You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘SideStream’ category.
Four months ago, the University of Connecticut “rose from 49th to 16th place” amongst greenest colleges in the Sierra Club’s Coolest Schools rankings (Kirk). This was encouraging news, especially to Office of Environmental Policy (OEP) director Rich Miller, who asserted that: “UConn’s score shows that our sustainability efforts cover a wide range of activities and engage many people” (qtd. in Kirk). Indeed, Miller’s Husky pride seems justified given the ever-expanding campus consciousness about environmental responsibility, largely due to the countless OEP initiatives since its founding in 2002.
The conservation efforts are apparent all over campus: a recycling station is located on each dormitory floor, recycling bins are placed throughout campus, sneaker recycling drives are held annually, and UConn even participates in the ever-popular Recyclemania competition. However, the progress that UConn has made in its efforts over the years begs the question—did past UConn students ever get the recycling itch?
Naturally, the answer to this question lies in the Dodd Center. According to the Undergraduate Student Government and President’s Office records, students in the Environmental Concern Committee helped implement an experimental glass recycling program during the fall 1972 semester. This program was launched in the Towers dorms and, after having recognized its initial success, was later expanded to other campus dorms. The glass-recycling program served as a model for students hoping to implement paper and aluminum-recycling programs as well.
Unfortunately by January 1974, the Inter-Area Residence Council Recycling Committee recognized that certain dorms in the glass recycling program were having problems with “not enough voluntary action and student cooperation” (IARC Minutes). The program continued in fall 1974, though with great difficulty as enthusiasm fell.
Fortunately, such spurts of recycling-related activism—which may be considered the early predecessors to the current array of UConn OEP / EcoHusky projects—will not be forgotten, as they are well-documented here at the Dodd Center.
Krisela Karaja, Student Intern
Glass Recycling Folder, Box 1 (1972-1973), University of Connecticut Undergraduate Student Government Records. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.
The Inter-Area Residents’ Council Minutes, Jan. 17, 1974, Summer Recycling Workshop Folder, Box 9 (1974), University of Connecticut Undergraduate Student Government Records. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.
Kirk, Michael. “UConn Rises to 16th Among ‘Greenest Colleges.’ ” UConn Today. University of Connecticut Office of University Communications 25 Aug. 2011. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. <http://today.uconn.edu/blog/2011/08/uconn-rises-to-16th-among-greenest-colleges/>.
Recycling Committee Folder, Box 161 (1972), University of Connecticut President’s Office Records [Homer D. Babbidge, 1962-1972]. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.
Summer Recycling Workshop Folder, Box 9 (1974), University of Connecticut Undergraduate Student Government Records. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.
The Clean Air controversy was exacerbated by environmental taxes on “indirect sources”—such as mall parking lots—in which large numbers of pollution-causing automobiles could potentially congregate. Again, while many environmentalists favored this notion, private industry owners and especially urban renewal project developers such as those in charge of the Stamford Downtown urban redevelopment project, felt that the Clean Air Act delivered a direct and unnecessary blow to their interests in this regard (CAA Folder, Box 23).
Similarly, the more that was learned about the detrimental effects of aerosol fluorocarbons at this time, the more agitation there was for regulation of these greenhouse gases, as well, given their potential to destroy the earth’s ozone layer. In addition to many other undesirable complications, it was revealed in 1974 that fluorocarbons caused “a chemical reaction that led to a breakdown of the ozone belt […] and dramatic changes in world weather patterns” (“Clean Air Act Amendments, 1976”).
The amendments to the Clean Air Act were not passed until 1977. These amendments included among others the extension of auto emission standards for two years, the extension of air quality standards for U.S. cities for five-to-ten years, and a three-year extension for air polluting industries to comply with standards before facing significant fines (“Clean Air Act Amendments, 1977”). However, debates over altering the act continued in the ’80s, and legislation was finally later passed in 1990. This legislation imposed greater federal standards on limiting smog, auto exhaust, toxic air pollution, etc. The 1990 amendments also included a measure that would foster more research on global warming, so that scientists and politicians alike could understand the pollution-induced worldwide environmental changes attributed to this phenomenon (“Clean Air, 1989 – 1990”).
Thus, although it wasn’t defined as such in the ’70s, global warming was the ultimate culprit behind the debate in Congress—the debate that unfortunately remains heated in recent times. In fact, the “Clear Skies” program presented by the Bush administration in 2002 was perhaps most controversial as it proposed to alter the CAA using a more market-driven approach supported by the power industry. However, this initiative was eventually rejected by environmentalists for its failure to regulate carbon dioxide emissions in addition to sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury (“Clean Air, 2003-2004”). This debate actually resurfaced only a year ago, when the proposed 2010 Clean Air Act Amendments were rejected. Interestingly enough, although this bill did address issues regarding the ozone layer, it still failed to touch upon the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions. Needless to say, the proposed bill did not become a law.
Krisela Karaja, Student Intern
Clean Air Act Folder, Box 23 (1975), Stewart B. McKinney Papers. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.
“Clean Air, 1989-1990 Legislative Chronology.” In Congress and the Nation, 1989-1992, vol. 8, 473. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1993. <http://library.cqpress.com/catn/catn89-0000013636>.
“Clean Air, 2003-2004 Legislative Chronology.” In Congress and the Nation, 2001-2004, vol. 11, 437. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2006. <http://library.cqpress.com/catn/catn01-426-18057-965103>.
“Clean Air Act Amendments, 1976 Legislative Chronology.” In Congress and the Nation, 1973-1976, vol. 4, 303. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1977. <http://library.cqpress.com/catn/catn73-0009171007>.
“Clean Air Amendments, 1977 Legislative Chronology.” In Congress and the Nation, 1977-1980, vol. 5, 535. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1981. <http://library.cqpress.com/catn/catn77-0010172918>.
Environment—Air Folder, Box 16 (1974), Stewart B. McKinney Papers. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.
Environment—Air Folder, Box 28 (1976), Stewart B. McKinney Papers. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.
Stewart McKinney to D.W. Sweeney, May 24, 1974, Environment—Air Folder, Box 16, Stewart B. McKinney Papers. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.
Stewart McKinney to Joel M. Berns, July 1, 1975, Clean Air Act Folder, Box 23, Stewart B. McKinney Papers. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.
United States. Cong. Senate. Clean Air Act Amendments of 2010. 111th Cong. S. 2995. GovTrack.us. Civic Impulse, LLC. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-2995>.
That’s right, the 1970s was a hot decade—and not just for its music and fashion. During these years the debate over air-pollution legislation was practically ablaze. The people who knew this best were perhaps the congressmen and congresswomen dealing with the legislative process at the time. One such congressman, Connecticut’s own Stewart Brett McKinney, must have felt the heat first-hand, given the countless number of constituent letters he received just between 1974 and 1976—many of which can be found amongst his papers in the Political Collections here at the Dodd. In addition to serving as a member and minority leader in the CT State House of Representatives, McKinney was also elected to the U.S. House for Connecticut’s southwestern fourth district and served from 1970 until his death in 1987.
The letters McKinney received just in the aforementioned two-year-span—letters from private industry, organizations, and unaffiliated individuals—attest to the significance of environmental legislation at the time, seeing as a noteworthy portion of the correspondence deals with various proposed congressional amendments to the 1970 Clean Air Act. The Act set firm standards for energy providers, car emissions, etc. in an effort to curb air pollution and the negative environmental and health effects associated with it. Like many others at the time, congressman McKinney was in favor of modifying the 1970 act, but opposed to drastic changes that might weaken it. The challenge, as he stated in his response to a letter from Ms. D.W. Sweeney of Stamford, was to “balance those environmental goals with what is perceived to be the long-term energy needs of the nation” (S.M. to D.W.S.).
This was crucial given the energy crisis of the early ’70s. Even those companies that may have desired to switch from coal to the slightly less harmful alternatives of oil and gas may have been unable to do so, given the limited availability and high prices of these resources. Many businessmen therefore lobbied to have the 1970 act significantly amended and emissions standards deadlines extended while other groups—such as the League of Women Voters—urged Congressman McKinney to fight to maintain the original, strict environmental standards. For instance, in his July 1, 1975 letter to another Stamford resident Joel M. Berns, D.M.D, McKinney makes it clear that “we must avoid the irresponsible course of so weakening the Clean Air Act in the name of the ‘energy crisis’ only to face the same deferred problems five or ten years from now when the clean-up job will be far more difficult and costly” (S.M. to J.B.).
Krisela Karaja, Student Intern
“This is Indian land, Indian water, Indian coal, Indian life that is going up in smoke” (Steiner “Black Mesa”).
Such were the words of Stan Steiner, author of various works (i.e. The New Indians, 1968) pertaining to American minority groups including Indians and Mexican-Americans. In fact, Steiner’s “Black Mesa Fact Sheet”—compiled in 1970 at the request of Navajo and Hopi tribal leaders— is included in Volume 1 No. 2 of Rainbow People, a newspaper conveniently found right here in the Alternative Press Collections at the Dodd Center. True to Steiner’s words, Indian life was literally going up in smoke—pollution-related smoke, that is. In 1966, the Navajo Tribal Council granted the Peabody Coal Company the right to explore land in the Black Mesa region of Arizona in order to generate fuel for six large southwestern power plants and for giant polluting cities such as Los Angeles and Phoenix. In exchange, the Navajo received “a mere $600,000 each year for their Nation” (Steiner “Fact Sheet”). However according to Calvin Estitty, a member of the Black Mesa Native Americans, the Navajo had not provided explicit consent to mine—they had simply consented to have the land surveyed (Steiner “Fact Sheet”).
The pollution statistics mentioned in Steiner’s fact sheet are jarring: “Sulfur dioxide emissions of 735 tons a day (267,275 tons a year). That is more than three times the health hazard […] that L.A. people suffer.” Additionally, the fly ash particle emissions of 137 tons a day were well above the LA statistic (109 /day) and almost as high as New York’s 140 tons. Indeed, the Navajo plant alone was estimated to “fill [the] sky [with] 465,125 tons of smog yearly” (Steiner “Fact Sheet”).
The Hopis, too, signed a 99-year lease with the company to strip-mine coal in Black Mesa (Committee of Concern). However the concerns amongst both native groups were not limited to air-pollution. Steiner goes so far as to criticize the New York Times’ coverage of Black Mesa as insufficient, seeing its failure to address the religious implications of strip-mining. Indeed, Black Mesa (the “Female Mountain”) has traditionally been considered a symbol of beauty, harmony, and the Navajo way. Some Navajos saw this as an example of how the “white man has unthinkingly defiled the religious belief of the Indians. He has disrupted the sacred and holy mountains” (Steiner “Fact Sheet”). The economic concerns were also significant. As one Navajo Tribal leader put it: “What will be left of our way of life? No pastures for our sheep! No jobs when the Mesa is gone! They force us into colonial economy (qtd. in Steiner “Fact Sheet”).
Although there are still groups like Black Mesa Indigenous Support that aid “the indigenous peoples of Black Mesa in their resistance to massive coal mining operations” (“Mission Statement”), Peabody Energy currently maintains the Kayenta Mine in the region. The company asserts that its “environmental and community practices on Black Mesa were recognized as a world model for sustainability” (“Southwest Operations”).
Although Steiner argues that the concerns of these “invisible” indigenous peoples are “lost in the smog” (“Black Mesa”) when being addressed in major newspapers, they can still be found right here—preserved and waiting to be read in the APC.
Krisela Karaja, Student Intern
The Committee of Concern for the Traditional Indian. “Hopi: Black Mesa.” Rainbow People [John Day, Oregon] Vol. 1. No. 2. 1970: p. 6. Print. Alternative Press Collections. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.
Hill, Gladwin. “Arizona Strip-Mining Project Leaving Navajo Land Unscarred.” New York Times 24 Jan. 1971: p. 55. Proquest
Historical Newspapers. Web. 26 Oct 2011.
“Mission Statement.” Black Mesa Indigenous Support. BMIS. Web. 21 Oct. 2011. http://blackmesais.org/about/mission/.
“Southwest Operations.” Peabody Energy. Peabody Energy, Inc. Web. 26 Oct. 2011.
Steiner, Stan. “Black Mesa” (letter to the editor of the New York Times). Rainbow People [John Day, Oregon] Vol. 1. No. 2. 1971: p. 14. Print. Alternative Press Collections. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.
Steiner, Stan. “Black Mesa Fact Sheet.” Rainbow People [John Day, Oregon] Vol. 1. No. 2. 1970: p. 8. Print. Alternative Press Collections. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.
The members of California’s Abalone Alliance must have thought just that as they continually resisted the proliferation of U.S. nuclear power plants—the Diablo Canyon plant in San Luis Obispo County being one of them—in the 1970s and ’80s. The Diablo controversy began in 1963, with the Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s proposal to build a nuclear plant in California. Anti-nuclear activists later learned that the company had not conducted sufficient seismic tests for fear of gathering information that would ultimately delay construction. What’s more, the plant was to be built 2.5 miles away from an earthquake fault. PG&E made this discovery in 1962 but neglected to inform the surrounding community about this safety concern (“Diablo Canyon, a history of cover-ups and resistance”).
Organized forms of civil disobedience—leafleting, peaceful protests, etc.—occurred under the direction and encouragement of the Abalone Alliance, an umbrella organization of over 60 groups, including the Los Angeles-based Alliance for Survival. In addition to promoting the Alliance for Survival’s Radioactive Times, the Abalone Alliance also distributed its own newsletter, It’s About Times. Both of these newsletters closely covered the developments at Diablo, and both also strove to spread awareness about the harmful effects of nuclear power. In fact the Times, whose main slogan was to deliver “All the news they never print,” went so far as to criticize the Reagan administration for its financial support of nuclear fusion research while cutting the budgets for energy conservation and solar energy (“Nuke Time for Bonzo”).
The opposition of the Abalone-affiliated groups was formidable. In 1981, 10,000 local citizens instituted a two-week blockade of Diablo Canyon, resulting in 1901 arrests. That year, it was also revealed that “PG&E used wrong blueprints when installing key seismic supports” (“Diablo Canyon, a history of cover-ups and resistance”). Whistleblower John Horn lamented: “I wasn’t exactly popular around the office then because most people thought I was just kind of nitpicking, and that I was stirring up trouble” (“Diablo Canyon, a history of cover-ups and resistance”).
Despite these protests, Diablo Canyon was granted an operating license by The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on November 2, 1984, and will maintain this license until at least November 2, 2024 (“Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 1”). On its website, PG&E maintains that “Diablo Canyon Power Plant is a safe, clean, reliable and vital resource for all Californians” (“Welcome to Diablo Canyon”).
However, the work—the history—of these sometimes overlooked grassroots anti-nuclear groups is still preserved within the Alternative Press Collections at the Dodd Center today, waiting to be rediscovered by researchers and students alike.
Krisela Karaja, Student Intern
“AA Safe Energy Groups.” It’s About Times: Abalone Alliance Newsletter [San Francisco, CA] Mid-June—July, 1980: p. 11. Print. Alternative Press Collections. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of
“Abalone Alliance Newsletter: It’s About Times.” It’s About Times: Abalone Alliance Newsletter [San Francisco, CA] Mid-June—July, 1980: p. 2. Print. Alternative Press Collections. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.
“Diablo Canyon, a history of cover-ups and resistance: Do PG&E and the NRC Really Care About Safety?” [San Luis Obispo, CA] final edition, early 1984: p. 4. Print. Alternative Press Collections. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.
“Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 1.” U.S. NRC: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NRC, 24 June 2011. Web. 13 Oct. 2011.http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/diab1.html.
“Nuke Time for Bonzo.” Radioactive Times [San Luis Obispo, CA] Summer 1981: p. 3. Print. Alternative Press Collections. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.
“Welcome to Diablo Canyon.” PG&E. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, n.d. Web. 13 Oct. 2011. <http://www.pge.com/myhome/edusafety/systemworks/dcpp/>.
To drink or not to drink? This is a question most Americans rarely address, regarding the safety of their drinking water. Indeed, water contamination often appears irrelevant to us—a far-off issue confined to developing countries. However, as Jonathan King argues in his book Troubled Water: The Poisoning of America’s Drinking Water, instances of environmental contamination are far from isolated.
Written in 1985 by the Center for Investigative Reporting, one of the nation’s oldest nonprofit agencies covering crucial yet often neglected issues, Troubled Water raises awareness about contaminated groundwater. Burying toxic wastes is particularly harmful to groundwater –and, by association, drinking water—because chemicals “don’t readily disperse, settle out, or degrade” (King xi) at this level. Land disposal is a cheap, common, and sometimes significantly harmful waste management technique, as there is no way to fully ensure that the toxins will be kept from leaking into groundwater. In fact, “a leak of a single gallon of gasoline per day is enough to render the groundwater supply for a town of 50,000 people unfit to drink” (King xi).
Such contamination has had dire results in the past: the 1978 Love Canal scandal being one example. Despite warnings from Hooker Chemicals Co., schools and residential areas were built on and near a buried chemical waste site in Niagara Falls, NY. Wastes and toxins such as dioxin eventually spread as the water table rose—leaking into basements, sewers, and eventually area creeks. This contamination was also associated with an unprecedented number of health concerns among residents including miscarriages, birth defects, and the development of rare diseases.
Federal initiatives such as the 1980 Superfund program were established in the wake of these environmental scandals in order to hold polluters accountable after the fact. However, King suggests that the best way to seek environmental justice is for citizens to be proactive, so that environmental injustice never becomes an issue. He argues that “contamination has to be prevented before it happens” (173). He quotes Lois Gibbs, a prominent environmentalist and local leader in the call for action at Love Canal: “ ‘I’m really very optimistic. I see people moving, and I see things [i.e. citizen involvement] happening’ ” (180). If not, then, as Joel Hirschhorm—a 1980s Capitol Hill expert on toxic waste management—put it: “We will end up paying that [environmental] debt either with our money [in having to treat polluted areas] or our health” (qtd. in King xiv-xv).
Krisela Karaja, Student Intern
“About CIR.” Center for Investigative Reporting. Center for Investigative Reporting, n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2011. Center for Investigative Reporting
DePalma, Anthony. “Love Canal Declared Clean, Ending Toxic Horror.” New York Times 18 Mar. 2004. Web Archives. 26 Sept. 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/18/nyregion/love-canal-declared-clean-ending-toxic-horror.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm.
King, Jonathan. Troubled Water: The Poisoning of America’s Drinking Water—how government and industry allowed it to happen, and what you can do to ensure a safe supply in the home. Emmaus Pennsylvania, Rodale Press: 1985. Print. Alternative Press Collections. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries. Call number: APC Bk 389.
“Love Canal New York. EPA ID# NYD000606947.” EPA. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 25 Jan. 2010. Web. 26 Sept. 2011. <www.epa.gov/region2/superfund/npl/0201290c.pdf>.
Join me in welcoming our new guest blogger, Krisela Karaja, UConn student, intern, and author of SideStream, a brand new blog series that highlights archival materials available at the Dodd Research Center. The new series will offer an insider’s view of the rich collections useful for studying the history and evolution of global environmental issues today. Krisela will explore the diversity of materials from the Alternative Press, Human Rights, and political collections, and share her discoveries along the way. Take it away Krisela!
Melissa Watterworth Batt, Curator of Literary, Natural History and Rare Books Collections
The APC originated in the late 1960s, inspired by the political, social, and cultural advocacy of UConn students at that time. The materials in this collection emphasize the importance of grassroots organizations and alternative media in providing different stories and perspectives to a public drowning in mainstream. Unfortunately, most UConn undergrads are unaware that these invaluable research materials are at their fingertips, literally waiting to be examined. I was one of these students until two weeks ago, after being formally introduced to all the resources the Dodd has to offer in subject areas ranging from politics, to women’s studies, to the environment itself. This got me to thinking: what about other students? What about students majoring in Environmental Studies or other areas that deviate from the typical subjects often associated with archival research? Would it even occur to them to look in the APC when researching a historically documented ecological issue? Well it should!
I’ve been digging through the APC archives for a while now and believe me—it’s a gold mine ranging back to the late 1950s and 1960s. I personally struck gold when looking through Northwest Passage, a bi-weekly Bellingham, Washington newspaper printed from 1969 to 1986. The paper grew very popular as far as grassroots news is concerned and it quickly evolved into an ecological
journal with a national subscription base, including a number of mainstream media sources.
Publisher Frank Kathman, one of the three co-founders, boasted: “[W]e soon found that the Passage had a monopoly on environmental information in the Northwest.” Add the newspaper’s penchant for publishing risqué stories on topics such as personal marijuana cultivation, its willingness to include articles and commentaries from subscribers, and the “Molasses Jug,”—a local funk section including everything from old wives’ remedies to advice on herbal supplements—and you’ve got a recipe for underground news success. This recipe was especially savored in Bellingham, because as Kathman asserted, “[It] seemed like a microcosm of the American dream. A place where a small but ambitious paper could really be effective.” It was, indeed, effective—especially when it came to
covering key environmental issues of the period: “[We] made establishment papers look like they were shirking their duties.”
Of course any mainstream paper would have been shamed, had its coverage of the 1971 Anacortes Oil spill, for instance, been compared to the incessant coverage of Kathman’s staff. Northwest Passage had addressed the oil issue for some time before the spill, as the controversial debate raged over expanding ARCO (Atlantic Richfield Company) oil tankers and production in Alaska. The Anacortes incident sent 210,000 gallons of no. 2 diesel oil spilling into the Guemes Channel. The number was initially reported as 5000 gallons, not barrels, delaying action until six to sixteen hours later. Only about 5% of the oil was cleaned, and a study of the previous 1969 spill near the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute found that bacterial degradation after oil spills is slow. Toxic hydrocarbons remain—especially if diesel fuel is spilled. The most toxic areas dissipate quickly, and cannot be cleaned at all. The Passage was apparently also successful at portending the future. The April 26, 1971
issue included an article titled “Our Fine Feathered Friends,” explaining how to care for birds, should they be harmed by potential oil spills. Author David Wolf concluded his article on a hopeful note: “May we never find ourselves in need of these procedures.” Turns out these procedures would be needed the same day the issue was printed!
Apparently the supposedly archived environmental hot topics of the late 60s and early 70s are still simmering—dare I say boiling?–in the world outside the Dodd Center today.
Krisela Karaja, Student Intern
Kathman, Frank. “Passage History.” Northwest Passage [Bellingham, Washington] 15 Mar. – 28 Mar. 1971: Vol. 4 No. 2. Alternative Press Collections. Archives and Special Collections
at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.
Northwest Passage [Bellingham, Washington] 10 May – 23 May 1971: Vol. 5 No. 3. Alternative Press Collections. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.
University of Connecticut. UConn EcoHusky. UConn Office of Environmental Policy, n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2011. http://ecohusky.uconn.edu/.
Wolf, David. “Our Fine Feathered Friends.” Northwest Passage [Bellingham, Washington] 26 Apr. – 9 May 1971: Vol. 5 No. 2. Alternative Press Collections. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.