GreenYes Digest V97 #232

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:08:16 -0500

GreenYes Digest Fri, 26 Sep 97 Volume 97 : Issue 232

Today's Topics:
ESA-Must read NOW!! ACT NOW!
Grants to set up municipal compost operations? (2 msgs)
More thanks to Steve Seuss and to Rick Anthony
NRC followup
Recycled Paper Articles
Zero Waste (2 msgs)
Zero waste: pollution prevention?
Zero waste yes/Personal attacks no

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <greenyes@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <greenyes-Digest-Request@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 02:15:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: ESA-Must read NOW!! ACT NOW!


SIGN-ON LETTER - Ask the Senate to oppose Senator Kempthorne's
Endangered Species Destruction Act


Kempthorne's new bill to gut the Endangered Species Act is on a fast
track. Senators Chafee (R-RI), Baucus (D-MT), and Reid (D-NV) sponsor
the bill. Interior Secretary Babbitt also supports it. We might as
well consider that the Clinton Administration is on board as well. The
bill, S. 1180, has had only one hearing and will go to full Committee
mark-up next week (probably September 30). We do not have much time to
derail this bill.

It is imperative that groups concerned about endangered species
protection and recovery send a unified and strong message to the Senate
that we DO NOT SUPPORT this bill.

Please sign your group on to this letter. Please circulate this alert
far and wide.

Roger Featherstone




Send your groups' name, address, and a contact person to

The deadline for this letter is the Close of Business Monday, September
29, 1997. (We will deliver the letter to the entire Senate on Tuesday,
September 30.)

Please distribute this alert to as many groups and individuals as you

If you do not belong to a group or cannot get permission for your group
to sign this letter by the deadline, use this letter as a model to send it
to your Senator. (You can also do this even if your group has signed
this letter!)

September 30, 1997

Dear Senator,

We, the undersigned, representing grassroots conservation organizations
from across the country, urge you to oppose the Endangered Species Act
reauthorization bill, S. 1180, introduced by Senator Dirk Kempthorne
(R-ID). The bill creates a number of impediments to species recovery
and hidden costs for taxpayers. It adds layers of bureaucracy and
closed-door meetings to the process of listing and recovering
endangered species, making it a slow train on a "fast-track" to

S. 1180 abandons the primary mission of endangered species legislation
-- the recovery and de-listing of threatened and endangered species.

Our problems with the bill are many. A partial list of our concerns

It bypasses recovery planning by not requiring science based
recovery teams, public notice and comment and recovery goals.

It provides no guarantee of adequate funding for federal agencies
to fulfill their mandate.

It subsidizes habitat destruction, forcing taxpayers to pick up
the costs that extractive industry will not bear for mitigation
and recovery.

It provides special access for special interests, providing
parties with economic interests in projects with closed-door
consultation. The public is shut out.

Conservation groups were shut out of the process. In spite of
what you may have heard, no conservation group -- national,
regional or local -- supports this bill.

The responsibility for protecting our rich natural heritage should be
borne equitably. The process by which recovery is achieved should be
accessible and open to all interested parties. S. 1180 is neither
equitable nor accessible and we therefore urge you to oppose the bill.

We appreciate your consideration of our views.


[Your group and hundreds more!]

BACKGROUND (S 1180 fact sheet from the National Wildlife Federation)

S. 1180, Senator Kempthorne ESA Bill, Weakens Protections for
Endangered Species -- Oppose it Until Key Changes Are Made!

Senators Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID), John Chafee (R-RI), Max Baucus (D-MT),
and Harry Reid (D-NV) recently introduced S. 1180, a bill to
reauthorize the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Although it is being
portrayed as a moderate "compromise" solution to the endangered species
debate, it undermines some of the ESA's essential provisions for
protecting and recovering our nation's endangered wildlife.

The National Wildlife Federation has pushed for needed improvements to
the ESA-- changes that would make the law work better for people as
well as wildlife. Unfortunately, S. 1180 not only fails to include
many of these needed improvements to the ESA, it weakens existing
protections that are essential to the survival of species. In
particular, S. 1180:

Reduces Species Protections on Federal Lands by Weakening Agency

S. 1180 makes it harder for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services) to serve as watchdogs
over other federal agencies whose activities often contribute to
species decline. For instance, this bill allows industries operating
on federal lands to get a full exemption from any further ESA
responsibilities if they agree to undertake certain activities believed
to promote recovery -- even if those activities ultimately harm
species. It also allows resource extraction activities on federal
lands, such as timber sales, to move forward before adequate
consideration has been given to how these projects will impact newly
listed species. And, significantly, the bill allows industry
representatives unprecedented access to key ESA decision-making -- such
as how to minimize the impact that grazing on federal lands will have
on Lower Colorado River fish -- yet continues to exclude the general
public from these processes.

Precludes Management Changes Needed to Prevent Extinctions on
Nonfederal Lands

S. 1180 lets private and other nonfederal landowners "lock-in" long-
term land management plans (Habitat Conservation Plans, or HCPs) that
exempt them from further conservation obligations for up to 100 years
or more. Such *No Surprises* assurances to landowners would make sense
if proper safeguards were also provided for species. Leading
scientists have stated that at least two safeguards -- the flexibility
to revisit HCPs, and a funding mechanism to carry out necessary changes
-- are prerequisites for a scientifically-credible HCP policy.
Unfortunately, they are missing from the Kempthorne bill, and thus HCPs
would remain in force even if they are contributing to the decline and
possible extinction of species.

Inserts Hurdles in the Listing and Recovery Planning Programs That
Would Frustrate ESA Implementation

Although the agencies responsible for endangered species protection are
already struggling with a vast backlog of species that await listing
and recovery plans, this bill adds significant new bureaucratic burdens
to the listing and recovery planning processes that will drain limited
resources away from on-the-ground conservation. For example, the
Services and volunteer recovery teams are charged with engaging in
speculative economic analyses and other burdensome studies of every
possible recovery strategy they consider. As the Services attempt to
work their way through this maze of procedural hurdles and inevitable
litigation that will result, species like the imperiled Florida black
bear, which has been awaiting listing and recovery actions for nearly a
decade, will continue to decline.

Allows Activities That Undermine Recovery

The ESA has been largely successful at preventing species from going
extinct, but it has been far less successful at actually recovering
species to the point that they can be taken off the endangered species
list. Although the Kempthorne bill purports to address this problem,
it fails to address a central flaw with current ESA implementation --
the fact that federal agencies routinely approve projects that result
in significant habitat destruction and undermine the ESA's recovery
goal. To fulfill its promise that species recovery needs will finally
be addressed, the Kempthorne bill needs to be amended to ensure that
agencies approve only those projects designed in a manner that does not
undermine species recovery.

Recent polls show that 84% of the American public supports retaining or
strengthening endangered species protections. As currently written, S.
1180 ignores the sentiments of everyday Americans and erodes protection
for our invaluable imperiled wildlife. Please contact your Senators
and the White House immediately and urge them to oppose S. 1180 as an
unacceptable step backwards in our national commitment to protect our
wildlife heritage.

***All it takes is five minutes to make a difference that will last for
Thank you.***


Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:40:32 -0500
From: "Susan K. Snow" <>
Subject: Grants to set up municipal compost operations?

Does anyone know of any national grants to help communities set up
compost operations?

I am working with a poor community--helping them fight a garbage
incinerator. The citizens are looking for grants to help set up a
community compost operation in their area.

It is my understanding that the city of Lafayette (Louisiana),
population 100,000 paid $500,000 for tub grinders, and other equipment
for municipal yard waste composting.


Susan Snow


Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 13:58:43 -0400
From: "Diamond, Craig" <>
Subject: Grants to set up municipal compost operations?

Check to see if the state in question still has any funds left over in
the "oil overcharge" accounts that were set up in the mid- 80s when the
feds compelled big oil to reimburse states for what was in effect price
fixing during and immediately after the '79 crisis. the florida energy
office (funded by that account) turned down my idea to evaluate
community-scale composting operations as a means to save energy, but
years later as the account has dwindled it has funded all sorts of ideas
which it wouldn't have touched a decade ago.

>From: Susan K. Snow[]
>Sent: Thursday, September 25, 1997 12:40 PM
>Subject: Grants to set up municipal compost operations?
>Does anyone know of any national grants to help communities set up
>compost operations?
>I am working with a poor community--helping them fight a garbage
>incinerator. The citizens are looking for grants to help set up a
>community compost operation in their area.
>It is my understanding that the city of Lafayette (Louisiana),
>population 100,000 paid $500,000 for tub grinders, and other equipment
>for municipal yard waste composting.
>Susan Snow


Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 15:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: (David L. Stitzhal)





David Stitzhal, MRP
Full Circle Environmental, Inc.
2955 36th Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98144
206-723-2452 fax


Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 08:45:24 -0700
From: Gregg Foster <>
Subject: More thanks to Steve Seuss and to Rick Anthony

I'll add my voice, but want to caution that I know these too characters =
and that too much praise will make them even more difficult to deal with =
:) Hope Orlando is fun. Makes me almost wish I was back in the field!

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Appelhof []
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 11:16 AM
To: greenyes@UCSD.Edu
Subject: More thanks to Steve Seuss and to Rick Anthony

I, too, am appreciating the fact that Steve is willing to sit at his =
after a long, intense day and let his perceptions and conversations and
ghost-sightings pour out through his fingertips into messages we all can
read. Like Robin, I can almost feel that I am there.

I've felt many times as if I were swimming upstream as I tried to get
people think of waste as a resource, to convince government officials =
citizens would do the right thing if convenient options were available, =
to get people to invite a colony of worms into their homes so they could
truly recycle their food waste on site. It sounds as if Steve is having =
swim upstream in his persistent quest to introduce Zero Waste to =
at NRC. Wouldn't you have thought he would be preaching to the choir,
rather than running into some of the difficulties he has had? I commend
you, Steve, on not giving up. By finding effective ways to express the
message. By keeping lines of communication open. By winning people =

And, Rick, thanks for your work, too --putting the alert out on this =
to get people thinking about the conference and what they might do, =
around for two hours when no one shows up at a scheduled meeting to talk
with anyone who does come by, keeping the ZeroWaste concept in front of
people's minds and agendas.

I like Robin's ideas of having a Zero Waste track at next year's
conference, at pledging to have a waste-free conference. I am appalled
that Bill Sheehan has not given support for Zero Waste in his work with =
NRC board.

Look forward to another report, or two, and thanks again, Steve.

Mary Appelhof


Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 13:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: (David L. Stitzhal)
Subject: NRC followup

It was great to see many of you, some for the first time, at NRC. The
Tues. afternoon meeting provided a sense of progress and renewed energy.

'Tis all for now.

David Stitzhal


Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 04:02:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Recycled Paper Articles

Just wanted to let everyone know that Conservatree now has a website -- -- where we have reprinted several of our articles.

I'm concerned that recycled paper is losing some of its market share and also
about a lot of misinformation I'm hearing, even from recyclers and
environmentalists. So I want people to know where they can get some detailed
information about current recycled paper issues, as well as information on
tree-free and chlorine-free papers.

Susan Kinsella
Conservatree's Greenline


Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 07:37:04 -0700
From: Victor Aguiar <>
Subject: subscribe

subscribe greenyes


Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 01:04:42 +0900
From: (Hop)
Subject: Zero Waste


Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 16:41:49 -0400
Subject: Zero Waste

Hop wrote:
> From where I sit (in Japan) it sounds like Steve Suess is doing a great
> job of promoting the adoption of Zero Waste in the US. As a result of
> his enthusiastic and inspirational reports I've suggested to collegues
> in Australia that we raise the stakes there and launch a Zero Waste
> campaign which can become a point of focus in the lead-up to the
> Sydney 2000 Olympics. I'll advise the list of any developments in this
> regard.
> Hop.
What a GREAT way to take Zero Waste to the international level!
Woody Getz
Western Maryland Group/Sierra Club
Allegany County (MD) Solid Waste Management Board
Reduce, ReUse, Recycle, Compost - It's a small planet!!!!
P.S. I recently read about the green goals set for the 2000 Summer
Olympics in Sydney in "Going for the Green: Sydney plans the most
environmentally sound Olympiad of all" in the Summer 1997 issue of
_The_Amicus_Journal_, a publication of Natural Resources Defense


Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 03:02:50 -0500
From: "Susan K. Snow" <>
Subject: Zero waste: pollution prevention?

When working toward zero waste and recycling, are we working towards
pollution prevention?

We are preventing pollution, when we recycle (compost) yard and garden
wastes, and vegetable food wastes along with animal manures from
poultry, cows, sheep, hogs. Their high nitrogen source speeds up the

Animal manures are clean in comparison to biosolids, as they are
relatively free from contaminants. Biosolids, more often than not,
contain toxic heavy metals, PAHs, radioactive wastes, dioxins, PCBs,
asbestos, the AIDs and other viruses and pathogens and other human and
industrial contaminants.

Beware of biosolids! Just as Waste Management Inc. (WMI) changed its
name to WMX Technologies, the sewage sludge industry changed the name of
sewage sludge to 'biosolids'. Composted biosolids are being sold a
cheap, organic fertilizer to unknowledgeable and trusting farmers and
consumers. The waste industry propaganda (PR) people plan to sell this
at farmers markets. Before you buy, check out:


Susan Snow


Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: "David A. Kirkpatrick" <>
Subject: Zero waste yes/Personal attacks no

GreenYes folks -

Having just got home from the National Recycling Congress and just logged
onto email after a few days, I wanted to respond to some of Steve Suess'
postings. I appreciate his reporting on the Congress, its surreality in
Disneymania, the sessions, the progress on articulating and selling zero
waste, etc. However, I want to encourage us to realize that to move towards
zero waste, we are going to need lots of folks, businesses, organizations,
networks, citizens working at it from many different angles. It does not
help to attack associates that are working towards the same ends with
perhaps different means than your own.

Having arrived Sunday night and departed Wednesday night, I missed the
activities over last weekend, including the NRC members and NRC board
meetings. I understand that Bill Sheehan had strategic reasons for not
introducing a zero waste resolution at the meeting that weekend which he can
explain on the listserve from his own perspective. However, having observed
Bill's efforts over the last 2+ years as to push zero waste in Georgia and
the U. S. as a volunteer at great personal expense and sacrifice, I wish to
applaud him for his efforts and to ask the rest of us to not be so ready to
fall into a typical progressive trap of attacking the leader.

The second person Steve choose to single out was Ed Boisson. Again, with
his work over the years, Ed has helped to move the recycling and waste
reduction movement forward in innumerable ways. Most recently, his work
with the Northeast Recycling Council to develop a protocol for a national
economic impact study for the recycling and reuse industries will yield
fruits for those of us trying to build the infrastructure for zero waste for
years to come.

Zero waste should not be a chant that we try to bully everyone into intoning
in boring unison. Rather it should be a chorus with many harmonies, with
each of us contributing our voices in ways that are unique to ourselves. I
respect those who have a skepticism about joining the zero waste chant just
because it's in vogue...and are rather pursuing their unique way to add
their voice.

As a GrassRoots Recycling Network steering committee member, I am excited
about what we achieved in the sessions and at our forum at NRC. In the
coming days, you should see lots of posts about zero waste resolutions and
committees, producer responsibility resolutions, Coke campaigns, no new
dumps initiatives, and virgin materials subsidy reforms. There are all part
of GRRN's deliberate effort to build up a national and international chorus,
involving many groups and individuals, to beckon us all towards a zero waste
society. How fast or slow we move is dependent only on how much each of you
and the millions of other recyclers pitch in to help... and how well we are
able to move forward while respecting our differences.

David Kirkpatrick
See GRRN's website:


Date: (null)
From: (null)



End of GreenYes Digest V97 #232