American Rivers, Author at

In celebration of the World Fish Migration Day, here are 10 fun facts about migratory fish!

When most people think of migratory fish, they think of salmon and other anadromous species that are born in freshwater, migrate to the ocean, and return to their natal rivers to spawn. But catadromous fish, like the American eel, do just the opposite— they migrate from the ocean into freshwater where they spend most of their lives, and then back to the ocean to spawn.
The distance that migratory fish travel can vary wildly. A Chinook salmon tagged in the Aleutian Islands and recovered in Salmon River, Idaho, was determined to have traveled 3,500 miles to spawn.
In contrast, river herring on the East Coast typically do not travel far from the outlet of their natal stream. River herring often occur in schools of thousands of fish near these outlets.
Considering the long distances some migratory fish travel, their ability to navigate back to their natal stream to complete their life cycle is truly incredible. Scientific evidence suggests that these fish use magnetic fields, environmental cues, and their olfactory memory (or sense of smell) to navigate to the precise stream where they were born.
Diadromous fish play a crucial role in nutrient transport that supports freshwater and inland ecosystems. They migrate out of streams when they are still small and grow large on the ocean’s nutrients. Since many species die shortly after returning to their natal stream, their bodies serve as an important input of nutrients in these freshwater ecosystems.
Chinook salmon are among the largest migratory fish in the U.S., with the largest ever recorded being 126 lbs., though most Chinook salmon weigh only about 30 lbs.
Dams are not the only barriers to fish migration that are causing major declines in fish populations. Less obvious barriers can cause just as much damage, including poorly constructed culverts that occur at many road crossings.
Some salmon can jump as high as 6.5 feet (2 meters)— a skill that helps them in their upstream swim to their spawning grounds. However, the depth of the landing pool following such a leap can be as important to fish migration as the height of potential barriers.
Steelhead and rainbow trout are the same species of fish— rainbow trout is the freshwater form, and steelhead trout is the migratory form. Steelhead, unlike many migratory fish, do not always die after spawning and can make several trips back and forth between the ocean and their natal stream during their life cycle.
The cost of declining fish populations is not just ecological, it is financial. The Columbia River basin is estimated to have averaged between 10 and 16 million fish in the 19th century. Today, only about 1.5 million salmon and steelhead enter the Columbia each year, and only about 400,000 of those are wild, river-spawned fish. The rest are born in hatcheries. The National Marine Fisheries Service estimated the cost of salmon fishery losses due to dams in the Colombia Basin to be $6.5 billion for the period between 1960 and 1980 alone.

What other fun facts do you know about migratory fish?

Migratory fish and freshwater mussels have more in common than you might think. Each have unique life cycles and depend on clean, free flowing water to thrive.

Migratory fish spend time both in freshwater streams and in the ocean. Some species, like herring, live in the ocean and reproduce in freshwater. Other species, like American eel, live in freshwater and reproduce in the ocean. Either way, these migratory species need undammed access to riverine habitat to complete their life cycle. At American Rivers we are always thinking about connecting rivers and as we think about World Fish Migration Day, we consider how important migrating fish are to our freshwater mussels.

Freshwater mussels need fish, sometimes migratory fish, to complete their life cycle. Why? Well, adult mussels combine egg and sperm to create small freshwater mussel larvae (called glochidia). These larvae look like Pac Man and must attach to the gills of a fish for a period of time in order to transform into an adult freshwater mussel. Some species create a lure made of these larvae that mimic fish, crayfish, or other fish food to ensure the larvae make it on the gills of their host. Pretty weird, huh? The fish are not hurt in this process and the mussel gets to hitch a ride to a new place in the stream. You can see many more examples of freshwater mussel lures at the Unio Gallery.

Historically, our great rivers were paved with mussels. I’m talking billions of mussels filtering the water and hitching rides on fish. People used these great populations of mussels to make buttons and exported them for pearl culturing, too. Yep, freshwater pearls come from freshwater mussels!

These great populations are unfortunately a thing of the past. Freshwater mussels are one of the most imperiled groups of organisms threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation from dams, and pollution from sedimentation, chemicals, and fertilizers. In fact, 76% of all freshwater mussels are imperiled and 10% are already extinct.

People noticed the decline of migratory fish sooner than freshwater mussels due in part to the long lifespan of the mussels. Some species of freshwater mussel can live to be 100 years old. Luckily, now that we understand the unique life cycle of freshwater mussels, we can work to protect migratory fish and freshwater mussels together by working to conserve, protect, and restore our streams.

In the late 1950’s, the Army Corps of Engineers proposed building a dam at Spruce Park on Montana’s Middle Fork of the Flathead River – home to stunning scenery, pristine waters and wildlife including grizzlies and wolves. Two brothers, Frank and John Craighead, were involved with the fight against the dam and the effort inspired an idea: a system for classifying rivers, so the public would be more aware of the scarcity and value of wild, free-flowing streams and the value of riverside land for wildlife. They publicized the concept, gathered support, and their efforts, born on the Middle Fork Flathead, culminated in the signing of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act on October 2, 1968. Today 208 rivers totaling 12, 709 miles enjoy protection from new dams and other harmful development.

David Moryc, Senior Director of River Protection for American Rivers, joined Trout TV on the Middle Fork to share this important story, along with some great fishing. Check out the episode here.

More than providing a new tool for conservation, the passage of the Act spawned a uniquely American idea: some rivers are so outstanding and valuable that they are worth setting aside, free from development, for future generations. It is now our national policy to balance the degradation of our rivers with a system of protected rivers.

We’ve made good progress over the decades protecting Wild and Scenic Rivers, from the Sudbury in Massachusetts to the Salmon in Idaho. But there are so many rivers that are still in need of protection – our work is far from finished.

Since then almost 13,000 miles of rivers and millions of acres of riverside land as have been protected which has been the best investment we could have made in conservation. Unfortunately this represents less than 1% of rivers in the U.S.

October 2, 2018 will mark the 50th Anniversary of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

We’ll be sharing more details about the 5,000 Miles of Wild campaign in the coming months. In the meantime, get to know a Wild and Scenic River near you. Whether you prefer fishing, paddling, hiking, wildlife-watching, exploring solo or with friends and family, we hope you’ll make one of these treasures part of your plans this summer.

The salmon and steelhead of the Snake River are magnificent creatures, traveling more than 900 miles from the sea to spawn in Idaho’s high mountain streams– the largest block of healthy salmon habitat remaining in the lower 48 states.

They are an icon of the region, central to our lives and identity, and to the health of the Northwest’s environment and economy. And they are threatened with extinction, due in large part to the impacts of the four lower Snake River dams.

[su_youtube_advanced url=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/EvDsz4f4-k8″ width=”1000″ height=”520″ rel=”no” https=”yes”]https://youtu.be/mbpmAJq4XWw[/su_youtube_advanced]

The salmon and people of the Northwest had reason to cheer earlier this month when a federal judge ruled the current salmon recovery plan is insufficient. The ruling sided with American Rivers and our partners, and we are hopeful it will finally put the region on a path to a real and lasting solution.
Bob Irvin, President of American Rivers, wrote:

In particular, the court found that the federal government had failed to adequately consider the impacts of climate change on the Columbia River system. In addition, the court found that the federal government had failed to prepare an environmental impact statement considering a range of alternatives for the Columbia River system, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. Judge Simon specifically noted:

Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act to ensure a process in which all reasonable alternatives are given a “hard look” and all necessary information is provided to the public. In addition, a central purpose of an environmental impact statement is “to force the consideration of environmental impacts in the decision-making process.” For example, the option of breaching, bypassing, or even removing a dam may be considered more financially prudent and environmentally effective than spending hundreds of millions of dollars more on uncertain habitat restoration and other alternative actions.

Judge Simon ordered the National Marine Fisheries Service to create a new biological opinion and an environmental impact statement no later than March 1, 2018.

This is the fifth time in this long-running litigation that a federal judge has found that the operation of the dams on the Columbia River system, which includes the four lower Snake River dams, jeopardizes the continued existence of endangered salmon. This latest ruling makes clear that the federal government must consider the option of breaching, bypassing, or removing dams in evaluating alternatives for operation of the Columbia River system.

American Rivers has long maintained that any conversation about removing the four lower Snake River dams must include a discussion about replacing the services they provide with cost effective alternatives. Power from the dams can be replaced through a combination of energy efficiency, new renewables like wind, and perhaps changes in the operation of the region’s other dams. Grain currently transported on lower Snake River barges can be moved on upgraded railroads, highways, and Columbia River barges. Irrigation is only provided from the lowermost of four lower Snake River reservoirs, and that water could also be pumped from a free-flowing river.

What are the benefits of dam removal, beyond restoring vital salmon habitat? Removing the four lower Snake dams would bring substantial recreation benefits, reduce the risk of flooding in Lewiston, Idaho, and reduce or even eliminate pressure on Idaho farmers to forgo irrigation for the benefit of downstream salmon. Dam removal would also likely be cheaper in the long run for taxpayers and electricity ratepayers, as it would reduce mitigation costs for the rest of the Columbia River dams.
In the Columbia-Snake basin, a win-win solution will be one that restores abundant, harvestable wild salmon, fosters investment in new renewable energy, ensures sufficient water supplies and transportation infrastructure for farms and communities, and reduces risk of flood damage. Reaching this outcome will require strong leadership from the White House, Northwest governors, and the Northwest congressional delegation. These leaders should encourage and even demand that Columbia Basin stakeholders get together to forge a comprehensive plan to restore imperiled salmon and protect and enhance region’s economy and quality of life.

As other river and water management settlements around the West have demonstrated, it takes hard work to chart out a win-win solution, but it is possible. We still have a lot of work to do. Together with our partners, we are committed to making the Snake River one of our nation’s great restoration success stories.

Dam removal projects are best done in partnership and one of the best examples is the Upper Citico Creek dam removal project in Tennessee’s Cherokee National Forest highlighted in our short film Connecting Citico Creek.

American Rivers teamed up with two federal agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Forest Service, to achieve our common goal of restoring aquatic habitat. Each partner brought their expertise and resources to the table to produce an efficient, high quality, low cost victory in the Little Tennessee River watershed.

“The way we accomplish most of this dam removal work is by developing partnerships,” says Ricky Campbell, project leader for the US Fish and Wildlife Service who also operates the heavy machinery to remove unneeded structures like dams from streams.

“This has been a terrific experience. Between working with American Rivers and Fish and Wildlife Service, and our agency the Forest Service, it’s been remarkably simple to get this project done considering the complexity of working in a stream that contains threatened and endangered fish,” says Ali Reddington, hydrologist for the Cherokee National Forest.

“Dam removal projects are best done in partnership and one of the best examples is the Upper Citico Creek dam removal project in Tennessee’s Cherokee National Forest highlighted in our short film Connecting Citico Creek. ”

[su_youtube_advanced url=”https://youtu.be/oRrELlDYxyU” width=”1000″ height=”520″ rel=”no” https=”yes”]https://youtu.be/mbpmAJq4XWw[/su_youtube_advanced]

The Upper Citico Creek dam was built in 1966 with the misguided purpose of protecting the cold water fish species in Citico Creek from the warm water fish species in the adjacent Indian Boundary reservoir. Now, fish and other aquatic species can move unhindered in the upper reaches of Citico Creek. Additionally, recreational paddlers attracted to this reach by high flows can now paddle more safely since the removal of this dam. Read more about the Citico Creek dam removal here.

American Rivers appreciates the efforts of all of our partners and we look forward to partnering on more projects with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service to restore our nation’s streams.

American Rivers and our partners have won a major victory in our 15-year old lawsuit challenging the federal government’s failure to adequately protect endangered salmon in the operation of dams in the Columbia River system.

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Michael Simon ruled that the 2014 Biological Opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service did not adequately consider the impacts of continued dam operations on threatened and endangered salmon as required by the Endangered Species Act. In particular, the court found that the federal government had failed to adequately consider the impacts of climate change on the Columbia River system. In addition, the court found that the federal government had failed to prepare an environmental impact statement considering a range of alternatives for the Columbia River system, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. Judge Simon specifically noted:

Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act to ensure a process in which all reasonable alternatives are given a “hard look” and all necessary information is provided to the public. In addition, a central purpose of an environmental impact statement is “to force the consideration of environmental impacts in the decisionmaking process.” For example, the option of breaching, bypassing, or even removing a dam may be considered more financially prudent and environmentally effective than spending hundreds of millions of dollars more on uncertain habitat restoration and other alternative actions.

Judge Simon ordered the National Marine Fisheries Service to create a new biological opinion and an environmental impact statement no later than March 1, 2018.

Along with other national and regional conservation groups, we are represented in the litigation by attorneys from Earthjustice. While much work remains, today American Rivers and our partners are celebrating this important victory.

President Obama is visiting Flint, Michigan on May 4 to meet with residents and witness the city’s efforts to recover from lead-contaminated drinking water supplies. The health crisis in Flint has raised concerns about drinking water safety nationwide.

We interviewed Jenny Hoffner, Vice President for Conservation Strategies at American Rivers, about what triggered the crisis in Flint and how we can ensure clean water for all communities.

Lead causes a wide range of health problems and is especially harmful to children. So how did it end up contaminating the drinking water in Flint, Michigan?

For decades, the City of Flint paid for drinking water from the City of Detroit, which sourced it from Lake Huron. In early 2014, as a cost saving measure, the state-appointed city manager had the city start pumping water from the Flint River. Flint River water is more corrosive than Lake Huron water, causing lead from older water pipes to leach into the drinking water.

What’s “corrosive” water? This description from Penn State Extension explains that while it is “usually not dangerous to consume by itself, it can cause serious drinking water quality problems by dissolving metals from plumbing systems.” This is a relatively common issue – many drinking water treatment plants use special chemicals, orthophosphates, to inhibit lead corrosion, particularly in older systems. Tragically, this wasn’t done in the case of the Flint.

How can we help the people of Flint and make sure communities nationwide have clean drinking water?

American Rivers is calling for the creation of a Clean Water Trust Fund — an unprecedented national investment in clean water to provide consistent funding to address our water infrastructure problems. This trust fund will protect and restore our rivers and bring our water infrastructure into the 21^st century.

An investment of $1 trillion in clean water would pay dividends for generations to come. By comparison, our nation spent $1.7 trillion on the Iraq war. For about 35 cents per person per day, spread over 25 years, we can secure clean water in cities and towns across America. What parent wouldn’t spend 35 cents a day, less than the cost of a daily cup of coffee, to ensure the health and well-being of their child?

How can I make sure my own water is safe?

The best way to be sure is to have your water tested. The EPA is providing this factsheet with tips on reducing your family’s exposure to lead. You should call your local water utility with specific questions and talk to your doctor about health concerns.

What does the situation in Flint say about the state of our clean water supplies nationwide?

The disaster in Flint comes on the heels of other high-profile water crises – the mining waste spill in Colorado’s Animas River, the drinking water ban in Toledo, Ohio, and the chemical spill in West Virginia’s Elk River. Nationwide, the American Society of Civil Engineers gives water infrastructure a D grade in its report card on the nation’s infrastructure. And at the same time, 44 percent of assessed waterways in the U.S. are too polluted for fishing or swimming.

Whether the issue is outdated infrastructure, poor water management, or pollution, the point is ultimately the same: every American deserves clean water. It is unacceptable that in 2016 some communities in our country do not have access to safe drinking water.

Rivers provide more than two-thirds of our drinking water supplies. We must invest in protecting and restoring our rivers and modernizing water infrastructure. Flint is the latest wake-up call. It’s time to act.

Guest post by Mitch Reid is a part of our America’s Most Endangered Rivers® series spotlighting the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin.

Professional Golfer Tom Kite once said, “You can always find a distraction if you’re looking for one.” Mr. Kite could very well have been talking about Alabama’s water planning efforts.

When I think back to growing up on a farm in Alabama’s Wiregrass Region, I realize the one thing that we most took for granted was the water. It was abundant, clean and free. We turned on the tap and there it was. Over time, as we used more of it, and as our neighbors expanded irrigation, we had to dig down deeper and spend a little more money to pump it up, but it was still there. It wasn’t until I returned home from a tour in Afghanistan that I realized just how precious this resource was. When water wells began to come up short, people in the Wiregrass finally started talking about managing this limited resource.

Today in Alabama, there are very few days where there is not a new shiny scandal in Montgomery competing for our attention. But the thing is: there are real problems facing Alabama and we need real leadership to make smart decisions for Alabama’s future. Alabama’s water infrastructure is antiquated and our water management strategies are below par. More importantly, Alabama must adopt the tools needed to get things back on course. Our water resources are increasingly under stress from overuse and alteration of natural river processes. These stresses will only increase in the future as we expand our cities and allocate more of our water towards growing food and fiber in Alabama. Our shared rivers are already struggling under this strain.

This year, on Rivers of Alabama Day no less, two of Alabama’s rivers were named among America’s Most Endangered Rivers® by American Rivers. The Pascagoula River in southwest Alabama is under threat from dams in Mississippi, and the Chattahoochee River on our eastern border, along with the Flint and Apalachicola Rivers (collectively ACF), has reached a breaking point because of historic mismanagement at both the state and federal level. The ACF River Basin is a nationally important water resource that is absolutely critical to the people and economies of Alabama, Florida and Georgia. This basin is also at the center of a “Water War” that has now spanned decades.

The ACF is at a crossroads. Either the three states will come together and agree to a plan for joint, sustainable management of the river, or the U.S. Supreme Court, through a Special Master, will divide the waters by decree. This latter option certainly has far-reaching consequences for all stakeholders, but without a state water plan, Alabama may find itself failing to make the cut.

Georgia and Florida have both developed comprehensive water management plans for their respective state waters. Alabama, on the other hand, is still in the planning process. While our neighbors are negotiating for the amounts of water called for under their plans, Alabama has proved incapable of even defining the major water basins of the state. This is no way to protect our state’s water.

Without a sustainable plan, Alabama will not be able to address the ongoing and increasing challenges of water management; we won’t be able to meaningfully engage with our neighbors to ensure protection of shared resources. It is critical that we remember that side issues, even when they are important, still distract us from the important day to day business of providing for the people of Alabama and the environment in which we live, work and play.

Now more than ever, Alabama must focus inward and develop a sustainable water management plan. We also must invest the time needed to understand how Georgia and Florida’s water needs fit with ours and engage in truly joint management of our shared waters. Only with strategic foresight and adaptive management will our water plan meet the needs of future use in a globally changing climate.

At the state level, the issues associated with managing our water resources are numerous. This can seem at times both overwhelming in its complexity and alarmist because we are experiencing an interlude of ample rainfall. However, this is the time when distractions abound and we find ourselves chasing white rabbits no matter where they lead. But now is precisely the time to re-focus our attention on water planning, so that we are prepared to meet future water resource challenges head on.

Mitch Reid

Mitch Reid is a Program Director at the Alabama Rivers Alliance.Alabama Rivers Alliance is a statewide network of groups working to protect and restore all of Alabama’s water resources through building partnerships, empowering citizens, and advocating for sound water policy and its enforcement.

Big progress was made this month for salmon and floodplains in Oregon. On April 14, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its findings on the impact of the National Flood Insurance Program on endangered fish and their habitat in Oregon rivers. These findings are accompanied by a set of recommended changes to how the National Flood Insurance Program is implemented in Oregon that will reduce its impact on survival of endangered salmon and steelhead in the State.

Floodplains Are Important To Rivers And People

Floodplains are the lands along a waterway that become inundated during periodic flooding. While often referred to in land-use planning terms, a floodplain is actually an important part of a river. Where allowed to flood, floodplains support an array of ecological and socio-economic functions. They provide habitat to fish and wildlife, facilitate an exchange of nutrients between land and water, recharge groundwater, provide a path for flood water that can protect well-sited built structures from damage, and provide clean water and scenic spaces.

Unfortunately, development often disconnects rivers and floodplains, hindering the beneficial functions they provide. Where development has occurred in a floodplain, the National Flood Insurance Program (the NFIP) is tasked with providing federally-subsidized flood insurance and promoting sound floodplain management. To enroll in the NFIP, communities must agree to map their flood risk areas, and implement minimum building standards for all development in floodplains.

Even when meeting minimum NFIP building standards, developing in the floodplain leads to flood damaged homes and businesses and impaired ecosystems. Sadly, by providing flood insurance coverage to properties in floodplains, the NFIP has encouraged floodplain development (and subsequent rebuilding after floods).

What’s Going On In Oregon?

Today, half or more of Oregon’s floodplain habitat has been lost to urban or suburban development and conversion to agriculture. Along the Willamette River, close to 85% of historic floodplain has been drained and developed. Similarly, more than half of the Columbia River’s floodplain has been converted to other uses.

Floodplain development degrades and destroys in-channel and off-channel habitat by clearing vegetation, placing fill and impervious surface, rerouting stormwater, increasing sources of pollution, and channelizing rivers. These changes disconnect a floodplain from its river, inhibiting natural floodplain functions and exacerbating flood risks. In Oregon, floodplains provide vital habitat for 15 species of salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NFIP building standards have unintentionally enabled destruction of vital freshwater habitat, jeopardizing recovery of those species.

In 2011, the Federal Emergency Management Agency began consulting with the National Marine Fisheries Service (administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) to determine whether implementation of the NFIP in Oregon impacts the survival of threatened or endangered species. The recently released Biological Opinion finds that implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program leads to development in the floodplain environment, and does jeopardize the continued existence of 15 listed salmon and steelhead populations, and Southern Resident killer whales that depend on those fish, especially spring Chinook.

Fortunately, the Oregon Biological Opinion includes a set of proposed changes to the NFIP that aim to reduce community flood risk, avoid future flood damage and enhance the beneficial functions of floodplains. Proposed changes are described in the Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives section of the Biological Opinion and include three primary components:

Updating flood risk and erosion hazard maps with more accurate data
Amending floodplain management criteria to better avoid, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts of development on floodplain habitat and functions.
Monitoring the outcomes of these changes to endangered species and their habitat, and ensuring Oregon communities are able to meet new standards

Changes will be phased in over five years. An overview of the Biological Opinion is provided here.

What Challenges And Opportunities Face Affected Communities?

Oregon communities will want to know how the Biological Opinion will affect them. While the proposed changes will require additional local floodplain planning and technical mapping, the Biological Opinion ultimately presents a tool for Oregon to better manage public safety and protect economic development, while also enhancing the value of its floodplain resources.

Oregon is not alone in dealing with this issue. Litigation has occurred in five other states over the impact of the NFIP on federally endangered fish and wildlife. In 2008, a Biological Opinion attempted to address similar threats to endangered salmon in the Puget Sound of Washington State. While the Puget Sound Biological Opinion included good recommendations, it put the large responsibility of enacting those changes on communities. Learning from outcomes in the Puget Sound, Oregon’s new Biological Opinion requires FEMA to take a larger role to inform communities and help them carry out the recommended changes to NFIP’s floodplain management standards.

Beginning now, FEMA will develop a strategy for outreach and education with Oregon communities to generate a firm understanding of how the Biological Opinion will affect floodplain development in the State. Recommended changes to the NFIP will phase in over the coming months to slow the rate at which floodplains are lost to development, and reduce further harm to salmon and steelhead.

Over time, Oregon’s growth will be directed away from high risk areas that are important to the health of salmon and steelhead. In meeting these objectives, Oregon communities will be some of the first in the nation to use new mapping techniques and climate informed science to guide smart and safe development in flood prone lands. In the long term, these changes will promote safer, more resilient communities and healthier river habitat – pretty much the definition of a “win-win.”

More information on Oregon’s Biological Opinion is available from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration here.

Guest post by Robin Singletary is a part of our America’s Most Endangered Rivers® series spotlighting the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin.

Living on the banks of the Flint River in southwest Georgia, and being able to enjoy the Flint as I have my entire life, reading that announcement was heartbreaking. I am sorry that we have mismanaged the waters of our basin to the point that we have become the most endangered, but I want to thank American Rivers for pointing out what those of us who have been paying attention already knew.

For almost 30 years, the states of Georgia, Alabama and Florida have been battling over water use in this basin, and this is now what we have come to. We have deteriorated our basin while we were arguing over how to split up the water.

Now is a great time for announcing that this is one of America’s Most Endangered Rivers for 2016 for several reasons.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is in the process of updating the ACF Water Control Manual. The decisions made by the Corps have tremendous impact on the availability of water for the entire basin. They should be listening to stakeholders and using best management practices to manage flows for all needs.

It’s a great time because Florida and Georgia are in a Supreme Court lawsuit over the best way to use the basin’s water, and if the governors and their lawyers cannot decide, a Special Master from Maine will do so for them.

It’s a great time because right now the Good Lord has blessed us with plentiful rainfall. Our lakes, rivers and aquifer are full. That gives us some time before the next drought raises its head and exacerbates our problems.

It’s a great time because we have solid recommendations from a group of 54 stakeholders from all three states that have worked for over five years to reach consensus agreement on better ways to manage the basin’s water. The governors, the Army Corps and the Special Master, if it comes to that, can use the recommendations of the ACF Stakeholders to improve water use in the basin.

And it’s a great time because, well, it’s just time.

All of us who live and work in the ACF Basin, in some way, shape or form, depend on these waters for our very existence. We drink it, we swim in it, we fish and we recreate on it. We grow our crops with it, and we water our livestock from this resource. Our industries and cities need to have adequate water to survive.

This is not just about Atlanta or Apalachicola Bay. It’s about all of us, in all three states, who need for our leaders to get together and do what is best for everyone.

We are nothing without our water.

Let us use this designation to spur us into making the choices that will ensure the present generation and those after us will have clean and abundant water.

Robin Singletary

Robin lives and works in Hopeful, Georgia, along the Flint River. He and his family own and operate a hunting lodge called CoveyRise, manage land for row crops and timber production, and operate a peanut ‘buying point’. Robin has farmed and sold agrichemicals and is a lifelong hunter and fisherman. He is past president and founding emeritus Board member of Flint Riverkeeper, is past president and an active Board member of the National Peanut Buying Points Association, and is an active Board member and current chair of the Flint Caucus of ACF Stakeholders, Inc.

Guest post by Jim McClellan is a part of our America’s Most Endangered Rivers® series spotlighting the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin.

There’s a stand of willows at the south end of Iamonia Lake, an oxbow off the Apalachicola River. The willows are right in the middle of the channel and if you’re driving a boat on that stretch, you have to choose right or left. One way takes you to the river; the other leads you to a shallow, muddy dead end.

There’s nothing special about this willow island, except that it wasn’t there thirty-five years ago. The water was too high. Now we have to choose our path carefully.

Unfortunately, Iamonia Lake is just one symptom of a problem that plagues the Apalachicola in its entirety. Once navigable sloughs, lakes and ponds now are dry or extremely low for much of the year. I can hunt in some of the same places where I used to catch fish. I can see the dry white sand and loose pebbles where I know the bream and shellcracker would bed if only there was water.

For several years now, people have been pointing to troubling signs like lower-than-usual water levels lasting longer than ever before. I’ve spoken to people in their sixties, seventies and eighties who say they’ve never seen it this low this long.

Creeks have turned into footpaths. Ponds are indistinguishable from the surrounding woods. Cypress trees are struggling to survive, sometimes now hundreds of feet from water.

What we have south of the Jim Woodruff Dam is a river system that can never be rebuilt or replanted. We can’t develop a new tributary like we create a suburban neighborhood. We can’t rotate the “crops” of cypress, tupelo, white oak and hickory trees along its course—much less the fish and oysters in the bay. And we can’t engineer a state-of-the-art swamp somewhere else.

My point is that folks to our north may have a lot at stake here, but we’re “all in.” Less water for them is inconvenient; for the Apalachicola River, it’s catastrophic.

There was a time when the river could be all things to all people: a drinking water supply for our neighbors to the north, a transportation system linking the mountains to the sea and a source of recreation and sustenance for everyone fortunate enough to live along its path. That time has passed. Now we have to choose which of those things deserves our greatest efforts to protect. It’s an important choice. One way can take us to a sustainable, healthy river system; the other will leave us high and dry.

Despite the problems, I’m optimistic about the future of the river. Sooner or later, the people in all three states will come together and agree on the importance of saving it.

My hope and prayer is that we don’t wait too long to make the right choice.

Jim McClellan

Jim is among the fifth generation of his family to grow up on the Apalachicola River in Calhoun County, Florida.

Though he now lives and works in Pensacola, Florida, he counts himself fortunate to spend most of his free time back home, hunting, fishing and enjoying life in the river swamp.

Spring has sprung on the Waccamaw River Blue Trail with birds nesting, flowers blooming, and breezes blowing keeping temperatures comfortable as the sun warms your face. Visitors began pouring in to the Grand Strand last month with spring breakers looking for a little relaxation.

While many are drawn to our beautiful ocean and beaches, if you turn around you find a luscious backyard river flowing.

Peaceful blackwaters, the color of tea during sunny days due to the tannins that leach into the water as leaves and vegetation decays, tempt locals and visitors to hop in to kayaks and canoes to explore the unique. “As a result of the Waccamaw River Blue Trail, opportunities for river recreation have improved [because of] an increase in the number of outfitters operating on the Waccamaw and an increase in interest in kayaking, canoeing and paddleboarding on the Waccamaw,” Ellis said. “The Waccamaw River Blue Trail has also served to focus efforts for land conservation along its length in both North and South Carolina.”

Wildlife abounds with exciting opportunities to see swallow-tailed kites, blue herons, osprey, and many others. The trees are now covered in green and flowers are blooming, the great cypresses providing impressive scenery and shade along the river front. There are many outfitters along the Waccamaw River Blue Trail, including: Black River Outdoors, Gator Bait Adventure Tours, Great Escapes Kayak Expeditions (used by an author who recently came to explore the Waccamaw), Surf the Earth, and Waccamaw Canoe and Kayak.

To learn more about planning your own adventure on the Waccamaw River Blue Trail, visit the website.