armer.cov.finrvsd4 5.06csi.qxd 4/7/06 3:59 pm page 5 ... · this year’s list of america’s most...

America’s Most Endangered Riversof 2006

WWW.AM E R I C A NRI V E R S.O R G

armer.cov.finrvsd4_5.06csi.qxd 4/7/06 3:59 PM Page 5

About America’s Most Endangered Rivers

Each year since 1986, American Rivers and dozens of partners in the river movement have

released the America’s Most Endangered Rivers report to spotlight those rivers across the

country facing critical and near-term threats. The report is not a list of the nation’s “worst”

or most polluted rivers, but rather it highlights ten rivers confronted by decisions in the

coming year that could determine their future.

American Rivers solicits nominations from hundreds of river groups, conservation organi-

zations, outdoor enthusiasts, and concerned citizens. Our staff and scientific advisors review

the nominations for the following criteria:

■ The magnitude of the threat to the river

■ A major decision point in the coming year

■ The regional and national significance of the river

This report is more than a warning: it offers solutions and identifies those who have the

power to save the river.

AMERICAN RIVERS THANKS AND RECOGNIZES BERT AND BARBARA COHN for their

dedicated financial support of this campaign. By helping us spread the word about threats

to America’s rivers, and focusing on significant rivers in jeop-

ardy, the Cohns’ generosity ensures that needed attention will be

paid to these special yet embattled resources. As in years past,

we expect that this report will contribute to positive outcomes

for the featured rivers.

About American Rivers

American Rivers, founded in 1973, is the leader of the nationwide river conservation move-

ment. American Rivers is dedicated to protecting and restoring healthy rivers for the benefit

of communities and the fish and wildlife they sustain.

Printed on 20 percent post-consumer recycled paper, using the waterless printing process. Waterless printing

conserves water and eliminates the use of volatile compounds (VOCs), linked to the deterioration of the ozone

layer, used in conventional printing.

armer.cov.finrvsd4_5.06csi.qxd 4/7/06 3:59 PM

Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s

Introduction

Natural Events, Unnatural Disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Map: Most Endangered Rivers of 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Most Endangered Rivers (by rank)

1. Pajaro River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

2. Upper Yellowstone River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

3. Willamette River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

4. Salmon Trout River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

5. Shenandoah River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

6. Boise River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

7. Caloosahatchee River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

8. Bristol Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

9. San Jacinto River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

10. Verde River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

armer.txt.finrvsd4_5.cmykCSI_4.7.06.qxd 4/10/06 12:19 PM Page 1

SOU

RC

E: L

IBR

AR

YO

FC

ON

GR

ESS

t was the most devastating storm in memory.Quickly rising water — up to 30 feet deep insome places — covered 27,000 square miles,ripping apart levees in the Gulf region andforcing more than one million people to fleetheir homes. At least 1,000 people died andthe Red Cross fed nearly 700,000 evacuees formonths. When the rest of America learned ofthe devastation from front-page newsaccounts, charitable contributions poured infrom heartsick people across the nation.

This eerily familiar account is not of Hurri-cane Katrina, but of an epic storm that sweptthe Mississippi River basin nearly 80 yearsago, as described in gripping detail by JohnBarry in his 1997 book, Rising Tide: TheGreat Mississippi River Flood of 1927 andHow It Changed America. Although thatflooding resulted from weeks of constant rain-fall rather than a hurricane, the similarities tothe impacts of Katrina are uncanny. Bothstorms devastated communities, both offeredAmericans unsettling realizations about raceand poverty, both imposed significant costs onthe nation, and both generated political tur-moil.

Unfortunately, the legacy of the 1927 floodwas a renewed commitment by governmentleaders to stay the wrong course, continuingthe quest to “control” rivers through an over-reliance on engineering. The folly of this mis-guided strategy was tragically exposed byextensive flooding along the Mississippi andMissouri rivers in the summer of 1993, andagain in the flooding of New Orleans last year.Although the circumstances around each ofthese disasters differ, they demonstrate howover-reliance on engineering can harm, ratherthan help communities.

While the nation has learned some hardlessons from flooding disasters, it remains tobe seen whether the Katrina tragedy will final-ly provide the catalyst needed to changecourse — to one which recognizes that pro-tecting and sustaining our communities isbest achieved by working with nature, and notagainst it.

2 ◆ A m e r i c a ’ s M o s t E n d a n g e r e d R i v e r s o f 2 0 0 6

“When you ask a giant river to do

unnatural things, when you ask it to

stay inside impenetrable dikes all the

way to the Gulf, then you get unnatural

results: the entire estuary system

starts to collapse and disappear.

But when you ask a river to

simply do what it does naturally, you

get different results entirely.

DR. DENISE REED

UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS

GEOMORPHOLOGIST,

AS QUOTED IN

MIKE TIDWELL’S 2003 BOOK,

BAYOU FAREWELL

iN A T U R A L E V E N T S ,

”

WABASH, AR, 1927


I n t r o d u c t i o n ◆ 3

system along the entire length of a river. Re-establishing some floodplains would ultimate-ly reduce flood losses in developed areas.

The devastation of New Orleans, in thewake of Hurricane Katrina, is the most blatantexample of our misplaced reliance on engineer-ing at the expense of natural watershed func-tions. The Corps’ work on the MississippiRiver has had an enormous negative impactdownstream, cutting off more than 90 percentof the Mississippi’s floodplain from the river.The agency also has built 29 locks and dams,

FLOOD CONTROL FAILURE

Floods are natural events, and are vital to sus-taining the health of rivers. Floods carry nutri-ents downstream, depositing them alongfloodplains. In addition to creating fertile soilfor farming, sediments transported by floodsalso form islands and backchannels that arehome to fish, birds, and other wildlife. Floodsscour out river channels and riparian areas,preventing them from becoming choked andovergrown with vegetation. The first line ofdefense against floods is healthy rivers andwetlands, which act like basins and sponges,soaking up floodwaters and then releasingthem gradually after a storm has passed.

Unfortunately, for more than 100 years, theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) hasopted for flood control policies that haveresulted in the destruction of many communi-ties’ natural defenses against flooding damage.The Corps has built levees and floodwalls,channelized rivers, and encased them in con-crete straitjackets. In many locations, howev-er, levees actually cause rivers like theMississippi to rise higher than they otherwisewould. Over the past century this has led tothe hydrological version of an arms race — theconstruction of taller and taller levees to holdlarger and larger volumes of water. While it isnecessary to maintain some levees for the pro-tection of established communities, it is coun-terproductive to maintain an extensive levee

IN MANY CASES, THE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF

ENGINEERS HAS MADE

FLOODING ALONG THE

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

WORSE, NOT BETTER.

SOU

RC

E: L

IBR

AR

YO

FC

ON

GR

ESS

JOC

ELY

NA

UG

UST

INO

, FE

MA

U N N A T U R A L D I S A S T E R S

ERATH, LA, 2005

MELVELLE, LA, 1927

ASS

OC

IAT

ED

PR

ESS



as well as countless other structures that haveincreasingly interfered with the MississippiRiver’s natural process of carrying sedimentdownstream to sustain and replenish coastalwetlands.

Louisiana alone has lost about 1,900 squaremiles of wetlands and islands due to the sharpdrop in sediment deposits. Prior to Katrina,those losses were continuing at about 30square miles per year. Since every 2.7 miles ofcoastal wetlands between the Gulf and solidland reduces ocean storm surges by about onefoot, this massive wetlands loss — the equiva-lent of a football field of Louisiana’s land turn-ing into water every twenty minutes — makesNew Orleans especially vulnerable.

THE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY

After Hurricane Betsy smashed into NewOrleans in 1965, killing 75 people, the Corpscreated the flood protection scheme that ulti-mately intensified Katrina’s impact. Instead ofproviding needed protection by reinforcinglevees located at the city’s edge, the Corpsconstructed an elaborate new system, stretch-

ing miles into uninhabited wetlands. Addi-tionally, an array of policies and practiceslured people into harm’s way by allowing and,in some cases, encouraging the furtherdestruction of the Mississippi’s floodplain.Tragically, the newly drained wetlands wereeventually developed into New Orleans East,which bore the brunt of Katrina’s deluge.

Making matters worse, the Corps constructed a navigation channel — the Mis-sissippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) — thatcontributed significantly to the drowning ofNew Orleans. Construction and operation ofthis controversial outlet destroyed more than20,000 acres of coastal wetlands that wouldhave helped reduce the storm surge. ButMRGO did far more than eliminate this cru-cial storm buffer — it greatly exacerbated thehurricane’s impacts by funneling and intensi-fying the storm surge into New Orleans. Infact, the initial flooding that overwhelmed thelower Ninth Ward and St. Bernard Parish —where only 52 of 28,000 structures survived —came from MRGO.

Rather than learn from its mistakes, theCorps has a tendency to repeat them. Over thepast 50 years the Corps has constructed morethan 500 large (and thousands of small) floodcontrol projects. Despite this wave of con-struction in the name of protection, the over-all national average cost for annual flooddamages has more than doubled in real terms,according to a report in 2000 by the NationalWildlife Federation and Taxpayers for Com-mon Sense. That is an increase from more

ASS

OC

IAT

ED

PR

ESS

N A T U R A L E V E N T S , U N N A T U R A L D I S A

USA

CETHE CORPS CUT THROUGH

76 MILES OF WETLANDS

THAT USED TO BUFFER THE

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

FROM STORM SURGES TO

CREATE AN UNDERUTILZED

SHIPPING CANAL KNOWN

AS MRGO.

THE CORPS’ FAILED PLAN-

NING LED TO THE FLOOD-

ING OF NEW ORLEANS —

THE SAME PLANNING

THREATENS COMMUNITIES

ACROSS THE COUNTRY.



than $2.6 billion in the first half of the 20thcentury to more than $6 billion per year in thepast ten years.

A big reason why spending to build moreprojects has not necessarily yielded greaterflood protection is that neither Congress northe Corps prioritize flood control planning andconstruction to address the nation’s mostpressing needs. Instead, Corps projects havesubsidized industries or simply provided porkto Congressional districts, rather than focus onreducing the vulnerability of communities andcritical infrastructure to flooding.

WORKING WITH NATUREWORKS

This year’s list of America’s Most EndangeredRivers provides further evidence of the oftennegative environmental and economic conse-quences of working against natural systems.Leading this year’s list is the Pajaro River (#1),located in the heart of California’s centralcoast. From constructing 22 miles of leveesalong the lower river, to ripping out virtuallyall the vegetation along those levees, todecades of sand and gravel mining in theriver’s upper tributaries, our working againstnature has exacerbated high-water events inthe floodplain. Despite the levees’ repeatedfailure to protect communities from floods, theCorps remains intent on a plan that wouldmerely fortify existing levees along the Pajarorather than improve the natural flood protec-tion capabilities of the entire river system.This approach will likely perpetuate an inter-minable cycle of levee failures, human andeconomic suffering, and costly repairs.

Concerned citizens in the Pajaro watershedwould prefer that the Corps develop an alter-native plan that would restore a healthy ripari-an corridor. This strategy would identifyupstream wetlands and riparian lands wherefloodwaters could naturally and safely over-flow. Not only would this restore some of theriver’s natural floodplain, but it would improvehabitat along stream banks for numerous at-risk species, and enhance recreation along theriver and its tributaries. Unless and until theCorps proposes a comprehensive approach to

RAPID DEVELOPMENT ALONG

THE UPPER YELLOWSTONE’S

BANKS LEADS TO LEVEES,

DIKES, AND RIPRAP,

INCREASING FLOOD DAMAGE.

flood control on the Pajaro that works withnature, the river will remain an economicdrain — and a danger — for the communitiesalong the river.

As the Pajaro situation demonstrates, theCorps has focused too often on short-term,structural solutions to try to reduce flooding.Tragically, such measures can actually lead todisasters by robbing rivers of their naturalflood protection systems and by providing afalse sense of security to people living in thedeveloped floodplains.

Another example of floodplain mismanage-ment can be found along the Upper Yellow-stone River (#2), which flows throughMontana. New construction in the 100-yearfloodplain has increased by 57 percent, placinghigh-priced houses in harm’s way and leadingto the placement of hard structures to controlthe banks of the river. Clearing cottonwoodsand other riparian vegetation has destroyedvaluable natural flood control and wildlifehabitat, as well as the beauty and character ofthis iconic river. Now that the problems withthis approach have become clear, local citi-zens are seeking a comprehensive plan for

L D I S A S T E R S c o n t i n u e d

DO

UG

LO

NE

MA

N



W h e n i t R a i n s , S e w a g e P o u r s c o n t i n u e d

future development that works with the riverrather than against it. Nearby communities

hope to preserve the very qualitiesthat attract people to the river val-ley in the first place.

The San Jacinto River (#9) inTexas has been plagued for years bysedimentation and bank erosion dueto unregulated sand mining opera-tions. These projects have damagedadjacent forests and wetlands,removing the natural flood protec-tion of these native hardwoodforests that would benefit thealready flood-prone Houston area.Local organizations and elected offi-cials are now seeking to protect theremaining forests, in the hope ofimproving natural flood protectionand protecting clean water.

Similarly, the same kind of manipulationhas harmed the legendary “river of grass” —the Florida Everglades. As a prime example,the Corps’ over-engineering directs toxicwater into Lake Okeechobee and then into the

Caloosahatchee River (#7). Thisriver is a major source ofdrinking water, a $2 billionrecreational resource andhome to endangeredmanatees. Local citizensare pushing for a more asensible approach thatlessens the pollutionflowing into the river byworking better with thenatural river system.

NEW CENTURY, NATURAL SOLUTIONS

Few things can be as horrific as watching livesdestroyed and a city drowned. Sadly, too oftenthe Corps has reacted to such disasters withmore concrete, more engineering, and morepoorly-spent money — leading to widespreaddestruction of natural systems.

Last year’s devastating hurricane and thisyear’s list of endangered rivers provide a les-son we cannot ignore: While levees and other

“Natural systems are

resilient and bounce

back. The problem is

when we try to con-

trol nature, rather

than letting her do

what she does.”

SUSAN CUTTER,

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH

CAROLINA GEOGRAPHER,

AS QUOTED BY ASSOCIATED

PRESS, JAN. 28, 2006


BO

TH

PH

OT

OS:

UT

AH

RE

CL

AM

AT

ION

MIT

IGA

TIO

NA

ND

CO

NSE

RV

AT

ION

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

SUSA

NR

ICH

AR

DSO

N

RESTORED TO ITS NATURAL

MEANDERING COURSE,

UTAH’S PROVO RIVER IS A

GOOD EXAMPLE OF HOW COM-

MUNITIES CAN RECAPTURE

MANY OF THE BENEFITS A

HEALTHY RIVER PROVIDES.

BEFORE

AFTER



Investing in Restoration

Many wetlands that once soaked up and filtered floodwaters — releasingthem gradually after storms pass — are drained and filled for commercialdevelopment or cut off behind levees. Landscapes are paved over, orstripped of trees and soils, causing polluted water to run more swiftly offthe land and then quickly downstream. Once-meandering river channels,which slowed the rate of water coursing down a river and provided habi-tat for fish and wildlife, are straitjacketed by concrete and stone “rip-rap.”

Fortunately, the science of river restoration has emerged in recentyears aimed at undoing some of this damage and bringing back some ofthe natural benefits provided by healthy watersheds. River restorationcan include a variety of different projects such as re-vegetating streambuffers to filter pollutants, removing unused concrete structures fromriver channels, establishing more natural flow patterns, or re-establishinghabitat for fish and wildlife.

Thanks to the work of federal, state, and local resource managers, sci-entists, private consultants, and volunteer organizations, river restora-tion has grown exponentially over the past decade with well over 39,000projects throughout the nation. Restoration is also good for the economy,with annual expenditures in excess of $1 billion. More and more, stateand federal legislatures are beginning to see the lasting value in theseprojects and have plans to spend billions more.

The end result of river restoration is finding the very best ways toprovide communities with clean, abundant water, to protect public safe-ty, and to preserve beautiful places that everyone can enjoy. For moreinformation, visit www.RestoringRivers.org.

structural solutions will continue to be partof the nation’s flood control strategy alongrivers and coastlines, the key component toensuring community safety lies in workingwith nature, not against it.

Without question, the destruction ofwatersheds and the manipulation of riverchannels have led to more floods anddroughts, degraded water quality, destroyedwildlife habitat, diminished recreationalopportunities, and endangered communities.It is far better to consider simpler and morecost-effective natural solutions. Indeed, manydamaged rivers can be saved, and naturalflood protection benefits restored, by repairingthe natural form and function of rivers thathave been damaged.

Strong wetlands protection and floodplainmanagement, for example, provide rivers withmore room to spread out, reducing flood lev-els. In some areas, levees can be set back far-ther from the river, or removed altogether ifappropriate floodplain management steps areimplemented. Giving some of the floodplainback to the river in unpopulated areas canalso help alleviate pressure on levees guardingcities. In addition, restoring meandering riverchannels allows rivers to hold and graduallyrelease heavy rainfall.

Protecting and restoring natural flood con-trol assets also yield tremendous benefits tocommunities beyond the obvious buffers fromflooding. These same wetlands and flood-plains contribute to the purification and dis-tribution of clean drinking water to millionsof Americans. They also support commercial-ly and recreationally valuable inland andcoastal fisheries, provide habitat to the major-ity of species, and offer beautiful places forpeople to visit and enjoy.

Unfortunately, no amount of river protec-tion, restoration, or engineering will protectevery neighborhood from flooding. In somecases the safest and most cost-effectiveapproach to sparing life and property is torelocate buildings to higher ground. Policychanges implemented after the MississippiRiver floods of 1993 allowed neighborhoods in places like Arnold, Missouri; TrentonIsland, Wisconsin; and Kampsville, Illinois


SUSA

NR

ICH

AR

DSO

N

NA

TIO

NA

LA

QU

AR

IUM

OF

BA

LTIM

OR

EU

SDA

NR

CS



to relocate and thereby remove themselvesfrom the hardship of frequent floods. Nationalpolicy-makers should use these successes asguidelines to reform our federal flood insur-ance program, which continues to provide per-verse incentives to rebuild not just in harm’sway, but also in an economically unsustain-able way.

THE CORPS PROBLEM

The problems highlighted by Hurricane Katrina cry out for changes to the agency thatplayed a significant role in that catastrophe.

As America’s most influential and powerfulentity affecting rivers and coastlines, the Corpsmust be held accountable for its past mistakesand take responsibility for charting a newcourse.

Congress has an important role to play bymodernizing the rules and policies governingthe Corps. True reform would ensure that theover-riding objective of all federal water pro-jects would be to safeguard and sustain com-munities by protecting natural ecosystems thatcan prevent or reduce flooding damage, as well as provide a host of other benefits.

In the wake of rising waters, the focusquickly shifts to new beginnings and nextsteps. Now, then, is the time for all Americansto consider our nation’s legacy of flooding, andto chart a new course. By taking advantage ofnatural benefits provided by healthy riverecosystems, not just defaulting to engineering,we can better guard against what can only bedescribed as unnatural disasters.

RESIDENTS IN THE NAPA

VALLEY REJECTED A

RECENT CORPS PROPOSAL

FOR RIVER DREDGING AND

HIGHER LEVEES IN FAVOR

OF A MORE NATURAL

APPROACH THAT INCLUD-

ED RESTORING 650

ACRES OF WETLANDS IN

THE NAPA RIVER FLOOD-

PLAIN.


AL

AN

LO

OM

IS

NA

PAFL

OO

DA

ND

WA

TE

RC

ON

SER

VA

TIO

ND

IST

RIC

T

Rebecca R. WodderPresident

FLOOD CONTROL EFFORTS

THAT RELY ON CONCRETE

AND ENGINEERING, SUCH

AS THOSE USED ALONG THE

LOS ANGELES RIVER, COM-

PLETELY DEPRIVE COMMU-

NITIES OF THE BENEFITS A

HEALTHY RIVER PROVIDES.



Fixing the Corps

With the help of Congress, the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers has leveed, dammed, diked, deepened, anddiverted countless rivers with devastating environmen-tal impacts. But as the post-Katrina flooding of NewOrleans tragically demonstrates, the environment doesnot suffer in a vacuum. When natural flood protection isdestroyed, people are put at risk. There are many reasonswhy it is time to change the way the Corps does busi-ness, but none more important than to protect the livesand property of millions of Americans.

Building on their longstanding efforts to modernizethe Corps, Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and JohnMcCain (R-AZ) have introduced legislation addressingmany of the problems highlighted by the Corps’ role inthe flooding of New Orleans. The Water Resources Plan-ning and Modernization Act of 2006 (S.2288) wouldoverhaul the Corps’ planning process by requiring:

Better Corps Planning

The Corps’ planning guidelines have not been updated inmore than 20 years, and are woefully out of date. Thecurrent guidelines promote the destruction of healthyrivers and wetlands that provide the first line of defenseagainst storm surges and flooding. Worse, they allow theCorps to recommend projects that encourage develop-ment of high risk areas — putting people in harm’s way— and do not adequately address potential loss of life.The bill would require an update of the Corps’ planningguidelines to ensure that the Corps builds only projectsthat protect both communities and healthy rivers andwetlands, providing natural flood protection and ecologi-cal benefits.

Independent Review of Key Projects

A steady stream of studies shows that Corps projectsare not based on the best available science, economics,or engineering. In addition, the Corps often ignores theviews of the public, civic leaders, and scientists. Thebill requires review of costly or controversial Corps projects by independent experts to help ensure thatCorps projects are properly designed and cause the leastpossible harm to communities and the environment.This in turn would help ensure that our tax dollars arespent responsibly.

Critical Protection of Natural Resources

The Corps has proposed no mitigation at all for the vastmajority of its projects, according to GovernmentAccountability Office reports. This adds to the loss ofhealthy rivers and wetlands that are vital to fish andwildlife, and are essential for a vibrant economy. Toensure effective mitigation for unavoidable harm to riversand wetlands, the bill would make the Corps meet thesame mitigation requirements as everyone else.

Focus on National Priorities

Corps project planning and construction are not priori-tized to address the nation’s most pressing needs. The billtakes a number of steps to ensure that the agency focusesits efforts on projects that address national priorities forflood damage reduction, navigation, and ecosystemrestoration. The bill also requires that all Corps projectsavoid impacts to natural flood protection systems.


THE HEALTH OF THE KISSIMMEE RIVER ECOSYSTEM WAS UNDER-

MINED WHEN THE CORPS CHANNELIZED AND DAMMED THE RIVER IN

THE 1960S. AFTER ITS RESTORATION, FLORIDIANS SAW THE RETURN

OF WATERFOWL, CLEAN WATER, AND NATURAL FLOOD

CONTROL BENEFITS.

USA

CE

USA

CE


9

3

7

10

5

6

4

America’s Most Endangered Rivers of 2006

2

1

1. Pajaro River

2. Upper Yellowstone River

3. Willamette River

4. Salmon Trout River

5. Shenandoah River

6. Boise River

7. Caloosahatchee River

8. Kvichak & Nushagak Rivers (Bristol Bay)

9. San Jacinto River

10. Verde River

8


P a j a r o R i v e r ◆ 1 1

C A L I F O R N I A

THREAT: FAILURE TO ADOPT A COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

# 1 P a j a r o R i v e r

UPSTREAM ACTIVITIES AND

THE WIDESPREAD REMOVAL

OF TREES ALONG THE RIVER

WASH EXCESS SEDIMENTS

DOWNSTREAM.

LO

ISR

OB

IN

DO

NN

AD

EW

HU

RST

, USF

WS

SummaryThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ antiquatedapproach to flood control jeopardizes thefuture of the Pajaro River. The Corps’ plan torebuild levees and ignore problems upstream isfundamentally flawed and, if implemented,would lure businesses and residents to build inharm’s way. Unless the Corps adopts a modernand comprehensive flood control project thatworks with nature — instead of against it —the health of the river will continue to declineand the safety and economic viability of river-side communities will face an ever-increasingthreat of catastrophic flooding.

The RiverLocated in the heart of the Central Californiacoast, the Pajaro River flows through moun-tains, rugged rural range lands, chaparral, red-wood forests, urban areas, and agriculturallands on its way to Monterey Bay — the cen-terpiece of the nation’s largest federally pro-tected National Marine Sanctuary. Below theriver’s confluence with the San Benito River, anarrow canyon concentrates flows to the flood-plain where the city of Watsonville and thecommunity of Pajaro are located. Low waterlevels from arid summers and agriculturalwithdrawals disguise the peril of winter floods.

Encompassing 1,300 square miles and fivecounties, the Pajaro watershed is one of themost geologically complex in North America.The San Andreas Fault bisects the watershed,and the river passes over at least two otheractive fault lines. Any meaningful flood con-trol plan must take into account the signifi-cant influence of geologic activity on the shapeand stability of the river, its tributaries, andthe floodplain.

The Pajaro is designated as “impaired”under state clean water standards, and con-tributes the worst quality water of any river tothe Monterey Bay Sanctuary. However, theriver is currently able to support numerousfederally protected species and state species ofconcern, including steelhead trout, red-leggedfrog, southwestern pond turtle, tidewater goby,western snowy plover, peregrine falcon, andyellow warbler. The Pajaro and its tributariesalso provide abundant recreational opportuni-

ties including swimming, boating, biking, pic-nicking, and bird-watching in numerous smalllocal parks peppered throughout the region.

The ThreatBy 1949, the Corps completed over 22 miles oflevees along the lower Pajaro that were sup-posed to provide 50-year flood protection.These levees have not performed as planned.Instead, they provide only a fraction of thepromised flood protection and have aggravatedthe river’s significant sedimentation problems.As a result, the communities in the lowerPajaro Valley have flooded repeatedly in recentyears, with dramatic flood events in 1995 and1998.

Human activities have exacerbated floodingin this historically flood-prone river. The trans-formation of the lower river’s once lush ripari-an habitat into a denuded channel hascompromised natural flood mitigation mea-sures. Following severe floods in 1995, most ofthe trees along the lower Pajaro’s levees wereremoved in a misguided attempt to reduceflooding. Instead, the now bare channel has ledto the increased velocity of flood waters, fur-ther erosion, and millions of dollars in flooddamage recovery efforts.

Additionally, 70 years of extensive sand andgravel mining in upstream tributaries hasdegraded the riverbed, causing millions of cubicyards of sediment to be carried downstream,


1 2 ◆ A m e r i c a ’ s M o s t E n d a n g e r e d R i v e r s o f 2 0 0 6

changing the river’s hydrology, sullying waterquality, and harming wildlife. This mining,along with upstream farming and develop-ment, has also substantially increased peakflood flows, adding to the risk of floodingdownstream.

Ignoring the upstream sedimentation prob-lems effectively thwarts the success of anyflood control project implemented on thelower river. But that is precisely what theCorps is doing. The Corps is poised to proposerebuilding the 57-year-old levee system and tokeep the river channel stripped of most vege-tation. Despite having the legal authority todevelop a new solution that would restore the lower Pajaro and address both upstreamand downstream problems, the Corps, withdubious economic justification, is looking toduplicate the antiquated approach of the pastthat has repeatedly failed the river and itscommunities.

The Corps’ proposal for destructive andoutdated levees would mislead residents aboutthe safety of living in the floodplain, cost tax-payers more than $200 million to construct,require significant maintenance funding, anddespoil important habitat. Instead of restoringthe historic upstream floodplain and wetlandsthat could provide the first line of defenseagainst flooding, the current plan would virtu-ally eliminate natural flood protection.

What’s At StakeThe Corps’ plan will perpetuate an inter-minable cycle of levee failures, human andeconomic suffering, and costly repairs. It alsowill further impair the health of the river andput the safety of riverside communities atrisk. Already the Monterey County Board ofSupervisors has identified the Town of Pajaroas a desirable site to direct future countygrowth despite damage sustained by floodwa-ters in 1995. The county’s draft updated Gen-eral Plan encourages development ofagricultural lands along the Pajaro River, pro-vided that there is adequate flood protection.The Corps’ new levees will encourage unwisedevelopment in the river’s floodplain by pro-viding a false sense of security to businessesand residents along the lower Pajaro.

If Hurricane Katrina has taught us any-thing, it is the danger of depending solely onstructural solutions to protect people, homes,and businesses from a high-water event. NewOrleans’ tragic flooding has revealed thehuman, economic, and ecological costs ofover-engineering river systems and foreshad-ows the threat faced by communities lyingdirectly in harm’s way. Levees can — and do— fail, and the risk of failure is greatest where natural wetlands and flood storage areno longer available to provide natural floodprotection.

The 12-Month OutlookCongress, the Corps, local officials, floodplainproperty owners, concerned citizens, andother stakeholders have an extraordinaryopportunity to develop a better plan that willimprove the health of the Pajaro — and, there-

P a j a r o R i v e r c o n t i n u e d

LO

ISR

OB

IN

A LESS ENVIRONMENTALLY

DESTRUCTIVE FLOOD CONTROL

STRATEGY SHOULD BE DEVISED

TO BETTER PROTECT PEOPLE

LIVING IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

KE

NA

DE

LM

AN


P a j a r o R i v e r ◆ 1 3

by, the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctu-ary — and protect surrounding communities.

The Corps is expected to recommend aflood control plan for the lower Pajaro River ina Draft Environmental Impact Statement andfeasibility report in June 2006. Issuance ofthese documents will provide a critical oppor-tunity for the public, local governments, andother federal and state agencies to urge theCorps to advance a plan for the Pajaro thatworks with nature, and not against it. Such aplan would seek a more natural course for theriver, restore a healthy riparian corridor, reveg-etate the river’s banks and channel, and iden-tify upstream wetlands and riparian landswhere floodwaters could naturally and safelyoverflow. Local advocates have already provid-ed the Corps with a plan for upstream mea-sures that would protect floodplain properties,enhance other developmental uses, andimprove the river’s water quality.

The state of California should tell theCorps that it will not receive the necessarystate approvals for constructing a flood controlproject that promotes the failed approaches ofthe past. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceand the National Marine Fisheries Serviceshould ensure that any plan for the Pajarocomplies strictly with wildlife protectionlaws. California also should strictly enforce allwater quality requirements for the Pajaro andits tributaries.

The Corps should evaluate all mitigationrequirements for past sand and gravel miningpermits along the river for effectiveness, andshould impose the strictest possible require-ments on any new permits.

Congress should ensure that appropriationsare available in 2007 to fund implementationof a watershed-wide management plan for thePajaro that must be fully integrated with anyflood control project on the river. Also, Con-gress should implement long overdue reformsto the Corps’ project planning procedures aspart of the Water Resources Development Act.Such reforms would help ensure that Corpsprojects will better safeguard communities,and protect natural systems that provide thefirst line of defense against flooding.

LOW WATER LEVELS FROM

ARID SUMMERS AND

AGRICULTURAL WITH-

DRAWALS DISGUISE THE

PERIL OF WINTER FLOODS.

FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TO TAKE ACTION:

HTTP://WWW.AMERICAN RIVERS.ORG/ENDANGEREDRIVERS

LO

ISR

OB

IN

ContactMELISSA SAMET, American Rivers, (415) 482-8150, [email protected] ROBIN, Pajaro River Watershed Com-mittee, (831) 464-1184, [email protected] MATEJCEK, Sierra Club, (831) 423-8567, [email protected]


stretch, is treasured for its world-class wildtrout fishery and magnificent views of thetowering Absaroka and Gallatin mountainranges. The river is heavily used by anglersand whitewater enthusiasts, and in late winterand spring, birdwatchers come to see nestingbald eagles that congregate in its magnificentcottonwood forest. For these reasons, theUpper Yellowstone is frequently photographedand a popular recreation destination, makingit central to local economies.

The ThreatAlthough agriculture and ranching remain thedominant land uses in the surrounding Par-adise Valley, the balance is shifting as ranchesare continually parceled into new residentialsubdivisions, many of which are located onthe banks of the highly flood-prone Yellow-stone. In Park County, Montana, floodplaindevelopment has increased by 57 percent inthe last two decades, with more than 600buildings now located in the river’s 100-yearfloodplain. This development has been accom-panied by a dramatic increase in riprap, rockbarbs, dikes, and levees that are intended toprotect riverfront homes from flooding anderosion. Sadly, these so-called bank stabiliza-tion and flood control projects provide only afalse sense of security to riverfront residents,and increase the threat of flooding down-stream.

Floodplain development results in the lossof cottonwood forests and other riparian vege-tation that provide natural flood protectionand crucial habitat for fish and wildlife.Riprap and levees disconnect the Yellowstonefrom its floodplain, preventing adjacent wet-lands from absorbing and then slowly releas-ing floodwaters. This, in turn, speeds thevelocity of the current and increases the fre-quency and severity of flooding. In the longrun, binding the river with riprap and leveesalso results in a loss of habitat diversity byeliminating side-channels, logjams, islands,and other natural features that support theYellowstone’s wild trout and other fish andwildlife.


GR

EA

TE

RY

EL

LO

WST

ON

EC

OA

LIT

ION

SummaryBurgeoning riverside developments and wide-spread bank alterations threaten to compro-mise the integrity of the Upper YellowstoneRiver. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineersmust properly assess the cumulative impactsof bank stabilization and flood control pro-jects along the river, working in tandem withlocal officials to guide development in a waythat protects one of the West’s most scenicand vibrant rivers.

The RiverDubbed “America’s last best river” by Nation-al Geographic, the free-flowing Yellowstonejourneys from the wild and rugged mountainsof Yellowstone National Park through Mon-tana’s expansive prairies until it reaches itsconfluence with the Missouri River just eastof the North Dakota border. As the Yellow-stone transforms from a racing mountainstream into a wide, meandering river, it sup-ports an astounding array of fish and wildlife,from cutthroat trout and bison, to pallid stur-geon and elk.

The Upper Yellowstone River, an 85-mile

M O N T A N A

#2 U p p e r Y e l l o w s t o n e R i v e rTHREAT: FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT

PARK COUNTY’S TOURISM

ECONOMY DEPENDS ON A

HEALTHY, FREE-FLOWING

YELLOWSTONE RIVER.

GR

EA

TE

RY

EL

LO

WST

ON

EC

OA

LIT

ION


What’s At StakeNo amount of engineering can make the UpperYellowstone floodplain safe for residentialdevelopment. The safest, most cost-effectiveapproach to sparing life and property is to buildon higher ground. Unwise floodplain develop-ment and flood control projects only increasethe risk of flooding, compromise recreationalactivities, harm fish and wildlife habitat, anddiminish the river’s scenic character. Unlessfuture development is steered out of the flood-plain, the Upper Yellowstone River will bedeprived of the very qualities that currentlyattract thousands of visitors to Park Countyeach year, fuel the local economy, and con-tribute to a high quality of life for local resi-dents.

The 12-Month Outlook In 1999, Congress authorized and providedfunding for the Army Corps of Engineers todevelop a Special Area Management Plan forthe Upper Yellowstone River. The plan willallow the Corps to assess the cumulativeeffects of bank stabilization and flood controlprojects on a watershed level, and implement aconservation strategy to protect importantaquatic and riparian resources along the river.This is the first time the Corps is doing such aplan for a river, providing an opportunity toestablish a good precedent.

The management plan was originally slatedto be completed by now, yet the Corps hasmade little progress and continues to hand outpermits for new bank stabilization projects. Inorder to protect the Upper Yellowstone fromrelentless floodplain development, the Corpsmust commit to completing this plan in atimely manner. The result should be a cap onbank stabilization activity along the UpperYellowstone.

In conjunction with the management plan,the Corps should also ask Congress to appro-priate $50 million to conserve ecologically crit-ical riverfront lands. This approach wouldallow thoughtful, well-planned development tocontinue, while protecting agricultural openspace, recreational opportunities, fish andwildlife habitat, and preserving one of ParkCounty’s most valuable economic assets.

The majority of Park County citizens recog-nize the need to protect the Upper Yellowstonefrom poorly planned development, and the

U p p e r Y e l l o w s t o n e R i v e r ◆ 1 5

LEVEES, DIKES AND

RIPRAP PROVIDE A FALSE

SENSE OF SECURITY,

INCREASING THE RISK OF

FLOODING DOWNSTREAM

AND PUTTING PEOPLE AND

PROPERTY AT RISK.

GR

EA

TE

RY

EL

LO

WST

ON

EC

OA

LIT

ION


HTTP://WWW.AMERICAN RIVERS.ORG/ENDANGEREDRIVERS

County Commission is in the process of adopt-ing a new growth policy that should call forprotecting the health of the river and its manynatural assets. The County Commissionshould commit to prohibiting any new residen-tial building construction in the river’s 100-year floodplain.

Contact CHAD SMITH, American Rivers, (402) 432-7950, [email protected] BOSSE, Greater Yellowstone Coalition,(406) 556-2823, [email protected]



PORTLAND RESIDENTS

DESERVE A CLEAN AND

HEALTHY WILLAMETTE

RIVER. GOVERNOR KULON-

GOSKI NOW HAS THE POWER

TO HELP MAKE THAT A

REALITY.

OSP

IRG

O R E G O N

#3 W i l l a m e t t e R i v e r THREAT: INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL POLLUTION

Summary Along the Willamette River, a policy loopholeallows factories and cities to routinely dumpmillions of pounds of pollution into the rivereach year in areas known as “toxic mixingzones.” This year, Oregon Governor TedKulongoski and state decisionmakers have theopportunity to eliminate this loophole bydirecting the Oregon Department of Environ-mental Quality (DEQ), the agency responsiblefor water quality, to phase out the use of toxicmixing zones. If polluters again convince law-makers to oppose elimination of the loophole,toxic pollution will continue to threaten peo-ple and aquatic species who depend on aclean, healthy Willamette River.

The RiverThe Willamette River in northwestern Oregonbegins as a series of cold water springs in theCascade Mountains, ending in Portland at itsconfluence with the Columbia River. Sincethe Willamette River Valley is home to morethan 70 percent of Oregon’s population, fish-ing, boating, and other outdoor recreationactivities are a key part of the local economy,and the high quality of life. The river is alsothe main water source for drinking water andagriculture. The Willamette River basin con-tains the richest native fish fauna in Oregon,including endangered steelhead and Chinooksalmon.

The cleanup of the Willamette River is anongoing public healthissue in Oregon, datingback more than 100years. As early as 1875,Portland residents com-plained about the qualityof the river as a drinkingwater source. In 1938,Portland Mayor Joe Car-son and local students ledone of the first cleanwater rallies in Oregon,demanding the cleanup ofthe Willamette River.Through the early 1960spulp and steel mills sentrafts of toxic sludge float-

ing downriver and discharges of raw sewageleft fish unable to breathe. However, in thelate 1960s, Governor Tom McCall led a signif-icant cleanup effort, which resulted inimproved treatment of discharges from munic-ipal and industrial pipes. In 1972, NationalGeographic ran a cover story onthe Willamette River titled“A River Restored.”Despite significantimprovements, someindustries and munic-ipalities continued touse the WillametteRiver as a pollutiondumping ground.

Current Oregon Governor TedKulongoski touts his Willamette River Legacyas the major environmental initiative of hisfirst term. Under the program, the governorpromises to clean up industrial pollutants inthe Willamette River — but he needs to elimi-nate the use of toxic mixing zones.

The ThreatThe Willamette River is in danger of contin-ued toxic contamination due to the toxic mix-ing zone loophole. With this loophole,factories and cities are allowed to seriouslydegrade water quality and threaten riverhealth by dumping millions of pounds of pol-lution into the Willamette, including mercury,lead, zinc, and arsenic, at levels known to betoxic. These discharges are commonly eightto ten times the levels set by DEQ for waterquality standards to protect human health andaquatic life. In some cases, these toxic zonescan be the size of several football fields inareas frequently used for swimming, fishing,and boating. Despite the threat to the riverand people, the DEQ allows the existence ofthese toxic areas as long as the chemicals arediluted enough at some point downriver andoutside of the mixing zone to meet minimumstate standards.

What’s At StakeContinued dumping of toxic levels of pollu-tion in the Willamette threatens a whole hostof economic activities dependent on a clean,

WIL

LA

ME

TT

ER

IVE

RK

EE

PE

R

WIL

LA

ME

TT

ER

IVE

RK

EE

PE

R

OSP

IRG


W i l l a m e t t e R i v e r ◆ 1 7

healthy Willamette River. Cities draw drink-ing water from the river, farmers use waterfrom the Willamette to irrigate crops, andanadromous fish migrate up river to spawn.Over two million Oregonians live within 20miles of the Willamette, and the river is heav-ily used by the public for recreation.

Cities such as Eugene, Corvallis, and Port-land embrace a healthy Willamette River as avaluable amenity and economic asset, and areinvesting in developing waterfront parks andmarinas, while restoring fish and wildlifehabitat. Yet, swimmers and anglers do notknow if they are swimming or fishing in pol-luted mixing zones, because the toxic areasare not even identified with warning signs.

The 12-Month OutlookGovernor Kulongoski should uphold hispromise to clean up industrial pollutants inthe Willamette River and direct DEQ to phaseout the use of toxic mixing zones. The gover-nor can direct the agency to eliminate toxicdumping without further action by the Ore-gon Legislature. This is an opportunity forhim to create a lasting legacy to protect publichealth and recreation on the Willamette River.

During the last legislative session, the Oregon Legislature considered the WaterQuality Protection Act, introduced to rein inthe use of toxic mixing zones. The bill would

have required the DEQ to develop a plan toquickly phase out the practice of allowing thedischarge of pollutants at toxic levels intoOregon's waters. Unfortunately, polluterspressured legislators to defeat the bill.

If the governor does not act, the 2007 Ore-gon Legislature will revisit the issue of toxicdumping in the Willamette River when waterquality protection legislation is reintroduced.It is expected that the bill will require theDEQ to inform the public of the location andpollution levels within toxic mixing zonesand develop a plan to phase out this dumping.This is a clear opportunity for Oregon’s elect-ed officials to take a stand for a clean, healthyWillamette and eliminate this dangerous mix-ing zone practice.

Contact DAVID MORYC, American Rivers, (503) 307-1137, [email protected] LAWRENCE, OSPIRG, (503) 231-4181,[email protected] PAUL SHIVELY, Sierra Club, (503) 243-6656,[email protected]


HTTP://WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/ENDANGEREDRIVERS

STR

EN

GT

HIN

PE

RSP

EC

TIV

E

ONLY A HEALTHY

WILLAMETTE RIVER WILL

SUPPORT THE WIDE ARRAY

OF ECONOMIC AND RECRE-

ATIONAL ACTIVITIES DEPEN-

DENT UPON CLEAN WATER

AND ABUNDANT FISH RUNS.

OSP

IRG



M I C H I G A N

THREAT: ACID MINE DRAINAGE

#4 S a l m o n T r o u t R i v e r

THE SALMON TROUT RIVER,

HOME TO THE RARE COASTER

BROOK TROUT, EMPTIES

DIRECTLY INTO LAKE SUPERI-

OR, THE MOST PRISTINE OF

THE GREAT LAKES.

SummaryThe pristine Salmon Trout River, in the heartof one of Michigan’s largest remaining wilder-ness areas, provides critical natural, econom-ic, and drinking water benefits to the nearbycommunities and the region. A mining opera-tion is poised to convert part of the SalmonTrout’s headwaters into an industrial zone,creating a risk of acid mine drainage thatcould contaminate the river and seep intoLake Superior. Unless the Michigan Depart-ment of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)denies the operation’s mining permit applica-tion, this recreational and natural jewel couldbe ruined.

The River The Salmon Trout River flows through theHuron Mountains and empties into SalmonTrout Bay on Lake Superior. The headwatersof the river begin in the Yellow Dog Plains,known for its remoteness, wild areas, andabundant wildlife, such as moose and wolves.The Salmon Trout River is currently in excel-lent ecological health, and this vast expanseof forest and wetlands is one of the Midwest’sfew and most significant remaining wilder-ness areas. The river is home to the onlyknown breeding population of the nativecoaster brook trout on Lake Superior’s southshore. The plight of the coaster brook troutrecently prompted several groups to petitionfor the species to be designated as endangered

under the Endangered Species Act. Residents in the Salmon Trout watershed

rely on the river and groundwater for part oftheir drinking water supply, including the useof public artesian wells. Tourism, fishing, andrecreation account for 70 to 90 percent of thelocal economy. The river and surroundingareas contribute to the livelihood of the localKeweenaw Bay Indian Community, and isincluded in their Ceded Territories, estab-lished through a treaty in 1842. Within theseterritories, the Tribe retains traditional rightsfor hunting, fishing, and gathering.

The ThreatThe Kennecott Minerals Company’s proposedEagle Project would convert roughly 92 acresof forest and wetlands at the Salmon TroutRiver’s headwaters into an industrial zone.The underground mine would extract aboutfour million tons of sulfide ore containingnickel and copper from bedrock below the sur-face. Kennecott, a subsidiary of London-basedRio Tinto, plans to operate the mine for six toeight years, and then spend another two yearsattempting to restore the area to its naturalstate.

When the high-sulfide ore comes in contactwith air and water, it forms sulfuric acid. Theacidic solution leaches harmful heavy metals,like copper and cobalt, creating what is com-monly known as acid mine drainage. Riversand groundwater become contaminated whenacid mine drainage seeps from a mine site intothe ground and streams.

The proposed mine poses a significantthreat to the water quality of the SalmonTrout and nearby shores of Lake Superior.

CE

NT. L

AK

ESU

PE

RIO

RW

AT

ER

SHE

DPA

RT

NE

RSH

IP

USF

WS

RE

GIO

N3

FISH

ER

IES

YE

LL

OW

DO

GW

AT

ER

SHE

DP

RE

SER

VE, I

NC

YE

LL

OW

DO

GW

AT

ER

SHE

DP

RE

SER

VE, I

NC


S a l m o n T r o u t R i v e r ◆ 1 9

ContactGARY BELAN, American Rivers, (202) 347-7550 ext. 3027, [email protected] LINDQUIST, (906) 228-6095, CentralLake Superior Watershed Partnership,[email protected] PRYOR, Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve, (906) 345-9223, [email protected] WARNER, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, (906) 524-5757 ext. 13, [email protected]

KENNECOTT’S PROPOSED

MINE COULD BRING HEAVY

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

TO ONE OF THE MIDWEST’S

LARGEST WILDERNESS

AREAS, DEPRIVING COMMUNI-

TIES AND WILDLIFE OF

DRINKING WATER, RECRE-

ATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES,

AND HABITAT.



The mine has the potential to contaminategroundwater and the Salmon Trout with aharmful, toxic stew, adversely affecting thedrinking water supply, local economies, recre-ational opportunities, and the rare coasterbrook trout’s habitat. Beyond the directimpacts on water quality, the construction ofthe mine would cause significant disruptionsin what is now a sparsely populated area thatis prized for its natural benefits that supportlocal economies and provide critical habitatfor wildlife.

What’s At StakeThe Salmon Trout River flows through someof the most remote and pristine areas remain-ing in Michigan. Throughout the SalmonTrout River watershed, residents hunt, hike,fish, and depend on this healthy ecosystem fortheir economic livelihood. Such a large andremote tract of wilderness is not only animportant economic resource, but also a cher-ished natural treasure to the people who liveand visit here.

The threat of contamination from acidmine drainage is a concern in any sulfide min-

ing operation,and the proposedEagle Mine pro-ject is no excep-tion. Because theore body is locat-ed directly under

the river, and the mining site will be directlyadjacent to this, any acid mine drainage thatoccurs would have a direct impact on riverand groundwater quality. Such contaminationin the river could bring serious harm to waterquality — potentially contaminating thedrinking water supply, and seriously harmingthe natural habitat of the unique nativespecies. Even minute quantities of these tox-ins are deadly to juvenile coaster brook trout.

The 12-Month Outlook The Kennecott Company submitted a permitapplication February 21, 2006. A public hear-ing will be held on April 18, and a secondhearing is being planned. MDEQ should denyKennecott's permit because this proposedmine would set a dangerous precedent for thedevelopment of more, risky sulfide mining inMichigan.

USF

WS

RE

GIO

N3

FISH

ER

IES

CE

NT

RA

LL

AK

ESU

PE

RIO

RW

AT

ER

SHE

DPA

RT

NE

RSH

IP



The Threat The Shenandoah River is at a high risk ofbecoming a victim of its own popularity. Now,as the population of the Shenandoah Valleysoars and agricultural land is replaced by urbanand suburban development, the river is undersiege from increased polluted runoff, as well asover-burdened sewage treatment and water

supplies. According to the Chesapeake BayTributary Strategy, more than $2 billion isneeded to restore the Shenandoah River tomeet clean water goals. Since development iscontrolled at the community level, local gov-ernments largely hold the fate of the river intheir hands.

More than 1,300 miles of rivers and streamsin the Shenandoah watershed fail to meet feder-al clean water standards because of excessnutrients, sediment, and other pollutants. Amajor cause of these problems is overdevelop-ment. Rapid growth leads to more roads, park-ing lots, and roofs. These hard surfaces preventrain from soaking into the ground naturally andresult in significant increases in runoff taintedby automobile oil, lawn fertilizer, and otherpollutants into nearby streams that feed intothe river. Likewise, population growth is taxingsewage treatment capacity and drinking watersupplies, threatening the river and humanhealth. According to the Virginia Departmentof Environmental Quality, 80 percent of theShenandoah South Fork’s adult smallmouthbass and red breasted sunfish populations diedin 2005, while an identical fish kill occurred inthe Shenandoah’s North Fork in 2004.Although the cause of these kills remainsunclear, polluted water is the prime suspect,underscoring the degradation of this river.

V I R G I N I A , W E S T V I R G I N I A

THREAT: RUNAWAY DEVELOPMENT

#5 S h e n a n d o a h R i v e r

SummaryRapid development threatens the health of theShenandoah River, well-known for fishing andboating, as well as the high quality of life itprovides surrounding communities. Unlesslocal governments plan responsibly for growthby recognizing the link between land use deci-sions and clean water, the very characteristicsthat make the Shenandoah Valley so attractiveto its residents and visitors could be lost.

The River The Shenandoah River’s North and SouthForks flow through agricultural valleys innorthwestern Virginia, converging at the townof Front Royal, before continuing on to its con-fluence with the Potomac River at Harper’sFerry, West Virginia. As the Potomac’s largesttributary and an important source of drinkingwater, the Shenandoah’s health is critical toboth local and downstream residents in theWashington, D.C. region, and the imperiledChesapeake Bay.

Home to a rich history, the ShenandoahValley was a corridor for pioneer movement, athriving agricultural area, and host to a num-ber of significant Civil War battles. This her-itage, in addition to excellent boating andfishing opportunities, draws hundreds of thou-sands of visitors annually.

WELL-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

CAN HELP COMMUNITIES

IMPROVE THE HEALTH OF THE

SHENANDOAH RIVER AND

CHESAPEAKE BAY.

DO

UG

LA

SG

RA

HA

M, W

LP,

INC

.

ED

NE

VIL

LE.C

OM

ED

NE

VIL

LE.C

OM


S h e n a n d o a h R i v e r ◆ 2 1

urban and agricultural areas, restore degradedstreams in the Shenandoah watershed,improve sewage treatment infrastructure, andidentify the cause of the recent fish kills.

Contact KATHERINE BAER, American Rivers, (202)347-7550 ext. 3053, [email protected] RICHARDS, Potomac Conservancy,(540) 667-3606, [email protected] CHRISTIANSEN, Friends of theShenandoah River, (540) 635-4549, [email protected] ECKMAN, Valley Conservation Council,(540) 886-1380 [email protected]



What’s At Stake The Shenandoah River is vital to the culture,economy, and health of the residents of Vir-ginia and West Virginia. It is an importantlocal and regional drinking water source. Near-ly 90 percent of the Washington, D.C. metro-politan region depends on the Potomac and itsmajor tributary, the Shenandoah, for cleandrinking water.

Also long known as a recreation destina-tion, recent fish kills now threaten angling,and declining water quality may affect thedesirability of the river for boating. Unless run-away development is controlled and funding isset aside to restore the river, the beauty andclean water that attracted residents and visi-tors alike may be lost.

The 12-Month Outlook Several county-level planning decisions during2006 are key to the Shenandoah’s future. Thesedecisions are opportunities for decisionmakersto adopt river-friendly ordinances encouragingnatural stormwater management and requiringdevelopers to implement development tech-niques that minimize the use of hard surfaces.

This year, Frederick County, Virginia willfinalize its Rural Area and Urban Area plansthat will control development patterns foryears to come. County officials should heedrecommendations from the county’s PlanningCommission, special study committees, andcitizens, and encourage low-impact develop-ment practices that limit the amount of con-crete surfaces, and thereby allow more rain tosoak into the ground naturally, minimizingpolluted runoff. The County should also takesteps to protect the river’s water quality by cre-ating a stream buffer ordinance that preservesand restores vegetation along the river to filterout pollutants and prevent riverbank erosion.

Recently, Virginia’s Shenandoah and Warrencounties adopted new Comprehensive Plans toguide future development. Yet, developers arealready requesting exemptions. The countiesshould stand up against efforts to underminetheir authority and reject attacks on soundplanning. Additionally, both counties shouldfollow up on their stated interest in streamsidebuffers and buffer ordinances.

It is also essential to increase funding forthe cleanup of the Shenandoah River through adedicated state funding source. Such assistanceshould be used to reduce polluted runoff from

MO

UN

TA

INV

ISIO

NS

THE SHENANDOAH RIVER IS

AN INCREDIBLE COMMUNITY

ASSET, PROVIDING DRINKING

WATER, IRRIGATION, AND

RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNI-

TIES TO AN AREA RICH IN

HISTORY.


risk and endangers the city of Boise and otherdownstream communities.

The Atlanta Gold Company proposes toblast two giant pits in the headwaters of theBoise River and remove more than 1,000 feet ofmountain. Rock taken from the pits would becrushed and placed onleach pads, then dousedwith a cyanide solutionto extract the gold. Lin-ers would then seek tocapture the toxic solu-tion after it filtersthrough the crushedrock. More than 27 mil-lion tons of miningwaste containing arsenicwould be dumped in avalley overlooking thetown of Atlanta, Idaho.

The mining operationwould cover more than 350 acres of steep,unstable, and rugged terrain that receive largeamounts of snow and rain, creating a risk of atoxic cyanide solution spill. This could, in turn,pollute streams and groundwater that feed theBoise River.

Cyanide leach mining can create toxic wastepiles, barren land, polluted drinking water sup-plies, and public health threats. This type ofcontamination from cyanide leach mines ledvoters to ban such mining in the state of Mon-tana and in five counties in Colorado.

What’s At StakeThe city of Boise’s drinking water and the Trea-sure Valley’s irrigation water depend on a cleanBoise River. Boise consistently rates as one ofthe best cities in the country in which to liveand to do business, and the parks and trailsalong the Boise River attract scores of familieswho hike along and raft, fish, and splash in theriver.

Both direct and indirect effects of this pro-posed mine threaten the area. Cyanide is highlytoxic to people and wildlife — even minutequantities can kill fish, birds, and mammals —and could severely degrade fish and wildlifehabitat, particularly the critical habitat of bulltrout, federally-listed as a threatened species.


I D A H O

THREAT: CYANIDE LEACH MINE

#6 B o i s e R i v e r

RESIDENTS OF BOISE AND THE

SURROUNDING AREAS HAVE

LONG ENJOYED RECREATING IN

AND ALONG THE BOISE RIVER.

A CYANIDE GOLD MINE COULD

MAKE THE RIVER UNSAFE FOR

PEOPLE AND WILDLIFE.

SummaryThe Boise River is threatened by a proposedcyanide leach gold mine that could poison thisimportant source of drinking and irrigationwater and popular recreation destination.Unless state and federal decisionmakers stopplans for the mine, the river that providesBoise — Idaho’s capital and largest city — ahigh quality of life could be ruined by toxicpollution.

The RiverThe Boise River, formed by its North, Middle,and South Forks, is a tributary of the SnakeRiver. The Boise River provides more than 20percent of Boise’s drinking water and irrigationfor 300,000 acres of crops in Idaho’s Treasure Valley. It is a popular destination for rafting,inner-tubing, and fishing. Additionally, it ishome to a variety of fish and wildlife includ-ing, bull, rainbow and cutthroat trout, elk,black bear, and wintering bald eagles. The U.S.Forest Service has determined that portions ofthe river’s North and Middle Forks are eligiblefor national Wild & Scenic river protection.

The ThreatA Canadian mining company’s proposal tobuild a cyanide leach gold mine near the Middle Fork, puts the health of the river at

IDA

HO

CO

NSE

RV

AT

ION

LE

AG

UE

IDA

HO

CO

NSE

RV

AT

ION

LE

AG

UE

SNAKE RIVER

UPDATE

2006 WILL BE A

PIVOTAL YEAR FOR

THE LOWER SNAKE

RIVER, LISTED IN

PAST YEARS IN

THIS REPORT. FOR AN UPDATE,

PLEASE SEE

WWW.AMERICAN-RIVERS.ORG/

SNAKEUPDATE


B o i s e R i v e r ◆ 2 3

IF DECISIONMAKERS DO

NOT PROTECT THE BOISE

RIVER, RESIDENTS COULD

SEE THE DETERIORATION

OF ONE OF THE MAJOR

NATURAL ATTRACTIONS

MAKING BOISE AMONG

THE TOP PLACES TO LIVE

IN THE COUNTRY.

And millions of pounds of hazardous chemicalsand diesel fuel would have to be transported onnarrow, riverside dirt roads, creating an unac-ceptable risk of chemical spills to the commu-nity and the river.

The 12-Month OutlookThe U.S. Forest Service is reviewing AtlantaGold’s proposal and will release a Draft Envi-ronmental Impact Statement in the fall of2006. A public comment period will immedi-ately follow. The Forest Service should rejectthe cyanide mine at the Boise River’s headwa-ters that poses an unacceptable risk to cleandrinking water and outdoor recreation. There istoo much at risk for the health and well-beingof the surrounding communities and wildlife.

Meanwhile, until the suitability for nationalWild and Scenic status for the North and Mid-dle Forks is determined, the Forest Serviceshould diligently protect the Boise River’s nat-ural resources as called for in its current man-agement plan for the Boise National Forest.

The Atlanta Gold Company must apply tothe Idaho Department of Environmental Quali-ty and the Idaho Department of Lands for per-mits to conduct cyanide leaching. These stateagencies should refuse to issue the permits onthe grounds that the cyanide leaching processposes too great a threat to public welfare.

At the national level, Congress must reformthe antiquated Mining Law of 1872 governinghardrock mining activities on federal lands. InOctober 2005, Representatives Nick Rahall (D-

WV), Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Jay Inslee(D-WA) introduced a bill into the U.S. House ofRepresentatives that would put an end to irre-sponsible mining by implementing environ-mental protections and cleanup provisions, andinstituting important fiscal reforms. Congressshould pass this bill, for the sake of the city ofBoise, and the health of the Boise River andother rivers threatened by irresponsible miningactivity.

Contact AMY KOBER, American Rivers, (206) 213-0330ext. 23, [email protected] ROBISON, Idaho Conservation League,(208) 345-6933 ext. 13, [email protected] LEWIS, Idaho Rivers United, (208) 343-7481 ext. 2, [email protected]



IDA

HO

CO

NSE

RV

AT

ION

LE

AG

UE



F L O R I D A

THREAT: RELEASES OF TOXIC WATER

# 7 C a l o o s a h a t c h e e R i v e r

INTENSE ALGAL BLOOMS FED

BY AGRICULTURAL AND

URBAN NUTRIENT RUNOFF

HAVE SEVERELY DEPLETED

RIVER OXYGEN LEVELS, CON-

TRIBUTING TO THE RECENT

DECIMATION OF THE RIVER’S

COMMERCIAL SEAFOOD

SPECIES AND SEAGRASS – AN

IMPORTANT SOURCE OF FOOD

FOR MANATEES.

SummaryThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regularlyreleases large quantities of polluted waterfrom Lake Okeechobee into the headwaters ofthe Caloosahatchee River. Unless the Corpsregulates discharges from Lake Okeechobeeto protect the ecological health of the river,polluted discharges will continue to puthuman health at risk, devastate native fishand wildlife populations, and harm SouthwestFlorida’s tourism economy.

The River The Caloosahatchee River flows throughSouthwest Florida and empties into San Carlos Bay on the Florida Gulf Coast. Thelifeblood for many of the surrounding coun-ties, the river contributes more than $2 billion annually to tourism through recre-ational use and cultural events. The waters of the Caloosahatchee provide drinking waterfor 40,000 residents in Lee County and irriga-tion for Florida’s west coast citrus and sugarcrops.

This river basin is an ecological jewel, andcomprises part of the Great Calusa Blueway— a water trail home to dolphins, manatees,and more than 300 species of birds. FiveNational Wildlife Refuges are dependent uponthis river for water, including those on theSanibel and Captiva islands.

The ThreatHistorically, Lake Okeechobee — the secondlargest lake completely within the continentalUnited States — overflowed into the Caloosa-hatchee River only during extreme wet-weath-er conditions. In the 1930s, a dike was built bythe Corps around the lake to secure a watersupply for agriculture and to protect againstflooding. Throughout the 20th century, urbanand agricultural expansion continued, resultingin the steady reduction in natural wetlandhabitat and degraded water quality.

Successive severe hurricane seasons inrecent years have created dangerously highwater levels in the lake, exacerbating waterquality problems in Lake Okeechobee bychurning nutrient-laden sediments and re-sus-pending them into a trillion gallons of lakewater. Prompted by limits on storage volume,the South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD) now regularly releases pollutedwater — up to 69,500 gallons per second —from Lake Okeechobee into the Caloosahatch-ee River.

These water releases sacrifice the river’swater quality. The combination of re-suspend-ed sediments and fertilizers has turned LakeOkeechobee water into what local reportersliken to chocolate soup, which now flows regu-larly into the Caloosahatchee, and eventuallyreaches San Carlos Bay. Of primary concern arethe nutrient-induced harmful algal blooms thatdeplete dissolved oxygen, block sunlight, clogboat intakes, and produce fish-killing toxins.These toxins are also a threat to human health,irritating human skin, causing nausea andvomiting, and, in large doses, affecting liverfunctions.

The estuary also suffers because of the mis-management of the river. Fluctuating waterlevels in the Caloosahatchee cause two distinctbut significant problems. Excess water duringrainy seasons produces low salinity levels thatare unable to support marine aquatic life,while severe low flows as a result of municipaland agricultural withdrawals during the dryseason cause salinity levels to spike. Dis-charges from Lake Okeechobee are affectingthe salinity and nutrient levels in the waters

CA

LO

OSA

HA

TC

HE

ER

IVE

RC

ITIZ

EN

SA

SSO

CIA

TIO

N

JIM

RE

ID, U

SFW

S


CA

LO

OSA

HA

TC

HE

ER

IVE

RC

ITIZ

EN

SA

SSO

CIA

TIO

N

C a l o o s a h a t c h e e ◆ 2 5

TOXINS FROM FERTILIZER

RUNOFF, PROVEN TO CAUSE

SKIN IRRITATION, NAUSEA,

VOMITING, AND LIVER FAIL-

URE, ARE BEING RELEASED

INTO THE DRINKING WATER

ON A REGULAR SCHEDULE.

surrounding the Ding Darling National WildlifeRefuge, causing algal blooms that have alreadydevastated the ecosystem and the fish and birdlife for which the refuge is famous.

What’s At StakeThe impacts of the Lake Okeechobee releasesto the Caloosahatchee River are extremelyharmful to the local communities that rely onthe river and the natural river ecosystem. Bothscientists and fishermen report decimation ofmost of the river’s game and commercialspecies, including blue crabs, oysters, redfish,goliath grouper, and catfish. Algal blooms resultin bans on public swimming in the river. Final-ly, the endangered West Indian Manatee, theriver’s signature species, has lost nearly itsentire food source along the length of theCaloosahatchee, despite the river’s designationas critical habitat.

The 12-Month Outlook The Army Corps of Engineers and SFWMD regulate Lake Okeechobee discharges. Theseagencies are now reviewing the lake manage-ment plan that dictates the discharges into theCaloosahatchee River and San Carlos Bay.

The Jacksonville Army Corps District com-mitted itself to finalizing a new dischargeschedule by January 2007 and is slated torelease a Draft Supplemental EnvironmentalImpact Statement for public comment in June2006. The Corps should ensure that Lake dis-charges are managed to dramatically reduce thedevastating impacts to the Caloosahatchee. Atthe same time, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice must ensure that any new water manage-ment plan complies strictly with theEndangered Species Act.

The Corps is building a reservoir to holdexcess water from Lake Okeechobee in an effortto mitigate the impacts of the water releases, aspart of the Everglades Restoration Plan. But thereservoir is a palliative solution, and to protectthe Caloosahatchee, the Corps and SFWMDmust apply state water quality standards to theproject to ensure that this reservoir does notbecome a problem, too. The agencies mustdevelop and implement a proactive water quali-ty plan that includes specific pollution reduc-tion targets aimed at the source of the pollution.

ContactsSERENA MCCLAIN, American Rivers, (202) 347-7550 ext. 3004, [email protected] RAWL, Caloosahatchee River CitizensAssociation, (239) 849-0964, [email protected]





#8 B r i s t o l B a yTHREAT: OPEN PIT MINING

A L A S K A

THE SINGLE LARGEST

SOURCE OF TOXIC RELEASES

IN AMERICA, HARDROCK

MINING, ENDANGERS THE

FERTILE RIVERS OF BRISTOL

BAY WITH CYANIDE, SULFU-

RIC ACID, AND OTHER TOXIC

CHEMICALS, THREATENING

WILDLIFE, AND LOCAL RESI-

DENTS.

Summary Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski, the U.S.Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and asmall group of mining companies plan todevelop a major mining district — includingplans for North America’s largest open pitgold and copper mine — in the headwaters ofthe Kvichak and Nushagak rivers. Theserivers form the heart of the Bristol Baydrainages, and support the largest and mostproductive wild salmon fishery in the world.The proposed mining district would result ina perpetual risk of toxic runoff that threatensto harm the health of nearby communities,while potentially decimating the fishery andpoisoning nearby wildlife.

The Rivers The Bristol Bay watershed is an intricate sys-tem of lakes, streams, and rivers southwest of

Anchorage, Alaskathat remains remark-ably unchanged byhuman activity. Thewatershed is an inte-gral part of the state’seconomy and hasprovided sustainablejobs, subsistencefoods, and other ben-efits to AlaskaNatives — including

the Yupik Eskimos, Aleuts and AthabascanIndians — for generations.

There are no significant dams and fewroads. With only sparse trees, it has not beensubjected to logging. In addition to spectacularsalmon and trout runs, the Bristol Bay areaprovides a home to brown bears, moose, oneof Alaska’s largest herds of caribou and a veryrare freshwater seal population.

The Kvichak River is home to the singlelargest salmon run on the planet. The Nusha-gak River hosts the largest king salmon run inAlaska. The region’s spectacular salmon runsresult in an annual catch numbering in thetens of millions. The area also includes Alas-ka’s first designated trophy trout area, attract-ing more wilderness recreation than any otherarea of the state.

The ThreatAs the demand for gold continues to climb, anew, more toxic gold and copper rush — thatuses cyanide to extract the metals — is tak-ing place in Alaska. According to the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, thehardrock mining industry is the biggest toxicpolluter in the country, yet the industry facessome of the weakest environmental regula-tions. These operations blast and excavateseveral tons of rock to retrieve mere ouncesof gold. Open pit mines using cyanide andother toxic chemicals to leach gold and cop-per from the rubble have left a legacy ofwater pollution in their wake. This, in turn,costs taxpayers billions of dollars in cleanupcosts to remove sulfuric acid and toxic heavymetals from water supplies after the minesclose. Even minute quantities of theseleached toxins are deadly to juvenile salmonand trout.

Governor Murkowski and the BLM areattempting to develop an enormous miningdistrict in the pristine Bristol Bay watershed.This proposed district poses the single great-est threat to the region’s environment andthe commercial fishing economy. Of particu-lar concern, Northern Dynasty Mines, Inc.proposes building the Pebble Project, NorthAmerica’s largest open pit gold and coppermine, in the Bristol Bay headwaters. Theopen pit would cover more than two squaremiles and would be at least 1,600-feet deep.The entire mine complex, including a tailings

AL

ASK

ASP

OR

TSM

AN

’SL

OD

GE

EM

ILY

CH

EN

EL

EM

ILY

CH

EN

EL


B r i s t o l B a y ◆ 2 7

lagoon potentially holding billions of tons ofchemically treated mine waste, would coverapproximately 15 square miles. One lake andseveral streams — which contain salmon,northern pike and other gamefish — would becompletely eliminated. Wildlife could drinkfrom the toxic tailings lagoons, and runofffrom the mining operation could taint drink-ing water supplies and salmon spawning andrearing habitat.

What’s At StakeThe proposed Pebble Project and the proposedbroader mining district threaten a way of lifethat has sustained the residents of the BristolBay area for generations, while posing a sig-nificant danger to the native fish and wildlife.Downstream residents draw drinking waterfrom the Kvichak and Nushagak rivers, andthe local economy is built on the salmonruns, supporting both large-scale commercialfishing and a world-class sport fishery. TheAlaska Native villages in the watershed stillrely on the robust yearly salmon harvest forsurvival.

The 12-Month Outlook A strong alliance has formed to oppose thisunprecedented risk to Alaska’s environmentand the native fisheries, including AlaskaNative leaders, commercial fishermen,hunters, anglers, and conservation organiza-tions.

Mining proponents are highly motivatedand the Northern Dynasty corporation hasannounced its intention to apply for miningpermits in early 2007 from the AlaskaDepartment of Natural Resources. Theagency should protect the communities, fish-eries, and wildlife that depend on the BristolBay watershed, and deny Northern Dynasty’spermit.

The BLM has an opportunity to protect itslands in the region, including the site of theproposed mine, in its Resource ManagementPlan. The agency is currently scheduled torelease the Draft Resource Management Planin late 2006, and should include preferredalternatives such as closing the area to min-ing.

Contact InfoQUINN MCKEW, American Rivers, (202) 347-7550 ext. 3069, [email protected]

EM

ILY

CH

EN

EL

SUBSISTENCE, COMMER-

CIAL, AND RECREATIONAL

FISHERMEN DEPEND ON THE

BRISTOL BAY’S SPECTACU-

LAR SALMON AND TROUT

RUNS—SOME OF THE

LARGEST IN THE WORLD.

SCOTT BRENNAN, Alaskans for Responsible Mining, (907) 440-0880,[email protected] HOBSON, Nondalton Tribal Council, (907) 294-2204BRIAN KRAFT, Alaska Sportsman’s Lodge, (907) 227-8719, bkraft@ alaskasportsmanslodge.comDAVID HARSILA, Alaska Independent Fisher-man’s Marketing Association, (206) 618-3824,[email protected]


WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/ENDANGEREDRIVERS



T E X A S

THREAT: UNREGULATED SAND MINING

#9 S a n J a c i n t o R i v e r

The ThreatThe San Jacinto River system is threatened bysedimentation and bank erosion due to sandmining operations. Sand mining involves cut-ting down and excavating of forests and wet-lands to access adjacent sandy riverbanks.When intact, these forests and wetlands pro-vide natural filtration and flood protection ben-efits by absorbing, filtering, and then graduallyreleasing stormwater into the river.

Unfortunately, sand mining is unregulatedin Texas, and companies can deforest and digas long as the sediment does not enter the riveror fill wetlands. Sediment discharge into theriver requires a stormwater permit from theTexas Commission on Environmental Quality(TCEQ). The placement of sediments in theriver or adjacent wetlands requires a permitfrom the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. How-ever, recent aerial footage shows evidence ofnon-permitted spills into the river.

Additionally, in the absence of state regula-tions, sand mining operations are not requiredat the end of mining operations to restore thesites to a more natural state. The topsoil is sel-dom replaced, leaving the land unable to sup-port reforestation. If restored, it would preventfurther erosion and recoup some of the naturalfloodwater controls and clean water benefits.

What’s At StakeSand mining threatens to permanently damagethe San Jacinto watershed, and the last rem-nants of the ecological Big Thicket habitat. A2004 TCEQ study found that 47 percent ofconstruction sand and gravel mining opera-tions investigated ran facilities without astormwater permit. According to the TexasParks and Wildlife Department, increased sedi-mentation in the San Jacinto River has causedsevere bank erosion, filling in the Lake Hous-ton Reservoir — which provides drinking waterto the Houston metropolitan area — by asmuch as 20 percent. As sediment settles in thereservoir, it reduces the amount of drinkingwater available to surrounding areas. Increasedsedimentation also causes excessive turbidityin the river and downstream in the GalvestonBay estuaries, thereby harming fish, mussels,and other aquatic organisms important to the

CYPRESS TREES IN THE BOT-

TOMLAND HARDWOOD FOREST

PROVIDE A HOME TO MANY

THREATENED AND ENDAN-

GERED SPECIES ALONG THE

SAN JACINTO.

SummaryUnregulated sand mining operations threatenthe San Jacinto River and its adjacent forestand wetlands. Unless decisionmakers establishand enforce sand mining regulations andacquire critical lands in the San Jacinto Riverwatershed, Texas could lose the last remnantsof this ecological and recreational gem.

The River With headwaters near Huntsville, Texas, theEast and West Forks of the San Jacinto Riverwind their way through bottomland hardwoodforests, and converge at Lake Houston beforecontinuing on to deposit freshwater intoGalveston Bay. The San Jacinto is the western-most boundary of the historic Big Thicket, aheavily-forested area renowned for its stunningtree diversity. The area is home to several rare,threatened, and endangered species, and is astopover for neotropical migratory birds cross-ing the Gulf of Mexico.

The San Jacinto River is also historicallysignificant. The Texas Revolutionary Warended on the banks of the river in 1836, asGeneral Sam Houston’s troops defeated theMexican Army. In the same year, brothersJames and Augustus Allen founded the city ofHouston along a San Jacinto tributary, namedin honor of the victorious general, now thenation’s fourth largest city.

RD

KIS

SLIN

G

SHE

RR

YJU

STU

S


S a n J a c i n t o R i v e r ◆ 2 9

topsoil and replantnative trees and vege-tation after miningoperations haveended. State lawmak-ers should provideTexans with an effec-tive recourse whensand mining opera-tions infringe uponthe availability ofclean drinking water,erode riverbanks, andreduce natural floodcontrols by excavat-ing riparian forestsand wetlands. Until then, decisionmakersshould insist that the Corps and the TCEQ arevigilant and impose penalties on violatorswhose non-permitted sand mining operationsdeposit sediments into the state’s rivers andwetlands.

ContactLINDSAY MARTIN, American Rivers, (202) 347-7550 ext. 3066, lmartin@ americanrivers.orgWENDEE HOLTCAMP, San Jacinto Conservation Coalition, (281) 798-8417, [email protected] LORENZ, Legacy Land Trust, (713) 524-2100, [email protected]


HTTP://WWW.AMERICANRIVERS. ORG/ENDANGEREDRIVERS

commercial and recreational fishing industries. Sand mining drastically increases the poten-

tial for flooding along the San Jacinto River.Excavations remove the riparian forests thatabsorb floodwaters and sedimentation fillreduces the amount of water the river canhold, causing more water to spill over intoadjacent lands.

Texans place a high value on outdoor recre-ational opportunities in close proximity tometropolitan areas. The Big Thicket NationalPreserve — a series of separate units approxi-mately 120 miles east of the San Jacinto —provides swimming, fishing, paddlesports, hik-ing, hunting, bird watching, and other recre-ational activities. The preserve protectsapproximately 97,000 acres of the remaining300,000 acres of the Big Thicket — a bottom-land hardwood forest that once spanned 3 mil-lion acres. Within this remaining hardwoodforest is the “Little Thicket” — 10,000 acreswedged between the West Fork of the San Jac-into River and its tributary, Spring Creek —that provides recreation opportunities similarto the Big Thicket National Preserve, but ismuch closer to the Houston metropolitan area.However, the “Little Thicket” is not protectedfrom sand mining operations and, without pro-tection, could possibly be mined into oblivion.

The 12-Month OutlookCongressman Kevin Brady and Senator KayBailey Hutchison (both R-TX) are spearheadingefforts to acquire additional land for the BigThicket National Preserve. They should seekto add the “Little Thicket” to their list ofacquisitions and introduce legislation to pur-chase the land as a unit for the Big ThicketNational Preserve using money from the Landand Water Conservation Fund. Congress shouldapprove the acquisition of the “Little Thicket,”protecting it from sand mining operations thatwould undermine the natural benefits the landprovides to the river and surrounding commu-nities. This acquisition would provide addi-tional recreational opportunities in the BigThicket National Preserve within reasonabledistance from Houston, the state’s largest city.

The Texas Legislature should develop effec-tive state sand and gravel mining regulations.These standards should require a natural habi-tat buffer between water bodies and miningoperations to reduce sedimentation, and recla-mation measures that return the nutrient-rich

BR

YA

NC

AR

LIL

E, L

EG

AC

YL

AN

DT

RU

ST

BOTH THE CORPS AND THE

TEXAS COMMISSION ON

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

SHOULD ENFORCE LAWS

THAT PREVENT THE ILLEGAL

DUMPING OF SEDIMENT FROM

SAND MINING OPERATIONS

INTO THE SAN JACINTO.



A R I Z O N A

THREAT: GROUNDWATER PUMPING

#10 V e r d e R i v e r

INCREASED GROUNDWATER

PUMPING WILL SEVERELY

DIMINISH THE UNDERGROUND

AQUIFERS THAT NOURISH

THIS UNUSUAL RIVER OASIS.

SummaryIntense demand for water due to rapid popu-lation growth in an arid watershed threatensthe long-term health of the Upper VerdeRiver. A proposed 30-mile pipeline wouldtransfer enough water each year from under-ground aquifers to significantly reduce theflows of the Upper Verde River. As Arizonacommunities continue to grow, the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, and local municipalitiesmust properly safeguard the use of surface andgroundwater supplies to protect the UpperVerde’s ability to provide clean water to com-munities and wildlife.

The RiverA true desert river, the Verde begins its jour-ney across central Arizona from a series ofsprings emanating from the underground

aquifer — the Big Chino,which contributes morethan 80 percent of theUpper Verde’s flows. TheUpper Verde River pro-vides critical drinkingwater supplies to Phoenixand many other commu-nities in central Arizona,and irrigators depend onwater from the Verde tofarm successfully. Addi-

tionally, the river provides outstanding recre-ational values, including boating, hiking,birdwatching, and fishing that traditionallyhave generated stable economic benefits forlocal communities.

The Upper Verde River is one of the largestperennial streams in the Southwest and sup-ports numerous fish species including theroundtail chub, razorback sucker, andspikedace — designated by the Arizona Gameand Fish Department as wildlife species ofspecial concern. Species such as the baldeagle, southwestern willow flycatcher, javeli-na, and Arizona toad also depend on theUpper Verde and its important riparian habi-tat. The lower 40 miles of the Verde is theonly Arizona river to carry the national Wildand Scenic river designation.

The ThreatExcessive groundwater pumping poses a seriousthreat to the Verde River. Although in Arizonathere is no legal recognition of the hydrologicalconnection between groundwater and surfacewater, the substantial reduction of under-ground aquifers will significantly reduce flowsin the Upper Verde River.

Municipal water use in central Arizona hasincreased by more than 39 percent over the lasteight years. Demand for clean water will onlyincrease as the population of major cities andtowns within the Verde watershed continues togrow — the population is expected to morethan double within the next 50 years.

Arizona’s 1980 Groundwater ManagementAct grouped some municipalities into ActiveManagement Areas (AMAs). The act calls formost AMAs to reach a balance between thepumping and replenishing of groundwater by2025. The Prescott AMA, including the com-munities of Prescott, Prescott Valley, ChinoValley, and Dewey/Humboldt, already pumpswater faster than it can recharge its under-ground aquifer. Of all the cities located withinan AMA, only Prescott is allowed (by speciallegislation) to import groundwater from outsideits AMA.

In order to sustain their growing population,the City of Prescott and the Town of PrescottValley propose to pump groundwater from theBig Chino sub-basin, an area outside the AMA,and transport the water to their AMA. The pro-posed 30-mile pipeline, known as the BigChino Water Ranch project, would carry up to12,400 acre-feet of water per year, creating ahuge drain on the aquifer and the Verde River.

DR

. RO

BIN

SILV

ER

DE

XT

ER

L. A

LL

EN

MIC

HA

EL

CO

LL

IER


V e r d e R i v e r ◆ 3 1

What’s At StakeRapid, poorly-planned growth, combined withthe lack of comprehensive water use planning,threatens Arizona’s rivers and groundwatersupplies. The Big Chino Water Ranch projectwill exacerbate this water supply managementproblem on the Verde River. A reduction in thevolume of water in the Upper Verde wouldreduce the availability of clean water in down-stream communities and farms in the VerdeValley and in Phoenix, diminish the recreation-al opportunities on the river, and threaten thehealth of many native fish and wildlife species.

The 12-Month OutlookBefore any final decisions are made on the BigChino Water Ranch project, the U.S. ArmyCorps and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceshould complete a full Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) in 2006 that addresses not onlythe impacts to species located on the lands thatthe pipeline will cross, but also the species thatrely on the flows of the Verde River and itsassociated riparian areas. A “No Action” alter-native should be included in this EIS, and allproposed alternatives should include appropri-ate mitigation for impacts to Upper VerdeRiver flows and its associated riparian habitat.

In November 2005, residents of the city ofPrescott voted to pass a Reasonable GrowthInitiative in recognition of the area’s increasingdemand for water. This initiative, created inresponse to unplanned land annexations, poorwater management, and the fast-tracked BigChino Water Ranch project, provides the citi-zens a powerful tool to manage growth. Theinitiative should be fully implemented in 2006,giving citizens a voice in long-term water sup-ply management and its impacts on importantsurface waters like the Upper Verde River.

The Fish and Wildlife Service and other keyfederal and state agencies should conduct thor-ough environmental analyses of plans forfuture large developments that require thepumping of groundwater. Using the results ofthese analyses and careful planning, developersand the agencies should develop detailed miti-gation plans in order to resolve the potentialharm to communities, habitat, and wildlife.

Contact CHAD SMITH, American Rivers, (402) 432-7950,[email protected]

SANDY BAHR, Grand Canyon Chapter of theSierra Club, (602) 253-8633, [email protected] HARRINGTON, Center for BiologicalDiversity, (602) 628-9909, [email protected]



AR

IZO

NA

PAR

KS

& R

EC

RE

AT

ION

DE

PT.

ARIZONA’S ONLY WILD AND

SCENIC SECTION OF RIVER

IS A FAVORITE SPOT FOR

FISHING, CANOEING, AND

KAYAKING—AT LEAST FOR

NOW.


A M E R I C A N R I V E R S

1101 14th Street, NWSuite 1400

Washington, DC 20005

PHONE: (202) 347-7550TOLL FREE: 877-4RIVERS

[email protected]

www.AmericanRivers.org

NO R T H W E S T RE G I O N A L OF F I C E

SEATTLE PORTLAND

4005 20th Avenue West 320 SW Stark StreetSuite 221 Suite 412

Seattle, WA 98199 Portland, OR 97204PHONE: (206) 213-0330 PHONE: (503) 827-8648

[email protected] [email protected]

CA L I F O R N I A FI E L D OF F I C E S

WATER RESOURCES PROGRAMS DAM AND HYDROPOWER PROGRAMS

6 School Street 409 Spring StreetSuite 200 Suite E

Fairfax, CA 94930 Nevada City, CA 95959PHONE: (415) 482-8150 PHONE: (530) 478-5672

[email protected] [email protected]

NO R T H E A S T FI E L D OF F I C E MID-AT L A N T I C FI E L D OF F I C E

20 Bayberry Road 105 N. Front StreetGlastonbury, CT 06033 Suite 220PHONE: (860) 652-9911 Harrisburg, PA 17101

[email protected] PHONE: (717) [email protected]

SO U T H E A S T FI E L D OF F I C E NE B R A S K A FI E L D OF F I C E

1207 Lincoln Street 6512 Crooked Creek DriveSuite 203-C Lincoln, Nebraska 68516

Columbia, SC 29201 PHONE: (402) 423-7930PHONE: (803) 771-7114 [email protected]

[email protected]

C O V E R P H O T O S : Associated PressR E P O R T D E S I G N : Gallagher/Wood Design

M A P S : Ross Freeman, American Rivers

NEW YO R K FI E L D OF F I C E

1 Danker AvenueAlbany, NY 12206

PHONE: (518) [email protected]


armer.cov.finrvsd4 5.06csi.qxd 4/7/06 3:59 pm page 5 ... · this year’s list of america’s most...

Documents