Archive for the 'Gravel Mining Impacts' Category

Russian River Gravel Mining Stopped

Published on January 15, 2010 in Environmental Impacts, Gravel Mining Impacts, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge and Watershed Related. 0 Comments
To All,
In case you haven’t seen it, here are some press releases on the very big win in the gravel mining decision.
Marc

doc4b046ebe08ee6525298528.jpg

Judge’s decision could halt river gravel mining
A decision last week in Sonoma County Superior Court overturned a 2008 Board of Supervisors decision to extend the deadline for terrace gravel mining in the Russian River. Pictured above are Syar’s gravel pits along the Russian River between Healdsburg and Windsor.
Board of Supervisor’s 2008 extension reversed By Kerrie Russell Tribune Editor Published: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 3:02 PM PST A decision last week by the Sonoma County Superior Court could mean the end of gravel pit mining along the Russian River.
A ruling by Judge Robert Boyd overturned a 2008 Board of Supervisor’s vote that would have allowed an extension of terrace gravel mining in the Russian River.
The judge’s decision came a year after a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lawsuit was filed by the Westside Association to Save Agriculture, the Russian River Keeper and the North Coast Rivers Alliance.
The group filed the suit last fall after the Board of Supervisors in October of 2008 voted 3-2 to in favor of Syar Industries request to extend a terrace gravel mining deadline past April of 2006. The 1994 ARM plan (certified in 1996) required a 10-year limit and called for the end of mining on the west side of the Russian River.
“The ARM plan was clear that there were no extensions,” said Riverkeeper Don McEnhill.
However, last year’s decision from the Board of Supervisors would have allowed Syar Industries to “finish the job” on phase VI of the project, west of the Russian River just south of Healdsburg, and required that no more than a year should pass after mining is completed for environmental restoration there.
Following a motion from Fourth District Supervisor Paul Kelley, supervisors Tim Smith and Mike Kerns voted in favor of the three-year extension in 2008.
But in Judge Boyd’s 12-page ruling last week, he found that Sonoma County violated CEQA by failing to (1) prepare a separate Environmental Impact Report addressing the significant adverse impacts of Syar’s proposed terrace gravel mining, (2) adequately explain why the alternative of terminating mining and reclaiming the disturbed land for other uses was not feasible, and (3) provide an adequate discussion of alternative gravel sources including importation of gravel from outside the County and development of existing and proposed quarries within the County.
Boyd called Syar’s requested extension a contradiction of “the very essence of the project history,” and called their argument “circular.”
In response to the Board of Supervisor’s finding that the ARM should be extended because alternatives are infeasible, Boyd stated, “An agency cannot find an alternative infeasible simply because the developer does not want to do it.”
David Spielberg, attorney for Syar, was unsure what the company’s next steps will be.
“At this point, we’re still looking at it and evaluating what our response ought to be and what our options are,” he said. “Right now, we’re still trying to digest the decision.”
Terrace gravel mining stopped in 2006 while Syar waited for a decision on the extension.
“This decision is a great victory for the people of Sonoma County who rely on the Russian River and adjacent water aquifer for their drinking water,” said Marc Bommersbach, President of Westside Association to Save Agriculture (WASA). “Years of strip mining in the aquifer of the Russian River have severely impacted this precious resource that supplies the drinking water to 700,000 people in Sonoma and Marin Counties.”
Opponents of Syar’s gravel mining also argue that there are less costly and more environmentally sound ways to supply gravel for construction and road projects.
“It has been clearly demonstrated that the county has supplies of gravel to support projects like roads and buildings without relying on mining gravel in the county’s drinking water aquifer. They haven’t mined there since 2006 and the freeway project has not come to a halt,” Bommersbach said.
McEnhill said the ruling is a big win for the river.
“We feel like this ruling will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to try and go back and dig up the aquifers,” he said. “We think the biggest win is for our future water supply and for ag along the river.
“This is a victory that’s been a long time coming. It’s a historical win,” McEnhill said.

Judge’s decision could halt river gravel mining
A decision last week in Sonoma County Superior Court overturned a 2008 Board of Supervisors decision to extend the deadline for terrace gravel mining in the Russian River. Pictured above are Syar’s gravel pits along the Russian River between Healdsburg and Windsor.
Board of Supervisor’s 2008 extension reversed By Kerrie Russell Tribune Editor Published: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 3:02 PM PST A decision last week by the Sonoma County Superior Court could mean the end of gravel pit mining along the Russian River.
A ruling by Judge Robert Boyd overturned a 2008 Board of Supervisor’s vote that would have allowed an extension of terrace gravel mining in the Russian River.
The judge’s decision came a year after a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lawsuit was filed by the Westside Association to Save Agriculture, the Russian River Keeper and the North Coast Rivers Alliance.
The group filed the suit last fall after the Board of Supervisors in October of 2008 voted 3-2 to in favor of Syar Industries request to extend a terrace gravel mining deadline past April of 2006. The 1994 ARM plan (certified in 1996) required a 10-year limit and called for the end of mining on the west side of the Russian River.
“The ARM plan was clear that there were no extensions,” said Riverkeeper Don McEnhill.
However, last year’s decision from the Board of Supervisors would have allowed Syar Industries to “finish the job” on phase VI of the project, west of the Russian River just south of Healdsburg, and required that no more than a year should pass after mining is completed for environmental restoration there.
Following a motion from Fourth District Supervisor Paul Kelley, supervisors Tim Smith and Mike Kerns voted in favor of the three-year extension in 2008.
But in Judge Boyd’s 12-page ruling last week, he found that Sonoma County violated CEQA by failing to (1) prepare a separate Environmental Impact Report addressing the significant adverse impacts of Syar’s proposed terrace gravel mining, (2) adequately explain why the alternative of terminating mining and reclaiming the disturbed land for other uses was not feasible, and (3) provide an adequate discussion of alternative gravel sources including importation of gravel from outside the County and development of existing and proposed quarries within the County.
Boyd called Syar’s requested extension a contradiction of “the very essence of the project history,” and called their argument “circular.”
In response to the Board of Supervisor’s finding that the ARM should be extended because alternatives are infeasible, Boyd stated, “An agency cannot find an alternative infeasible simply because the developer does not want to do it.”
David Spielberg, attorney for Syar, was unsure what the company’s next steps will be.
“At this point, we’re still looking at it and evaluating what our response ought to be and what our options are,” he said. “Right now, we’re still trying to digest the decision.”
Terrace gravel mining stopped in 2006 while Syar waited for a decision on the extension.
“This decision is a great victory for the people of Sonoma County who rely on the Russian River and adjacent water aquifer for their drinking water,” said Marc Bommersbach, President of Westside Association to Save Agriculture (WASA). “Years of strip mining in the aquifer of the Russian River have severely impacted this precious resource that supplies the drinking water to 700,000 people in Sonoma and Marin Counties.”
Opponents of Syar’s gravel mining also argue that there are less costly and more environmentally sound ways to supply gravel for construction and road projects.
“It has been clearly demonstrated that the county has supplies of gravel to support projects like roads and buildings without relying on mining gravel in the county’s drinking water aquifer. They haven’t mined there since 2006 and the freeway project has not come to a halt,” Bommersbach said.
McEnhill said the ruling is a big win for the river.
“We feel like this ruling will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to try and go back and dig up the aquifers,” he said. “We think the biggest win is for our future water supply and for ag along the river.
“This is a victory that’s been a long time coming. It’s a historical win,” McEnhill said.

Comments on the Klamath TMDL

Published on September 7, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Gravel Mining Impacts, Lakes and Resevoirs, Logging Impacts, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge, Water Conservation and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

August 21, 2009

Matt St. John                                                                        
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board                                  
5550 Skyline Blvd, Suite A
Santa Rosa, CA  95403
Email to: MStJohn@waterboards.ca.gov

Subject: Comments on the Klamath Mainstem TMDL Water Quality Restoration Plan

General Comments
We are  pleased with and fully supportive of Staff’s efforts in these Draft Water Quality Restoration Plan (“Implementation Plan”) provisions as well as in the supporting Technical TMDL portions of the Draft TMDL generally as set forth in the earlier chapters.  The necessary condition of success is dependent on a strong, comprehensive and fully enforceable Implementation Plan as well as progress in  pollution control on Klamath River tributaries..

The policy foundation upon which these implementation measures are constructed, as well as the Technical TMDL portions of the prior chapters, are both scientifically sound and well constructed.  We also believe the proposed zero load allocations are completely justified given the already highly degraded water quality conditions of the Klamath River today.

Pollutant Sources and Controls

Private forest lands contribute a good deal of sediment to the Klamath River, particularly from the vast network of poorly maintained and legacy logging roads on private lands.  Principle parties are the US Forest Service and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.  

The California Board of Forestry has adopted some construction standards for private lands logging roads, but these standards are frequently not enforced except on a complaint-driven basis.  Compliance with maintenance standards on private logging roads is also very lax, and largely voluntary.  The adequacy of those logging road rules to prevent inflows of sediments and increased frequency of landslides is questionable.  We are also not aware of any systematic effort to inventory private land logging roads within the Klamath basin, and it is likely that no such private logging road inventory and data base currently exists or will exist.


There are several other water quality programs, or programs with water quality implications, in the Klamath Basin already – including the Scott and Shasta river TMDLs and Implementation Plans.


The Klamath TMDL Implementation Strategy should be consistent with:

ESA Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon: Klamath Basin coho salmon have been State listed under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) since August 30, 2002.  On February, 2004, the Fish and Game Commission formally adopted a Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon which is now being implemented, and which contains hundreds of measures and goals for coho salmon recovery, many with water quality standards implications

Federal ESA Coho Recovery Plans: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will shortly be releasing a draft coho recovery plan for the SONCC ESU which Klamath coho salmon are a part of.  The measures that will ultimately be contained in this federal recovery plan may also have water quality standard implications, and an adopted state TMDL should be consistent with those standards as well as contribute toward coho recovery under that federal plan.

Basin Plan for the North Cost: Including Basin Plan Amendments (Scott River TMDL and Implementation Plan, Shasta River TMDL and Implementation Plan, Basin Plan Anti-degradation language, and any Basin Plan Amendments for stream, wetland, and sediment protections (with prohibitions). 

California Water Code: The Klamath TMDL and Implementation Plan (including Implementing Programs)  must conform to the mandates of California Water Code (as a Basin Plan Amendment/Water Quality Control Plan) and meet the conditions set forth in the Code (including Section 13242 of the Code). 

California Environmental Quality Act: Description of conditions of the Klamath Basin (as environment setting – including tributaries), causal relationships, problem statement, assessment, and remedy (mitigtion/implementation planning) as part of the TMDL process must conform to CEQA mandates. 

Waste Discharge Reporting – Conditional Waivers (for Timber Harvest and Agricultural Land Use)

A review of the Scott and Shasta River TMDLs and Implementation Plan indicates reliance on the use of WDRs and Conditional Waivers for pollution control planning, standards, and actions.  For Timber Harvest and Agricultural land use effects the Implementation Plans of these TMDLs (inclusive of the Klamath River, and tributaries the Scott and Shasta Rivers) is dependent on the language and controls inherent in these WDRs and related Conditional Waivers.  CEQA review and Water Code compliance was dependent on the language these WDRs and related Conditional Waivers.  With the understanding that the Scott and Shasta Rivers are tributaries of the Klamath River and conditions on these tributaries effect the function and impaired condition of the Klamath system in general, it must be assumed that changes to the Implementation Plan (by changing WDR and Conditional Waiver conditions) would have pervasive effects on the whole system. Thus, any changes to the WDRs and/or Conditional Waivers that would weaken the Implementation Planning and/or Timber Harvest and Agricultural land use standards and controls would compromise the TMDL implementation standards that had been relied up to attain Water Quality Standards over time and thus would not be in conformance with Cal Water Code and CEQA.  Such changes would require re-visitation to these respective TMDL Implementation Plans. 

Note: WDR and Conditional Waiver language as mitigation (under CEQA review and in conformance with Cal Water Code)  was a condition of adoption of the Scott and Shasta TMDLs and Implementation Plan as amended into the Basin Plan.  These conditions are considered binding and enforceable. If such WDR or Waiver conditions are ignored or violated, then such a conditions can be legally compelled to be obeyed.  To change the conditions of an approved Implementation Plan (WDR or Waiver) would necessitate that it be amended according to the same process by which it was approved. In this case such changes would require substantiation that any such changes must be equal to or better that the previously applied conditions. 

Implementation language as mitigation is compelled by substantial evidence in the record.  The only way that the State Water Board or Regional Board can legally allow the mitigation to be removed or changed is if it determines that the substantial evidence that prompted the mitigation has somehow disappeared. If a particular mitigation is necessary to control the adverse impacts of a project over a certain period of time and if it is feasible, its implementation is legally mandated.

Any diminished capability in the Regional Board administration of these WDRs and Conditional Waivers (possibly by State Wide WDRs and Waivers as proposed by the State Board) would necessarily effect the potential  effectiveness of any TMDL that relies on these WDRs and Waivers for pollutant control.  Thus the Implementation policy effectiveness of these TMDLs would, and should, be called into question.  Loss of WDR and Waiver utility should bring the approved Scott and Shasta TMDL Implementation language into question. In addition, the Scott and Shasta are Klamath problems.  

Final Report on Sediment Impairment and Effects on Beneficial Uses of The Elk River and Stitz, Bear, Jordan and Freshwater Creeks (Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel); and (2) Phase II Report: Independent Scientific Review Panel on Sediment Impairment and Effects on Beneficial Uses of the Elk River and Stitz, Bear, Jordan and Freshwater Creeks (Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel) – and – other studies and scientific review planels document and contain substantial evidence that CDF’s Rules and best management practices fail to protect water quality from the adverse effects of logging.  These documents should be referenced in review and discussion of Implementation Planning (Implementing Programs – inclusive of WDRs and Conditional Waivers).

Stream Flow Maintenance

The State Water Board has not included all of the north coast streams (suffering from diminished flows – from over and inappropriate use, unlicensed use, and changing weather patterns) in their policy considerations for flow maintenance (and beneficial use protection). Low flow conditions exacerbate temperature and other pollutant issues.  Documented in the Klamath River, and Scott and Shasta River TMDLs and Implementation Plan are pollutant effects related to diminished stream flows. The State Water Board should (under State Water Code and other regulatory authority ) take action to protect beneficial uses by imposing standards and regulations to limit wasteful and illegal diversion. These actions are to include minimum flow targets to protect fishery resources and other beneficial uses, stream flow gauges, Water Master, Water Budgets, and gauges on pumps so that use may be documented. All information should and policy process should be open and transparent and available for use by responsible agency and the public. (note: this issue is what is being discussed on the Russian River and other streams in northern California suffering from similar conditions ). 

This issue must be addressed (in reference to conditions in the Klamath River and tributaries) in the Klamath River TMDL and Implementation Plan. 

Suction Dredging 

Suction dredging changes channel conformity and brings up and redistributes sediment (and possibly pollution contaminates).  Such activity is subject to DFG 1600 permitting and should be subject to WDRs and NPDES permitting processes (NPDES due to the fact that this is a point source input of pollutants).   Suction dredging activity must be in conformance with the Basin Plan (including Basin Plan Anti-degradation language). 

Model Boundary

The Klamath River TMDL and Implantation plan is complicated by many factors, including inputs from tributaries and areas of the Klamath River outside the State of California. The State of California (and Region IX EPA) should insist that waters delivered to the boarder of the State of California from Oregon should meet Water Quality Standards.  This requires cooperation and actions from the State of Oregon and regional management by the EPA. 

Mile Stones

Section 13242 of California Water Code require time lines for implementation of actions as part of a Water Quality Control Plan. The Klamath River TMDL and Action plan projects actions to be accomplished at some future date. Compliance for such an implementation schedule should be tracked and mandated – with additional actions to take place if the schedule is not met.  There should be mile stones (or targets) for measurement of trends and efficacy of Implementing Programs – with additional described actions if such miles stones (or targets) are not attained.  Performance and movement towards attainment standards are mandated under this section of the Cal Water Code and by CEQA.  The document should clearly demonstrate how all of this is to be accomplished – with described alternative actions if mile stones or targets are not attained. 


 Sincerely, 

 Alan Levine for Coast Action Group 



Alan Levine
Coast Action Group
P.O. Box 215 
Point Arena, CA 95468

Phone: Week Days 707 542-4408
Weekends  707 882-2484

The Water Protection and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Published on July 24, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Gravel Mining Impacts, Logging Impacts, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

FYI,

The Water Protection and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Yesterday Congressman Earl Blumenaeur (OR)  introduced, The Water Protection and Reinvestment Act of 2009, in Congress. The bill would establish a water protection and reinvestment fund to support investment in clean water and drinking water infrastructure. Today at 2 pm, the U.S. House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee will hold a hearing to discuss the merits of the legislation. CWN Board Treasurer Dereth Glance, representing Citizens Campaign for the Environment (NY & CT), will testify on the bill.

To obtain a copy of Dereth’s testimony and Clean Water Network’s official Board position on establishing a national clean water trust fund click HERE.

–Larry

Action to Support Clean Water!

Published on July 21, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Gravel Mining Impacts, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Logging Impacts, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

Contact Your Local County Commissioner and Tell Him or Her to Support Clean Water!

The National Association of Counties (NACo) represents county governments all throughout the U.S.  Each year, NACo meets to consider resolutions on federal issues that affect their local governments.  Because this organization is made up of local officials, NACo is very influential with Congress.

In years past, NACo has passed resolutions opposing the Clean Water Restoration Act based on misleading information provided by industry and property rights groups.  Members of Congress have cited NACo’s objections as an excuse not to move this critical legislation forward.  However, that is all about to change.

This year NACo will consider a “Clean Water for All” resolution that supports the compromise bill passed in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on June 18th.  If NACo adopts this resolution, then the organization can no longer lobby against the Clean Water Restoration Act.  This would significantly improve our chance of passing the bill in Congress.

We need you to make phone calls before Thursday, July 23rd!

County commissioners who serve on NACo’s Environment Committee and its Board of Directors have a chance to vote on this important resolution at their annual conference in Nashville, TN, July 24-27th. We need supporters of clean water to call and email their commissioners and urge them to vote YES on the “Clean Water for All” resolution.   Click here for talking points, a sample letter, and to access a spreadsheet that lists the county commissioners who will vote on this resolution.

4th Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium

Published on June 19, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Gravel Mining Impacts, Lakes and Resevoirs, Logging Impacts, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

4th Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium
July 23-24 on the Salmon River

Following the annual Salmon River dives, SRF and Salmon River Restoration Council will host the 4th Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium featuring rafting tours of Creek Mouth Enhancement Projects on the Mid Klamath tributaries, field trips to fish passage projects on the Salmon River; hands-on restoration workshop about invasive species control and panel discussions on the Klamath Dam removal process. Please check out the agenda and registration form at www.calsalmon.org

Clean Water Act Alert

Published on June 15, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Coastal Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Gravel Mining Impacts, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Logging Impacts, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge, Water Conservation and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

Finally, after years of delay, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) is going to mark up (vote on) a compromise version of the Clean Water Restoration Act (S. 787) THIS Thursday, June 18.
This is an all-hands-on-deck alert!
We need your help to make sure our Senators know how critically important it is to move this bill through the Committee with no weakening amendments and then have a full Senate vote.

Please use any of the information and language in this alert to:

Call your Senators. Please have your organizations, colleagues, volunteers, activists, family and friends make calls to their Senators.  Even if your Senators are not on EPW, we still need to call them because this has the potential to move quickly to the floor, and our Senators need to know we support clean water. Please refer to the talking points below and this excel spread sheet, which contains your Senators’ DC contact information and highlights if they are on the EPW committee and/or if they are co-sponsors of S. 787.

Send out action alerts. Please encourage your own networks to make calls and send emails. If you can send an electronic action alert out, please do so as soon as possible. If you do not have those capabilities, please encourage your members to make calls. Feel free to use the summary language or talking points here to help you craft your message.

Background On the Clean Water Restoration Act

When Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, it intended to establish broad protections for all waters to achieve the law’s goal of restoring and maintaining the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. However, since 2001, Supreme Court decisions have called into doubt these broad protections.

The Senate EPW committee will mark up the bill on Thursday, June 18. Even though this bill is a significant compromise compared with the bill that Senator Russ Feingold introduced just a few months ago, Congress must act now to resolve the confusion and uncertainty around the Clean Water Act because we are losing many vital waters to pollution and complete destruction.

EPW Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer of California deserves credit for bringing committee members together on a compromise.  It is the bare minimum needed to overturn the Supreme Court’s decisions in Rapanos and SWANNC, and re-establish the scope of protection that existed in 2001. The current bill does not assert constitutional authority to protect waters as clearly as Senator Feingold’s bill. It also puts two existing regulatory exemptions (prior converted cropland and waste treatment systems) into the statute.

Some members of the committee have floated weakening amendments, such as exemptions in the permitting program for discharging pesticides into water and for lead pollution at shooting ranges.  Those exemptions are not in the compromise bill, but we anticipate that some members may offer these and other weakening amendments at the markup.

We applaud Chairman Barbara Boxer for moving this bill forward. This is just one step of many the Congress must take to enact this bill into law and we cannot afford any further weakening of the bill and still achieve the goal of restoring Clean Water Act protections to all waters of the U.S. as they existed prior to 2001.

Talking Points 

For EPW Committee Members:
The Clean Water Restoration Act needs to move forward now to resolve the confusion and uncertainty around the Clean Water Act that is leaving many vital waters open to pollution and complete destruction.

We applaud Chairman Barbara Boxer for moving this bill forward, but the version scheduled for markup this week is a significant compromise compared with the original bill.  The current bill is the bear minimum needed to overturn the recent Supreme Court decisions that have left many of our nation’s waters under threat.  However, this threat needs to be addressed immediately since we are losing waters every day.

Members of the EPW committee should support this bill and oppose any weakening amendments.

For Senators not on the EPW Committee:

The Senate EPW committee is expected to mark up a version of the Clean Water Restoration Act on Thursday, June 18.   It’s a significant compromise compared with Senator Feingold’s original bill, but many critical waters are losing protection, and Congress needs to move forward quickly to re-establish the same protections the law provided in 2001.

After the markup, we hope that the full Senate will take action quickly.  Please examine this compromise bill and give it your support.

We look forward to working with members of Congress to restore the Clean Water Act and guarantee clean water for all of our community
Clean Water Network

Bill 670 Banning Suction Mining on to Assembly

Published on June 12, 2009 in Gravel Mining Impacts, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related. 0 Comments
Greetings!    

Thanks to over 300 of your letters, California SB 670 shot through the Senate last week and is on to the Assembly.  Your help is needed to urge Assembly members to support the bill with equal speed and enthusiasm - please take 10 seconds to send a new one-click letter supporting limits on harmful suction dredge mining.

I’m inviting you to the 2009 SalmonAid Festival in Oakland’s Jack London Square June 20-21st. It will be a fun-filled festival of fish, food, and music that will help restore the salmon in the Klamath. Hope to see you there.

 

Malena Marvin
Outreach and Science Director
Klamath Riverkeeper

 

 

 

Film: End of the Line

Published on May 16, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Gravel Mining Impacts, Lakes and Resevoirs, Logging Impacts, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Water Conservation. 0 Comments

To All,

“The inconvenient truth about
the impact of overfishing on the world’s oceans”
— The Economist

Fresh from its World Premiere at the 2009 Sundance Film Festival,
THE END OF THE LINE is the first major documentary about the imminent peril facing the world’s oceans.

Narrated by Ted Danson and based on the book by Charles Clover,
THE END OF THE LINE explores the devastating effect that overfishing is having on fish stocks and the health of our oceans. Scientists predict that if we continue fishing at the current rate, the planet will completely run out of fish by 2048.

THE END OF THE LINE will be released theatrically beginning June 19th in 12 to 15 cities, and will be supported by numerous word-of-mouth screenings on June 8, 2009 — World Ocean Day.

Endorsed by and with major marketing support from National Geographic, Greenpeace, and the Natural Resources Defense Fund (NRDC), THE END OF THE LINE is the definitive film of 2009 for those who care about the environment, the safety of our food supply, and the preservation of endangered species.

More than just a doomsday warning, THE END OF THE LINE offers real, practical solutions that are simple and doable, including advocating for controlled fishing of engendered species, protecting networks of marine reserves off-limits to fishing, and educating consumers that they have a choice by purchasing fish from sustainable fisheries. 

To learn more about the film and WATCH THE TRAILER,
go to endoftheline.com

WHAT YOUR ORGANIZATION CAN DO TO HELP:

We are asking for your support!

We have created an extensive MEDIA RESOURCE PAGE in the hopes that organizations like yours can partner with us to bring this film to audiences across the nation and empower them to save our oceans. We are looking for organizations to participate in the following ways:

  • Promote The Film’s Opening Through Your Membership Email Lists
    We have a wide variety of materials that can easily be emailed to inform your members of this global ecological issue and promote the film’s opening in your city.
  • Disseminate Promotional Materials
    We have fabulous film stickers and posters, and we are asking our partners to distribute internally and at any key areas and locations that serve their members. Can you help us find activists to distribute our STICKERS? Some stipends for enthusiastic activists are available. Please be in touch quickly so we can allocate those stipends appropriately!
  • HOST a “Word-of-Mouth Screening” on June 8th
    We are currently organizing local screenings, and seeking partners to promote the film to ‘tastemakers’ who can spread the word and mobilize audiences for our theatrical opening. Please visit ourscreenings page for more information on where the film is currently scheduled to play.

PLEASE CONTACT US TO PARTICIPATE:

We hope you will join us in working to protect our oceans and our future.

Please visit our MEDIA RESOURCE PAGE, where you can learn more about the film, find tools to put a listing about the film on your website, create a dedicated email blast, or request promotional materials and DVD screeners of THE END OF THE LINE.

Still have questions? Please contact Matt or David.

Matt Johnstone, New American Vision, TEL: (213) 481-8078

David Averbach, New American Vision, TEL: (415) 255-7951

To learn more about the film and WATCH THE TRAILER,
go to endoftheline.com

–Larry

Clean Water Restoration Act UPDATE

Published on April 20, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Coastal Impacts, Gravel Mining Impacts, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Logging Impacts, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge and Water Conservation. 0 Comments

Clean Water Restoration Act UPDATE

On Thursday, April 2, 2009 Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin introduced the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2009 (S.787).  To read the text of this legislation go to the Library of Congress website and do a bill search for S.787:
http://thomas.loc.gov/

Senator Barbara Boxer is an original co-sponsor of the bill, but to date Senator Dianne Feinstein has yet to sign on.  Please contact Senator Feinstein (202-224-3841) TODAY and urge her to become a co-sponsor of this critical legislation!

We also encourage you to use the release of Courting Disaster as an opportunity to write a Letter to the Editor or an Opinion Editorial for your local paper in order to express that Congress must act quickly to pass the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2009.  This legislation would restore federal Clean Water Act protections for all of the waters that were protected before the law was broken.

Clean Water Act Action

Published on April 2, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Coastal Impacts, Gravel Mining Impacts, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Logging Impacts, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge, Water Conservation and Watershed Related. 0 Comments
Dear Clean Water Network Members and Others,

 
REMINDER: 

ACT NOW to schedule meetings with your Senators and Representatives for the in-district work period of April 6-17 to talk with them about restoring the Clean Water Act. Setting up a meeting takes advance time, so it is best to get a request in as soon as possible.  Whether your members of Congress have supported the bill in the past or not, we need to impress upon all of them the urgency of addressing the issue this year!   

 
To find out district office contact information click on www.house.gov or www.senate.gov and follow the prompts.  You can also call the Capitol Hill switchboard at 202-224-3121 to be connected to your Senators’ or Representative’s DC office. 


Please refer to these resources available on CWN’s website: 
 

To help get you started:
1. A phone script you can use when calling your local district office
2. Clean Water Restoration Act talking points 
3. Clean Water Restoration Act state specific facts
4. Sample OpEd and LTE

 

Download these resources here:
http://www.cleanwaternetwork.org//issues/scope/getengaged/displaycontent.cfm?ContentID=753&ContentTypeID=4&PageFormat=DisplayContent&ConfigID=146 
 
The following factsheets should be used to educate Representatives and Senators on the importance of passing the Clean Water Restoration Act.  Please print out these materials and give them to your members of Congress: 

1. A general factsheet on the need to pass the Clean Water Restoration Act
2. A list of more than 500 organizations that support the Clean Water Restoration Act
3. A factsheet on drinking water sources potentially at risk of losing Clean Water Act protections
4.  A factsheet describing clean water enforcement cases that were dropped due to agency confusion

 

Factsheets can be downloaded here:

Thanks for everything you do to protect our nation’s waters!

Natalie Roy

Clean Water Network