America’sMost Endangered Rivers

of 2007

www.AmericanRivers.org

About America’s Most Endangered Rivers

The America’s Most Endangered Rivers report is one of the best-known and longest-lived annual reports in the environmental movement — but it is much more than that.Each year, grassroots river conservationists team up with American Rivers to use thereport to save their hometown river, consistently scoring policy successes that benefitthese rivers and the communities through which they flow.

American Rivers solicits nominations from thousands of river groups, environmentalorganizations, outdoor clubs and others for the America’s Most Endangered Riversreport. 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

The report highlights ten rivers whose fate will be decided in the coming year, andencourages decisionmakers to do the right thing for the rivers and the communitiesthey support. The report presents alternatives to proposals that would damage rivers,identifies those who make the crucial decisions and points out opportunities for thepublic to take action on behalf of each listed river.

AMERICAN RIVERS WOULD LIKE TO THANK BERT AND BARBARA COHN

for their dedicated financial support of this campaign.By helping us highlight threats to America’s rivers,the Cohn's generosity helps ensure a better future forthese important resources.

We would also like to thank the DUN FOUNDATION

for the financial support they have provided this yearto help us raise awareness about these embattledrivers. As in years past, we expect this report willcontribute to positive outcomes for the rivers featuredon its pages.

About American Rivers

Founded in 1973, American Rivers is a national non-profit conservation organizationdedicated to protecting and restoring healthy natural rivers for the benefit of people,wildlife and nature. Our work is driven by a core conviction that a healthy river is oneof a community’s most valuable assets.

American Rivers has more than 65,000 supporters nationwide, with offices in Washing-ton, DC and the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, California and Northwest regions. Learn more at AmericanRivers.org

BERT AND BARBARA COHN

Title Page[to come]

America’sMost Endangered Rivers

of 2007

www.AmericanRivers.org

America’s Most Endangered Rivers of 2007

1. Santa Fe River

2. San Mateo Creek

3. Iowa River

4. Upper Delaware River

5. White Salmon River

6. Neches River

7. Kinnickinnic River

8. Neuse River

9. Lee Creek

10. Chuitna River

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

Map: America’s Most Endangered Rivers of 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

America’s Most Endangered Rivers (by rank)

1. Santa Fe River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

2. San Mateo Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

3. Iowa River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

4. Upper Delaware River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

5. White Salmon River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

6. Neches River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

7. Kinnickinnic River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

8. Neuse River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

9. Lee Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

10. Chuitna River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Progress Report: 2006 America’s Most Endangered Rivers . . . . . . . . . .28

O

SHU

TT

ER

STO

CK

.CO

M

ur beloved former board member CharlesKuralt put it best: “America is a great storyand there’s a river on every page.”

This is the 22nd year that American Rivershas issued this annual report on rivers at risk.But why endangered rivers? What is so specialabout rivers that makes them different from ahost of other natural places and wild creaturesthat vie for our attention?

Consider the story of one of America’sfounding rivers. The Susquehanna River doesnot have an easy life as it flows through NewYork, Pennsylvania and Maryland on its wayto the Chesapeake Bay. With a long history ofurbanization and industry along its banks, theSusquehanna exhibits most of the symptomsof a river that’s seen too much abuse for toolong. Discharges of raw and partially treatedsewage into the river — worst during rain-storms that overwhelm many of the over-taxed, out-of-date treatment plants along itscourse — contribute much of the pollutionthat fouls the river and chokes the treasuredChesapeake.

But for all its woes, the Susquehanna is amuch-loved river, a place of respite and recre-ation, as well as surprising beauty. Fly fishers

6 ◆ 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 7

cast for huge smallmouth bass, often in thecompany of one of the many professional fish-ing guides who make a good living on theriver. World-class whitewater kayakers seekout the crashing waves on the river belowHoltwood Dam. The Susquehanna River Trailis one of America’s best-loved “blue trails,”giving canoeists a chance toexplore beautifulstretches upstreamof Harrisburg,Pennsylvania.

It is no sur-prise that thelove of thisgreat river andthe threats to itoften crash into oneanother. In 2005, this conflict came to a headwhen American Rivers named the Susquehan-na the Most Endangered River in the UnitedStates.

It is important to understand that ourAmerica’s Most Endangered Rivers report isn’tabout the most polluted rivers in the country,or the most degraded. The ten rivers listedhere are rivers at a major crossroads. Theserivers face a major decision in the coming yearthat will dramatically and drastically affectthe health of the river and the ability of peo-ple to enjoy it.

On the Susquehanna, the immediatethreats included plans by the town of Wilkes-Barre to construct a huge, inflatable dam, aswell as proposals that could have actuallyincreased the dumping of sewage into theriver. The inflatable dam is a fundamentallyflawed idea, but it was born of a desire weshare: to get people more involved with theriver in their own backyards. But in a sadirony, sewage contamination from inadequateand aging pipes means that the river upstreamof the proposed inflatable dam is often conta-minated by dangerous pathogens, hardly therecreational playground of which the towndreams.

The reaction to our listing of the Susque-hanna was immediate, galvanizing and a vividreminder of the power of informed people.

On the very day that we named this river

H e a l t h y R i v e r s ,

”

“...flowing

water can

bring

miracles in

its wake.

I n t r o d u c t i o n ◆ 7

the most endangered in the country, Marylandofficials backed away from weakening cleanwater standards throughout the state. Then-Governor Robert Ehrlich and the state Depart-ment of the Environment dropped plans todesignate the Susquehanna as a “limited use”river, which would have declared it too dirtyto bother cleaning up. The U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency also dropped its proposal toadopt a new policy on “blending,” whichwould have legalized the dumping of partiallytreated sewage into rivers across the country.Locally, the Susquehanna River Basin Com-mission agreed to institute a yearly analysis ofthe river and its tributaries. A partnership ofenvironmental organizations, local citizensgroups, and municipal, state and federal agen-cies, has since removed six dams on creeksthat feed the river. While the proposed dam inWilkes-Barre remains a threat, public opposi-tion to the plan is growing steadily.

Today the outlook for the Susquehanna isbright; people who love the river are fightingfor it; and American Rivers is proud of the rolewe played in focusing that energy and atten-tion.

The Susquehanna is but one of our manysuccess stories for endangered rivers over thepast two decades. That’s important to remem-ber as we recognize that the rivers we list in

HEALTHY RIVERS HELP

COMMUNITIES THRIVE.

DA

VID

B. S

OE

TE

SHU

TT

ER

STO

CK

.CO

M

H e a l t h y C o m m u n i t i e s

2007 also face a dizzying array of immediatethreats — from proposed dams on the Neches River and Lee Creek, to toxic sedi-ments in the Kinnickinnic, to coal mining inthe headwaters of the Chuitna, to a proposedpower line that would mar the scenic UpperDelaware. This year’s Most EndangeredRiver, the Santa Fe, faces the gravest river-killing threat of all: no water.

So why endangered rivers? The love peo-ple feel for their rivers, their passion to pro-tect them and the stunning healing powersthat a river can show when we simply give ita chance are the reason we shine a spotlightevery year on ten rivers that need urgentattention.

We know what is possible for these riversbecause of what we can see with our owneyes, that flowing water can bring miraclesin its wake. America’s Most EndangeredRivers of 2007 are ten places where thosemiracles can happen.

Rebecca R. WodderPresident, American Rivers

DA

VID

B. S

OE

TE

8 ◆ 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 7

JUL

IEW

EST

N E W M E X I C O

THREAT: SEVERE LACK OF WATER IN THE RIVER

# 1 S a n t a F e R i v e r

DA

VID

GR

OE

NFE

LD

T

SUMMARYTo an entire generation of Santa Fe residents,the city’s namesake river is not a river at allfor most of the year, but a dry, weed-chokedditch. Dams for the city’s water supply blockthe river before it can leave the mountainswhich give it birth, while wells throughout thecity have lowered the water table to the pointwhere it no longer sustains the river. The city,county and state governments are investingmillions of dollars for parks and trails alongthe river channel in the name of “river restora-tion” — but stream restoration without wateris no restoration at all. There is an unparal-leled opportunity to bring the river back to lifeas the city government considers the option ofa flowing river. The city of Santa Fe, whichcontrols most of the river’s water, needs torestore at least some flow to the river, even asit develops a water budget and permanentcommitment to restoration that sustain thecommunity and recapture the many benefits of a healthy river.

THE RIVERThe Santa Fe River begins in the Sangre deCristo Mountains and flows 42 miles beforereaching the Rio Grande, but this relativelysmall river is steeped in history. The Spanishestablished their administrative capital beside

the river in 1610, amid several pueblo villages.During the Spanish colonial period and intothe mid-20th century the river served a com-plex network of irrigation canals (called ace-quias) supporting more than 1,000 acres ofirrigated cropland.

Long-time residents remember fishing fortrout in the river in downtown Santa Fe,building swimming holes and even ice-skat-ing. But ask them precisely when the fishingstopped and the river dried up, and most can’trecall. Over time, the river was turned off andon according to the demands of the city’swater system and gradually the river was “off”more than it was “on.” Fishing and swimmingdisappeared, and the community grew accus-tomed to a dry river channel.

For the past 20 years, the river has beenused to fill the reservoirs in the upper reachesand as a drainage ditch to evacuate stormwa-ter in the lower reaches. In addition, extensiveurban growth in the Santa Fe area has rapidlyincreased demand for existing water supplies.In many reaches, the Santa Fe has ceased tofunction as a river, and the riparian ecosystemhas largely dried up.

The results of the city’s long neglect of itsnamesake river can be seen in the dry ditchlittered with trash, overgrown with weeds anddeeply eroded. Native vegetation along theriver is in trouble and invasive species likeSiberian elm are pushing out native cotton-woods and willows.

Looking at the dry riverbed today, it is hardto imagine that lush meadows and fine landfor wildlife, crops and livestock once lined thecourse of the Santa Fe. Interlaced with oldmain stem acequias and secondary ditchescalled sangrías, the deep-rooted communitysupported by this system of veins and capillar-ies was a living embodiment of the Spanishsaying “El agua es la sangre de la tierra” —“the water is the lifeblood of the land.”

Pueblo ruins beside the river document itslife-giving power stretching deep into the past,long before the arrival of Spanish conquista-dores. Among current residents, many cantrace their lineage back to those same soldiers,officers in the army of Spain who were award-ed land along the river for their service. It was

ONCE THE LIFEBLOOD OF

LOCAL COMMUNITIES, THE

SANTA FE RIVER NOW RUNS

DRY FOR MOST OF THE YEAR.

THE CITY OF SANTA FE HAS

AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING

THE SANTA FE RIVER BACK

TO LIFE.

good land, fertile land; land worth staking aclaim that would last for generations.

Lining the banks of the flowing river was avibrant bosque, a forest of cottonwoods andwillows, a resource for both wildlife and peo-ple alike. Beyond the bosque, meadows sup-ported decades of sustainable grazing and theriver watered orchards, alfalfa fields and corn.This crop, both food and a powerful symbol tonative peoples in the region, is still an integralpart of the culture of the pueblos and acequiasof northern New Mexico.

In the town of Agua Fria — Spanish for“cool water” — the river below Santa Fe gavelife to a small community that traces its rootsback to the early 17th century.

Then the lifeblood of this land disappeared,and with it much of the community and cul-ture it had watered. The town of Agua Fria isa shadow of its former self, parched alongwith the riverbed. Without a flowing river, thewater table sank, and wells had to reach deep-er and deeper to find moisture. Without waterin the river, sand and gravel miners chewed atthe riverbed, and periodic flash floods ravagedthe riverbanks that had lost their protectivemantle of vegetation.

This rich life that the Santa Fe River oncesustained is hardly ancient history; peoplealive today in Agua Fria remember the run-ning river and the vibrant community it sup-ported. Nor is it an impossible dream.Whenever there is a bounteous period of rain

or snow, and the reservoir gates are openedupstream, the river responds. This spring, fol-lowing a favorable winter snowpack, the rivermay be flowing again, reminding New Mexi-cans what a living Santa Fe River once was,and could be again.

THE THREATThe river has not had a fully natural flow ofwater since 1881, when the first dam wasbuilt to secure a steadier water supply for agrowing Santa Fe. A series of successivelylarger dams came and went over the years, andtoday the river is fully impounded by twinreservoirs. The city of Santa Fe owns thedams, and holds the use rights to most of thesurface water. The few remaining acequiasalso hold a small portion of the surface waterrights. Both city-owned and private groundwa-ter wells along the river extract water fromthe aquifer. No instream flow rights exist tosupport uses like recreation, or to protectimportant native fish and wildlife populations.

The major threat to the future of the SantaFe River is the outdated assumption that aflowing river is a waste of water. Unfortunate-ly, this attitude has kept the city from devel-oping and implementing water efficiency stepsand other measures that could guaranteeenough water both for tap water and for themany other things the people of Santa Fe onceenjoyed about the river.

The modern science of river managementemphasizes natural river dynamics and water

S a n t a F e R i v e r ◆ 9

RIC

HSC

HR

AD

ER

SAN

TA

FEW

AT

ER

SHE

DA

SSO

CIA

TIO

N

1 0 ◆ 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 7

cycles. Removing water from the river chan-nel destroys not only water-dependent plantsand animals, but also diminishes subsurfaceaquifers and local springs, some of which havedisappeared entirely. All of these suffer whenSanta Fe treats its river as an extension of thecity’s plumbing system that can be turned onand off (at the reservoirs) and as a dumpingground for polluted runoff in the lower reach-es. And while Santa Fe has shown real leader-ship in the Southwest on water conservation,the city has not implemented a number ofimportant steps that would mean more waterfor the river. For example, Santa Fe needs significantly better stormwater management,more efficient landscape irrigation and sys-tems to capture more of the rain that falls oncity roofs, parking lots and roads.

WHAT’S AT STAKEWithout water in the river, the people of SantaFe cannot reap the myriad economic, environ-mental, aesthetic, social and spiritual benefitsa living river provides. The city now has achance to restore the river to the forefront ofcommunity life. Restoring flows to the river

would provide not only a healthy ecosystem,but also a place for residents of Santa Fe torejuvenate, visitors to enjoy and children toplay. Tourism and art, which have attractedworldwide attention and serve as the two cen-tral pillars of the local economy, would bene-fit from a healthy Santa Fe River.

Local governments and non-profit groupsare already working on a river trail systemalong the historic Camino Real, which ranalong the Santa Fe River from the Rio Grandeto the Spanish colonial capital in Santa Fe. Aproposal for Santa Fe’s historic downtown fea-tures the river as the centerpiece of a newpark and community space. A natural, flowingSanta Fe River is an essential aspect of thesepublic spaces. Fortunately, a number of coin-ciding factors — from Mayor David Coss’promise of a “living river” to Governor BillRichardson’s declaration of 2007 as the “Yearof Water” in New Mexico — have set thestage for the river’s revival.

WHAT MUST BE DONEDuring the coming months, the community ofSanta Fe has an unprecedented opportunity tobring back a living, flowing Santa Fe River.The city already has taken positive steps tolay out a long-range plan for flow restoration:First, the city council will decide whether toinclude a provision for a small flow in theriver as part of its new long-range water plan.Second, the city plans to initiate the Santa FeRiver Fund, a private-public match program topurchase water rights for the river, which,over the next decade or so, would guarantee

S a n t a F e R i v e r c o n t i n u e d

SAN

TA

FEW

AT

ER

SHE

DA

SSO

CIA

TIO

N

CITIZENS OF SANTA FE MUST

WORK TOGETHER TO RESTORE

THEIR RIVER AND ITS IMPOR-

TANT ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS.

DA

VID

GR

OE

NFE

LD

T

S a n t a F e R i v e r ◆ 1 1

legal water rights for instream flows. Both of these steps are already in the works

and together set the stage for eventuallyrestoring the Santa Fe River. But planning forthe long term, while necessary, is not suffi-cient. Indeed, Santa Fe has seen past goals forflow restoration derailed by the relentlesswater demands of new development. Long-term planning won’t bring back the Santa FeRiver unless those plans include near-termcommitments to instream flow, linked withclear, measurable goals for how much waterthe city will commit to a living river. In thecoming year, the city needs to take two cru-cial, short-term steps to bring the river backto life:

◆ First, and most urgently, the city mustexplicitly allocate some minimal releases tothe river as immediate relief for the riverecosystem. Putting water in the river now isan essential down payment on the city’s long-term plans.

◆ Second, the city must make good on thatdown payment by setting and implementing a

THE CITY OF SANTA FE MUST COMMIT TO REAL

RESTORATION OF THEIR NAMESAKE RIVER.

SAN

TA

FEW

AT

ER

SHE

DA

SSO

CIA

TIO

N permanent water allocation for the river, incor-porating both science and community desiresto arrive at a significant and sustainable flowrecommendation. The city may choose to scaleup gradually to this recommended water allo-cation level, but it is essential to set a quantifi-able target now, even if it would be realizedonly later, as part of the long-range water plan.

The future of the Santa Fe River is largely in the hands of the city of Santa Fe, whichholds the water rights and controls dam releases. The city needs to make a clear com-mitment to restoring flow to the river, andthen take advantage of a healthy Santa FeRiver in planning and envisioning the future of the community.

TAKE ACTION WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/ENDANGEREDRIVERS

CONTACT INFO

CHAD SMITH, American Rivers, (402) 423-7930, csmith@americanrivers.org DAVID GROENFELDT, Santa Fe WatershedAssociation, (505) 820-1696, david@santafewatershed.org

within San Onofre State Beach, with TrestlesBeach at the mouth. Trestles is a world-famous surfing spot and is the only stop in thecontinental United States for the WorldChampionship Tour of professional surfing.Considered the “Yosemite of Surfing,” SanOnofre State Beach is the fifth most visitedstate park in California, drawing more than 2 million visitors each year. A large segmentof the global $6.5 billion surf and surf wearindustry is based in Orange County and SanClemente, partly because of the proximity toTrestles and San Onofre.

THE THREATThe proposed $850 million, 16-mile long tollroad, known as the Foothill TransportationCorridor South (FTC-South), would cut direct-ly through San Mateo Creek and San OnofreState Beach. Despite internal studies castingserious doubt about the project’s ability toactually reduce traffic congestion and externalstudies showing that widening the existing I-5freeway and adjacent arterial roads would pro-vide more traffic relief, the TransportationCorridor Agencies (TCA) are moving forwardwith construction of the toll road.

If built, the toll road would have massiveimpacts on southern California’s last remain-ing pristine coastal watershed and substantial-ly degrade habitat vital to the survival ofendangered species that live in the state park.The FTC-South would require enormous alter-ation of the hillsides and terrain in the park,as well as millions of yards of hard reinforce-ment (steel, concrete and other materials),which would permanently change the naturalsediment and water flow from San MateoCreek. According to the TCA’s own engineer-ing consultants, changes in sedimentationflow would cause “substantial degradation tosurfing resources,” which will likely result insignificant degradation of wave quality atLower Trestles and nearby breaks. Thesechanges to the sedimentation regime andwater quality will also damage the creek bot-tom habitats and alter the natural systemsthat support the vast biological diversityfound there.

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 7

CR

AIG

CO

PP

OL

A.C

OM

SUMMARYAt the center of the last remaining pristinecoastal watershed in southern California, SanMateo Creek supports world-class surfing andthe southern-most population of endangeredsteelhead trout. But relentless highway devel-opment threatens San Mateo Creek and thevery heart of America’s surf culture. A pro-posed toll road would slice through San MateoCreek, causing significant damage to thewatershed and to surfing at the famous Trestles Beach, whose reef depends upon theSan Mateo for sand and cobbles. Unless theCalifornia Coastal Commission and otherstate and federal agencies deny permits forthis toll road, southern California runs therisk of losing one of its best remaining naturaland recreational assets.

THE RIVERSan Mateo Creek is one of the last free-flow-ing, undiverted streams in southern Califor-nia, and is a natural haven amidst large-scale,high density development. Unspoiled SanMateo Creek is at the heart of some of theworld’s rarest habitat and is a hotspot forspecies diversity, supporting a host of endan-gered and threatened species including thesouthern steelhead trout, arroyo chub andunarmored threespine stickleback — threenearly extinct species of native fish.

The lower three miles of the creek lie

C A L I F O R N I A

#2 S a n M a t e o C r e e kTHREAT: PROPOSED HIGHWAY

A HEALTHY SAN MATEO

CREEK NOW FEEDS TRESTLES

BEACH, KNOWN AS THE

“YOSEMITE OF SURFING.”

CR

AIG

CO

PP

OL

A.C

OM

WHAT’S AT STAKESan Mateo Creek is part of one of the last large-ly undeveloped coastal watersheds in southernCalifornia, forming the backbone of a verycomplex ecosystem. In the heart of one ofAmerica’s most populated, developed areas, SanMateo Creek and San Onofre State Beach are anoasis of respite and world-class recreation, andprovide irreplaceable habitat for a wide range offish and wildlife.

Orange County and San Clemente reapbountiful economic benefits from surfing-relat-ed tourism and retail sales. As one of Califor-nia’s most popular state parks, San Onofreattracts residents, visitors, surfers, swimmers,campers, kayakers, birders, fishermen, off-dutyMarines, bicyclists and sunbathers to its natur-al beauty and first-rate recreational opportuni-ties. San Mateo Creek lies at the heart of thescenic sanctuary that serves this wide commu-nity of enthusiasts. It is vital to protect thisincredible resource that provides astoundingeconomic, recreational and ecological benefitsto local communities and wildlife.

WHAT MUST BE DONEA number of key decisions will be made in2007. The TCA will complete the federally-required Environmental Impact Statement,which must then be approved and adopted bythe Federal Highway Administration. The Cali-fornia Coastal Commission will determinewhether to issue a Coastal Development per-mit for construction of the toll road. The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers will decide whetherto issue a Clean Water Act 404 permit to allowconstruction in wetlands and other waters, andthe California Department of Fish and Gamewill decide whether to issue a California Fishand Game Code 1601 streambed alteration per-mit. In carrying out their responsibilities, boththe Federal Highway Adminis-tration and the Corps of Engi-neers will have to consult withthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice regarding potential impactson federally threatened andendangered species. Each ofthese agencies should withholdits approval of the projectbecause the toll road will cause significantharm to the resources the agencies are empow-ered to protect, and to one of southern Califor-nia’s best remaining natural treasures.

S a n M a t e o C r e e k ◆ 1 3

THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY

WILL DESTROY ONE OF

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA’S

BEST REMAINING NATURAL

AND RECREATIONAL

RESOURCES.

SAV

ESA

NO

NO

FRE.C

OM

TAKE ACTION WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/ENDANGEREDRIVERS

CONTACT INFO

MELISSA SAMET, American Rivers, (415) 482-8150, msamet@americanrivers.orgMARK RAUSCHER, Surfrider Foundation, (949) 492-8170 ext. 27, mrauscher@surfrider.org

1 4 ◆ 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 7

LYING HAZARDOUSLY CLOSE

TO THE WEAVING OXBOWS OF

THE IOWA RIVER, LIVESTOCK

FARMS LIKE THE ONE SHOWN

BELOW CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFI-

CANT POLLUTION TO THE

IOWA AND OTHER RIVERS IN

THE STATE.

CL

AY

SMIT

H, I

OW

AD

NR

I O WA

#3 I o w a R i v e rTHREAT: WEAK ENFORCEMENT OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT

SUMMARYIt’s hard to imagine that residents of IowaCity would drink from or swim in the IowaRiver if they had any choice in the matter. Ahost of polluters that include large concentrat-ed animal feeding operations (CAFOs), munic-ipal and industrial wastewater treatmentfacilities, and small rural communities with-out public sewers, inundate the river with tox-ins, nitrates, phosphorous and untreatedsewage containing viruses, bacteria and otherpathogens. Unfortunately, the state of Iowatrails far behind the rest of the country inimplementing and enforcing the federal CleanWater Act. Unless the state wants water quali-ty in the Iowa and other rivers to deteriorateeven further, Iowa must develop strongerClean Water Act regulations and provide itsDepartment of Natural Resources (DNR) suffi-cient funding to enforce these regulations.

THE RIVERThe Iowa River meanders through the centralpart of the state, beginning near the northernborder before heading east where it flowsdirectly into the Mississippi River. Otters,beavers, raptors and water snakes depend uponthe river, which also supports a vast warmwater recreational fishery. The river and itsenvirons are home to several endangeredspecies including the Indiana bat, long-bractedorchid and numerous species of mussels,including the Higgins’ eye pearly mussel,

whose numbers continue to decrease as pollu-tion in the river worsens.

Nearby communities enjoy recreation onthe Iowa River, including power boating, pad-dle sports, fishing, hunting and swimming.Vacation cabins and state parks are found upand down the river. Roughly 180,000 people inCedar Rapids and Iowa City depend upon theIowa and its major tributary, the Cedar River,for drinking water. The Iowa River was alsoextremely important for Native Americans(Sioux, Potawatomi, Winnebago and Iowa) liv-ing near the river, providing transportation,stones for tools and a natural trap for buffalothat were driven over the cliffs.

THE THREATThe health of the Iowa River, emblematic ofso many of the state’s rivers, is in serious jeop-ardy. The Iowa and Cedar rivers have fifteenriver segments included on the state’s list ofimpaired waters. The main pollutants causingthese impairments are nitrates, fecal bacteria,and sediment that originate from farm fields,livestock farms, industries and town sewersystems, among others. Iowa is far behind inimplementing and enforcing the Clean WaterAct to reduce and eliminate pollution beingdischarged into the rivers. Although it wouldseem like common sense to at least maintaincurrent water quality levels when consideringnew or expanded pollution sources, Iowa hasyet to adopt a key provision of the CleanWater Act that triggers such a review. Morethan 30 years after Congress passed the CleanWater Act, Iowa has still not adopted theseanti-degradation rules. As a result, state agen-cies routinely issue permits allowing new orincreased pollution loads to be discharged intorivers without the required review of theimpacts on river water quality.

WHAT’S AT STAKEThe Iowa River and its tributaries are a boonto local economies, providing drinking waterfor hundreds of thousands of people, and offer-ing a valued setting for numerous recreationalactivities. Even in its current diminishedstate, the river is a valuable resource for Eldo-ra, Cedar Rapids, Iowa City and other commu-

IOW

AE

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

LC

OU

NC

IL

GA

RY

WE

GE, U

SFW

S

I o w a R i v e r ◆ 1 5

nities along its banks. If water quality contin-ues to decline, people who depend on the riverfor drinking water and recreation will facehigher water treatment costs, while losingrecreation-generated economic benefits.Recent surveys have documented a precipi-tous decline in freshwater mussels living inthe Iowa and Cedar rivers, raising new alarmabout water quality. Because mussels are moresensitive to pollution than fish and otheraquatic life, they serve as the “canaries” alert-ing us to problematic pollution levels. Livingup to the promise of the Clean Water Act will

dramatically increase the healthand value of the Iowa and

other rivers to communi-ties throughout the state.

WHAT MUSTBE DONE

The Iowa DNR is currentlyin the process of writing anti-

degradation rules that must befinalized by the state agency, and thenapproved by the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency. These rules are needed now toensure that future wastewater permits willreduce pollution loads being discharged intothe Iowa and Cedar rivers instead of furtherdegrading water quality. The DNR is sched-uled to finish drafting the rules and to beginthe official process of adopting them in June2007. The DNR should not delay this process,but should prioritize the adoption and finaliza-tion of these rules in June. Furthermore, theagency should only issue wastewater dis-charge permits that require cities to decreasethe pollution loads they deposit into the IowaRiver, rather than sanctioning the furtherdegradation of the state’s namesake river.

TAKE ACTION WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/ENDANGEREDRIVERS

CONTACT INFO

KATHERINE BAER, American Rivers, (202)347-7550 ext. 3053, kbaer@americanrivers.org SUSAN HEATHCOTE, Iowa EnvironmentalCouncil, (515) 244-1194 ext. 12,heathcote@iaenvironment.org

JIM

RIG

GS

THE IOWA DNR MUST ADHERE TO THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND REDUCE POLLUTION BEING

DISCHARGED INTO THE IOWA RIVER.

1 6 ◆ 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 7

N E W Y O R K

THREAT: PROPOSED POWER LINE

#4 U p p e r D e l a w a r e R i v e r

THE UPPER DELAWARE

RIVER PROVIDES A RECRE-

ATIONAL HAVEN FOR THE

REGION.

SUMMARYOne of America’s first Wild and ScenicRivers, the Upper Delaware River now faces athreat that would not only harm the river, butset a chilling precedent for the rest of ournation’s river treasures. A corporation has pro-posed a massive new power line that wouldcut through the Upper Delaware River corri-dor, undermining the river’s outstanding nat-ural characteristics that support the localtourism-based economy. The U.S. Departmentof Energy (DOE) must respect the federal pro-tection afforded the Upper Delaware by keep-ing the power line out.

THE RIVERIn many ways, the Scenic and RecreationalUpper Delaware River was an obvious choiceas one of America’s first Wild and ScenicRivers. Unobstructed from Hancock to PortJervis, New York, the river winds throughforests and farmland, past cliffs and villages,providing habitat that supports abundantwildlife populations, including bald eagles.The river supports world-class trout fishing aswell as American shad, striped bass and riverherring.

The scenic beauty of the Delaware Riverand valley is readily accessible by millions ofpeople who live within 150 miles of the river.More than 500,000 people are drawn to the

river annually to take part in the recreationalopportunities available, including sightseeing,boating, camping, hunting, fishing, hiking andbird watching. Not surprisingly, tourism is thelargest industry in the region, providing jobsto 10 percent of the local population and $65million to the local economy in Pike County,Pennsylvania. In Sullivan County, New York,the year-round population more than tripleson typical summer weekends.

Additionally, more than 17 million peopleget drinking water from the Delaware Riverbasin, including New York City and Philadel-phia residents.

THE THREATNew York Regional Interconnect, Inc. (NYRI)is proposing an electric transmission corridorin the Upper Delaware River Valley. The pro-posed 1,200 megawatt high-voltage power linewould begin in New York near Utica andextend 190 miles to Rock Tavern in OrangeCounty, following the Upper Delaware Riverfor 73.4 miles. The transmission corridorwould require clear-cutting all trees and vege-tation and regular spraying of herbicides with-in a 100-foot wide swath along the river,harming fish and eliminating significantamounts of wildlife habitat and beneficial veg-etation along the river’s edge. The proposedpower line would also cross numerousstreams, creeks and other wetlands along theriver. Moreover, the power line constructionwould also require buying out local landown-ers and taking property by eminent domain.

Construction of this power line would doirreparable harm not only to the UpperDelaware, but would set a bad precedent forthe management of all rivers in the Wild andScenic Rivers System. Indeed, the 1986 Wildand Scenic River management plan for theUpper Delaware specifically rejects majorelectric transmission lines within the rivercorridor as an “incompatible use.” Ignoringthat clear direction and doing permanent dam-age to the unique values that led to the UpperDelaware’s inclusion in the System in 1978would threaten the ability of river managersaround the country to protect our unique Wildand Scenic Rivers.

DA

VID

B. S

OE

TE

DA

VID

B. S

OE

TE

U p p e r D e l a w a r e R i v e r ◆ 1 7

WHAT MUST BE DONEThe DOE is considering an application to desig-nate the Upper Delaware River Valley as part ofa National Interest Electric Transmission Corri-dor (NIETC), which would allow NYRI to cir-cumvent New York state’s review andpermitting process. The DOE should reject thisapplication. The proposed project would liealmost entirely within New York state, and theNew York State Public Service Commissionpermitting process should not be trumped by aNIETC designation that would be squarely atodds with the river’s National Wild and Scenicdesignation.

Furthermore, to ensure the reliability ofNew York state’s electricity system, the DOEshould look at the recommendations from NewYork state’s regional transmission planningorganization, the Independent System Operator(NYISO). All alternatives that do not endanger avaluable public resource should be fully evalu-ated and considered.

TAKE ACTION WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/ENDANGEREDRIVERS

CONTACT INFO

PETER RAABE, American Rivers, (202) 347-7550 ext. 3006, praabe@americanrivers.org MARCIA NEHEMIAH, Upper Delaware Preservation Coalition, (570) 685-8774, marcia@mailhosts.net SUE CURRIER, Delaware Highlands Conservan-cy, (570) 226-3164, info@delawarehighlands.org

SCARRING THE UPPER

DELAWARE WITH A POWER

LINE WOULD VIOLATE THE

RIVER’S WILD AND SCENIC

CHARACTER.

WHAT’S AT STAKECongress originally included the UpperDelaware River in the National Wild andScenic Rivers System for its scenic, recre-ational, historic, environmental and culturalassets. The intent was to protect this corridorfor the enjoyment and benefit of present andfuture generations. The power line woulddiminish recreational opportunities and therevenue they generate for local communities,and would decrease property values. It wouldcause harm to the river and the wildlife itsupports, and it would undermine the spiritof the National Wild and Scenic designationfor rivers across America.

New York state does need to address thereliability of its electric transmission system,but it needs to be done in an environmentallyresponsible manner that respects the rights oflocal communities and property owners andserves the public interest. The NYRI propos-al does not meet that standard. Alternativesincluding locating the power line along otherpre-existing transmission corridors would besignificantly less damaging to the local econ-omy and wildlife.

DA

VID

B. S

OE

TE

1 8 ◆ 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 7

turing steep, breathtaking canyons and contin-uous rapids, the White Salmon is nationallyrecognized as a premier whitewater destina-tion. Ten outfitters run commercial trips onthe river, and at least 25,000 boaters use theWhite Salmon each year, bringing an importanteconomic influx to the local community.

Before Condit Dam was built, the WhiteSalmon River was home to abundant runs ofsalmon and steelhead that provided an impor-tant source of food, as well as spiritual and cul-tural values to the Native Americans of thearea.

THE THREATBuilt in 1913 to generate hydropower, ConditDam played an important role in the historyand development of the area. But the benefitshave come with a high cost to the river’sintegrity. The 125-foot tall dam has no fishpassage, limiting salmon and steelhead to thelower three miles of river. The dam disruptsnatural river flows, as well as the movement ofspawning gravel and large woody debris, whichare important habitat building-blocks. ConditDam is a leading reason why the river’s salmonand steelhead populations are listed as threat-ened or endangered.

Condit Dam produces little electricity (anaverage of 10 megawatts, which is only 0.001percent of dam owner PacifiCorp’s total powerproduction) and a 2002 study conducted for thelocal public utility district concluded that thedam is not cost-effective. Independent analysisby PacifiCorp similarly concluded that operat-ing the dam under modern requirements —including basic protections under the CleanWater Act and the Endangered Species Act —does not make economic sense. Faced with themounting costs of operating the aging dam,PacifiCorp signed an agreement in 1999 withdiverse interests including conservation andrecreation groups, the Yakama Indian Nationand government agencies, to remove the dam.

WHAT’S AT STAKEAs long as Condit Dam remains standing, itwill prevent the restoration of a healthy riverecosystem. For runs of salmon and steelhead tothrive, Condit Dam must be removed. The Bio-

WA S H I N G T O N

THREAT: CONDIT DAM

#5 W h i t e S a l m o n R i v e r

SUMMARYThere is incredible potential for the WhiteSalmon River to once again be home to abun-dant wild salmon and steelhead runs. Butbefore this vision can be realized, the 94 year-old Condit Dam, which blocks all salmon andsteelhead from most of the river, must beremoved. Not only is dam removal the bestchoice for the river ecosystem, it also makeseconomic sense. The time for action is now:the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC) must issue a dam removal order thatrespects a carefully negotiated multi-party set-tlement agreement calling for dam removal in2008. This is an extraordinary restorationopportunity we simply cannot afford to miss.

THE RIVERFrom the snowy slopes of Mount Adams insouthwest Washington, the White SalmonRiver flows 45 miles to its confluence with theColumbia River, just upstream of BonnevilleDam. More than 20 miles of the White SalmonRiver are federally designated as Wild andScenic and the lower 3.3 miles of the river arepart of the Columbia River Gorge NationalScenic Area.

The rich natural resources and beauty of thearea support multiple industries including agri-culture, timber, recreation and tourism. Fea-

DAM REMOVAL IS NOT ONLY

THE BEST CHOICE FOR THE

RIVER ECOSYSTEM, IT ALSO

MAKES ECONOMIC SENSE.

TH

OM

AS

O’K

EE

FE

NIC

HO

LA

SO

’NE

IL

W h i t e S a l m o n R i v e r ◆ 1 9

logical Opinion issued by the National Ocean-ic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)Fisheries cautions that leaving the dam inplace could lead to the “long-term decline”and increased risk of extinction of listedsalmon and steelhead. NOAA calls damremoval “the most fail-safe method to safelypass fish through the project area.”

PacifiCorp is taking responsibility forremoval and has agreed to cover the costs ofdam deconstruction and river restoration.Removing the dam will give salmon access to14 miles and steelhead access to 33 miles ofcold, clean, high-quality habitat in the WhiteSalmon. Runs are predicted to be re-establishedby 2030, giving a boost to regional salmonrecovery efforts and allowing for the restora-tion of tribal fishing opportunities. Salmonwill become a nutrient-rich food source forwildlife including osprey and bald eagle.

The recreation and tourism industries willalso benefit from a restored river. Damremoval will open up five additional miles ofriver for rafting and kayaking and will createadditional recreational opportunities on theriver.

WHAT MUST BE DONEFERC oversees the operation of non-federalhydropower dams. In the case of the White

RESTORING A FREE-

FLOWING WHITE SALMON

RIVER WILL BOLSTER

SALMON RECOVERY EFFORTS

AND BOOST RECREATIONAL

OPPORTUNITIES.

Salmon River, FERC must regulate the decom-missioning of a hydropower dam for thegreater public interest.

FERC should responsibly serve this interestby identifying the specific actions that need tobe taken to support this remarkable restora-tion opportunity. It must lay out a clear andachievable path that honors the carefully craft-ed settlement agreement and keeps the damremoval schedule on track for 2008.

TAKE ACTION WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/ENDANGEREDRIVERS

CONTACT INFO

AMY KOBER, American Rivers, (206) 213-0330ext. 23, akober@americanrivers.orgTHOMAS O’KEEFE, American Whitewater,(425) 417-9012, okeefe@amwhitewater.orgPAT ARNOLD, Friends of the White Salmon,(509) 395-2233, friendsofthewhitesalmon@gorge.netREBECCA SHERMAN, Hydropower ReformCoalition, (503) 827-8653, northwest@hydroreform.org

TH

OM

AS

O’K

EE

FE

Freshwater flows from the Neches Rivermaintain SabineLake’s balance offresh and salt water,which supportsmulti-million dollarcommercial andrecreational fishingand shellfish indus-tries. Texas residentsenjoy fishing, swim-ming and bird-watching in andalong the river. Areapaddlers host canoetrips and races on the Neches, bringing pad-dlers from across Texas and out-of-state, con-tributing significantly to local economies.

THE THREATLast year, in recognition of the area’s outstand-ing natural, recreational and ecological values,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service establishedthe Neches River National Wildlife Refuge.However, the Texas Water Development Boardand the city of Dallas have other plans for theNeches’ water. They have filed suit to stop fur-ther establishment of the refuge and are lobby-ing hard for approval of the proposed FastrillReservoir. The Fastrill project would dam theriver and drown most of the 25,000 acres ofthe refuge. But this is just the most immediatethreat to the Neches — two other proposedwater development projects would flood anadditional 140,000 acres of forested wetlands.Proponents of Fastrill and other reservoirs onthe Neches identify them as potential futuresources of water supply, though the 2007Texas State Water Plan shows that existingreservoirs are sufficient to meet needs until atleast 2060.

WHAT’S AT STAKEDrowning thousands of acres of bottomlandhardwood forest would have massive conse-quences for wildlife, recreation and the indus-tries that depend upon a healthy Neches River.Damming the Neches and reducing the floodflows would dry up both the Big ThicketNational Preserve and the multi-million dollar

2 0 ◆ 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 7

T E X A S

THREAT: PROPOSED DAM PROJECTS

#6 N e c h e s R i v e r

RECREATION IS ONE OF

MANY BENEFITS THE NECHES

RIVER PROVIDES TO LOCAL

COMMUNITIES.

SUMMARYThe Neches River, one of the last wild riversin Texas, will drown behind a new dam ifwater developers get their way. The TexasWater Development Board and the city of Dal-las are trying to overturn protection for theNeches River National Wildlife Refuge andconvert the area into a huge reservoir thatwould flood a 40-mile stretch of river. TheTexas Legislature should reject schemes to des-ignate the refuge area as a reservoir site andhelp prevent the demise of one of the LoneStar state’s last best rivers.

THE RIVERFlowing hundreds of miles through beautifulbottomland hardwood forests, the NechesRiver is Texas’ largest contiguous riverinehabitat, supporting more than 200 tree species,47 mammal, 300 bird, and numerous species ofreptiles, amphibians, freshwater mussels andfish, many of which are listed as endangeredand threatened by Texas and the United States.The mocha-colored river is a celebration ofTexas’ natural heritage. It winds through manypremiere natural areas, including the newlyapproved Neches River National WildlifeRefuge, the Big Thicket National Preserve —also an International Biosphere Reserve —national forests, wilderness areas and theSabine Lake estuary.

AD

RIA

NV

AN

DE

LL

EN

AD

RIA

NV

AN

DE

LL

EN

N e c h e s R i v e r ◆ 2 1

DAMMING THE NECHES RIVER

IS AN EXPENSIVE AND WASTE-

FUL WAY TO SUPPLY WATER

TO TEXAS RESIDENTS,

ESPECIALLY WHEN SENSIBLE

ALTERNATIVES EXIST.

commercial and recreational fishing industriesoff the Texas Gulf Coast.

The reservoirs would also hamper or elimi-nate many other important recreational activi-ties in the area. Fastrill Reservoir would floodan historic and recreational attraction — theTexas State Railroad — which offers a 90minute journey through the countryside andbottomland forests of the Neches via a steam-powered locomotive. The reservoir would forcethe train and two state parks to close, strippingmore than $5.5 million annually from localeconomies. Also lost would be treasured Nech-es River hunting club memberships — oftenpassed on for generations within families andpriceless to those who belong.

Ensuring water supply for the city of Dallasand other Texas cities and towns is extremelyimportant. But it makes little sense to siteunnecessary reservoirs in an area that generatesplentiful economic revenue and supports one ofthe most biologically diverse and importantwildlife regions in Texas. The Dallas area isone of the most wasteful water users in thecountry, with municipal water use that is sig-nificantly higher than other major cities inTexas. Using existing reservoirs and straightfor-ward conservation measures are more cost-effective alternatives that will not rob localresidents and wildlife of the outstanding jewelthey have in the Neches River.

WHAT MUST BE DONEThe Texas Legislature will vote on a bill byMay 2007 that would designate the FastrillReservoir area as a “unique reservoir site.”This odd designation would make it difficultfor state or local governments to use this andother sites for anything but future dams andreservoirs. The Legislature should deny desig-nation of the so-called unique reservoir site,and instead support the Neches River NationalWildlife Refuge.

Additionally, to ensure protection of thisprecious river, the U.S. Department of Interiorshould proceed with buying land for the Nech-es Refuge and the Texas Congressional delega-tion should take the lead on legislation todesignate the Neches River as a NationalScenic River through the Wild and ScenicRivers Act. This designation would ensure thatthe free-flowing beauty of the Neches remainsprotected while providing access to future gen-erations of hunters, anglers and paddlers.

TAKE ACTION WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/ENDANGEREDRIVERS

CONTACT INFO

QUINN MCKEW, American Rivers, (202) 347-7550 ext. 3069, qmckew@americanrivers.org GINA DONOVAN, Texas Committee on NaturalResources, (936) 465-0594, gdonovan40@aol.com

AD

RIA

NV

AN

DE

LL

EN

AD

RIA

NV

AN

DE

LL

EN

2 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 7

W I S C O N S I N

THREAT: TOXIC SEDIMENTS

# 7 K i n n i c k i n n i c R i v e r

THE COMMUNITY IS RALLYING

BEHIND THE KINNICKINNIC IN

HOPES OF RECLAIMING THE

BENEFITS THE RIVER ONCE

PROVIDED.

SUMMARYLike many urban rivers across the country,the Kinnickinnic River has been neglected —laced with toxic contamination, lined withconcrete, degraded and ignored. Extensiveefforts and studies have highlighted theseproblems, and many local organizations andagencies have made Kinnickinnic Riverrestoration a top priority. The local communi-ty has come together in an effort to cleanupthe river and reclaim some of the economic,ecological and recreational benefits the Kin-nickinnic once provided. The U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA) shouldcapitalize on this momentum and grant thefunding necessary to support restorationefforts, rather than losing this opportunity tobring the river back to life.

THE RIVERAt 33 square miles and 96 percent urban landcover, the Kinnickinnic River is the smallestand most developed watershed in the Mil-waukee River basin — a watershed that cov-ers approximately 850 square miles and ishome to more than 1.5 million people. TheKinnickinnic River, which lies almost entire-ly in the city of Milwaukee, empties into the

Milwaukee Estuary and then Lake Michigan.The entire Milwaukee Estuary has been desig-nated as a Federal Area of Concern (AoC),including 2.8 miles of the Kinnickinnic Riverfrom Lake Michigan to Chase Avenue, due totoxic contaminants and urbanization of theriver.

The Kinnickinnic River is located in one of the most populated, racially diverse andpoorest areas of the city of Milwaukee. Thecommunities around the river endure poorwater quality, a lack of recreational opportuni-ties, and diminished and unsafe access to theriver. Once consisting of a vast marsh, avibrant crawfish fishery and multitudes ofshipyards, the river still remains vital to thelocal boating industry, though the build up ofcontaminated sediment severely hampers allboating activities, both recreational and com-mercial.

THE THREATThe Kinnickinnic River has fallen victim tothe familiar threats that harm urban rivers,including concrete channelization (and theresulting disappearance of natural vegetationand streambanks), sewer overflows and indus-trial contamination. Most significantly, the fastpace of urban development between the 1900sand 1970s coupled with a lack of regulation ledto toxic pollution of the Kinnickinnic River,manifested in sediments contaminated withpolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and poly-cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Today, fish consumption warnings are ineffect for all fish species in the MilwaukeeEstuary AoC, including the Kinnickinnic Riverand Lake Michigan, putting community resi-dents at risk from all fishing activities. Even ifpeople wanted to fish, their casts would belargely unsuccessful — fish populations aresmall and the river contains the lowest fishdiversity within the Milwaukee Estuary. Con-centrations of toxins in AoC sediments aresimilar to concentrations found at other siteswhere fish have high cancer rates. In additionto PCBs and PAHs, polluted stormwater runoffand the shortage of natural streambanks andsuitable habitat are major limiting factors forfish and wildlife.

ED

DE

ED

AN

IEL

ED

DE

ED

AN

IEL

FRIE

ND

SO

FM

ILW

AU

KE

E’S

RIV

ER

S

K i n n i c k i n n i c R i v e r ◆ 2 3

TOXIC SEDIMENTS SEVERELY

HAMPER BOATING AND

RECREATION IN THE

KINNICKINNIC RIVER

AND SHOULD BE REMOVED.

Boaters increasingly cannot use the Kinnick-innic River due to low water levels caused bysedimentation. Current water levels are 0 to 10feet below Lake Michigan baseline low waterelevations, which makes boating hazardous.Dredging is restricted due to high contaminantlevels in the sediments, and local marina own-ers are losing water and business.

WHAT’S AT STAKEAlthough the Kinnickinnic River has oftenbeen overlooked in the past due to the over-whelming nature of its problems and thetremendous financial resources needed toaddress them, the residents and communitiesliving in the watershed now have the chance tosee the river rejuvenated, and to reclaim thebenefits the river once provided to people, busi-ness, fish and wildlife. For the first time, citi-zens, organizations and businesses from thelocal community are joining together to realizethe economic and environmental potential ofthe Kinnickinnic River through the removal ofcontaminated sediment. If this restoration pro-ject is not pursued, the city of Milwaukee willlose out on the wide array of benefits that ahealthier Kinnickinnic River would provide.

WHAT MUST BE DONEThe Wisconsin Department of NaturalResources, working in partnership with theEPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and thePort of Milwaukee, is examining the feasibilityof removing contaminated sediments from aportion of the lower Kinnickinnic River, thusimproving environmental and navigation condi-tions. The project would remove up to 170,000cubic yards of contaminated sediments from a2,000 foot stretch of river. These sediments arethe most upstream source of contamination,and their removal will provide short and long-term environmental and economic benefits toboth the river and the city. These benefitsinclude substantial reduction of toxic sedimentresuspension and transport into the Kinnickin-nic River and Lake Michigan; a reduction ofsediment toxicity and the risks it poses tohuman health and aquatic life; improvement ofwildlife habitat; an increase in recreational andcommercial boating; and improved redevelop-ment potential. The EPA should provide GreatLakes Legacy Act funding for this project thatrestores and reclaims the Kinnickinnic River asa vital community asset.

TAKE ACTION WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/ENDANGEREDRIVERS

CONTACT INFO

GARY BELAN, American Rivers, (202) 347-7550 ext. 3027, gbelan@americanrivers.org CHERYL NENN, Friends of Milwaukee’sRivers, Milwaukee Riverkeeper, (414) 287-0207 ext. 29, cheryl_nenn@mkeriverkeeper.org

2 4 ◆ 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 7

#8 N e u s e R i v e rTHREAT: POORLY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

N O R T H C A R O L I N A

RUNAWAY DEVELOPMENT

IS POISED TO RIVAL LARGE-

SCALE HOG FARMING AS

THE TOP POLLUTER IN THE

NEUSE RIVER BASIN.

SUMMARYIt would be hard to match the damage done tothe waters of the Neuse River by massive hogoperations in the watershed, but if developersget their way, human sewage, stormwaterrunoff and habitat destruction could earn thatdubious distinction. With sprawling coastaldevelopment creeping inland, and urbangrowth in the headwaters, the Neuse is thenew frontier for poorly planned development.The North Carolina Division of Water Quality(NCDWQ) must tackle the issue; otherwisehuman sewage, polluted runoff and othermunicipal pollution will soon present a prob-lem as serious as runoff from factory hog oper-ations.

THE RIVERBeginning near Durham, the Neuse River flowsthrough Raleigh and empties into PamlicoSound. Despite suffering from decades of pollu-tion, many endangered species including theCarolina madtom (a freshwater catfish), TarRiver spinymussel, piping plover, dwarf wedgemussel and loggerhead turtle remain in theNeuse River basin. Dolphins and alligators areseen regularly in the estuary, and sharks andmanatees occasionally appear as far upriver asNew Bern.

The Neuse, whose name is derived from theNeusiok — a Native American tribe thatinhabited the New Bern area — has a rich his-tory of human interaction. With more than3,400 miles of tributaries, the river flows 250miles from the Piedmont to Pamlico Sound.Approximately 2 million people, one-sixth of

the state’s population, reside in the basin. Theriver, via Falls Lake, provides drinking water to400,000 Raleigh-area residents and its estuaryserves as a primary nursery for commerciallyand recreationally important fish and shellfish.Water sports such as kayaking and sailing aswell as other forms of tourism are importanteconomic drivers for the region.

THE THREATFor many years, nutrient-laden waste from mil-lions of hogs living in concentrated animalfeeding operations (CAFOs) in the state’sCoastal Plain has overloaded the entire Neusebasin with nitrogen, phosphorus and ammonia.Excessive amounts of these nutrients feedexplosive algal growth, which depletes oxygenin the water and has caused some of the largestfish kills in the nation. Nutrients from hogsand other sources have also led to outbreaks ofPfiesteria, a tiny one-celled organism that pro-duces a neurotoxin deadly to fish and exceed-ingly harmful to humans.

A growing basin-wide threat is poised toexacerbate the problems associated with factoryhog production. Now that the Atlantic Coast issaturated with homes and buildings, residentialdevelopment is creeping up along rivers andtributaries into many counties that have beencollectively identified as the “Inner Coast.”With population in the Neuse River basin pro-jected to increase by one million in the next 20years, major developments are being proposedin both the upper and lower watersheds.

This threat is far-reaching and multifaceted.Sediment running off poorly managed develop-ments significantly degrades water quality, butthe problems continue even after constructionends. Greater populations generate more nitro-gen from human and pet wastes, lawn fertiliz-ers and auto exhausts. The spread of pavedsurfaces leads to huge surges in polluted runoffafter storms. New construction can also harmor completely destroy vital wetlands and pro-tective buffers along rivers. In response to pro-jected growth, an alarming number ofmunicipalities are not only targeting the Neusefor increased drinking water withdrawals, butalso as a depository for additional sewage dis-charges.

DE

AN

NA

UJO

KS

WW

W.D

OV

EIM

AG

ING

.CO

M

N e u s e R i v e r ◆ 2 5

THE NEUSE RIVER IS

AN INCREDIBLE NATURAL

RESOURCE, PROVIDING

NORTH CAROLINIANS

WITH DRINKING WATER,

REVENUE, RECREATION

AND RELAXATION.

WHAT’S AT STAKEWhile state and federally mandated pollutionreductions have been implemented in recentyears, the benefits to the health of the NeuseRiver have been minimal. Now, runaway devel-opment threatens to negate any progress madein improving water quality. Upstream dis-charges and development have already landedFalls Lake, the second largest drinking waterreservoir in the state, on the 2008 list ofimpaired waters from excessive nutrients. Thebuilding boom is also destroying the culturalheritage of eastern North Carolina as family-owned fishing piers and fish houses are demol-ished to make way for condominiums. NorthCarolina risks losing the cultural legacy ofthese water-dependent communities.

WHAT MUST BE DONEAs sewage and wastewater treatment facilitiesreach capacity, counties throughout the NeuseRiver basin are gearing up to request permits toincrease wastewater discharges into the river.The city of Raleigh and many counties in theupper watershed are planning to expand theirsewage discharges. These activities will requirepermits from the NCDWQ. Rulings couldcome as early as summer 2007. The stateagency must resist pressure to hand out morepollution permits without fully evaluating thecumulative impacts to the entire Neuse River.Furthermore, discharge permits for virtually allsewage treatment plants in the Neuse Riverbasin come up for renewal in 2008. This is animportant opportunity to clean up the river.

Second, a moratorium on new large-scalehog operations in eastern North Carolina endsin August 2007. Alternative technologies have

DE

AN

NA

UJO

KS

been developed and are available to replacelagoons and spray fields. In 2007, the NorthCarolina Legislature must implement a perma-nent ban on new lagoons and spray fields, andrequire the phasing out of existing lagoons andspray fields over a five-year period.

TAKE ACTION WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/ENDANGEREDRIVERS

CONTACT INFO

GERRIT JÖBSIS, American Rivers, (803) 771-7114, gjobsis@americanrivers.org LARRY BALDWIN, Neuse River Foundation,Lower Neuse Riverkeeper, (252) 637-7972, river-keeper@neuseriver.org DEAN NAUJOKS, Neuse River Foundation,Upper Neuse Riverkeeper, (919) 856-1180,dean.nrf@worldnet.att.net

2 6 ◆ 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 7

A R K A N S A S , O K L A H O M A

THREAT: PROPOSED DAM AND WEAKENED STATE PROTECTION FOR RIVERS

#9 L e e C r e e k

very popular recreational destination for hik-ing, swimming, fishing and paddling, drawinglocal residents and even those from cities as faraway as Dallas, Texas. Tourism plays a signifi-cant role in the local economy. Just as the riveris currently important to local communities,archaeological digs have uncovered vast histor-ical and cultural resources along its banks.

THE THREATThe River Valley Regional Water District, asmall water supply group that provides drink-ing water for rural areas near Van Buren,Arkansas, has proposed blocking Lee Creekwith a new dam known as the Pine MountainProject. The dam site, located near the stream’smidpoint, was first considered in 1949, then in1965, and again in 1995, but was dropped bythe city of Fort Smith due to its inefficiencycompared to other alternatives. Although theofficial reason for the dam is water supply, thewater board has neither demonstrated a needfor the water nor shown that building a damwould provide cheaper water for customers.Instead, the water district has promoted thedam for recreation, despite staunch oppositionfrom many recreational users.

The threat of the Pine Mountain dam goesbeyond Lee Creek itself. The water district hassubmitted a proposal to ADEQ that wouldseverely weaken the state’s ExtraordinaryResource Water protections for all designatedrivers and streams in the state of Arkansas.Weakening this state designation wouldremove substantial safeguards that protectArkansas’ finest rivers and streams — one ofevery six in the state.

WHAT’S AT STAKEResidents of Fort Smith and Van Buren enjoyrecreational opportunities and the economicbenefits from this river-based tourism thatonly a free-flowing Lee Creek can deliver.Since the city of Fort Smith is the currentwater supplier for Van Buren and surroundingareas, maintaining this relationship with FortSmith would allow the water district to guar-antee Van Buren-area residents sufficient waterto provide adequate supply through 2050.Thus, these communities are not currently

LIKE THE LAKE FT. SMITH

DAM (BELOW), THE PINE

MOUNTAIN PROJECT WOULD

DROWN LEE CREEK, A

BOATER’S PARADISE.

SUMMARYA regional water district is proposing to wreckLee Creek with a new dam, even thoughcheaper and more ecologically-sound alterna-tives exist for water supply. Even worse, thewater district is attempting to weaken protec-tion for all of Arkansas’ rivers in an effort tomake it easier to get the dam. The ArkansasDepartment of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)must uphold the laws guarding the state’s pris-tine rivers, and protect Lee Creek from thisunnecessary and harmful dam.

THE RIVEROriginating in the northwest corner ofArkansas, Lee Creek journeys into Oklahomabefore reentering Arkansas and reaching itsconfluence with the state’s namesake river.The creek rushes beneath the mystical OzarkMountains, braving steep mountain gorges andcanyons, and offering a home for at least 123macro-invertebrate and 37 fish species, includ-ing smallmouth bass and other sport fish. Both states officially recognize the ecologicaland aesthetic values of Lee Creek — it enjoys state Scenic protection in Oklahoma, andstate-designated Extraordinary Resource Water-way protection in Arkansas.

Lee Creek currently provides drinking waterfor roughly 273,000 people in Fort Smith,Arkansas and surrounding areas. A highlight ofDevil’s Den State Park, Lee Creek is also a

DE

BB

IED

OSS

DE

BB

IED

OSS

DE

BB

IED

OSS

L e e C r e e k ◆ 2 7

CONTACT INFO

SERENA MCCLAIN, American Rivers, (202) 347-7550 ext. 3004, smcclain@americanrivers.orgDEBBIE DOSS, Arkansas Conservation Part-nership, (501) 472-6873, ddoss@conwaycorp.net ALICE B. ANDREWS, The Ozark Society, (501) 219-4295, alice209ok@yahoo.comGRANT NALLY, Arkansas Canoe Club, (479) 650-5412, gnally@bagbyenergy.com

facing a critical water shortage. Instead, theyhave an opportunity to proactively institutesolutions such as water efficiency and demandmanagement to help secure a reliable watersupply and prevent a water scarcity crisis fromoccurring. What doesn’t make sense is buildinga new dam that will damage Lee Creek anddeprive communities of the benefits of ahealthy river when these viable, non-structuralalternatives to the Pine Mountain dam exist.

Furthermore, Arkansas’ ExtraordinaryResource Waters are an integral part of thestate’s natural and cultural heritage, enhancingquality of life and bolstering tourist economies.Weakening these state protections wouldexpose Arkansas’ best rivers to degradationfrom a host of threats, and is not worth therisk.

WHAT MUST BE DONEThe Pollution Control and Ecology Commis-sion (PCEC) is reviewing proposed alterationsto the state’s Extraordinary Resource Waterregulations and will finalize the rule changesin May 2007. Following this, the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 in

Dallas will need toapprove the finalizedrules. The current desig-nation prevents streamsfrom being altered, and itis vitally important thatthe state maintain exist-ing protections for thesespecial places, as they are

the best remaining waterways in the state. Anychanges to these rules will make these streamsmore vulnerable to degradation and could easi-ly open the door to other similar projects. TheADEQ, PCEC and the EPA must uphold theprotections mandated under the ExtraordinaryResource Water status and reject any signifi-cant changes to the regulations.

Furthermore, the Environmental ImpactStudy for the Pine Mountain Project cannot becompleted without funding from Congress.Congress should not allocate any federal fund-ing to the dam because there are other moreeconomically and environmentally beneficialoptions.

TAKE ACTION WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/ENDANGEREDRIVERS

TO

MK

EN

NO

N

STREAMS BEARING

ARKANSAS’ EXTRAORDINARY

RESOURCE WATERS DESIG-

NATION ARE THE BEST IN

THE STATE AND SHOULD

REMAIN THAT WAY.

2 8 ◆ 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 7

A L A S K A

THREAT: PROPOSED COAL MINE

#10 C h u i t n a R i v e r

COMMERCIAL, RECREATIONAL

AND SUBSISTENCE FISHING

ON THE CHUITNA RIVER

ARE IMPORTANT ECONOMIC

DRIVERS AND CULTURAL

RESOURCES FOR ALASKANS.

SUMMARYA massive, proposed coal strip mine threat-ens Alaska’s pristine Chuitna River, whichproduces some of the state’s largest chinook(king) salmon. Unless state and federal agen-cies reject permits for the project, the pro-posed mine will destroy this wild river’ssurrounding watershed and dump billions ofgallons of mining waste into rich fisherieshabitat every year. Beyond the obviousimpacts of this huge mine, state and federalagencies should also consider the impacts ofmore mercury in Alaskan fish, and the effectsof more greenhouse gases on the “posterstate” for global warming.

THE RIVERLocated 45 miles west of Anchorage, theChuitna River flows freely for 25 miles fromits headwaters at the base of the AlaskaRange before emptying into Cook Inlet. Withonly one unpaved road crossing, the river sup-ports a diverse and unique fabric of life,including all five species of North AmericanPacific wild salmon, trout, Dolly Varden, baldeagles, trumpeter swans, sandhill cranes,shorebirds, songbirds, grizzly and black bears,moose, beaver and small mammals.

Accessible only by air, all-terrain vehiclesor snowmobile, two communities — Tyonek(largely Alaska Natives) and Beluga — lie nearthe river’s mouth. Because there is no roadaccess to the villages, these communities relyheavily on year-round subsistence fishing,hunting and trapping. Alaska Natives haverelied on the rich fisheries of the river for

thousands of years, and the surrounding area isrich with archaeological remains of tribal life.Recreational and commercial hunting and fish-ing also occur along the river, generatingmuch-needed revenues for local residents.

THE THREATThe Chuitna River is under immediate threatfrom PacRim Coal’s proposed Chuitna CoalProject, a massive strip mine on a permittingfast-track that will extract a staggering one billion metric tons of coal. Two new develop-ments have revived interest in this mine,which was originally authorized in 1990. First,Asian and other markets are clamoring forcheap energy. On top of this demand, plans tobuild the massive Pebble gold and copper minenearby would require significant new powerproduction, and coal is a likely source. Withnew demand and rising energy prices, PacRimis pushing ahead with development in this pris-tine watershed.

This massive mine will have an adverse andmajor impact on this biologically significantriver. The proposed project will discharge morethan 7 million gallons of mining wastes per dayinto tributaries of the Chuitna River. The min-ing pollution will severely threaten residentfish and salmon spawning beds. One salmon-bearing tributary of the Chuitna will be mineddirectly. The mine will also disturb more than30 square miles of the watershed, includingmany of the seeps, bogs and wetlands that sus-tain the excellent water quality and fish habi-tat of the Chuitna River.

WHAT’S AT STAKEEven in the unlikely event that the mineavoids a single illegal discharge, the projectwill pollute and negatively affect water flow inand around important salmon spawning andother fish and wildlife habitat. Burning morecoal could even increase the mercury in Alas-ka’s prized fisheries. This in turn will pose asignificant threat to the two communities thatlie near the river’s mouth and depend uponsubsistence, commercial and recreational fish-ing. Losing the valuable and sustainable bene-fits that the Chuitna’s pristine ecosystem offersin order to provide a temporary infusion of

DA

MIO

NB

RO

OK

KIN

TZ

LU

KE

SCA

RO

LA

C h u i t n a R i v e r ◆ 2 9

polluting energy is short-sighted in theextreme. For decades to come, Alaskans willbear the full costs of environmental degrada-tion, while a private company reaps profitsfrom its destructive strip mine.

On an even larger scale, coal-fired powerplants are one of the largest single human-gen-erated sources of carbon dioxide in the atmos-phere. A massive new coal mine in Alaskawould contribute to global warming in a statealready witnessing melting glaciers and warm-ing salmon streams. Rather than selling itsresources off to the highest bidder, Alaskashould protect those natural ecosystems thatare the best defense against the climate disrup-tion the state is already experiencing.

WHAT MUST BE DONEThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) will issue a final Supplemental Environ-mental Impact Statement by summer 2007.Additionally, the state of Alaska has convenedits Large Mine Permitting Team to oversee allof the permits necessary for the mine’sapproval. Final permits and authorizations areexpected late in 2007. The EPA and the LargeMine Permitting Team should reject these per-mits, resisting pressure from mine operators.

The Alaska Legislature recently created theAlaska Climate Impact Assessment Com- mission to offer recommendations and providepossible solutions to minimize the impact ofglobal warming. The Commission must notignore the impacts of coal production and com-bustion on the Chuitna River and other wild

Alaskan salmon streams in their final reportand proposals for action to the Legislature.

TAKE ACTION WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG/ENDANGEREDRIVERS

CONTACT INFO

DAVID MORYC, American Rivers, (503) 827-8648, dmoryc@americanrivers.org BOB SHAVELSON, Cook Inletkeeper, (907) 235-4068 ext. 22, bob@inletkeeper.org RANDY VIRGIN, Alaska Center for the Envi-ronment, (907) 274-3656, randy@akcenter.org VANESSA SALINAS, Alaskans for ResponsibleMining, (907) 277-0005, vanessa@reformakmines.org

LO

ISE

PST

EIN

HEALTHY RIVERS AND

ECOSYSTEMS OFFER THE

BEST MEANS FOR ADAPTING

TO GLOBAL WARMING.

3 0 ◆ 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 7

LO

ISR

OB

IN

American Rivers lists ten rivers everyyear in our America’s Most EndangeredRivers report because a major decisionin the coming year will determine thefate of each river. Many of these deci-sions go the right way for rivers, and for the people and communities whodepend upon them. However, it is notunusual for efforts to save and protectthese rivers to continue beyond a 12-month time frame. What follows is a progress report on last year’s America’sMost Endangered Rivers, highlightingboth the victories and the challengesthat persist.

Visit www.AmericanRivers.org/

EndangeredRivers to learn about howyou can help these rivers today.

#1 Pajaro RiverCALIFORNIA

THREAT: FAILURE TO ADOPT A

COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD CONTROL

PROJECT

The Pajaro’s dubious distinction as America’sMost Endangered River of 2006 has been a cat-alyst for government agencies and concernedcitizens to continue gaining insight into boththe challenges and the potential of this river.Unfortunately, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is still dragging its feet on a DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement (DEIS) thatshould offer the opportunity to restore naturalflood protection benefits along the entirelength of the river. Originally scheduled forcompletion last summer, the DEIS is nowslated for release in December 2007. On amore positive note, the state of Californiarecently contributed $25 million to supportlocal collaborative efforts to integrate environ-mental, water quality and water supply goalswith the flood protection plan for the river. Asan example of how the report listing hasbrought much-needed public attention to theriver, Mount Madonna School in Watsonvillehas incorporated the Pajaro River into its cur-riculum, and students are already undertakingprojects to help protect their hometown river.

#2 Upper YellowstoneRiver MONTANA

THREAT: FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT

Bank stabilization projects and riverside devel-opment continue to compromise the integrityand scenic beauty of the Upper YellowstoneRiver. Shortlyafter the report’srelease, Sen. MaxBaucus (D-MT)demanded thatthe U.S. ArmyCorps of Engi-neers stop stallingon its SpecialArea Management Plan (SAMP) for the river.Since then, the agency has completed much-

P r o g r e s s R e p o r t : A m e r i c a ’ s

GR

EA

TE

RY

EL

LO

WST

ON

EC

OA

LIT

ION

P r o g r e s s R e p o r t ◆ 3 1

needed impact studies. Also, earlier this yearthe agency held a public scoping meeting onthe SAMP, for which public comments arebeing accepted until April 21, 2007. The public continues to push for the Corps toestablish a firm cap on the amount of bankstabilization activity that is allowed on thistreasured river.

#3 Willamette RiverOREGON

THREAT: INDUSTRIAL AND

MUNICIPAL POLLUTION

Though toxic mixing zones are still a problemon the WillametteRiver, the Oregon Leg-islature is taking upthe issue this year. Co-sponsors have signedon to move legislationthat would phase outtoxic mixing zonesand in the interim willmark where these

mixing zones exist. Governor Ted Kulongoskiand the Oregon Department of EnvironmentalQuality — both well aware of popular supportto restore the Willamette River — have jointlyproposed a new $1.5 million program to moni-tor toxic pollution in the river.

#4 Salmon Trout RiverMICHIGAN

THREAT: ACID MINE DRAINAGE

The fight to save the Salmon Trout River isheating up. After tentatively approving per-mits for the Kennecott Minerals Company’snickel and copper mine, the Michigan Depart-ment of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)recently withdrew this draft decision after thepublic release of an internal report question-ing the soundness of the mine’s design. Thereport, written by an agency consultant, raisedconcerns over the possibility of the mine’sroof collapsing — an alarming issue consider-ing that the proposed Eagle Project would belocated squarely in the headwaters of theSalmon Trout. Mining pollution would pose a

direct threat not just to the Salmon Trout, butalso to Lake Superior, the most pristine of theGreat Lakes. The MDEQ has pledged to thor-oughly review its own reports and to investi-gate why the information was kept from thepublic record. In other good news for the river,the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyrecently announced that Kennecott also wouldhave to ensure that the mine complies withthe federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Unfortu-nately, another threat has emerged that wouldalso put people, rivers and wildlife at riskfrom acid mine drainage. Canadian-ownedPrime Meridian Resources Corp. recentlyannounced plans to begin test drilling fornickel and copper in the Upper Peninsula’sBaraga basin — just two miles from Ken-necott’s proposed mine.

#5 Shenandoah RiverVIRGINIA AND WEST VIRGINIA

THREAT: RUNAWAY DEVELOPMENT

Progress on the Shenandoah River hasbeen slow but steady. Countiesthroughout the watershed areconsidering new policiesthat will protect theirwater resources, includ-ing ways to encouragemore compact, denserdevelopment. On sur-rounding farmland, innov-ative agricultural pilotprojects promise new ways toreduce the nutrients entering the water-way. Land trusts also had a record year,

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

WIL

LA

ME

TT

ER

IVE

RK

EE

PE

R

YE

LL

OW

DO

GW

AT

ER

SHE

DP

RE

SER

VE, I

NC

.

MO

UN

TA

INV

ISIO

NS

3 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 7

#7 Caloosahatchee RiverFLORIDA

THREAT: RELEASES OF TOXIC WATER

The Caloosahatchee River remains besieged.Last summer the Caloosahatchee experiencedthe worst algal blooms in recent memory, withoutbreaks of red tide and blue-green algae turn-ing the river a kaleidoscope of colors. Over thewinter, two to three feet of macro-algae couldstill be found piled on beaches near the river’smouth. The Caloosahatchee also continues tobe regularly inundated with toxins, leading tofish kills and human health problems. The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers has proposed arevised operating plan that would reduce therelease of the most harmful contaminatedflows from Lake Okeechobee into the Caloosa-hatchee River. However, the agency’s proposalwould increase slightly less harmful releasesfrom the lake, which are likely to negate anypotential benefits of decreasing the worst kindof releases. The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency has proposed dramatic reductions inpollutant flows into the lake from surroundinglands in its draft pollution standards, but thesesolutions have met with resistance. Makingmatters worse, the Florida Department of Envi-ronmental Protection announced earlier thisyear that it will create new, downgraded waterclassifications. These new classes have thepotential to render the Caloosahatchee Riverno longer suitable for swimming and generalrecreation. This pattern of neglect for the riverputs at stake the $2 billion tourism industry,the commercial fishing industry, and importanthabitat for wildlife, including the endangeredFlorida manatee.

perma-nently protecting thousands of acres inthe region from future development. However,fish kills on the Shenandoah continue, withanother occurring this past December. Mean-while, the Shenandoah River Fish Kill TaskForce is still investigating the mysterious fishkill two years ago that eliminated up to 80percent of smallmouth bass and sunfish populations. Last fall, Virginia Governor TimKaine authorized $150,000 from the state’sEnvironmental Emergency Response Fund tosupport these scientific efforts. The VirginiaSenate also passed legislation authorizing$100,000 to support additional research on theproblems plaguing the river.

#6 Boise RiverIDAHO

THREAT: CYANIDE LEACH MINE

Earlier this year, Boise Mayor David Bieterannounced his opposition to the proposedcyanide heap leach gold mining operation near

the headwaters of the BoiseRiver. Mayor Bieter said thatmore than two years ofstudying the proposal, aswell as last year’s MostEndangered Rivers designa-tion of the Boise River, convinced him that the min-ing company’s plans for protecting the environmentare grossly inadequate giventhe enormity of the threat.Despite the mining compa-ny’s assertions to the con-trary, open pit cyanide heap

leach mining has an abysmal environmentalrecord not only in the western United Statesbut around the world, the mayor said. Whilethe city of Boise has no regulatory authorityover the mine proposal, the mayor called uponthe U.S. Forest Service and the state of Idahoto hold the Atlanta Gold project to the highestoperational, financial, transportation and envi-ronmental standards allowed by law. Themayor is also urging other local governmentsacross the state to go on record in oppositionto the mine.

IDA

HO

CO

NSE

RV

AT

ION

LE

AG

UE

CA

LO

OSA

HA

TC

HE

ER

IVE

RC

ITIZ

EN

SA

SSN

.

EM

ILY

CH

EN

EL

P r o g r e s s R e p o r t : A m e r i c a ’ s M o s t

P r o g r e s s R e p o r t ◆ 3 3

#8 Bristol BayALASKA

THREAT: OPEN PIT MINING

In the wake of last year’s Most EndangeredRivers designation, thousands of Alaskanshave joined the campaign to stop constructionof Pebble Mine, a massive open pit gold, cop-per and molybdenum mine proposed in south-west Alaska. Perched at the headwaters ofrivers feeding Bristol Bay — home to thelargest-known wild sockeye salmon runs onEarth — Pebble Mine has sparked serious polit-ical debate in the state. Those opposed to themine include not just conservationists, but the

United Fishermen of Alaska, the largeststatewide commercial fishing organi-

zation, dozens of Alaska Native cor-porations and tribes, more thanthree dozen leading sportinggoods retailers, and even Sen.Ted Stevens (R-AK). The AlaskaLegislature is also consideringbills to protect salmon habitatand to designate a large swath of

the Bristol Bay watershed as a pro-tected fish refuge, which could

thwart Canadian-owned NorthernDynasty Mineral’s plans to build the

Pebble Mine. However, the U.S. Bureau ofLand Management is moving forward withplans to allow mining in more than one mil-lion federal acres in the region.

#9 San Jacinto RiverTEXAS

THREAT: UNREGULATED SAND

MINING

Earlier this year, Texas state Sen. TommyWilliams (R-District 4) introduced legislationto establish a pilot program that would protectportions of the San Jacinto River from sandand gravel mining. If passed, the bill wouldallow the Texas Commission on Environmen-tal Quality, the San Jacinto River Authorityand Texas Parks and Wildlife Department tomonitor sand and gravel mining operations onthe west and east forks of the San JacintoRiver. The bill also would require environmen-

tal restoration of thesepits to prevent harm tosurface and groundwaterand, at a minimum,twice-yearly visualinspection and sampling.Conservationists applaudSen. Williams for leadingthe charge to protect theSan Jacinto watershed.Also deserving of praise isthe bill’s co-sponsor, Texas state Rep. CorbinVan Arsdale (R-District 130), who wants toexpand the legislation to include the SpringCreek tributary.

#10 Verde RiverARIZONA

THREAT: GROUNDWATER PUMPING

Proponents of the Big Chino Pipeline continueto make headway, despite evidence thatpumping groundwater from the Big Chinoaquifer will result in drastically diminishedflows in the Upper Verde River. The U.S. Geo-logical Survey has concluded that the BigChino aquifer supplies more than 80 percentof the water emanating from the headwatersprings that maintain flow in the Upper Verde— particularly during the driest times of yearwhen freshwater is needed most for both people and wildlife. Nearly 5,000 concernedcitizens have sent letters to federal, state andlocal officials opposing thepipeline. In addition, the riveris on track to be designated bythe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice as critical habitat forendangered fish species.Despite these developments,and the fact that cost estimatesfor the project have more thandoubled to nearly $200 million,the Prescott City Councilremains committed to moving forward withthe pipeline. Construction could begin asearly as fall 2007, and the pipeline could begincarrying water from the Big Chino aquifer tonew development in the fast-growing cities inthe Prescott area by 2009.

BR

YA

NC

AR

LIL

E, L

EG

AC

YL

AN

DT

RU

STA

RIZ

ON

APA

RK

S&

RE

CR

EA

TIO

ND

EP

T.

E n d a n g e r e d R i v e r s o f 2 0 0 6 c o n t i n u e d

NORTHWEST REGIONAL OFFICE

SEATTLE PORTLAND

4005 20th Avenue West 320 SW Stark Street

Suite 221 Suite 412

Seattle, WA 98199 Portland, OR 97204

PHONE: (206) 213-0330 PHONE: (503) 827-8648

arnw@americanrivers.org bswift@americanrivers.org

CALIFORNIA FIELD OFFICES

WATER RESOURCES PROGRAMS DAM AND HYDROPOWER PROGRAMS

6 School Street 409 Spring Street

Suite 200 Suite E

Fairfax, CA 94930 Nevada City, CA 95959

PHONE: (415) 482-8150 PHONE: (530) 478-5672

msamet@americanrivers.org srothert@americanrivers.org

SOUTHEAST FIELD OFFICE

2231 Devine Street

Suite 100

Columbia, SC 29205

PHONE: (803) 771-7114

gjobsis@americanrivers.org

NORTHEAST FIELD OFFICE

20 Bayberry Road

Glastonbury, CT 06033

PHONE: (860) 652-9911

lwildman@americanrivers.org

MID-ATLANTIC FIELD OFFICE

105 N. Front Street

Suite 220

Harrisburg, PA 17101

PHONE: (717) 232-8355

sdeuling@americanrivers.org

NEBRASKA FIELD OFFICE

6512 Crooked Creek Drive

Lincoln, NE 68516

PHONE: (402) 423-7930

csmith@americanrivers.org

American Rivers

1101 Fourteenth Street, NW

Suite 1400

Washington, DC 20005

PHONE: (202) 347-7550

TOLL-FREE: 877-4RIVERS

EMAIL: AMRIVERS@AMERICANRIVERS.ORG

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

environmental benefits statementAmerican Rivers saved the following resources by using New Leaf Reincarnation Matte, manufactured with Green-e® certified renewable energy, 100% recycled fiber, 50% post-consumer waste, and processed chlorine free.

Calculations based on research by Environmental Defense and other members of the Paper Task Force. ©2007 New Leaf Paper www.newleafpaper.com

trees

10fully grown

2,106gallons

4million Btu

461pounds

779pounds

water energy solid wastegreenhouse

gases

REPORT DESIGN: Patrice Gallagher, Gallagher/Wood DesignMAPS: Ross Freeman, American Rivers | COVER PHOTO: Santa Fe River, Julie West

PRINTING: Lake Lithograph, Manassas,Virginia

This report was printed on New Leaf Paper, 50% post-consumer recycled

NEW YORK FIELD OFFICE

1 Danker Avenue

Albany, NY 12206

PHONE: (518) 482-2631

slindloff@americanrivers.org