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 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 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.

On Wednesday, April 6th, American Rivers will join many other Klamath stakeholders at the mouth of the Klamath River on the Yurok Reservation in Requa California to sign two settlement agreements that will put the most significant dam removal and river restoration project the United States has seen back on track for completion in 2020.

Signatories will include U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell, California Governor Edmond Brown Jr., Oregon Governor Kate Brown, PacifiCorp President and CEO, the Yurok Tribal Chairman Thomas O’Rourke, Karuk Tribe Chairman Russell Attebery, other NGOs, farmers and commercial fishermen.

American Rivers and our partners have been working since 2000 to remove PacifiCorp’s four obsolete dams on the Klamath River, which have blocked salmon and steelhead from reaching more than 300 miles of historic habitat for nearly 100 years, and cause toxic algae blooms that harm water quality all the way to the Pacific Ocean, more than 190 miles away.

This project will be the most significant dam removal and river restoration effort in the world – never before have four dams of this size been removed at once which inundate as many miles of habitat (4 square miles and 15 miles of river length), involving this magnitude of budget (approximately $295 million) and public works.

More than 40 stakeholders – including tribes, irrigators, commercial fishing interests and conservationists – helped craft the original Klamath agreements to remove the dams, restore habitat and resolve decades-long water management disputes. Funding for the project is coming from $200 million collected from PacifiCorp customers in Oregon and California and up to $250 million (if needed) from California through Proposition 1 (Water Bond) passed by voters in 2014.

In 2008, the Public Utilities Commissions in Oregon and California concluded that removing the dams, instead of spending more than $500 million to bring the dams up to 21^st century safety and environmental standards, would save PacifiCorp customers more than $100 million. In addition, PacifiCorp has installed more than 10 times the generation capacity of these dams in renewable wind and solar facilities over the past decade.

In 2010, we forged historic agreements among more than 40 Klamath basin stakeholders to remove the dams, restore habitat and resolve decades-long water management disputes. These settlements required Congress to approve the agreements by December 31^st, 2015. Congress failed, and the agreements expired.

The new agreements retain the original target to remove the dams by 2020, but the path no longer goes through Congress. Instead, PacifiCorp will seek approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to transfer ownership of the four dams to a new non-profit called the Klamath River Renewal Corporation, which will apply to FERC to surrender and remove the dams in 2020, as originally planned. The KRRC will be governed by a board of directors made up of representatives chosen by American Rivers and our conservation partners, as well as directors chosen by the federal, state and tribal governments and representatives of the agricultural community.

Today we are celebrating this major step toward renewing the Klamath River and the fish and water quality that tribes, commercial fisherman and communities along the river depend on, but tomorrow we will get back to work on the many things left to do to succeed by 2020. This includes working with our tribal and agricultural partners in the upper basin to achieve the water rights, restoration and power related provisions we jointly committed to in 2010 but were put in jeopardy by Congress’s failure at the end of 2015. American Rivers is committed to bringing the benefits of such home grown, collaborative solutions to all the communities that depend on a healthy Klamath River.

With news that the Klamath River restoration project is back on track, many are wondering: is this the world’s biggest dam removal project?

That depends what you’re measuring. There have been projects with taller dams or more miles of habitat restored – but when you add it all together, the Klamath is arguably our nation’s most significant dam removal and river restoration effort.

Here’s how the Klamath compares to other projects:

Tallest?

The four dams on the Klamath are big, but still not the tallest when it comes to dam removals.

The tallest dam on the Klamath is Iron Gate, at 173 feet high.

But Glines Canyon Dam, which came down a couple years ago on Washington’s Elwha River, was 210 feet tall.

Number of dams?

Other rivers have benefitted from multiple dam removals. For example, ten dams were removed on the Milwaukee River and five on the Baraboo River in Wisconsin. Six dams were removed on the Des Plaines River in Illinois.

But none of these dams were as big as the four dams on the Klamath.

Miles of habitat?

The Klamath reservoirs total 15 miles, with four square miles of inundation. These are big reservoirs, with serious water quality impacts.

When the Klamath dams come down, salmon will have renewed access to more than 300 miles of historic habitat.

By comparison, the Elwha dam removal opened access to roughly 70 miles of habitat.

On Maine’s Penobscot River, removing two dams (Great Works in 2012 and Veazie in 2013) and installing fish passage at others has opened nearly 1,000 miles of habitat to migratory fish.

Price tag?

The cost of the Klamath dam removal and restoration will likely be around $340 million including insurance. The Elwha project cost roughly $324.7 million and the Penobscot project had a price tag of $54 million.

Overall significance?

On the Klamath, never before have four dams of this size been removed at once which inundate as many miles of habitat, involving this magnitude of budget and public works. More than 40 stakeholders – including tribes, irrigators, commercial fishing interests and conservationists – helped craft the Klamath agreements to remove the dams, restore habitat and resolve decades-long water management disputes.

The Klamath isn’t just a dam removal project, it’s an effort to improve water management across the basin and revitalize fishing, farming and tribal communities.

When you consider all of the aspects of the Klamath effort, it definitely stands out. American Rivers is proud to be part of it and we’re dedicated to continuing the hard work to keep the project on track, with dam removal beginning in 2020.

It’s a really exciting time for the Waccamaw River Blue Trail! We have a strong partnership with a local chamber of commerce that has worked over the last several years to promote ecotourism and build support for conservation along the Waccamaw River Blue Trail, South Carolina’s only National Water Trail. To help further improve ecotourism to the Waccamaw River and Georgetown County, we have worked with our partners to connect tourists, the community and area businesses together and demonstrate the importance of the Waccamaw River to the local way of life and economy.

The success of this effort has been fantastic and continues to demonstrate how healthy rivers like the Waccamaw are not only amazing for community livability and sense of place, but are also local economy drivers. This April, Georgetown County is one of the host sites for the 2016 Bassmaster Elite Series tournament, one of the premier freshwater fishing tournament series in the world. Hosting cities have seen economic impacts of more than $2 million. In Georgetown County, tournament water will include the Waccamaw and four additional rivers that are reachable from the launch facility and converge in the Winyah Bay.

While it will be fun to watch what the professionals bring in at the tournament, the community is also taking full advantage of the Waccamaw River’s fishing. Water levels have dropped, and fish are biting left and right. Locals are taking full advantage of this time of year and returning to the best spots along the river, while visitors enjoying the spring weather are experiencing the Waccamaw for the first time. The Waccamaw River Blue Trail map, available at local chamber visitor centers is a great resource to help plan a beautiful paddle or a fishing excursion on the blackwater river.

All of these efforts are aimed at building support for increased river recreation in the region and promoting enhanced conservation along the Waccamaw. Last summer we released a short film featuring the Waccamaw River Blue Trail promoting the exciting opportunities to explore the river and the importance of it to the region. Through partnerships with local businesses and the Chamber of Commerce, we are helping to build a larger and more diverse constituency that recognizes the economic, recreation, and conservation values a healthy Waccamaw River provides the community.

As an avid cross-country skier and all-around winter sports enthusiast, seeing a fresh blanket of snow in the Sierra Nevada is grounds for excitement. The snowpack is also great news for our rivers and water supply in California. But a hefty snowpack also means challenging conditions for monitoring winter greenhouse gas emissions in Sierra meadows, including sometimes digging through five feet of snow to access the meadow surface and collect samples.

Digging through winter snowpack is just one component of an ongoing project to monitor greenhouse gas emissions in several meadows in the Tahoe National Forest. This effort is being led by Nevada City’s South Yuba River Citizens’ League (SYRCL) as part of their Yuba Headwaters Restoration Program. The project is part of a larger meadow restoration and research effort called the Sierra Meadows Research and Restoration Partnership. The partnership includes 10 organizations/agencies (including American Rivers) pursuing restoration and coordinated monitoring on eight meadow complexes across the Sierra Nevada, in order to demonstrate whether restoring a meadow results in a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The partnership received funding for this effort through the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Wetlands Restoration for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Grant Program, CDWF’s first distribution of funds from California’s cap-and-trade program.

As part of American River’s partnership with SYRCL through the Sierra Nevada AmeriCorps Partnership, once a month I work with employees, fellow AmeriCorps members, and volunteers from SYRCL to conduct the greenhouse monitoring at SYRCL’s restoration sites. It may be hard to imagine how we go about measuring gases—how do we trap invisible air and measure its contents? After hiking into the meadows (and digging snow in the winter months), we set up circular collars in the ground, attach “chambers”, or lids, and use a syringe to pierce the chamber and draw up gases. After emptying the syringe into a sealed container, we move onto the next flagged site, cycling through so that we visit each chamber three times, spaced out by 15-minute intervals. In addition to helping SYRCL with their monitoring, American Rivers is also partnering with the Sierra Foothill Conservancy to collect data for restoration at Bean Meadow in the Merced watershed.

So how does this project improve the health of rivers? By gathering data to show that meadows sequester carbon, government agencies and organizations may procure funding to further study and restore these areas. This will improve habitat for native plants, fish, and wildlife, in addition to increasing water storage capacity in the meadows. Meadows are often located in a river’s headwaters, influencing the health of the rest of the river downstream. In the Sierra Nevada, healthy, restored mountain meadows play a huge role in the clean water of our beautiful rivers, and provide resiliency in the face of climate change.

Check out the photos below to get an idea of how the monitoring works, and a list of some of the work American Rivers does to assess and restore mountain meadows.

 

On a recent run on a mountain trail near North Carolina’s Blue Ridge Parkway, my wife and I came upon a pretty dramatic sight. Just about 30 yards downhill from the Parkway, there was a large drain pipe with the outflow frozen solid. Where you might normally assume that this frozen waterfall would be crystalline white, it was far from it. Instead, it was more of a “burnt orange”, unlike any natural color around it.

While I did not take a sample to find out what was causing the orange color (perhaps a combination of iron rust and road deposits including oil and gas from passing cars), what was most striking was that even in this remote area of a protected landscape, there was enough pollution and trash on the road to dominate what you would expect to be a natural setting. And while we normally would not be able to visibly see what was being swept into the pretty little stream below, there it was literally frozen in time.

The stream ultimately flows into the New River, then the Ohio, then the Mississippi. Thinking of how many hundreds of streams like this bring this polluted runoff to the many towns and cities along that route makes it even more important to address it wherever possible.

Peter Raabe, our North Carolina Director, described polluted stormwater as one of the biggest problems facing our streams and said that in most places there is no treatment to purify the water prior to it getting to our streams and ultimately our water supply. That was certainly the case here, and now my wife and I have a stark image to remember that by.

The past week has presented a crazy wave of both good and bad news for Minnesota’s recent endangered rivers— the St. Louis River (listed in 2015) and the Boundary Waters (listed in 2013). Both of these river systems were included on our lists of America’s Most Endangered Rivers® due to the threat of sulfide-ore mining. This type of mining releases copper and nickel bound up in sulfide-bearing rock, and commonly results in acid mine drainage and increased levels of heavy metals and sulfates in downstream waters. Allowance of this type of mining in the St. Louis River and Boundary Waters regions of Minnesota will ruin wild places and contaminate water for people, fish and wildlife.

What’s happening with the St. Louis River?

Now we come to the bad news. On March 3, following the production of an Environmental Impact Statement, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) decided to allow PolyMet to move their mining project forward to the permitting stage. In response, our partners at Minnesota Environmental Partnership said, “We are extremely disappointed in the DNR’s determination that the PolyMet project is ready to move to the next stage. The PolyMet project proposal doesn’t protect our lakes, rivers, and streams. Minnesotans don’t accept polluting our Boundary Waters, Lake Superior, and other treasured waters. Minnesotans don’t believe that the international mining companies that own PolyMet will effectively keep their mining pollution from leaking into the St. Louis River, the largest tributary to Lake Superior, for the next 500-plus years that will be required.”

“No operation of this type has operated and closed without polluting nearby lakes, rivers, and streams. Furthermore, predictions in the final environmental impact statement are flawed, and based on bad data and incorrect assumptions, without real-world experience. Those inaccuracies are putting all Minnesotans at risk and threaten the environment and public health. This is a bargain-basement mining plan that relies on outdated technology and a flawed tailings basin. Sulfide mining in a water-rich environment like Minnesota is not worth the high-risk gamble.”

Is there better news for the Boundary Waters?

Fortunately, there is something positive to report on mining in the Boundary Waters. On March 6, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton sent a letter to the Chief Operating Officer of the Twin Metals mining project proposed in the Boundary Waters watershed. He noted, “I have grave concerns about the use of state surface lands for mining related activities in close proximity to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW)… I have an obligation to ensure it is not diminished in any way. Its uniqueness and fragility require that we exercise special care when we evaluate significant land use changes in the area, and I am unwilling to take risks with that Minnesota environmental icon.” The Governor noted that he has informed the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which is reviewing Twin Metals’ expired mineral leases on national forest lands adjacent to the Boundary Waters, of his opposition to the Twin Metals project. In addition, the Governor has, “directed the DNR not to authorize or enter into any new state access agreements or lease agreements for mining operations on those state lands.”

Where does that leave us?

With Governor Dayton’s statement of support for protecting the Boundary Waters, we celebrate a great victory for that endangered river. We are thankful that the Governor has listened to the public outcry for protecting this special place.

However, the Governor can do more to protect Minnesota’s rivers from harmful sulfide-ore mining. Clearly, the Governor acknowledges the risks inherent in this type of mining. The St. Louis River and its communities, tribes and wildlife deserve the same consideration and protection against sulfide-ore mining. If this project is allowed to proceed, there is no turning back.

---

Join us for the release of the 2016 report on America’s Most Endangered Rivers®, coming up on April 12!

This year, National River Cleanup® (NRC) is celebrating its 25th anniversary! To help celebrate, we’ve asked Rose Bayless, program assistant at the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area (AHRA), to share the story of her cleanup, which is also celebrating 25 years! Over the past quarter century, NRC and AHRA have been working together to help keep the Arkansas River clean for all to enjoy.

On May 21st, the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area (AHRA) will observe our Silver Anniversary for the Arkansas River Cleanup/Greenup in the central mountains of Colorado. The AHRA is responsible for a 152-mile stretch of the upper Arkansas River, which begins its 4,200 mile journey to the Mississippi as a bubbling spring emerging from the rocky Mosquito mountain range north of Leadville. It continues to flow past the 14,000 foot peaks of the Sawatch mountain range, picking up snow melt on its way through fertile valleys and rugged canyons, pushing through Browns Canyon National Monument and the Royal Gorge, before it reaches Pueblo and the open plains of Eastern Colorado.

It just comes naturally that folks like hanging out by the “Ark” as locals call it. On any given day of the year, there is no shortage of residents taking quiet pleasure in the sound of the water splashing by – strolling, fishing, throwing stones, kayaking. The AHRA is also host to over a million visitors a year who enjoy a multitude of outdoor activities along the Ark, including whitewater boating, fishing the Arkansas’ Gold Medal Trout waters, hiking, biking and camping.

Rivers are living, breathing creatures with unique personalities all their own, but up until the recent past it wasn’t uncommon for rivers to be taken for granted and ignored, and adjacent neighborhoods became vacant and dilapidated. Then suddenly in the past few decades, people began to see the beauty and character of rivers that had been all but extinguished, and a renaissance began to rebuild and revive riverfront properties and the rivers themselves. These new river visions created thriving economies and sought after residential, entertainment and recreation venues.

Yet in Colorado and throughout the United States, all this old and new use produced myriad trash and waste along and in our rivers. The mindset was that somehow it would magically disappear, but it didn’t disappear, and we were left with the reminders of mindless behaviors.

Rather than considering all this garbage a problem, the AHRA saw this as an opportunity to build an alliance among the communities and residents along the Ark by creating an annual “river fest” devoted to improving the health of the Arkansas River and restoring its habitat, wildlife and scenic value. It just so happened that the AHRA organized our first river cleanup in May of 1992, the same year that National River Cleanup was established.

Getting this effort started was a daunting task. How do we organize folks in 3 counties, 8 towns and all the rural mountain enclaves to come together for the common cause of trash cleanup? First we had to pick a date after the snow had melted but before the Ark began to roar with run-off, and mid-May was and still is the time. Because the AHRA encompasses such a large geographic area, we involved the cities, counties, their recreation and parks departments and as many other organizations as we could. We invited all the residents too.

[metaslider id=31465]

Food always seems to be a draw, and a volunteer picnic at Riverside Park in Salida was included in the plan, with local businesses donating food and services. Music also is a proven attraction, so we added a band to the mix and threw in a parade as a fund raiser to benefit another river event in June. A trash contest created some lively competition for the weirdest garbage of the day, and each year people hunt for that special something that defies definition.

The local waste management company donated a couple of very large dumpsters, commercial rafting companies donated staff and boats to scour the river, and local radio stations provided advertisement and live coverage. Of course, trash bags are a must, and the awesome “official” River Cleanup bags did the trick for all 250+ volunteers who picked up trash in the morning and enjoyed food and music in the afternoon.

This is how the Arkansas River Cleanup/Greenup (CUGU) was born, and this recipe is still a hit and going strong 25 years later.

As I look back on the accomplishments made over the years, the one thing that stands out most is the increase in public stewardship. AHRA and our partners have instilled the importance of a litter-free environment not just for the pleasure of people, but for maintaining healthy ecosystems. This is where the “Greenup” comes in, because picking up trash promotes healthy flora. Although we have our annual River Cleanup event, the really cool thing is that people don’t wait for May to do their part; they are cleaning up every day! Splinter groups have also branched out to organize their own cleanups throughout the year.

Spring is just around the corner, and folks are already asking “When is River Cleanup?” This seems ironic since we have a foot of snow on the ground and even in May we can’t be sure if it will be spring or not. What we can be sure of is the Ark will be ready for us snow, rain, wind or shine, so it’s time to start gathering the troops. Some of these faithful volunteers are no longer with us, but their love for the Ark lives on. Thank you everyone, and let’s get started!