsible for destroying more rainforest area than had
been established by initial agreements with the local community.
*Production companies are burying plastic-wrapped toxic cuttings in
protected lands in the Camisean jungle.  These cuttings are extremely toxic
and could leach into groundwater.
*Deforestation, pollution from wells, pipelines and other transport threaten
animal and plant life native to the region.  Many of these species are at
risk of extinction.
*Production companies are responsible for dumping inorganic garbage into
ravines at Camisea.

Social Destruction:
*Production companies are likely to build roads into the Camisean
rainforest, allowing access to outside populations into the rainforest.
Indigenous populations have consistently lost territory and access to
important natural resources as a result of road building into rainforest
areas. Territorial control is necessary to the survival of Amazonian
indigenous populations whose way of life and well-being are closely tied to
a thriving rainforest.
*Production companies threaten two of the world's last indigenous peoples,
the Nahua and Kugapakori, with extermination.  Production crews have brought
threatening illnesses from which these indigenous populations have no
immunity against.
*Water pollution caused by these companies poison the drinking water and the
fish, on which the indigenous populations depend for survival.

Citigroup's Involvement:
Citibank has been named the financial advisor, the most influential
position, in the consortium for the Camisea project.  As the financial
advisor, Citigroup has the ability to pull out of this project and at the
very least, set very strong social and environmental standards.  Citigroup
must take a stand that this type of destructive development is unacceptable
in the 21st century.

************************************
#3

Case Study:  Oleoducto de Crudos Pesados (OCP)

Location:  Ecuador, South America.

Profile:  The Oleoducto de Crudos Pesados (OCP) is a 298 mile pipeline that
will deliver up to 450,000 barrels per day of heavy crude from oil reserves
in Ecuador's eastern rainforests to refineries on the Pacific Coast.  The
project, backed by the OCP Consortium, Ltd., will double Ecuador's oil
production capacity.  The creation of new oil wells, service roads, and flow
lines will be needed, which will be in endangered ecosystems.  Processing
and refining facilities will be required near protected areas.  Current
refineries in Esmereldes will be required to increase output, even though
local residents are plagued by high rates of cancer and fires and explosions
related to the refinery. These communities as well as others have been
engaged in resistance to the pipeline, including legal strategies, sit ins
and bloackades. Creation of the pipeline will begin in August 2001 and be
completed in mid 2003.

Environmental Destruction:
*Major oil spills are likely along the OCP's route because of the dangers of
shipping crude oil over the geologically unstable Andes range.
*Much of the crude reserves will flow through pristine and protected regions
of high biodiversity, such as the breathtaking Mindo-Nambillo Cloudforest
Reserve.  This region is home to an array of threatened and endangered
Andean habitats.
*The pipeline will threaten river systems in its path as well as communities
near production and processing zones.
*The new oil capacity created by the OCP will attract new investors to the
Southern Amazon, causing further environmental destruction.

Social Destruction:
*More oil production capability may increase Ecuador's high national debt.
Ecuador has over borrowed from international creditors because of the
promise of new oil.  Moreover, highly unstable oil prices may force Ecuador
to default on a number of loan payments.
*High rates of cancer and other degenerative diseases have been linked to
those communities living in oil producing regions and near refineries.
Construction of the OCP will likely increase the prevalence of such
illnesses.
*Many local communities along the OCP's route make their living on
eco-tourism, recreational activities, and scientific communities. These
communities will undoubtedly have their livelihoods threatened.
*Ecuadorian civil unrest will likely inspire pipeline bombings and other oil
related violence.
*The influx of construction workers will cause increases in diseases, crime,
prostitution, rape, deforestation, food shortages and exploitation of
natural resources.

Citigroup's Involvement:
Citibank heavily financed Perez Companc to build the OCP.  Perez Companc is
the least financially stable of the OCP Ltd. Consortium Member and 15% owner
of the OCP pipeline.   This Argentinean oil company was awarded the EPC
contract to build and manage the OPC contract.  By becoming the lead backer
of Perez Companc, Citibank allowed it to play a major participant in OCP's
project finance deal. Perez Companc also owns bloacks 31 and 20 which are
targets for new rounds of drilling that will follow the completion of the
pipeline. Both of these bloacks are wthin in Yasuni National Park, an area
of critical biological importance.


For more information, please see
http://www.ran.org/news/newsitem.php?id=435&area=home and
http://www.amazonwatch.org

November 2, 2001

PRESS RELEASE: FOREST SERVICE DIRECTIVE WOULD KEEP PUBLIC IN THE DARK
ABOUT LOGGING, ROAD BUILDING IN AMERICA'S PRISTINE FORESTS

Contact: Harlin Savage
Director, Colorado Forest Project
Ph: 303-473-9525

Washington, DC-The American Lands Alliance today sharply criticized a
proposed Forest Service directive that would eliminate meaningful public
review and scientific analysis of activities affecting critical National
Forest resources. These resources include inventoried roadless areas,
endangered and threatened species habitat, municipal watersheds, and
Native American religious and cultural sites. The proposed directive
would leave citizens in the dark about destructive projects until it was
too late to stop them or find better alternative. The move represents a
reversal of long-standing agency practice set during President Bush
senior's administration.

"This directive is part of the current Administration's sweeping
behind-the-scenes effort to dismantle laws that protect America's
natural heritage and the public's right-to-know," said Randi Spivak,
Executive Director of the American Lands Alliance.

In addition, Spivak cited a recent Justice Department memo limiting
federal-agency responses to Freedom of Information Act requests and
Administration efforts to overturn policies, developed with extensive
public input, that would protect roadless areas, and prohibit mining
that could irreversibly damage America's public lands.

The directive would partially reverse the Forest Service's guidelines
for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. Currently, the
agency is required to solicit public comment and assess the impacts of
projects, even small-scale projects, involving inventoried roadless
areas and other critical resources. The change would give local forest
managers much broader discretion to approve virtually any such project
by simply sending a memo to the file-no scientific analysis, no public
scrutiny. Projects that could be rubber-stamped in this way include
salvage logging, small-scale commercial logging, certain mining
activities, and construction of roads, motorized trails, and utility
lines.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is the premier legal
charter establishing the public's right-to-know. It requires federal
agencies, including the Forest Service, to analyze the impacts of
proposed projects before undertaking them. NEPA also requires that the
agencies consider a range of alternatives and mitigation measures and
provide for public review and comment. These requirements apply to major
projects that may have significant environmental and social impacts. For
small projects, the impacts of which are likely to be non-existent,
agencies may issue "categorical exclusions (CE)," allowing projects to
proceed without extensive analysis and public review.

The new directive would reverse current Forest Service policy, which
prohibits the use of CEs when critical forest resources or extraordinary
circumstances are involved. These resources include:

· Inventoried roadless areas
· Threatened and endangered species or their critical habitat
· Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds
· Congressionally designated wilderness areas, wilderness study areas,
or National Recreation Areas.
· Steep slopes or highly erosive soils
· Research Natural Areas
· Native American religious or cultural sites, archaeological sites, or
historic properties or areas

"The agency is clearly backing away from its commitment to protect these
precious resources and to involve the public in doing so. By broadly
expanding its use of CEs, the Forest Service is leaving citizens with no
option other than litigation when they want to challenge a project,"
said Harlin Savage, Director of the American Lands Alliance's Colorado
Forest Project. "With other agency decisions, the appeals process may
lead to compromise instead of litigation. But that option is not
available with many CEs."

Although the directive would apply only to projects the Forest Service
considers to be small-scale, the cumulative effect of many such projects
is likely to be significant. Consider the lynx, a threatened species,
which dens in tangles of dead and down trees-the stuff the Forest
Service sells as salvage. The directive would allow salvage logging up
to one million board feet in lynx habitat. While one salvage sale might
not jeopardize the species, many of them would have a significant
cumulative impact.

"Most Americans want to protect their public wildlands, the spectacular
landscapes that have shaped our nation and defined its character,"
Spivak said. "Yet under the radar screen, this Administration continues
to rollback environmental laws and erode the public process even during
this time of crisis for our country."

The Forest Service is accepting public comment on the proposed directive
until November 19, 2001. The text of the directive can be found in the
Federal Register, September 20, 2001, Volume 66, Number 183. Page
48412-48416.

Positive Energy
October 29 - November 4
v1.19

Greenpeace's Clean Energy Now Campaign Weekly
Good News update - "Positive Energy"

***Final Push For Solar In San Francisco!!!

Voters will hit the election booths in less in a week to
determine if San Francisco will become a world leader
in solar power. This is our big chance. Greenpeace has
been campaigning for the last three months to pass
Propositions B, H, F, and I, and needs your help in the
last few critical days before the election to get out
the vote. There are two neighborhood mobilizations this
weekend and phone banking from 6-9pm on November 1st, 4th,
and 5th at the Greenpeace office. All volunteers welcome
and fed well!!!

To find out about Phone banking opportunities please
contact Stephanie at the Greenpeace Office
Phone 415-255-9221 x320

To come to the weekend mobilizations at the
Ferry Building Plaza (Embarcadero at Market) on
Saturday, November 3rd at 10AM.
Or contact Cathleen
also at Greenpeace on 415-255-9221 x323.


***Silicon Valley Becomes Clean Energy Valley

On October 31st, 2001, the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers Union Local 332, the largest
IBEW local in Northern California, announced the
completion of their new headquarters in San Jose
featuring the largest commercial solar power installation
west of the Mississippi.  The new Union Hall's
photovoltaic (PV) solar power system generates
55 kilowatts of power, enough to provide for 70 to 80%
of the building's total electrical needs, cutting the
facility's utility bill in half while sending excess
power back to the grid. The construction of Local 332's
new model Green Building reflects IBEW's evolving national
policy supporting the growing renewable energy industry to
create more jobs and protect the climate.
                                  
IBEW Local 332's headquarters are at 2125 Canoas Garden Ave.,
San Jose CA 95125. For more information contact: Jay James,
chairman of the Building Committee, at jjames@ibew332.org


The "Positive Energy" newsletter and the web site,
www.cleanenergynow.org, will give you good news about ways
to achieve clean air, climate justice and renewable energy
solutions to our current energy crisis.

Want to do more? Become a Greenpeace member today!
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/join2/cen.htm

Because the openings for devices designed to allow
sea turtles to escape from shrimp trawl nets are too
small, larger animals are being trapped and drowned.
Please respond to this alert and send a message to
the National Marine Fisheries Service that quick action
is needed to end this tragedy.

You can take action on this alert either via email
(please see directions below) or via the web at:
http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/seaturtles/wkwxs54v78xbmx

Visit the web address below and tell your friends to
take action on this important campaign!
http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/seaturtles/forward/wkwxs54v78xbmx

We encourage you to take action by November 16, 2001

Large Sea Turtles are Dying in Shrimp Trawls

----------------------

There are few creatures in the ocean more magnificent
than sea turtles. Sea turtles spend their lives at
sea, with females coming ashore only to nest, and navigate
thousands of miles in their lifetimes. They have survived
for more than 100 million years, but are now threatened
with extinction. All six species found in U.S. waters
are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act.

For more than a decade, turtle excluder devices (TEDs)
have been required under the Endangered Species Act
in most shrimp trawl nets to allow air breathing sea
turtles to escape the nets before they drown. These
devices inserted into nets have proven highly effective
at reducing the number of deaths for medium and smaller
sized sea turtles, while not significantly reducing
shrimp catches, if at all. Over time, however, researchers
have learned that the TED openings are too small to
allow larger turtles to escape. As a result, larger
turtles, including leatherback, loggerhead, and green
turtles, continue to die in significant numbers in
shrimp nets.  

Research in the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico has
shown that 47 percent of stranded (found dead) loggerheads
and 7 percent of green sea turtles are too large to
fit through currently-required TED openings. In the
eastern Gulf of Mexico, in 1999, 83 to 96 percent of
stranded loggerhead turtles had bodies too big to fit
through the current TEDs openings.

Larger TED openings (and larger TEDs) have proven highly
effective when used correctly. Emergency rules put
in place to protect leatherback turtles over the last
two years resulted in significant reductions in sea
turtle deaths. In Georgia, for example, strandings
declined 40 percent when rules for larger TED openings
to protect leatherbacks were implemented.  

Recently, after years of delay, the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) has proposed regulations to
require TEDs with larger openings, but these rules
will not go in effect until a full year after the final
regulation is published! This means that more than
a thousand large sea turtles will die during the 2002
shrimping season. Larger TED openings must be required
now!

Requiring increased TED opening sizes in U.S. waters
is also vital for sea turtle protection worldwide.
TEDs are required in countries that export shrimp to
the United States. The sooner the U.S. fixes its TEDs
regulations, the sooner similar changes will go into
effect around the world.

Please respond to this alert by November 16 and let
NMFS know action is needed to protect larger sea turtles
without further delay. Thank you for your help.

----------------------

INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPOND VIA THE WEB:
If you have access to a web browser, you can take action
on this alert by going to the following URL:

http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/seaturtles/wkwxs54v78xbmx  

INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPOND VIA EMAIL:
Just choose the "reply to sender" option on your email
program, and edit the letter below as you wish. Do
not delete "-YOU MAY EDIT THE LETTER BELOW-" and "-END
OF LETTER-". Please do not add your name and address
to your letter. Our system automatically does this
for you.  

We STRONGLY encourage you to make edits directly to
our sample letter below, and put the alert talking
points into your own words. An individualized letter
is worth ten computer generated letters. Of course,
hundreds of unedited letters will still create a large
impact, so please reply even if you don't have time
to personalize the letter.

Your letter will be addressed and sent to:
Chief, Endangered Species Division


-------YOU MAY EDIT THE LETTER BELOW---------

I am extremely concerned about protecting threatened
and endangered sea turtles. I support the proposed
changes to the Turtle Excluder Device (TED) regulations
to increase the size of openings and allow larger sea
turtles to escape shrimp trawls. I urge the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to implement these
regulations as soon as possible so that they will be
in place for the 2002 shrimping season, which begins
next spring. Further delays are unwarranted and unacceptable.

The failure of current TED openings to release larger
turtles was identified in the mid-1990s. The need for
larger TED openings is well documented and their effectiveness
for protecting large sea turtles has been confirmed.
The current regulations do not meet the requirement
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that TEDs be
97 percent effective in excluding sea turtles. NMFS
needs to take immediate action to fulfill its responsibilities
under the ESA and implement the proposed TED modifications
as soon as possible.  

I support NMFS' proposed technical changes for TEDs
and TED openings for all shrimp nets in the Atlantic
and Gulf of Mexico to ensure that leatherback and large
loggerhead and green turtles can escape shrimp trawls.
I also support the proposal to require all shrimpers,
including bait shrimpers, to use TEDs at all times.

Finally, I urge you to implement these regulations
immediately. A one-year delay after publication of
the final rule will result in many more deaths of threatened
and endangered turtles and is therefore unacceptable.
Thank you for considering my views.

-------END OF LETTER-------------------------

Natural Resources Defense Council's

CALIFORNIA ACTIVIST NETWORK ACTION ALERT

NRDC's California Activist Network was formed to mobilize and provide
action tools to Californians and others concerned with protecting the
state's extraordinary wealth of natural treasures and the health of
its citizens.

November 5, 2001
========================================
In This Issue:

--Action alerts--

1. Tell your state assemblymember to cut global warming pollution from
cars

2. Urge the mayor of Los Angeles to help minimize health risks from a
new port terminal

3. San Franciscans:  Vote "Yes" on Proposition D!

--Updates on Previous alerts--

1. State environmental legislation

======================================================
You will also find these alerts in NRDC'S Earth Action Center, which
includes tools for taking action easily online, at
http://www.nrdc.org/action

(Please do not reply to this message; see the instructions below for
how to unsubscribe or contact NRDC with questions or comments.)

=============
Action alerts
=============

1. Tell your state assemblymember to cut global warming pollution from
cars

Passenger vehicles account for one-third of California's global
warming pollution. These emissions contribute to increased
temperatures, rising sea levels, and warmer and more variable
precipitation, which in turn lead to more smog, irreparable damage to
natural ecosystems, and economic harm to the state's agriculture and
tourism industries.

AB 1058, introduced by Assemblymember Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), would
direct the California Air Resources Board to adopt regulations to
achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of carbon
dioxide (the heat-trapping gas most responsible for global warming)
emitted by passenger cars and light-duty trucks.

== What to do ==
Urge your California assemblymember to support and co-sponsor AB 1058.

== Contact information ==
You can contact your state assemblymember directly from NRDC's Earth
Action Center at http://www.nrdc.org/action.

== If you live in the Santa Monica area ==
We strongly encourage you to attend an informational hearing regarding
the impacts of global warming in California conducted by the Assembly
Select Committee on Air and Water Quality. The hearing will include
testimony from experts on global warming, as well as from key
environmental and community leaders (including from NRDC) and
representatives of the business community. The general public also
will have an opportunity to testify.

== Where and when ==
Friday, November 9th
10:00am - 2:00pm
Santa Monica City Hall (Council Chambers)
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica

You may call Anne Baker in Assemblymember Pavley's office at
916-319-2041 with any questions.

2. Urge the mayor of Los Angeles to help minimize health risks from a
new port terminal

The Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners and the City of Los
Angeles recently approved a permit for China Shipping Holding Company,
Ltd. to construct and operate a massive 110-acre container terminal at
the Port of Los Angeles. Vessels accessing the terminal would bring up
to one million additional containers to the port every year,
necessitating hundreds of thousands of additional diesel truck trips
to transport the containers into and out of the San Pedro-Wilmington
community. Studies show that the residents of this area (some of whom
live only 500 feet from the proposed terminal) already suffer from
some of the highest concentrations of diesel truck pollution in the
Los Angeles basin, as well as some of the highest cancer risks in the
South Coast from breathing polluted air.  

Mayor Jim Hahn, who is himself a resident of San Pedro, actively
campaigned on the issue of protecting harbor-area residents from port
activities. Upon taking office, Mayor Hahn directed the harbor board
to review all projects to ensure that harmful impacts of port-related
activities are minimized. But despite the mayor's directive (as well
as strong opposition from residents of the surrounding communities),
the board pushed through a permit allowing construction on the project
without first preparing an environmental impact report, as required by
law.

If the mayor steps in now, however, a fair settlement could be
negotiated that would ensure a proper environmental review and protect
the health of the communities' residents.

== What to do ==
Contact Mayor Hahn and urge him to live up to his campaign commitments
and intervene on this issue.

== Contact information ==
You can send a message to Mayor Hahn directly from NRDC's Earth Action
Center at http://www.nrdc.org/action. Or use the contact information
and sample letter below to send your own message, and please include
your own reasons for wanting to protect LA residents from the harmful
effects of diesel pollution from a new port terminal.

Mayor James Hahn
200 North Spring Street, Room 303
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone:  213-978-0600
Fax:  213-978-0656
Email:  jhahn@mayor.lacity.org

== Sample letter ==

Dear Mayor Hahn,

The Port of Los Angeles recently approved a coastal permit for China
Shipping, Ltd. to construct a new terminal. While a 1997 environmental
impact report that the port is relying on to support this project
considered the impacts of only 75,000 additional diesel trucks passing
through the community each year, the port itself admits that the first
phase of the project alone will bring in at least 170,000 diesel
trucks each year to service the new facility, which is located only
500 feet from the nearest homes.
  
I am aware that you live in one of the communities affected by this
project, and that you actively campaigned for mayor on this issue,
promising to protect residents of the Wilmington-San Pedro community
from harmful port-related activities. And in your August 9th letter to
the Board of Harbor Commissioners, you urged the board to take steps
to insure that "all adverse impacts upon the communities [from Port
projects are] mitigated."

But the board's quick approval despite your directive (and over strong
objections from residents) shows a complete disregard for your
concerns and those of your neighbors. I urge you to uphold your
campaign promise and to intervene in this matter to achieve an outcome
that protects the environment as well as the health of the
communities' residents.

Sincerely,

[Your name and address]

3. San Franciscans:  Vote "Yes" on Proposition D!

San Francisco Bay waters and wetlands offer residents and visitors
alike outstanding recreational opportunities and great scenic beauty.
Just as important, they also provide habitat for a wealth of fish and
wildlife species, such as steelhead, sturgeon, avocets and canvasback
ducks. The bay, however, is not what it used to be. Over the years,
the size of the bay has been reduced by more than one-third and
virtually all its original tidal wetlands have been lost to
development; as a result, many species, including the California
clapper rail bird and the salt marsh harvest mouse, have been pushed
to the brink of extinction. Although the pace of filling in the bay
has slowed significantly and restoration efforts have increased
recently, development continues to threaten the bay.  

Proposition D -- on the November 6th ballot in San Francisco -- would
protect the bay by requiring voters to approve any city-sponsored
development projects that would destroy 100 or more acres of the bay.
The measure would also protect the public by ensuring that voters,
rather than political appointees, make the final decisions on such
environmentally significant projects.

== What to do ==
If you live in San Francisco, go to the polls on November 6th and vote
"YES" on Proposition D. And, wherever you may live, please forward
this message to all your San Francisco friends and family members,
urging them to vote "yes" on Prop D on Tuesday.  

== For background ==
http://www.bayvoteyes.org

==========================
Updates on Previous alerts
==========================

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION
In last month's alert we asked you to urge Governor Davis to sign four
important environmental bills, and veto a fifth, passed during the
recently completed legislative session. We are pleased to report that
the governor signed all four "good" bills, and vetoed the "bad."
Thanks to all of you who helped persuade the governor to do the right
thing. You can read a wrap-up of all the state legislature's
significant work concerning the environment during this past session
at http://www.nrdc.org/wildcalifornia/legislation.html

==================================================
About Our Bulletins/How to Subscribe & Unsubscribe
==================================================

NRDC distributes three bulletins by email. To subscribe to any or all
of them or to join our activist networks, go to:
http://www.join.nrdcaction.org/subscribe.asp.

If you already subscribe and want to change your subscriptions or
update your email address or other information, go to:
http://www.join.nrdcaction.org/profileeditor
(or see the unsubscribe information below).

The CALIFORNIA ACTIVIST NETWORK ACTION ALERT is distributed monthly to
members of NRDC's California Activist Network and provides action
tools to Californians and others concerned with protecting the state's
natural resources and the health of its citizens. To unsubscribe from
the California Activist Network Action Alert, send an email message to
wildcalifornia@nrdcaction.org with REMOVE in the subject line.

EARTH ACTION is sent biweekly and calls out urgent environmental
issues at the national level and from around the country. To
unsubscribe from Earth Action, send an email message to
earthaction@nrdcaction.org with REMOVE in the subject line.

LEGISLATIVE WATCH is sent biweekly when Congress is in session and
tracks environmental bills moving through the federal legislature. To
unsubscribe from Legislative Watch, send an email message to
legwatch@nrdcaction.org with REMOVE in the subject line.

==========
About NRDC
==========

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a nonprofit environmental
organization with over 500,000 members nationwide and a staff of
scientists, attorneys and environmental experts. Our mission is to
protect the planet's wildlife and wild places and ensure a safe and
healthy environment for all living things.

For more information about NRDC or how to become a member of NRDC,
please contact us at:

Natural Resources Defense Council
40 West 20th Street
New York, NY 10011
212-727-4511 (voice) / 212-727-1773 (fax)
General email: nrdcinfo@nrdc.org
California Activist Network email: wildcalifornia@nrdc.org
http://www.nrdc.org

Also visit:
BioGems -- Saving Endangered Wild Places
A project of the Natural Resources Defense Council
http://www.savebiogems.org

Dear Friend of WWF:

Online dispatches from the WWF expedition to the Heart of Borneo
begin today!

Join three WWF scientific survey teams as they
travel into the thick rainforests of northeast Borneo on the
border of Sabah, Malaysia and Kalimantan, Indonesia, using the
latest technology to track elephants and rhinos. Follow the
scientists in the field from the WWF Web site at
http://newsletter.worldwildlife.org/YART06117C77FBBC247F as this
international effort sheds light on the habitat needs of these
endangered animals and builds a body of knowledge that will help
save these species and the places they need to survive.  
As the survey teams make their way through Borneo, one of the
most diverse and endangered habitats on earth, WWF's Eugene Lee
will keep a daily journal of his team's progress, along with
photos, maps, and an interactive "ask the scientist" section.
Experience what it is like to actually be part of the scientific
team by making this virtual trip!

Visit http://newsletter.worldwildlife.org/YART06117C76FBBC247F
daily for updates from Borneo.

Seed Treaty Approved in Rome - First Treaty of the 21st Century

After seven years of arduous debate, the FAO Conference adopted the
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture on
3 November 2001. The Treaty was approved with 116 votes in favor, and 2
abstentions - from the United States and Japan.

While the Treaty is flawed in relation to the number of crop species it
covers, the lack of money on the table for benefit-sharing, and ambiguities
related to intellectual property, it is a very positive step forward for
world food security. The Treaty revises the International Undertaking and
creates a legally binding international agreement that will enter into force
when ratified by at least 40 States. Civil society organizations (CSOs)
attending the meeting in Rome have pledged to encourage 40 states to ratify
the treaty prior to the World Food Summit Five Years Later scheduled for
10-13 June 2001.  

Pat Mooney, Executive Director of the ETC group spoke on behalf of all CSOs
attending the negotiations in Rome and congratulated those who made special
contributions to the final Treaty negotiations. CSOs joined others in
thanking Ambassador Fernando Gerbasi of Venezuela, the Chairman of the FAO
Commission on Genetic Resources, and Professor Jose Esquinas-Alcazar and
Clive Standard of the Secretariat for their excellent work. Mooney also
congratulated specific governments for their contributions, including:
Angola, Ethiopia, Tanzania of Africa; the Philippines, India, Malaysia of
Asia; Iran of the Middle East; Cuba of Latin America;  and Norway, the
Netherlands and Sweden of Europe. The CSOs gave special congratulations and
thanks to Mr. Lim of Malaysia, Mr. Borring of Norway, and representatives of
CGIAR who worked closely with Ambassador Gerbasi to make the Treaty become a
reality.  

ETC group will provide detailed analysis of the Treaty on PGRFA in the
coming days.

********************************

CGIAR Report Card  

On the occasion of the first ever "annual general meeting" of the
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) held in
Washington DC, October 29 - November 2, 2001, the ETC Group has released its
first "CG Report Card." The thirty-year old CGIAR is the world's dominant
science body for Third World agriculture. After three decades of working to
eradicate poverty for poor farmers, neither the poor nor their governments
were represented when the CG's members set a course for the future.  The
CGIAR is making painfully slow progress in the System's efforts to
democratize the governance of the 16 research centres that make up the
network. While there are a few bright spots, progress is not uniform across
all centres and subjects - and ETC group concludes that CGIAR fails to make
the grade. The report card is posted on ETC group's web site:
www.rafi.org. Look on the right hand side under "Just the Latest".

While much of the nation's attention is focused on other matters, the Bush
administration continues to move to dismantle some of our most important
national forest protections. By eliminating environmental review and public
involvement, the latest proposal would make it easier to log, mine, and
build roads in some of America's most pristine national forests.

With our national forests in limbo, we need your help.

This new proposal by the US Forest Service would especially affect forests
intended for protection by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, one of the
most popular conservation policies in decades, which the Bush
administration is attempting to undo.

To stop these environmental rollbacks, we need your help. Thanks to your
efforts, in the past three months more than 650,000 individuals have sent
messages to the US Forest Service calling for our last wild national
forests to be protected from logging, mining, and drilling.

America's national forests are among our nation's most precious resources.
They provide a haven for wildlife, source of clean drinking water, place
for solitude and recreation, and a heritage for our children.

Please help save America's last wild places. In order to submit your
official comment to the Forest Service just visit
www.environet.org/grassroots or click on the "Compose Email" button, below.

I hope you will take the time to help protect our national forests, because
once they're gone, they're gone forever.

Sincerely,

Andrew Katkin
Web Manager and e-Activist Outreach Coordinator
National Environmental Trust

Legislation being considered by Congress after the September terrorist attacks continues to revolve around the misguided perception that giving expanded, unchecked authority to those who enforce our laws will necessarily make us safer.  A prime example is the new, "Customs Border Security Act," a bill originally meant to deal with U.S. Customs employee wage issues.  The revised legislation now includes provisions that would not only weaken protections against racial profiling, other illegal searches, and undermine the right to privacy in personal correspondence, but would move toward making law enforcement agents accountable to no one but themselves.

To perform their duty of searching persons arriving in the United States for contraband, Customs officers have the extraordinary power to perform searches.  These powers are not unlimited, however, and contain protections to check this authority for the protection of the innocent.  The Customs Border Security Act would expand the immunity of Customs officials in ways that would make it nearly impossible for a person to seek redress for an unconstitutional search.  Without this check, Customs officers would nearly become free agents without a mechanism to ensure that their powers are not abused.

Take Action!  You can read more about this legislation and send a FREE FAX to your Representative from our action alert at:

http://www.aclu.org/action/customs107.html

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD ALERT
ACTION ALERT!
KRAFT CALL-IN DAY! Tell Kraft to go genetically engineered free on November 8th!
Join the National Day of Action Targeting Kraft!

NOVEMBER 8th CALL or EMAIL KRAFT FOODS TO GO GENETICALLY ENGINEERED-FREE!
GO TO www.gefoodalert.org/takeaction and send a letter to Kraft's CEO or

Call Kraft at 1-800-323-0768.
Or Fax Kraft at 847-646-6005.

UNTESTED, UNLABELED, UNACCEPTABLE!
Genetically engineered ingredients, such as corn and soy, are currently in
60-70% of the food on grocery store shelves, such as cereal, soup, tortilla
chips, infant formula and soda. Amazingly, NONE of the genetically
engineered foods on the market have been adequately tested for safety to
human health or the environment or labeled by the FDA, EPA or USDA. For
instance, EPA scientific advisors recommended in July that extensive study
of potential allergic effects of engineered corn be conducted.  As a result,
we have become the subjects of a large-scale experiment on our health and
our environment by biotechnology companies. Risks to our health and the
environment include new food allergies, antibiotic resistance, increased
pesticide use, harm to non-target species, and contamination of organic and
conventional farmers' crops.

Every year, more genetically engineered crops are developed and currently
more than 100 million acres of genetically engineered crops are being grown
around the world. It is time to stop the experiment on our health and the
environment!

Genetically Engineered Food Alert is asking Kraft to be a leader in
corporate responsibility, and work to prevent other threats to consumers, by
taking the following steps with the goal of phasing out the use of all
genetically engineered ingredients until adequate testing, labeling, and
liability are in place:
1. Stop using genetically engineered corn and corn derivatives in all of
your products, as corn raises serious concerns of allergenicity, and

2. Label products containing other genetically engineered ingredients, so
consumers can have a choice in what they buy.

How can you help in getting genetically engineered ingredients out of our
fields and off of our dinner tables? You can start by taking action on our
first National Kraft Call-in on NOVEMBER 8th!

TAKE ACTION!
Join Genetically Engineered Food Alert, Free the Planet, Genetic Engineering
Action Network and many others in the nationwide campaign to get the largest
food company in the U.S. to go genetically engineered free on November 8th
by calling or emailing Kraft Foods and letting them know that you don't want
genetically engineered ingredients in your Mac and Cheese!

EMAIL: Go to our website at www.gefoodalert.com  and send an email to
Kraft's CEO, Betsy Holden
CALL: Call Kraft Foods at 1-800-323-0768, 9:00 a.m. - 8 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday.
FAX: Fax Kraft at 847-646-6005
You can also check out our website for more info on the campaign:
www.gefoodalert.org

Step 1:TELL KRAFT:
1. If you are a student, tell them your age (corporations want young people
to be their lifelong consumers, so they'll really listen to you!)
2. You are concerned that their foods contain genetically engineered
ingredients and you want Kraft Foods to work to ensure your food is safe by
taking the following steps with the goal of phasing out the use of all
genetically engineered ingredients until adequate testing, labeling, and
liability are in place:
--Stop using genetically engineered corn and corn derivatives in all of your
products, as genetically engineered corn raises serious concerns of
allergenicity, and other health concerns
-- Label products containing other genetically engineered ingredients, so
consumers can have a choice in what they buy.

Let's flood Kraft with our message and let them know that we don't want our
food to be Genetically Krafted anymore!

Step 2:
JOIN THE CAMPAIGN! GET CONNECTED!
-Contact Lisa Archer at 202-783-7400 x190 or larcher@foe.org to get involved
or become a regional coordinator for the campaign.
-Check out our website at www.gefoodalert.org to get updates, information,
download a Kraft Campaign action kit, and to hear about upcoming actions and
events.
-Get your CAMPUS to go KRAFT-FREE and GENETICALLY ENGINEERED-FREE, join the
GE-FREE CAMPUS LISTSERVE:
email gefreecampus-subscribe@lists.riseup.net.

Conservationists  supporting  the  Necedah  National Wildlife Refuge's
     endangered species and neotropical migratory bird conservation efforts
     will  want  to  write  letters  of  support to Larry Wargowsky (Refuge
     Manager) at:


              Necedah National Wildlife Refuge


               W7996 20th St. W.


               Necedah, WI 54646


     Individuals  can  obtain a copy of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan at: 

     http://midwest.fws.gov/planning/necedahtop.htm


     In summary, the Refuge proposes three alternatives in the Plan. Only "
     Alternative  3"  allows  the  Refuge  to  continue  its whooping crane
     reintroduction  effort  (the  first group of whooping cranes raised on
     the  Necedah  National  Wildlife  Refuge  are  currently  following an
     ultralight          aircraft          to          Florida.         See
     http://www.bringbackthecranes.org).  The Refuge is encouraging as much
     input  on  the  Comprehensive  Conservation  Plan  as possible. Please
     remember to include your preferred alternative in your letter.


     A summary of the alternatives in listed below:


     SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES


                                                 ---------------------|
                                                |       TABLE 5       |
                                                |                     |
                                                |                     |
                                                |     Summary and     |
                                                |    Comparison of    |
                                                |    Alternatives     |
---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------------|
|     ACTION    | ALTERNATIVE 1 | ALTERNATIVE 2\| ALTERNATIVE 3       |
|               |               |               |                     |
|               |               |               |                     |
|               | (Guidance     | (Guidance     | (Guidance contained |
|               | contained in  | contained in  | in the Refuge CCP)  |
|               | the 1979      | the 1979      |                     |
|               | Master Plan   | Master Plan)  |                     |
|               | and associated|               |                     |
|               | Step- down    |               |                     |
|               | Management    |               |                     |
|               | Plans)        |               |                     |
|---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------------|
| 1. Service    |               |               |                     |
| Trust         |               |               |                     |
| Resources     |               |               |                     |
|---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------------|
| - Listed      | Would continue| Would continue| Would continue      |
| Species       | protecting all| protecting all| protecting all      |
|               | listed species| listed species| listed species and  |
|               | and their     | and their     | their habitats,     |
|               | habitats,     | habitats.     | including           |
|               | including     | However, the  | restoration and     |
|               | restoration   | Refuge would  | management of their |
|               | and management| not attempt to| habitats..          |
|               | of their      | establish one |                     |
|               | habitats.     | large         |                     |
|               |               | population of |                     |
|               |               | Karner blue   |                     |
|               |               | butterflies on|                     |
|               |               | Refuge land   |                     |
|               |               | through       |                     |
|               |               | additional    |                     |
|               |               | savanna       |                     |
|               |               | habitat       |                     |
|               |               | management.   |                     |
|---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------------|
| - Waterfowl   | Would not     | Would not     | Would increase      |
| and other Mig.| increase      | increase      | waterfowl use and   |
| Birds         | waterfowl use | waterfowl use | production through  |
|               | and           | and           | additional habitat  |
|               | production.   | production.   | management. Would   |
|               | Would not     | Would not     | increase grassland  |
|               | increase      | increase      | species of concern  |
|               | grassland     | grassland     | through additional  |
|               | species of    | species of    | grassland           |
|               | concern. Would| concern. Would| management. Would   |
|               | increase      | not increase  | increase savanna    |
|               | savanna       | savanna       | species of concern  |
|               | species of    | species of    | through additional  |
|               | concern       | concern       | savanna management. |
|               | through       | through       |                     |
|               | additional    | additional    |                     |
|               | savanna       | savanna       |                     |
|               | management.   | management.   |                     |
|---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------------|
| - Biological  | Would manage  | Would not     | Would manage for    |
| Diversity     | for increased | manage for    | increased biological|
|               | biological    | increased     | diversity on both   |
|               | diversity only| biological    | Refuge land and     |
|               | through       | diversity on  | within the Yellow   |
|               | savanna       | either Refuge | River Focus Area    |
|               | restoration   | land or land  | through additional  |
|               | efforts on    | within the    | wetland, grassland, |
|               | Refuge land   | Yellow River  | and savanna habitat |
|               | and through   | Focus Area.   | restoration.        |
|               | the Private   |               |                     |
|               | Lands Program |               |                     |
|               | in the Yellow |               |                     |
|               | River Focus   |               |                     |
|               | Area..        |               |                     |
|---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------------|
| 2. Visitor    | Refuge visitor| Refuge visitor| Visitor Services    |
| Services      | services would| services would| would be expanded by|
|               | remain at 1999| remain at 1999| roughly 20 percent  |
|               | levels. No new| levels. No new| over 1999 levels.   |
|               | trails,       | trails,       | Many upgrades to    |
|               | observation   | observation   | existing facilities |
|               | towers,       | towers,       | would occur. New    |
|               | fishing piers,| fishing piers,| headquarters        |
|               | or major      | or major      | building/visitor    |
|               | facilities    | facilities    | center would be     |
|               | would be      | would be      | constructed.        |
|               | developed.    | developed.    |                     |
|               | Headquarters  | Headquarters  |                     |
|               | building would| building would|                     |
|               | be enlarged to| remain the    |                     |
|               | accommodate   | same and would|                     |
|               | staff.        | not be        |                     |
|               |               | enlarged.     |                     |
|---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------------|
| 3. Habitat    | Maintains     | Maintains     | Open landscape land |
| Management    | status quo in | status quo in | would increase      |
|               | habitat       | habitat       | (grasslands/savannas|
|               | management    | management. No| ) by 6,100 acres.   |
| - Fire        | with the      | new wetlands, | Emergent wetlands   |
| Management    | exception of  | grasslands, or| and wet meadows     |
| Plan          | 2,600 acres of| savannas would| would increase by   |
|               | new savanna.  | be developed  | 2,000 acres.        |
|               | Forest land   | for nesting   | Coniferous,         |
|               | would be      | birds.        | broad-leaf, and     |
|               | reduced by an |               | mixed forests would |
|               | equal amount. |               | decrease by 6,100   |
|               | No new        | Adopted       | acres. Lowland      |
|               | grasslands or |               | shrubs would        |
|               | wetlands would|               | decrease by 2,000   |
|               | be developed  |               | acres               |
|               | for nesting   |               |                     |
|               | birds.        |               |                     |
|               |               |               | Adopted             |
|               |               |               |                     |
|               | Adopted       |               |                     |
|---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------------|
| 4. Yellow     | Would continue| Would         | The Refuge would    |
| River Focus   | private lands | discontinue   | purchase            |
| Area          | program in    | private lands | conservation        |
|               | YRFA          | program in    | easements and       |
|               | developing    | YRFA. No new  | fee-title purchases |
|               | Wildlife      | Wildlife      | from willing        |
|               | Management    | Management    | sellers. Wildlife   |
|               | Agreements    | Agreements    | Management          |
|               | with willing  | would be      | Agreements would be |
|               | landowners; no| developed with| developed with      |
|               | easements or  | willing       | willing landowners. |
|               | fee-title     | landowners. No|                     |
|               | purchases of  | easement or   |                     |
|               | land.         | fee-title     |                     |
|               |               | purchases of  |                     |
|               |               | land would    |                     |
|               |               | occur.        |                     |
|---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------------|

To: All activists
From: Alix Davidson, American Lands Alliance
Date: November 6, 2001

EPA issues rule on pollution from Off Road Vehicles; your comments
needed by December 19th to create a rule that cuts pollution, not
approves it.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued a
proposed rule to reduce air pollution from snowmobiles, dirt bikes and
all-terrain vehicles (ATVs).  This proposal sets weak standards –
especially for snowmobiles – and will not substantially reduce air and
noise pollution from off-road vehicles unless strengthened
significantly.  To make matters worse, during recent public hearings in
Washington and Denver, the off-road industry presented a united front
opposing the proposal as too stringent, and made it clear it would
submit “many, many comments” to keep the rule as weak and ineffective at
curtailing pollution caused by their vehicles.  Contact the EPA today –
NRANPRM@epa.gov – to urge the agency to create a strong rule that
results in a meaningful cut in harmful air and noise pollution from
these machines.

Dirty Machines – Dirt bikes, ATVs and snowmobiles are a major source of
air and noise pollution nationwide.  Most of these machines are powered
by antiquated two-stroke engines that burn a combination of gas and oil.
According to the EPA, the average two-stroke dumps 25 to 30 percent of
its fuel unburned into the air and water.  The California Air Resources
Board concluded that operating a two-stroke motor for about 7 hours
generates as much smog-forming pollution as driving a modern car more
than100,000 miles.  The EPA estimates that dirt bikes, snowmobiles and
ATVs alone produce 10 percent of all hydrocarbon pollution from vehicles
nationwide.  Air pollution from these machines also threatens public
health and has been directly linked to respiratory disease, cancer and
premature death.

Polluting Public Lands – Off-road vehicles are a major source of
pollution on public lands.  In Yellowstone National Park, although cars
outnumber snowmobiles 16 to 1, snowmobiles produce as much as 68% of the
Park’s annual carbon monoxide pollution and up to 90% of all hydrocarbon
emissions.  The average dirt bike traveling across BLM lands in the west
generates 8 times as much air pollution as the average car.  Pollution
controls are also needed because these machines are impairing visibility
in national parks, wilderness areas and other public lands across the
country.

Weak Proposal – The EPA has taken a step in the right direction by
proposing to reduce pollution from these machines – a step that’s long
overdue.  However, the proposal issued on September 14 falls far short
because:

1) It fails to encourage a rapid transition from dirty two-stroke to
cleaner, more fuel-efficient four-stroke engines, especially in
snowmobiles.
2) It fails to address noise pollution from machines that are as loud as
a busy street and whose noise has a scientifically proven detrimental
effect on wildlife.
3) It does not include a labeling system that would give consumers
user-friendly information about emissions to help them make more
informed choices between machines.

These standards can be much stronger.  Four-stroke technology is widely
available today in off-road vehicles.  In fact, two of the four major
snowmobile manufacturers are already making and promoting four-stroke
machines.  Nevertheless, the snowmobile industry pressured the EPA to
issue a weak proposal and has made it clear it will fight even the very
modest pollution controls under consideration.

TAKE ACTION -- Contact the EPA before December 19, 2001 and urge the
agency to:
1) Substantially strengthen the proposed standards for snowmobiles in
order to quickly and completely phase-out dirty two-stroke snowmobiles;
2) Harmonize proposed standards for dirt bikes with ATVs by requiring
catalytic converters on both machines;
3) Use its legal authority to reduce noise pollution from all machines;
4) Establish a mandatory, multi-tiered labeling system that gives
consumers easily understandable information about vehicle emissions; and

5) Require particle filters on all diesel boats to protect public
health.     

Contact Information:

In all comments, reference "Docket A-2000-01."

Send electronic comments to: NRANPRM@epa.gov

Send written comments to: The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman, c/o
Margaret Borushko, U.S. EPA, National Vehicle and Fuels Emission
Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 48105.


Steve Holmer
Campaign Coordinator
American Lands
726 7th Street SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
202/547-9105
202/547-9213 fax
mailto:wafcdc@americanlands.org
http://www.americanlands.org

To:  All Activists
From:  Harlin Savage/Joshua Martin, American Lands Alliance
Date: November 7, 2001

Forest Service Directive Undermines National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), May Speed Destruction of Roadless
Areas, Endangered and Threatened Species Habitat

Comments Needed No Later than November 19, 2001

The Forest Service has proposed a new directive that would greatly
expand its use of Categorical Exclusions (CEs). The directive would
rewrite the agency's NEPA Handbook to allow the use of CEs for
activities affecting critical National Forest resources, including
inventoried roadless areas, endangered and threatened species habitat,
municipal watersheds, and Native American religious and cultural sites.
The proposed change would reverse long-standing agency policy, which was
set during President Bush senior's administration.

Specifically, the new directive would allow the use of CEs when any of
the following critical resources are involved:

· Inventoried roadless areas
· Threatened and endangered species or their critical habitat
· Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds
· Congressionally designated wilderness areas, wilderness study areas,
or National Recreation Areas
· Steep slopes or highly erosive soils
· Research Natural Areas
· Native American religious or cultural sites, archaeological sites,
historic properties or areas

NEPA allows federal agencies to issue CEs for small-scale activities
whose environmental impacts would be virtually non-existent. Mowing the
lawn at the ranger station would be a case in which a CE would be
appropriate. However, the Forest Service has more broadly interpreted
small-scale as commercial logging (of up to 250,000 board feet), salvage
logging (of up to one million board feet), certain mining activities,
construction of up to one mile of road, and construction of motorized
trails and utility lines.

Under the new directive, a district ranger could approve a salvage sale
of one million board feet in an inventoried roadless area without
preparing an environmental assessment or an environmental impact
statement. Citizens would have no real opportunity for meaningful
comment, and the agency would not be required to analyze and publicly
disclose the project's potential impacts, including cumulative impacts.

Broadly expanding the Forest Service's use of CEs would leave citizens
with no choice other than litigation when they want to challenge a
project. With other agency decisions, the appeals process may lead to
compromise instead of litigation-an option that is not available with
many CEs.

In recent years, conservationists have challenged the Forest Service's
use of CEs for projects that clearly do not have negligible impacts. The
results have so far been mixed-a favorable ruling from the Seventh
Circuit and an adverse ruling from the Ninth Circuit. The Forest Service
is at least partially justifying the proposed directive as necessary to
clarify the court rulings.

What You Can Do
Tell the Forest Service that you strongly oppose the proposed directive.
Roadless areas, endangered and threatened species habitat, municipal
watersheds, Native American religious and cultural sites, and other
special wildlands should be afforded the strongest possible protections,
and any project involving these resources must involve the public and
disclose impacts through preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement.

The directive to reference is called:  National Environmental Policy Act
Documentation Needed for Certain Special Use Authorizations. For a copy
of the Federal Register notice, visit http://www.southernrockies.org.
Click on "Take Action."

Comments Must Be Postmarked No Later than November 19, 2001
Send Your Letter To:
Director, Lands Staff
4th Floor-South, Mail Stop 1104
Sidney R. Yates Federal Building, Forest Service, USDA
P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC 20090-6090
Email: landsidce@fs.fed.us

SAMPLE LETTER

[Please Personalize Your Letter; Add Your Personal Comments on Roadless
Areas, Imperiled Species, and the Public's Right-to-Know]

Dear Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth:

I am deeply concerned about the fate of roadless areas and imperiled
species habitat on our National Forests. Because the Roadless Area
Conservation Rule, which I support, has not yet taken effect, millions
of acres of our last, wild forests, and the wildlife that inhabits them,
face serious and imminent threats from, logging, road building, and
other development activities.

Because of these threats and my belief in the public process, I am
writing to oppose a recent Forest Service proposal that would give
district rangers authority to allow new roads, logging, and other
destructive projects not only in inventoried roadless areas, but also in
endangered and threatened species habitat, municipal watersheds, places
of religious and cultural significance to Native Americans, and other
ecologically sensitive areas. These projects could be approved without
meaningful public review or environmental analysis. Local forest
managers could simply send a memo to the file-no scientific analysis, no
public scrutiny. Projects that could be rubber-stamped in this way
include salvage logging, small-scale commercial logging, certain mining
activities, and construction of roads, motorized trails, and utility
lines. Such a move represents a sharp departure from current agency
practice set during President Bush senior's administration.

So-called categorical exclusions, whose use you are seeking to expand,
do not require environmental analysis or meaningful public comment and
therefore are not appropriate when roadless areas and other ecologically
sensitive areas are at stake. In fact, better outcomes are more likely
if the Forest Service involves the public and engages in more extensive
analysis of potential impacts and alternatives as required under the
National Environmental Policy Act.

Again, I strongly oppose the proposed directive, which would severely
limit public input and allow bad projects to go forward without first
analyzing potential impacts and alternatives. Roadless Areas, imperiled
species, municipal water supplies, Native American religious and
cultural sites, and other critical areas should be afforded the
strongest possible protection. Any project involving them requires the
agency to solicit public comment and disclose impacts through
preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement.

Sincerely,

[Your Name and Mailing Address]

Genetically engineered ingredients, such as corn and soy, are currently in
60-70% of the food on grocery store shelves, including cereal, soup,
tortilla chips, soda, and even infant formula. Amazingly, NONE of the
genetically engineered foods on the market have been adequately tested for
safety to human health or the environment or labeled by the FDA, EPA or
USDA.

Risks to our health and the environment include new food allergies,
antibiotic resistance, increased pesticide use, harm to non-target species,
and contamination of organic and conventional farmers' crops.

Every year, more genetically engineered crops are developed and currently
more than 100 million acres of genetically engineered crops are being grown
around the world. It is time to stop the experiment on our health and the
environment!

Please take a moment to send a letter to Kraft Foods asking them to be a
leader in corporate responsibility and keep genetically engineered foods
out of your Mac & Cheese!  It's easy, all you need to do is visit
www.environet.org/grassroots or click on the Compose Email button, below.
Specifically, please ask Kraft, the largest food company in the U.S., to
take the following steps:

1. Stop using genetically engineered corn and corn derivatives in all of
their products, as corn raises serious concerns of allergenicity.

2. Label products containing other genetically engineered ingredients, so
consumers can have a choice in what they buy.

In addition to writing to Kraft, we are also asking our committed
e-Activists to participate in the first National Kraft call-in-day on
NOVEMBER 8th!

Your action, along with those of thousands of other concerned citizens from
across America will help get the largest food company in the U.S. to go
genetically engineered free! It's easy just call 1-800-323-0768 and ask for
Betsy Holden, Kraft's CEO. If you'd prefer you can send a fax to (847) 646
- 6005.

Please remember to tell Kraft that you are concerned that their foods
contain genetically engineered ingredients and you want Kraft Foods to work
to ensure your food is safe by removing all genetically engineered
ingredients until adequate testing, labeling, and
liability are in place:
For additional information on this campaign, please visit
www.gefoodalert.org where you will find updates, information, and even a
downloadable Kraft Campaign action kit.

As always, thanks for your help!

Best Wishes,

Andrew Katkin

e-Activist Outreach Coordinator

National Environmental Trust

**Attention: US partners and friends only**

Dear Friend-

We here at EarthAction USA are opposed to the so-called Economic Stimulus Package recently passed by the US House of Representatives and soon to be voted upon by the US Senate.  We have teamed up with the Campaign for America's Future to bring this issue to your attention. Here is their message to you--please take the action they recommend and forward this message widely:

A $70 BILLION CORPORATE HANDOUT?
WE CALL THAT PROFITEERING IN THE NAME OF PATRIOTISM

IBM wants a $1.4 billion tax rebate. GM wants $833 million. GE wants $671 million.

During this time of national crisis, amid calls for sacrifice, Congress has an important opportunity to develop legislation that would both stimulate our economy and improve the quality of our environment. Instead, the House has approved corporate pay-offs by repealing the alternative minimum tax and refunding all 15 years of back taxes to IBM, GE, GM, and other big companies.

A responsible stimulus plan would revitalize our economy while protecting the environment. The United States government should invest in its hard-pressed workers with decent unemployment benefits and health insurance coverage. Congress should invest in reducing our dependence on oil, improving transportation options, and in creating a healthier, more sustainable environment for all Americans.

The good news is that you can make a difference! In the next week or two, the Senate will vote on an "economic stimulus" bill.  Do you want a $70 billion tax break for corporations and the wealthy -- or a bill to help Americans suffering in the economic slump and fallout from Sept. 11?

Visit <http://www.ourfuture.org>, where you can learn more about this issue and fax your Senators for free. Let them know you oppose corporate profiteering in the guise of patriotism.

Thank you!

To subscribe to this list, send an email to info@earthaction with the word "subscribe" in the subject line, or visit http://www.earthaction.org/en/subscribe.html.

EarthAction is a global network of 2,000 citizen groups in more than 161 countries that work together on global environment, peace, development and human rights issues.

EarthAction
30 Cottage Street
Amherst, MA 01002 USA
Tel: +1 413 549 8118
Fax: +1 413 549 0544
Web: www.earthaction.org

General EarthAction email:
Amherst Office (USA): amherst@earthaction.org
Santiago Office (Chile): santiago@earthaction.tie.cl
Wye Office: (UK): wye@earthaction.org.uk