Marc Reisner, who railed against the abuse of water in the arid West in his book Cadillac West, died of cancer at the age of 51. Reisner was best known for his work in which he exposed the misuse and misallocation of water resources through governments subsidies and irresonsible planning and growth. The book began as a research grant from an Alicia Patterson Journalism Fellowship in 1979 and was later turned into a documentary.
Reisner also wrote other books and articles dealing with environmental issues. He was developing a plan to restore native salmon habitats in California and was working on a book that examined the impact of natural disasters on California at the time of his death.
Natural wonder could become an unnatural disaster
Two visions of Hells Canyon are competing for attention and approval as a new management plan goes under scrutiny. At odds are two groups, one representing the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (W-WNF), the other one claiming to speak for tribes, scientists, and environmental advocates, including the Hells Canyon Preservation Council (www.hellscanyon.org).
The Preservation Council has issued an alert to the public that preservation of the canyon could be lost forever if the W-WNF alternative is put into effect. The group cites concerns over proposals to allow the reintroduction of livestock into currently livestock-free allotments; to continue grazing in areas already damaged by livestock; to provide no designation of old growth forest; to encourage the use and expansion of motorized vehicles in Hells Canyon.
To combat these proposals and to institute a more environmentally responsible approach in their stead, the Hells Canyon Preservation Council is championing an alternative that contradicts many of the main tenets of the W-WNF input. A complete list of both versions, along with suggestions for a letter-writing campaign, can be found at www.hellscanyon.org.
American Rivers has released the 15th annual "Most Endangered Rivers Report," which spotlights the diminishing numbers and potential extinction of scores of freshwater fish and other species native to North America's rivers. Partially because of the impacts of dams, levees, and structural stabilization of riverbanks, freshwater species are vanishing as fast as tropical rainforest species.
America's Most Endangered Rivers of 2000:
1) Lower Snake River (WA)
2) Missouri River (MT, ND, SD, NE, IA, KS, MO)
3) Ventura River (CA)
4) Copper River (AK)
5) Tri-State River Basins (GA, AL, FL)
6) Coal River (WV)
7) Rio Grande (CO, NM, TX, and Chihuahua and Coahuila, Mexico)
8) Mississippi & White Rivers (MN, WI, IL, IA, MO, KY, TN, AR, MS, LA)
9) North Fork Feather River (CA)
10) Clear Creek (TX)
11) Green River (CO, UT)
12) Presumpscot River (ME)
13) Clark Fork (MT)
To take action on the Most Endangered Rivers of 2000, visit www.actionnetwork.org/home.tcl?domain=AMRIVERS.
Brush up on your river knowledge
During July and August 2000, the Rivers Project of Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville (SIUE) will conduct its annual summer training. Educators and environmental professionals are encouraged to attend and help us achieve our goal of increasing scientific literacy through river study. Attendees will focus on one of the six curricula while receiving interdisciplinary training in all. The six units, now published by Dale Seymour Publications, are Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, Geography, Language Arts, and Mathematics. The units were developed under a grant from the National Science Foundation. Trainers for the week-long sessions are practicing Rivers Project teachers who are supported by university and other professionals.
Three sessions are offered for 2000: Jul 9-15; Woonsocket High School, Woonsocket, RI; Co-sponsored by the Blackstone River Heritage Association, this session will focus on eastern urban rivers.
July 23-28 Joliet Junior College, Joliet, IL. Co-sponsored by Friends of the Chicago River and Friends of the Fox River, this session will focus on Midwestern urban rivers and streams.
July 31-Aug 4 Southern Illinois University; Edwardsville, IL. This 10th Anniversary training was partially funded by the IL Board of Higher Education, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Title II funds for Illinois teachers. Applied technology and computer applications are the focus.
Tuition (two semester graduate credit, summer 2000) and curricular materials will be available. A non-credit option is also available for $200. Lodging and food will be provided at a low cost. Interdisciplinary teaching teams from the same school are encouraged to attend. Interested persons should check the Rivers Project Web Page for information and details on the training as well as information on the curriculum units. If you are interested in training in your area, call or Email Dr. Bob Williams at the Rivers Project.
For further information, contact: www.siue.edu/OSME/river; call 618.650.3788; fax 618.650.3359; email rivers@siue.edu; or write Box 2222; Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, IL 62026.
Urge your representative to support HR 701
American Rivers is issuing a general call for support of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. As the organization states in a recent press release, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 701) is a $2.8 billion conservation package that includes $900 million in permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). A full 50% of the money will go to the states. The House Resources Committee approved the bill last November by a vote of 37-12. Now it is time to get H.R. 701 through Congress and signed into law.
Funding for open space protection is high on Americans’ priority list. In the 1998 elections alone, there were 148 open space ballot initiatives. LWCF is one of our most important and successful tools for protecting open spaces and directly benefits states and communities. Protecting rivers and lakes and creating parks, trails, and wildlife refuges mean more jobs, increased property values and tourism, and enhanced quality of life.
To send a letter, visit www.amrivers.org/lwcfaction.html and click on “Send a letter to your Representative.” For more on information on LWCF and CARA, visit www.amrivers.org/lwcf2001.html and www.ahrinfo.org.
To see some national landmarks funded by LWCF, visit www.ahrinfo.org/country.html. To see state-by-state projects funded by LWCF, visit www.capweb.net/outdoors/lwcf/lwcf.cfm.
Engineers set river back on its natural course
In the 1970s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers thought the Alamosa would be a better river if only it were a little more clean-cut, so it decided to straighten it out some. Now, after nearly three decades of flooding, erosion and washouts, they've had second thoughts.
A twelve-mile strech from Colorado 15 near Capulin to U.S. 285, near La Jara, is in the middle of a facelift meant to restore the river to its original path. The Corps is rechanneling the river in part by placing tons of rock in the river, creating a more natural flow than the engineered straight lines of the '70s. In addition to reshaping the river, the Environmental Protection Agency is spending upwards of $125 million in cleaning up runoff from the Summitville Mine, on South Mountain. Pollution from the mine has created waters too acidic to support a fish population in the Alamosa.
With Congress back in session, coalitions and individuals are lobbying for a stake in the budget. American Rivers is asking for the public's participation in the advocacy phase of the River Budget campaign, saying public input is essential. They list several ways to influence your representatives:
1. Write your own letters to your legislators urging them to support the funding levels outlined in the River Budget. To see a sample letter, visit www.amrivers.org/rbudgetaction2letter.html.
2. Write your own testimony in support of River Budget programs to submit for the record to relevant House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees. To see sample testimony, visit www.amrivers.org/rbudgetaction2testimony.html.
3. Testify in person before relevant House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees in support of specific River Budget programs. To see a sample testimony request letter, visit www.amrivers.org/rbudgetaction2requestletter.html.
Testifying before Congress: If you are able to travel to Washington, DC, or are based locally, appearing before Congress to testify in support of specific River Budget programs is an incredibly effective way to convince Congress of the importance of these programs and their funding needs. Hearings are usually held in late February and March. If you are interested testifying, visit www.amrivers.org/rbudgetaction2request.html for more information or contact Suzy McDowell at 202-347-7550 x3040 or smcdowell@amrivers.org. Although hearing dates may not be confirmed before February, slots for testifying before Appropriations Subcommittees are usually filled by the end of January.
Native ecosystems need support
The U.S. Forest Service will produce a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) at the end of November regarding the degradation and protection of native ecosystems. You can learn more about the ecosystem in Hell's Canyon at www.hellscanyon.org. The organization is encouraging a letter campaign in support of maintaining healthy ecosystems to the Forest Service.
American Rivers extends "Rivers of Lewis and Clark Campaign" to Columbia and Snake Rivers
American Rivers announced a campaign to revitalize the Columbia and Snake Rivers by 2005, the bicentennial of Lewis and Clark's historic voyage, according to this press release from Suzy McDowell.
The national river conservation organization's two-year-old Voyage of Recovery (sm) Campaign to restore portions of the Missouri River has restored more than 10,000 acres of wildlife habitat.
To recover portions of the Columbia and Snake Rivers, American Rivers will restore wildlife habitat along the Lower Columbia River, help communities build greenways and trails, reform the operation of public and private dams, and protect the Columbia River's Hanford Reach.
"Lewis and Clark would not recognize the Columbia and Snake Rivers today," said Rebecca Wodder, President of American Rivers. "We can't fully recreate the rivers they saw. But if we protect and restore wildlife habitat, establish greenways and trails, revitalize riverfronts, and reform dam operations, we can honor the memory of their voyage, improve the quality of life in our communities, and attract recreation and tourism." Wodder announced the extension of American Rivers' campaign to revitalize the Missouri River at the organization's Voyage of Recovery (sm) conference in Saint Charles-the Missouri town Lewis and Clark left in 1804 to begin their voyage up the Missouri River. The explorers descended the Snake and Columbia Rivers in 1805.
American Rivers' campaign on the Columbia and Snake Rivers will include field staff, a monthly newspaper, educational materials, a Lewis and Clark trail guide, a Rivers of Lewis and Clark web site, and a traveling exhibit.
Since 1998, Congress has appropriated $20 million to restore Missouri River wildlife habitat, created a new $30 million Missouri River restoration program, and expanded land acquisition efforts to acquire 118,000 acres from willing sellers. In July, Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE) introduced the Missouri River Valley Improvement Act of 1999, a $320 million bill to establish Lewis and Clark interpretive centers, trails and greenways, wildlife habitat, and a monitoring program.
American Rivers' Missouri River campaign, which includes field staff in Montana and Nebraska, will be featured in a History Channel documentary on November 18. American Rivers' Columbia and Snake Rivers campaign will focus primarily on restoring and protecting habitat in these rivers, revitalizing riverfronts, and reforming the operation of federal dams on the Columbia River.
American Rivers pledged to:
* Restore Lower Columbia River Habitat-Dredging, floodplain development, and the construction of dikes and levees have destroyed habitat along the lower Columbia and its estuary. American Rivers will work with scientists and local communities to help officials develop a restoration plan and advocate for the plan's implementation.
* Protect the Columbia River's Hanford Reach-The Hanford Reach is the last free-flowing segment of the Columbia and the region's most productive salmon spawning grounds. American Rivers will persuade federal officials to permanently protect the lands surrounding the Hanford Reach from agricultural development, and to designate the Hanford Reach as a national wild and scenic river.
* Revitalize Riverfronts-American Rivers will link riverside communities with national experts on trail development, parks, and greenways, and will work with local leaders to implement riverfront revitalization projects.
* Reform Dam Operations-American Rivers will reform management of federal dams on the Lower Columbia to aid salmon migration. In particular, American Rivers will urge dam managers to restore more natural flows and to improve fish passage.
American Rivers is also advocating the partial removal of four dams on the lower Snake River to prevent the extinction of Snake River salmon and steelhead runs.
"Celebrating the journey of Lewis and Clark will certainly boost the health of rural communities, but recreation and tourism alone will not protect rural communities from the impacts of dam removal," said Rob Masonis, Director of Northwest Dam Programs for American Rivers. "Congress and the Clinton Administration must upgrade transportation, irrigation, and power infrastructure to ensure that rural economies remain robust after dam removal." American Rivers recently completed two reports on mitigating the economic impacts of Snake River dam removal. American Rivers does not advocate the removal of lower Columbia River dams, Masonis said.
When Lewis and Clark crossed the Rockies in August 1805, up to 16 million salmon and steelhead would swim as far as 900 miles to reach their spawning grounds. Dams and habitat loss have placed many runs on the verge of extinction. American Rivers has been leading efforts to repair the Columbia and Snake Rivers since 1991, including improvements to dams on the Columbia River and the removal of the Condit Dam on the White Salmon River.
For more information about American Rivers' campaign to restore the Rivers of Lewis and Clark, visit their website or call Rob Masonis at (206) 213-0330 or Amy Souers (202) 347-7550.
First national park designation in five years
After years of political wrangling and failed legislation, the Black Canyon of the Gunnison finally has its designation as a national park, thanks to the efforts of Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) and Reps. Mark Udall (D-CO) and Scott McInnis (R-CO).
The steep walls of Black Canyon plunge half a mile down to the torrent of the Gunnison River in southwestern Colorado. The relative inaccessibility of the river along this section has meant that fewer people have seen it, but it has also meant preserving the wild character of the place, a feature further protected by the recent park designation. The park itself comprises 31,000 acres, and an additional 57,000 acres downstream are a national conservation area.
In Salmon Without Rivers: A History of the Pacific Salmon Crisis, fisheries biologist Jim Lichatowich offers an eye-opening look at the roots and evolution of the salmon crisis in the Pacific Northwest. He exposes the myths that have guided recent human-salmon interactions and clearly explains the difficult choices facing the citizens of the region. Through the course of the book, he provides readers with unique insights into one of the most tragic chpaters in our nation's environmental history.
Lichatowich gives a fascinating account of the fur trade, mining, logging, grazing, and irrigation practices that decimated the salmon runs even before the first dams were built. He explains how the federal government ignored state laws, building dams that did not allow fish to pass. He also examines how Native Americans had been harvesting slamon for thousands of years in a stable state, yet modern practices have driven the salmon to the verge of extinction. To order Salmon Without Rivers, email the NORS Resource Center at nors@rmi.net.
Will the Land and Water Conservation Fund receive full funding?
Congress has spent part of the summer debating funding initiatives for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF.) River enthusiasts can contact their Congressmen to urge full fiscal support of recreational areas nation-wide.
The Fund was authorized in 1964 to receive up to $900 million in taxes paid by oil companies operating in offshore oil and gas recovery. The $900 million was to be used for purchasing lands and operating and maintaining them as public parks and other recreational areas. LWCF has never received the full amount of money entitled to it by the 25-year-old act, and funding for some programs has significantly decreased or disappeared altogether, impairing the abilities of rural and urban areas alike to retain spaces for recreational opportunities, from walks in the park to true wilderness adventures.
LWCF operates on both a federal and a state and local level, in which the State Matching Grants Program distributes approximately 40% of the money evenly among the states, with the remainder determined by factors like population density. Goals at both federal and state levels include purchasing land to be used for recreational purposes, making that land accessible for use in the form of trails, play areas, etc., and providing assistance for operation costs. In addition, the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act (1978) established federal assistance to urban areas in need of recreational places or the funds to maintain them. Until 1996, when slowly disappearing money vanished altogether, UPARR had provided 1300 grants, totalling $228 million in parks and playgrounds in urban locales.
In June, the Senate adopted the FY2000 Interior spending bill, of which nearly $237 million was earmarked for LWCF in federal programs only, following subcommittee chair Ralph Regula's opposition to state and local participation in LWCF. In the House, Rep. James McGovern's (D-MA) July amendment (H.AMDT. 257) funded the LWCF state assistance program at $30 million, while Rep. George Miller (D-CA) proposed $4 million for UPARR. The amendment passed 213-202, with UPARR fund by agreement. More recently, additional proposals in Congress seek to fund LWCF, federal and state, at amounts ranging from the administration's $613 million to Rep. George Miller's (D-CA) and Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) $900 million.
In October, a broad coalition of politicians, environmental workers, and celebrities lent their names to the LWCF in full-page newspaper ads. Individuals ranging from former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney to baseball legend Nolan Ryan signed under the Committee for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, co-chaired by Laurance S. Rockefeller, Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson, and Ambassador Bill Lane. To voice your support for fully funding LWCF, contact your congressional delegates to support the proposal by Miller and Boxer. You can also obtain further information from Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation, (202) 429-8444, or at www.ahrinfo.org.
Profitting from environmental responsibility
Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution, a book to be published on September 30 by Little Brown, explains the financial as well as environmental and social benefits from creating and maintaining an ecologically-aware business culture. River runners can glean valuable information about how companies large and small can adopt healtier practices that will improve the health of the planet and their bottom line.
The Harvard Business Review summarized the book in their May/June issue; their article is also posted at www.rmi.org/HBR-RMINatCap.pdf. After reading it, you can comment at www. hbr.org/forum.
The United States Geological Survey published the following report outlining the effects of the year's drought on August 6, 1999.
This summer's drought, already the century's third worst in the Mid-Atlantic, continues to worsen and is spreading into northeastern states, the Carolinas and west into Ohio and Indiana. Meanwhile, in the Mid-Atlantic, drinking water supplies are being threatened in some areas as salty ocean water moves upstream into normally freshwater areas.
"The drought is worsening and is beginning to spread," said USGS Chief Hydrologist Robert M. Hirsch. "With the recent lack of precipitation throughout the East, conditions do not look positive for any improvement in the immediate future.
"Farmers, rural homeowners with private wells and small communities are feeling the drought most severely. Major metropolitan areas, because of good planning in the wake of earlier droughts, generally have sufficient storage," Hirsch said. "Water supply is like a bank account. We're dipping into our savings in many areas. And our savings account, while in good shape in many areas, won't last forever. Along with planning, conservation is important too. Water not used today is generally water in the bank for tomorrow."
The U.S. Geological Survey said today that in New England, 70 percent of streams have recorded below-normal flows and record lows have been set in 13 percent of those streams. In southern Maine, for example, record-low streamflows were recorded this week on the Piscatiquis, Carrabassett, Sandy, Swift, Sheepscot, Narraguagus, and Royal Rivers.
In the Southeast, nearly 75 percent of streamflows are below normal this week. Just a week ago, only 52 percent of streamflows were below normal. Record-low flows have now been set on 10 percent of those stations, where a week ago, only 1 percent were breaking records. USGS stream gages in North Carolina reported record lows for Friday on the Ararat, South Yadkin, Broad and Star rivers.
Hirsch said that Indiana and Ohio have begun to feel the effects of the drought as well. In Ohio, high temperatures combined with lower-than-normal precipitation are causing crops to wither and streamflows to dry up. In Indiana, low stream flows have been reported in the Silver Creek and the East Fork of the White River where streamflows are 55 percent below normal. The Mississinewa River, in Randolph County, in eastern Indiana, was nearly dry on Friday morning.
In the Mid-Atlantic, West Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and parts of Virginia have declared local drought warnings or emergencies and some areas now have mandatory water-use restrictions in place. Maryland declared a statewide drought emergency last week and implemented mandatory water-use restrictions this week.
In many estuaries, encroachment of the salt front is one of the most serious impacts of the drought. In the Delaware and Hudson rivers, the line where saltwater ends and freshwater begins is moving upstream due to reduced streamflows, threatening municipal water supplies in some areas. Cities that could be affected include Philadelphia, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., and the Wilmington, Del., area. On the Hudson River, the salt front is only four miles downstream from Poughkeepsie, N.Y. and is moving upstream a half-mile each day.
Additional real-time drought data for the entire Mid-Atlantic region can be found on the web at http://water.usgs.gov.
California Crisis Targets Northwest Rivers
Animas-La Plata Dam Gets Congressional Nod
Dam Safety Awareness Day: Is Your Dam Safe?
Take action for the Snake River!
Lawsuit filed over deepening of Columbia River channel
New report looks at case studies of dam removal in California
Participate in Snake River poll
Urgent campaign to protect Missouri River
Breaching dams on the Kennebec and other rivers
International Rivers Network organizes anti-dam coalition
Pacific Rivers in Exchange for California Electricity
The ongoing electricity crisis in California could have an even greater impact on river health in the Northwest if demand for power is not satisfied.Hydroelectricity from dammed rivers in the Pacific Northwest states already supplies a significant portion of California's needs, but as the Golden State's economy slows, some economists and environmentalists believe the northern rivers will bear the brunt of the cost. If water levels in the reservoirs are lowered in an effort to supply more power, aquatic and riparian life would be immediately threatened by the reduction or loss of habitat. The situation would be compounded by a low winter snow pack or a dry spring and summer, sources of water that watershed managers typically rely upon to help replenish water siphoned off residential and commericial use, including electrical power.
Although most of the nation's dams are privately owned and largely ignored by the public, they collectively and potentially pose a very real threat to life and property along America's waterways.
The first National Dam Safety Day was held on May 31, 2000, to draw attention to the thousands of aging dams that control the ebb and flow of the nation's water. As one example, 28 dams have failed during the past decade in Wisconsin alone, and numerous other dams have been closed. The failure of about one dozen dams during the floods of 1993 substantially contributed to the $930 million in damages incurred in that state. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is some seven years behind in its inspections of the state's dams due to staff size and the intricacies of dam inspections. Delaying, however, could one day prove disastrous. As Richard Wedepohl, chief of the DNR dam safety-floodplain/shoreland section, says, "Sound inspection and maintenance is cheapter than deferred repair, and is certainly much cheaper than a failure."
Group's efforts for dam decommission
Taxpayers for Common Sense have developed a list of endorsements for the partial removal of the four Lower Snake dams. "This new tool shows the national scope of the issue and its appeal to a broad audience. The listed endorsers, which includes organizations, businesses, scientists, fishermen, and prominent individuals, advocate a variety of policies, but all agree on the need for partial removal of the four Lower Snake River dams. To view the list or sign on in support, visit www.taxpayer.net/snake or contact Kathleen McNeilly at TCS at kathleen@taxpayer.net or 1-800-TAXPAYER ext. 128."
Plan is at odds with salmon conservation efforts
Calling the move "inevitable," on Monday a coalition of environmental organizations filed the first lawsuit aimed at the proposed deepening of the Columbia River shipping channel in order to protect endangered salmon. "When federal agencies such as the Army Corps want to destroy salmon habitat and the responsible fish protection agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), steps aside to let them do it, a lawsuit is inevitable," said Nina Bell, Executive Director of Northwest Environmental Advocates. The lawsuit asks a federal court in Seattle to set aside the December, 1999 approval of the project by NMFS.
The federal fisheries agency was required to rule on the channel deepening project because there are 13 stocks of salmon listed under the federal Endangered Species Act that use the Lower Columbia River. Every adult and juvenile salmon in the Columbia River Basin must pass through the estuary, where they make the transition from fresh to salt water and back again. The estuary is a critical nursery area for juvenile salmon, as well as sturgeon, smelt, crabs, and other wildlife. In its Biological Opinion giving channel deepening a green light, NMFS urged the project's sponsor, the Army Corps of Engineers, to conduct further studies and to make efforts to restore habitat in the estuary, but only after the Corps has completed the dredging project.
The lawsuit seeks a court order forcing NMFS to withdraw its Biological Opinion and ensure that the Corps does not rely upon it to move forward with the dredging project. The groups also seek to force the fisheries agency to consider the effects of the channel deepening in combination with all the other human activities that have altered the Columbia River's ability to support salmon. Joining Northwest Environmental Advocates and American Rivers as plaintiffs are the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Institute for Fisheries Resources, and Trout Unlimited. For related information, visit American Rivers' Snake River Campaign page at www.amrivers.org/snake.html. For information regarding the Columbia River's proposed chanel deepening, call Nina Bell, NW Environmental Advocates: 503/295-0490; Rob Masonis, American Rivers: 206/213-0330; or Todd True, Earthjustice: 206/343-7340.
Report may offer help to other anti-dam workers
The California group Friends of the River has produced a report on removing dams to restore rivers. The California report looks at historical removals of some of the state's 1,400 dams and barriers for the sake of fisheries restoriation. It specifically recommends 20 more such removals. For a copy of the report, contact Charlie Casey at 916-442-3155, ext. 218, or email him at cecasey@friendsoftheriver.org.
Vote for restoring the Snake River!
Capital Press is running a poll on its website. They are asking if removing four Lower Snake River dams is necessary to save endangered salmon. Please go to their web site and vote for removing the dams and restoring salmon.
To vote, visit www.capitalpress.com. For more information on the campaign to restore the Snake River, visit www.amrivers.org/snake.html.
Dam reforms would help commerce, hinder wildlife
American Rivers is racing to support the findings of the U.S. Army Coprs of Engineers (Corps) calling for a Missouri River management plan that addresses the needs of the river's ecology. The group is asking the public to tell the Corps, the Council on Environmental Quality, and President Clinton to make the right decision on Missouri River dam operation.
According to American Rivers, the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) stands poised to make a decision that will determine the fate of the Missouri river for the next half century. In the next ten days, the Corps will announce their preferred option for revising the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual, which will govern how the river’s dams are operated for the next several decades. State and federal biologists unanimously agree that the “split navigation season” option, which provides proper spring and summer flows to improve fish and wildlife habitat on the entire Missouri River, is the only option that will reverse the trend toward slow death of the Missouri. This option will yield the best results for river wildlife, basin state economics, recreation, tourism, and quality of life for riverside communities.
Unfortunately, the Missouri River dam reforms proposed on January 13 by the Northwestern Division of the Corps ignore the needs of river wildlife and recreation. The Northwestern Division's proposal would continue to manage the Missouri's dams primarily to benefit barge traffic - at the expense of recreation and river wildlife.
PLEASE CALL OR FAX THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. URGE THEM TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION FOR THE MISSOURI RIVER AND THE COMMUNITIES THAT DEPEND UPON THE HEALTH OF THIS GREAT AND HISTORIC RIVER.
To see sample letters, visit www.amrivers.org/missouridamframpton.html and amrivers.org/missouridamwestphal.html. Use these letters or write your own. Send/fax your letters or call: Assistant Secretary Joseph Westphal; US Army Corps of Engineers; 108 Army, Pentagon; Washington, DC 20310; PHONE: 703-697-8986; FAX: 703-697-7401; or George Frampton, Acting Chair; Council on Environmental Quality; Old Executive Office Building, Room 360; Washington, DC 20500; PHONE: 202-456-6224; FAX: 202-456-22710.
To see a fact sheet on the “split navigation season” proposal, visit www.amrivers.org/missourispringrisefacts.html. To see an article on the “split navigation season” option, visit www.amrivers.org/missourim/corps999.html. For more information on American River’s campaign to restore the Missouri River, visit www.amrivers.org/missouri.html. To see the Corps Missouri River Master Water Control Manual, visit www.nwd-mr.usace.army.mil/mmanual/mast-man.htm.
American Rivers, Friends of the Earth and Trout Unlimited have joined forces to produce a 113-page document profiling the history and successful removal of twenty-five dams throughout the United States.
Dam Removal Success Stories: Restoring Rivers through Selective Removal of Dams That Don't Make Sense includes an overview of dam removal, color photographs of before and after, and analyses of formerly dammed rivers like the Clearwater River in Idaho, the Santa Fe River in New Mexico, and the Kennebec in Maine. For more information, contact one of the organizations above.
Edwards Dam frees Kennebec River
Construction crews have spent this summer dismantling the Edwards Dam on the Kennebec River. U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, the governor of Maine, and the mayor of Augusta were among those in attendance at the July 1 proceedings. Since then, progress has continued as the dam has come down and the river has begun to flow in its historic and natural route.
Steve Brooke (sbrooke@amrivers.org )of the American Rivers (www.american rivers.org) and coordinator of the Kennebec Coalition reports that fish have already reentered the waters of the Kennebec. The habitat there, he says, appears favorable for the continued repopulation of the river. In addition to an improved ecological niche, recreational boaters will also have more room in which to paddle; already, canoeists and kayakers have begun to explore the newly opened areas.
The Kennebec is not the only river to find its waters recently freed. Other rivers that have been or are scheduled to be released include:
Baraboo River, Wisconsin; Bear Creek, Oregon; Butte Creek, California; Clearwater River, Idaho; Clyde River, Vermont; Conestoga River, Pennsylvania; Little Miami River, Ohio; Milwaukee River, Wisconsin; Naugatuck River, Connecticut; Neuse River, North Carolina; Souadabscook Stream, Maine; Willow River, Wisconsin, and the Lower Salmon River, Washington.
The benefits of dam removal extends beyond fish rehabilitation and the enjoyment of local recreational boaters. The cost of maintaining a dam can frequently exceed the cost of demolishing it, as the owner of the eighteenth century Grist Mill Dam on the Souadabscook Stream in Maine found. The estimated cost of upkeep was $150,000, while demolition of the dam was expected to cost $56,000. Once the dam is gone, the influx of fish into a region can encourage a sustainable fly fishing and paddling industry, diversifying the local economy, and the improved health of the drainage area can influence neighboring ecosystems. Allowing a river or stream to follow a natural course can also protect surrounding areas from flooding or from raising the water table to unnatural levels, thereby lowering the risk of significant damage to surrounding property.
If you are considering a grass-roots campaign to breach a dam in your area, take the time to do some research on the particular dam. If it is privately owned, does not generate income, and requires extensive maintenance, the owner may be easily persuaded to have the dam removed. If, on the other hand, the dam is a large one and provides the electricity for an entire region, you may find yourself needing to push harder for its demolition. In any case, you'll want to ally yourself with as many individuals and organizations who share your goals as possible. These can include fisheries boards and local fishing groups; conservation, paddling, and birding groups; guiding companies; and local ecologists or other scientists who can testify either to the damage caused by the dam or to the benefits of its removal. You should also look at any property or structural difficulties that have arisen since the construction of the dam, as many communities experience problems with flooding rising water tables after the natural drainage system has been blocked.
Walker Creek Declaration outlines dam decommisionings
In January 1999, the International Rivers Network (www.irn.org) published the founding statement of the Walker Creek Declaration (abridged by NORS staff) as part of their Living Rivers organization, an international coalition for the restoration of rivers and communities affected by dams. Groups and organizations from Nigeria to Massachusetts have signed the Declaration.
WHEREAS: Free-flowing, living rivers are an essential, life-giving feature of our natural and human environment. They fulfil a multitude of ecological, economic, spiritual, cultural, and aesthetic needs and wants. Worldwide, these invaluable rivers are now degraded by hundreds of thousands of dams, which have flooded huge areas of the world's most beautiful and ecologically rich habitats and the homes and lands of tens of millions of people. Dams have blocked flows of nutrients and sediments and the passage of fish and other aquatic lifeforms. Dams have contaminated river water. Dams have eliminated essential natural flooding regimes thereby degrading the ecosystems, farmlands and fisheries which depend on floods. And dams have caused the decline and extinction of riverine species and the ecological degradation of estuaries and coastlines. Many dams provide services for society, including the generation of electricity, the storage and diversion of water, flood protection, navigation and flat-water recreation. But we now know that these services come at a high economic, ecological and social cost and often can be met in other less damaging ways.
After decades of experience, we now know that the promised benefits of many dam projects have never been realized, and their adverse effects are more serious than predicted. Trying to recreate artificially the complex natural cycles and functions of undammed rivers has proven to be far more difficult than was once thought. Many dams are now obsolete. Many have reached the end of their functional life span and no longer serve a purpose that justifies their negative impacts. For many dams the cost of maintenance and of environmental and social mitigation exceeds the benefits to be gained from dam operation.
THEREFORE: We now establish Living Rivers, an international coalition for the restoration of rivers and communities affected by dams, by means of dam reoperation, decommissioning or removal. Independent and transparent evaluations must be carried out periodically to identify which dams should continue in operation, which should have their operations altered to mitigate adverse impacts, and which should be decommissioned or removed. Decommissioning plans must be prepared for all dams, whether existing, planned or under construction. These plans should include dam removal and river, reservoir zone and floodplain restoration. Rigorous dam safety standards must be developed and enforced, including the preparation and publication of flood inundation maps and emergency evacuation plans, and the purchase of liability insurance.
Dams have had huge negative impacts on rivers and river communities -- removing dams is an economically, technically, socially and environmentally viable and sensible option for reversing these impacts and restoring living rivers. Investment in living river systems will produce substantial benefits for our human and natural communities, today and tomorrow.
Floodplains and streamside uses:
Supreme Court Rains on Wetland Parade
Mine Could Destroy International River
Lawsuit Aims to Restore Klamath Water
Watershed Watch: Designing Your Own Monitoring Program
Conservation Officials Fear Flood of Abuse
A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling has caused some state wetland officials to be concerned about the potentially significant effect that the decision may have on protecting the nation's wetlands.
The court held in its 5-4 decision issued Jan. 9 that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had exceeded its statutory authority by asserting it had jurisdiction, under the Clean Water Act (CWA), over ponds used by migratory birds. A coalition of municipalities in Illinois had sought to use an abandoned mining area as a waste disposal area. Because the site contained many ponds and small lakes, the coalition applied to the state of Illinois for the necessary permits to allow them to proceed; upon application to the U.S. Corps of Engineers, however, their suit was denied on the grounds that the area was in fact a wetlands and used by migratory birds. As such, it was subject to the Clean Water Act and could not be used as a landfill. (The Corps of Engineers submitted a clarification to the CWA in 1986 that asserted their jurisdiction over water used by migratory birds. This clarification is known as the "Migratory Bird Rule.")
The Court rejected the contention of the Corps, citing as its primary reason the fact that the series of ponds and lakes in question did not abut a navigable waterway as required in the CWA. Lawyers for the Department of Natural Resources said the ruling's scope is limited to "isolated" wetlands with no connection to any lake, stream or other water considered to be navigable water of the United States. And while they said the ruling means the Corps could no longer assume jurisdiction over such a w etland solely if the waterbodies provided habitat for migrating waterfowl, they left open the door that the Corps may assume jurisdiction if it's shown a waterbody could be used for interstate commerce such as hunting, fishing, or bird watching.
The Supreme Court ruling can be found at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-1178.pdf.
Canadians hope U.S. will protect British Columbia
The proposed Tulsequah Chief mine in British Columbia has drawn the fire of environmentalists on both sides of the border concerned about the health of the surrounding wilderness. Canadian environmentalists find themselves in the odd predicament of asking the American government to force its neighbor to close the mine.
The construction and operation of the gold and copper mine could have adverse effects on the surrounding land in British Columbia, habitat that is home to significant populations of caribou and grizzly bears. Runoff and erosion caused by the mine could also harm the Taku River, which flows out of British Columbia into Alaska.
By calling on the U.S. to protect the lower part of the Taku, anti-mine groups hope Americans will demand protection of the lower Taku, effectively ending the upstream, Canadian mining project.
Water demands strangling wildlife, coalition says
An odd coalition of commercial fishermen and conservation groups are suing the federal Bureau of Reclamation for failing to provide enough water for Klamath River fish and wildlife. The suit charges the Bureau with favoring the demands of irrigators in the upper Klamath basin over environmental concerns and the needs of those who rely on fishing. About 30% of all chinook salmon harvested between Florence, Ore., and Ft. Bragg comes from the Klamath River, but low water, resulting in higher water temperatures and increased pollution, could result in a major die-off of both hatchery and wild salmon.
For information about the lawsuit, call Jan Hasselman, of EarthJustic Legal Defense, at 206-343-7340.
The fishing's drying up, the birds are disappearing, and even the water bugs seem disheartened. Over the years you've watched your favorite stream slowly sink into the reeds, and now you're finally ready to do something about it. But what?
River Network provides would-be activists with a 10-step approach to tackling what appears to be an overwhelming task, but which is not only doable, but necessary. Without people on the ground and in the water, measuring, counting, and lobbying, that favorite stream could become a hazy memory. Call the River Network at 503-241-3506 or go to www.rivernetwork.org/getting.htm for more complete information on setting up your own watershed monitoring program.
Step 1: What is already known about your watershed? Start by collection existing information on the conditions and issues in your watershed. Here are a few of the questions to ask: What are your group's goals for the watershed? What are your waters of interest? What are the land and water uses in the watershed? What is its current status under the state water quality laws and regulations? What are the most pressing water quality concerns?
Step 2: Why are you monitoring? Think about the key issues you idenitified in step one. What information might you need to address them? Next think about how to turn these issues into one or more questions that it would be helpful to answer. Then, design your monitoring program to answer these questions. An effective and efficient program will define present conditions; characterize the scope of the problems and issues; provide information to help design strategies to reduce or manage the problems; and provide information that can be used to evaluate the management strategies. Finally, you want to consider who you expect to use this information, and what you expect them to use it for. Find out what actions will be of interest to what decision-makers, and consult with them to find out if and under what circumstances they will use your information.
Step 3: What will you monitor? Streams are very complicated systems of interrelated physcial, chemical, and biological characteristics, often referred to as "indicators." Selecting indicators is a logical process that considers your specific monitoring question and your capabilities. Consider whether the indicator(s) you plan to measure will help answer your question, if it responds to changes over a reasonable time period, and if you can isolate the conditions that cause it to change. Do you have the resources to measure it? Does it help you answer your questions? Is it understandable/explainable to your target audience?
Step 4: What are your data quality objectives? You will need to identify how good your data needs to be in order to be useful and then match your collection and assessment methods to that level. For many groups, this step may not be necessary, and you may be able to experiment first and assess your capabilities for a conducting low- to high-level study. From there you can reorganize either your study's parameters or your groups' contribution of information to the general understanding of the watershed in question.
Step 5: How will you monitor? Determining how you will monitor involves making choices as to the appropriate sampling and analytical methods. How accurate is your data? Is the data reproducible by other groups or agencies using similar collection methods? Will it produce data useful to the target audience?
Step 6: Where will you monitor? Once you have identified your watershed, you'll need to decide exactly where you will conduct your study, at what depth, and over what area of water. There are also two general ways of monitoring a watershed, either by examining the entire watershed at several sites that give an overall picture of the area, or by monitoring the impact of a specific stream to the watershed area.
Step 7: When will you monitor? Since the time of day, frequency, time of year, and weather conditions sampled greatly affect your results, consider these when you establish the sampling schedule.
Step 8: What are your quality assurance measures? Quality assurance (QA) measures are the operation procedures used to ensure and assess the quality of the information you collect. QA is designed to ensure that the information you collect meets your data quality goals described in Step 4.
Step 9: How will you manage, analyze, and report the data? You'll be converting raw data into useful information. Data management includes recording, entering and validating, and summarizing the data. Analysis involves making sense of it so that it is useful to others. Reporting data involves telling the story in various ways to various audiences.
Step 10: What are the tasks and who will do them? Briefly describe the major tasks and key program personnel that might be associated with the monitoring rogram.
Violations cause Colorado to crack down on National Hog Farm
Wield pen to defend Clean Water Act
National River Cleanup Week scheduled for June 3-10, 2000
Foreign pollution on U.S. land?
Clean Water Action (www.cleanwateraction.org) has announced a letter-writing campaign to convince lawmakers not to give in to corporate interests at the expense of clean water standards.
According to the group, polluters and special interests are conducting a two-pronged attack on the 1972 Clean Water Act. Four Congressional bills (HR 3625, S 2139, and S 2041) would simply exempt the activities of the timber industry and corporate agribusiness from the provisions of the Clean Water Act.
The second attack (S 2417, HR 4922, HR 4502, and SJ Res. 104 and HJ Res. 105) would delay through legislative paralysis the Clean Water Act's watershed clean-up program. This program, the Total Daily Maximum Load, sets limits on how much pollution may be allowed into a waterway from all sources.
Clean Water Action would like individuals as wells as groups to write letters to their representatives as well as their senators, demanding they protect the tenets of the Clean Water Act by refusing to allow exemptions to the regulations designed to protect America's waters. Additional information on the group can be found at www.cleanwaterfund.org.
Jet Ski Sites Fewer, Further Between in National Parks and Rec Areas
The National Park Service banned the use of jet skis at 66 national parks and seashores, although it's still permitting their use at 10 federal recreational areas where they have a high and long-standing tradition of use.
Conservation groups had urged the Park Service to eliminate all use of jet skis in parks, citing water and air pollution, wildlife disturbance, and the degradation of a wilderness experience for park visitors. Environmentalists, disappointed that all use was not banned, pointed to pressure from the watercraft industry and some 1.2 million users as reasons for the Park Service's unwillingness to committ to a 100% ban. For their part, the Personal Watercraft Industry Association claimed advances in technology have reduced the level of noise and pollution.
New regulations in place to clean up waterways
New administration rules have set a 15-year timetable for some of the country's dirtiest lakes and streams. Because much of the pollution is the results of runoff from agricultural sites, the new rules specificially address measures that farmers and livestock owners must take to ensure their livelihoods are not endangering the nation's waterways.
States must now file detailed plans outlining how they will monitor the cleanup and maintenance of some 20,000 lakes, streams, and bays that do not now meet federal clean water guidelines. Some states already have plans in place. Wisconsin, for example, now requires all farmers control polluted runoff from their land, with the provision that the state pays for much of the cost of cleanup and monitoring.
The new federal rules will not take effect until Oct. 1, 2001, although some officials are urging lawmakers to adopt wording to allow earlier implementation.
Loopholes would let the mud slime through
The Clean Water Act is under attack by the timber industry and some members of Congress. Four bills were recently introduced in Washington, D.C., which would create loopholes in the Act for the benefit of huge timber companies.
Two of the bills, HR 3609 and S 2041, would specifically exempt road construction, clearcutting, and other logging practices from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pollution control permitting. The other two bills, S 2139 and HR 3625, would exempt agricultural runoff as well as logging practices from pollution control limits. These bills would likely be attached as legislative riders to an appropriations bill. The bills are designed to cripple a recent EPA proposal to ensure that logging companies do their fair share to clean up the nation's polluted rivers and streams. In cases where waterways are too polluted to meet water quality standards and the pollution stems directly from forestry activities, this proposal would allow EPA to call for pollution control permits for the discharges causing the problem.
The West Virginia Rivers Coalition has more information on the bills at www.wvrivers.org. They are asking for a nation-wide protest condemning the bills and calling for increased enforcement of the Clean Water Act.
Over half of rivers studied polluted
Common Ground reports that more than half the urban and agricultural streams tested in twenty major river basins had at least one pesticide that exceeded guidelines for protection of aquatic life.
The most prevalent nitrate contamination was detected in shallow ground water, often the source of drinking water for rural residents. At least one pesticide was found in almost every water and fish sample collected from urban and agricultural streams.
The study was conducted throughout major watersheds from the Hudson River to the Rio Grande to the Upper Snake River. The full report can be found at www.ncrc.nps.gov/rtca/nri/.
Cleanup helps celebrate Rivers 2000
River users and enthusiasts of all stripes should mark their calendars for the first week in June, when the nation's waterways receive some much-needed TLC. The cleanup occurs throughout the country. To organize or to find out about an effort in your community, contact the America Outdoors office at (423) 558-2595, email amoutdoors@aol.com, or write to them at PO Box 10847, Knoxville, TN 37939.
World trade compromises U.S. environmental safety
Friends of the Earth has come out against the World Trade Organization (WTO), charging that in WTO's haste to develop economic partnerships, it has abandoned ecological principles.
Friends of the Earth cites three recent examples of foreign intervention that threatens U.S. environmental interests. In one case, Canada objected to a California phase-out of a water contaminant, used as a gasoline additive, and demanded a $1 billion compensation. In another, Venezuela successfully lobbied against an amendment to the U.S. Clean Air Act requiring foreign refineries to adhere to the same standards as American ones, resulting in the possibility of importing environmentally damaging foreign-refined gas. American food is likewise compromised as the WTO has ruled that food safety regulations must be supported by detailed scientific evidence, which is often not available until years of data have been collected. Unfortunately, disease and other environmental degradations may have been taking place, but their results have not acquired the status of "detailed scientific evidence."
Such actions severely undermine incentives for U.S. companies and governments to implement responsible business and manufacturing methods.
NEW!!--Montana Keeps Its Rivers Free
Fishing Legal in River Despite Adjacent Private Land
State of Colorado Officially Waffles on Access
History of the Fee Demonstration Program
Montana access law under assault
Public access denied on California river
National Day of Action to protest fee demos
Fee Demos: Only some pay the price
River alert: River permits for the Salmon River and the Middle Fork
Turning public land into private business
The Endangered Species Act and the future of recreational boating?
Further increases in fees to visit "your" public lands
Complex compromises Rogue River
Forest tax relief for taxpayers?
State of Colorado Officially Waffles on Access: Sign raises questions, answers none
Representatives from state and federal land management groups and conservation and public rights advocates met in Denver on January 8, 2001, to discuss the language of a sign to be posted at access points to various rivers in Colorado. NORS strongly opposes the sign because it undermines federal law by suggesting that public rights to navigate are in doubt in Colorado.
The sign will be posted in areas of high visibility like river put-ins. Backed by the Colorado state seal, the sign warns boaters that paddling through private lands could get them in trouble:
"ATTENTION: PRIVATE PROPERTY AHEAD The rivers of Colorado are used by many people. When these rivers flow through public land managed by local, state, or federal agencies, they are generally open for a wide variety of recreational uses.
"When rivers flow through private land, though, the situation changes. Whether or not you may float through private property is an uncertain aspect of the law.
"Please observe these signs:
"[blue square] -- public use allowed
"[red circle] -- private land -- do not trespass
"Respect private property."
To object to the posting of such signs, contact the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the Colorado State Parks Division. If you live in Colorado, contact your state legislators.
Be sure to stress that although these rivers are located in Colorado, they are held in trust for all the public, under federal law.
Back up your opinions with facts
This summary from the Dallas Downriver Club (www.down-river.com) provides background to the ongoing debate over the Fee Demonstration Program. Excerpted from information from the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association, Canoetx, and Outdoorplay.com.
After huge cuts to federal land management agency budgets in 1996, the 104th Congress enacted a two-year Fee Demonstration Program at the urging and with the financial partnership of the American Recreation Coalition (ARC). This industry trade group, consisting of members representing development coporations, oil companies, and motor-sports groups, lobbied Congress hard again in 1998 to extend the program for another two years. In spite of widespread public opposition, they now want to make it permanent.
Returns from fees have been lower than predicted while collection and enforcement costs have been much higher. If the fees program is made permanent, you can expect to pay even more to hike, camp, birdwatch or boat on your public lands.
Landowners challenge boaters' rights
A 1985 Montana state law ensuring public access to public waterways is the subject of debate again in the western state's courts. A coalition of landowners along the Stillwater and Ruby rivers and on O'Dell Creek charge that by allowing boaters to paddle these waterways, the law has deprived them of their private property rights.
The state law allows anyone access to the waterway itself, as well as to land extending up to the ordinary high water marks. The lawsuit, however, contends that the public's use along these rivers has caused damage to private proerty and has resulted in the loss of landowners' income or privacy.
The Montana Rish, Wildlife and Parks Department plans to defend the law as it now stands.
Paddlers "forced into a trespass situation"
Four kayakers were cited for trespassing on the Middle Bar of the Mokelumne River. That stretch of the river is currently guarded by signs proclaiming it to be a protected watershed; however, the navigability of the river requires it to be open to the public for responsible river usage like kayaking. The conflict between the two laws came to a head when the bridge crossing the river was closed for repair in 1990. The bridge, which never reopened, would normally create a public easement to the river; by closing it, local authorities left paddlers and other river users with no other option than to trespass on the land on either side of the river, land owned by the East Bay Municipal Utility District and off-limits to the public.
Further complicating the issue are those who fear increased access will compromise water quality, while some Native American groups are concerned that cultural areas will be disturbed or destroyed.
Organizers hope June event exceeds last year's participation
On August 14, 1999 dozens of groups and hundreds of individuals came together in locations around the country to protest the growing trend toward pay-to-play, industrial-strength recreation on America's public lands. By all measures, the event was a great success and did much to draw national attention to this rapidly developing issue. More importantly, that event created enormous momentum and helped grow the number of organizations opposing the recreation fee-demonstration program to over 150, nationwide.
To build upon that momentum, Wild Wilderness is asking for your help in planning, organizing and staging an even larger Day of Action this year. We have been working with key groups throughout the country and have collectively selected Saturday, June 10, 2000 for this event. Our event will immediately precede the American Recreation Coalition's annual Washington DC lobby week called: "The Great Outdoors." We chose this timing to ensure that the wreckreation industry's message is not the only message heard by Congress and by the media.
With over 150 organizations now opposing fee-demo, the organization of a coordinated National Day of Action has grown too large for such a small group as Wild Wilderness. In calling for this event we accept the risk that if people do not respond to our plea for help, the media may take that to mean there is no real opposition to the fee-demo program. We took that gamble last year and we won! We are gambling once again and are counting upon your help and support to ensure that this year's event is an even larger success.
The basic message we will try to convey is that the management of recreation on America's Public Lands is at an important CROSSROADS. Will traditional recreational activities such as hiking, fishing, hunting, nature viewing, backpacking and camping continue to be the primary recreational uses of public lands in the future? Or will federal land managers actively work with private partners in order to develop an entirely new recreation "Product Line" - one consisting of high impact, expensive and environmentally detrimental activities selected primarily for their revenue generation potential?
Additional themes that may be emphasized include, "The Corporate Takeover of Nature", "The Disneyfication of the Wild", "Public Lands are Not a Product" and "Recreation as Amenity or Commodity?" Contact the organization if you are interested in participating or in helping to organize one or more events. The success of this Day of Action, and the success of this entire campaign are 100% dependent upon the help and support of people such as yourself. Our hope is to make this truly a NATIONAL Day of Action. --Scott Silver; Wild Wilderness; e-mail: ssilver@wildwilderness.org; web site: www.wildwilderness.org.
Paying for more than their fair share
From an email dated March 30, 2000: "After years of budgetary mis-management, Dinosaur National Monument has instituted private river trip fees of $250. With this they hope to fund every ranger even remotely connected with the river.
It's not just that I object to shafting the most responsible users (and river runners following modern carry-out camping techniques, especially on a natural river after the peaks of spring, do about as little ecological damage as is possible). It's not just the irresponsibility of Congress in presenting (in the biological sense) for every economic development group and improvident oldster, while leaving the parks to rattle in the wind. It's not just that it's my ox that's gored. No, I WANT to pay. I want to pay fees proportioned to the longterm ecological damage I cause -- so long as everybody else does too. My guess is Lake Mead sailors would be as happy as I am to pay, based on how much damage a boat does cleaving the water -- if the ORVs in the desert got assessed for what they do, and the son-of-a-bitching cow-calf units in the riparian zones got assessed for what they do, and the lumber companies for what they do. If my solo canoe trip down the Yampa for 3 days is worth $250, I figure a group of 10 roadlice rapturously ravishing the desert for three days is worth $5000. --Earl Perry
Permit allocations on the Salmon River and Middle Fork of the Salmon, in Idaho
Official NORS comments to the U.S. Forest Service:
Dear Forest Service:
As discussed in the enclosed River Alert, Federal courts have held that a system of allocations is one lawful way of distributing river permits to the public, but the allocations must be “fairly made pursuant to appropriate standards.” They cannot be “arbitrary” allocations. The Forest Service must collect some sort of data, or evidence, and must make allocations in response to that data or evidence.
This process of making allocations must therefore follow a scientific procedure, or at least a logical and defensible procedure, demonstrating that the allocations logically resulted from the evidence. The Forest Service cannot simply continue to allocate large blocks of space to commercial outfitters, merely because the outfitters want to continue to profit from that arrangement. In view of the present denial of space to many noncommercial applicants, it would be unlawful to continue the present allocations.
This may sound complicated at first, but not when you apply it in actual practice. The relevant data are simply the records of sign-ups. The Forest Service does not need to devise a survey or poll of public interest in running these rivers. It does need to send out questionnaires or compile data, or do a statistical analysis. There may be many people who would like to run these rivers who have not made any effort to sign up for a trip, but the law does not call for the Forest Service to go find those people and study them. The law requires the Forest Service to be fair to people who are making some sort of effort to sign up for the trip. The relevant data are simply the records of people who have signed up for trips (or attempted to sign up for trips.) The law simply requires the Forest Service to look at the data about how many people are signing up for what trips (or attempting to sign up for trips,) and make the allocations accordingly. If a thousand people are signing up for one trip, and a hundred people are signing up for another trip, the ratio of allocation for the two trips must be ten to one.
The rest of the travel industry does this every day, without scientific studies or unnecessary expense. In the offices of hotels, airlines, tour operators and resorts, the people in charge of reservations look on their computer screens to see how many people are signed up for various trips or blocks of space, and they move vacant space from one category to another accordingly. Their “allocations” of space are not “arbitrary,” but instead they are adjusted to reflect the pattern of sign-ups from customers.
Of course, the data has to be comparable from one type of trip to another. It has to allow for an “apples to apples” comparison. It can’t consist of bonafide, committed trip sign-ups in one category, and mere expressions of interest in another category. On these rivers, the data can’t consist of solid trip sign-ups on the commercial side, and applications to a lottery on the noncommercial side. The Forest Service must run the system so as to produce the same sort of data for both commercial and noncommercial sign-ups, so as to be able to make an apples-to-apples comparison. In addition, the public is lawfully entitled to a system that allows people to sign up for noncommercial trips on these public rivers without unnecessary red tape, obstacles, or hurdles.
To yield that kind of data, the Forest Service must take actual reservations for noncommercial trips, not run a lottery. The Forest Service must then regularly compare the record of current reservations for noncommercial trips with the record of current reservations for commercial trips. The Forest Service must then adjust the allocations to reflect this apples-to-apples data about sign-ups for the two types of trips. The Forest Service cannot lawfully continue to run a lottery, rejecting thousands of noncommercial trip applications, while allowing commercial trip customers to easily sign up through conventional reservation systems.
As discussed in our River Alert, another lawful way of allocating space on these rivers is to start with no allocations at all, and reserve space only as individual members of the public sign up for it. We would prefer that system, because it avoids the necessity of having the Forest Service make these comparisons of data and adjust the allocations accordingly. In effect, it makes the adjustments automatically.
We understand that you may not be willing, at this time, to write a preferred alternative consisting of no allocations. However, you are still required to write a preferred alternative that complies with existing law. Defenders of the present situation may say that courts have not specifically held the Salmon River system to be unlawful. This is just a stalling tactic to delay complying with the law. The courts have already held that river permit allocations cannot be unfair or arbitrary, but instead must fairly adjust in response to valid data. As explained above, the valid data are the records of sign-ups for trips. If the management plan adopts a preferred alternative that does not make valid comparisons of trip sign-ups, and does not adjust allocations accordingly, it will continue to be unlawful.
As you know, under the Equal Access to Justice Act, courts may order agencies such as yours to pay attorney’s fees to organizations such as ours that sue to correct unlawful policies. The courts recently ordered the National Park Service to pay our attorney’s fees in relation to river allocation issues on the Grand Canyon. Officials who disregard requests to correct their unlawful policies, and continue to operate unlawful systems, may be held personally liable as well.
We therefore request that you do the right thing, for your agency and for the public, by writing a preferred alternative to set up a system that takes valid reservations for noncommercial trips, and makes continuous apples-to-apples comparisons of sign-ups for noncommercial and commercial trips, then regularly adjusts the allocations accordingly, as required by law.
Sincerely, The National Organization for Rivers.
RIVER ALERT: PERMITS ON THE SALMON RIVER AND THE MIDDLE FORK
The U.S. Forest Service is planning a new river permit system for the Salmon River and the Middle Fork of the Salmon, in Idaho. These rivers are two of America's most famous wilderness rivers. The new plan will also set policies for the surrounding wilderness land, which is the largest wilderness in the "lower 48 states." The fairness and lawfulness of this plan, on these famous rivers, will influence public ownership of other rivers throughout the nation.
The Forest Service published its previous proposals in January 1998. After much public comment, the agency published an additional set of proposals in September 1999. The deadline for public comments was extended to March 1, 2000.
Now is your chance to urge the Forest Service to eliminate the present unfair and unlawful aspects of the river permit system, including the annual lottery that applies only for noncommercial trips. Please write a letter to the Forest Service now, on behalf of yourself and/or your organization. Here are some suggested points to include:
- Part of the present system is unfair and unlawful, because it makes it much harder to reserve space on the river for a non-commercial trip than as a commercial trip customer. (See legal requirements, next page.)
- The Forest Service must implement a fair and lawful system, in which reservations for noncommercial trips are no less available than reservations for commercial trips.
- There are only two known lawful and workable proposals for doing this (plus variations of these two proposals.) One is the "No Allocations" system. In this system, outfitters would reserve river space with the Forest Service when individual customers sign up for it, much the way travel agents presently reserve airline seats when individual customers request reservations. Noncommercial applicants would reserve space directly with the Forest Service. This is similar to the Forest Service's Alternative 9, except that the Forest Service suggests doing it with one big lottery, while the more workable way to do it would be with reservations. (See details on next page.)
- The other lawful and workable proposal is the "Regularly Adjusting Allocations" system. Under this system, the outfitters would receive an initial allocation and book customers for it, the way they do now, but the Forest Service would keep track of the vacant space on commercial trips, and would transfer vacant space as needed to waiting non-commercial applicants. This is similar to the Forest Service's Alternative 8, except that the Forest Service suggests not starting to take reser-vations until six months before each day of the season, while the more workable way to do it would be to start taking reservations further in advance. (See details on next page.)
- The Forest Service must adopt one of these two systems (or a variation thereof) because there are presently no other known systems that are fair, workable, and lawful.
- The Forest Service's other proposed alter-natives consist of minor adjustments to the present system. They would not be fair or lawful solutions. The Forest Service should drop them now.
- The Forest Service should manage the wild lands surrounding these rivers as the designated Wilder-ness that they are, as described in Alternative 9, and reduce the non-wilderness activities that are presently allowed, such as airplane landings and motorized jet-boats.
Ask the Forest Service to add you to their mailing list for future updates about the plan.
Address your letter to: Salmon-Challis National Forest, Attention FC-RONRW-SEIS, RR 2, Box 600, Salmon, Idaho 83467. Phone (208) 756-5100. (Ken Wotring and Kent Fuellenbach, Coordinators.)
Details:
Legal requirements: Rivers such as the Salmon and the Middle Fork are held in trust for the public under the Public Trust Doctrine, as outlined in Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387, 36 L.ed 1018 (1892), and other federal case law. As trustee for the public, the government cannot lawfully restrict public access to these rivers in a manner that favors commercial trip customers over noncommercial applicants. Reservations for noncommercial trips must be as readily available to the public as reservations for commercial trips. The courts have ruled that allocations to commercial outfitters are one lawful way of rationing wilderness river use, but only if the allocations are "fairly made pursuant to ap-propriate standards." They cannot be "arbitrary" allocations that unfairly deny reservations to noncommercial applicants while commercial reservations are plentiful. They must be adjusted in response to valid evidence of public interest in commercial and noncommercial trips, such as the actual reservations that members of the public are making for both types of trips. See Wilderness Public Rights Fund v. Kleppe, 608 F.2d 1250, (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 982 (1980).
Unlawfulness of the present system: The Forest Service says that the present system "is meeting virtually 100 percent of the commercial demand, while not meeting the private noncommercial demand." (Page 1-13 of the Supplementary Environmental Impact State-ment.) This aspect of the present system is definitely unlawful, and the Forest Service must change it.
Note that if demand for commercial trips were to suddenly increase dramatically, while non-commercial demand de-clined dramatically, the present system would be lawful as it is. But there is no reason to think that demand patterns will suddenly change. Therefore the present system is unlawful. Also note that if the Forest Service does make the necessary changes, then the system will be lawful.
Defenders of the status quo may say that the courts have not specifically declared that the system on the Salmon and the Middle Fork is unlawful. This is a stalling tactic to delay com-plying with the law. Federal courts have already declared that river permit systems that deny noncommercial reservations, while commercial reservations are plentiful, are unlawful. They don't need to declare it again.
Lawful alternatives: Over the years, only two lawful and workable ways of rationing river trip permits under these sorts of circumstances have been proposed, by any organization. (There are also variations of these two ways.) There are several names for these two ways and their variations. Perhaps the clearest names are the "No Allocations" system and the "Regularly Adjust-ing Allocations" system.
The No Allocations system: This is the type of system that travel agents presently use to reserve airline seats for specific customers, withdrawing space by computer connection from an airline's master computer. Initally, all space would be held by the River Office in a common pool. (The "River Office" being whatever office the government sets up to manage the river permit process.) Outfitter customers would reserve space on commercial trips the way they do now, by calling an outfitter, and the outfitter would then draw the space for those specific customers out of the common pool, by phone or computer connection. Meanwhile, noncommercial groups would contact the River Office, also by phone or computer, and would reserve space for groups consisting of specific, named people (not just for a trip leader and a bunch of unspecified companions.) The River Office would allow people to start reserving far enough in advance to avoid a major "opening day rush" of phone calls. "High season" dates would be booked up more than a year in advance. "Shoulder season" dates would be booked up less in advance. The River Office would allow a small percentage of duplicates or substitutions, so that people reserving way in advance would have some ability to substitute a few of their group members as their launch date approaches.
Oufitters would have a "launch calendar," as they do now, but not a fixed allocation of the total river space on those launch dates. Each com-pany's business volume would grow or shrink as a result of its success in getting members of the public to reserve space on its trips on those dates, before the space is already reserved by customers of other outfitters, or by non-commercial boaters. Outfitters would urge customers to reserve further in advance. For example, if a customer calls wanting to take a trip in July of this year, and all the space on the river during July is already booked, the outfitter might reply, "The river is filled for this July, but we can take your reservation now for a trip in July of next year." At the end of a season, the ratio of commercial to noncommercial use would be whatever it ends up being, as the net result of the public's individual decisions to reserve space with various outfitters, and for noncommercial trips.
The courts have repeatedly upheld the government's authority to limit commercial operations on public lands and waters to certain maximum sizes, so the Forest Service could limit outfitters to certain maximum sizes under this system.
This system is similar to the Forest Service's Alternative 9, (and the earlier Alternative 2,) except that the Forest Service suggests doing it with one big lottery, while the more workable way to do it would be with reservations. A lottery involving only outfitters and noncommercial trip leaders would be relatively meaningless as an indicator of the actual people wanting to go on trips, and would therefore be unlawful. Yet a lottery involving all the interested commercial trip passengers and noncommercial trip participants would necessarily include many thousands of people who are very vague about when (and if) they could actually go on a trip, and with whom. There is no known, workable way to sort out the "winners" of such a lottery into any actual calendar of group commercial and non-com-mercial trips. On the other hand, using reser-vations to schedule group trips, within the available space, is a workable method that is already used throughout the travel industry.
Regularly Adjusting Allocations: The is the sort of system presently used by airlines and hotels in dealing with tour operators and convention groups. Airlines and hotels typically make a large initial "block reservation" for a convention or tour group. Later, as the date of the tour or convention approaches, if the airline or hotel needs the space for other customers, and the convention or tour group is not fully booked, they transfer the vacant space to other customers. Under this system, the River Office would make initial allocations of space to outfitters, as it does now. The outfitters would then start filling those assigned trips with customers, well in advance, as they do now. Meanwhile, noncommercial groups would contact the River Office to reserve space for groups consisting of specific, named people (not just for a trip leader and a bunch of unspecified companions.) Then, the River Office would check the levels of bookings for the commercial trips on a regular schedule--the first of every month, for example. It would do this checking by means of an "intranet" or similar connection, allowing it to see how full the commercial trips are for a given time period. For example, on March 1 the River Office might observe that the commercial trips for July are less than half filled, while the noncommercial trips for July are entirely filled and there is a substantial waiting list. The River Office would then transfer appropriate chunks of vacant commercial space to the waiting noncommercial applicants. These transfers would be one-time transfers in response to current sign-ups. The initial allocation to the outfitter for the following year could be the same, or it could be somewhat smaller. It could also be larger, although there is no requirement to increase it. (It is lawful for the government to limit commercial operations to certain maximum sizes.)
This system is similar to the Forest Service's Alternative 8, except that the Forest Service suggests not starting to take reservations until six months before each day of the season, which they admit would cause a reservations bottle-neck. The more workable way to do it would be to start taking reservations however far in advance is necessary to avoid causing a bottleneck in the reservations. The River Office would allow a small percentage of duplicates or substitutions, so that people reserving way in advance would have some ability to substitute a few of their group members as their launch date approaches. With that provision, there is nothing wrong with taking reservations a year or two in advance, at least for "high season" dates. Certain cruises on the Danube River, as well as climbing on Mount Everest and other unique travel opportunities around the world, are often booked up over two years in advance.
Transferring vacant space from commercial to noncommercial use is already done by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management on the Rogue River in Oregon, except that the space is transferred only shortly before the launch date, and then only to whomever calls first, once the space is available. Those types of transfers don't help much. The fair and lawful way to do it is to start a waiting list of noncommercial applicants who want the space, then transfer space to them well in advance, so people can make good use of it.
In other words, with this type of system there is a definite risk that Forest Service staff will neglect to make the necessary transfers on a regular basis, sufficiently in advance. Therefore the criteria for making the transfers would need to be spelled out in advance, specifying on what dates vacant space will be transfered to waiting noncommercial applicants. It would not be fair or lawful to take a "wait and see" approach, in which Forest Service staff would make up the criteria for the transfers at the time the transfers are already needed. By law, the system cannot be governed by "arbitrary" or politically-motivated decisions by Forest Service staff. The transfers have to be "fairly made pursuant to appropriate standards," or criteria, spelled out in advance.
Conclusion: These two systems achieve roughly the same end result, even though they start from different points. The No Allocations system starts with one big common pool and parcels out space as people apply for it. The Regularly Adjusting Allocations system starts with initial allocations to outfitters, then subsequently transfers vacant space to noncommercial applicants, in response to actual sign-ups. Either system, as well as variations thereof, can work fairly and lawfully, if it is managed with integrity.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that the present system is unfair and unlawful, and the Forest Service must change it, in one of these two ways, or a variation thereof.
However, the commercial interest in pre-serving the status quo is so strong that the Forest Service will not change the present system unless well-informed members of the public insist on change. Write your letter to the Forest Service today, urging them to change to one of these two systems.
If possible, mail a copy of your letter to NORS, 212 West Cheyenne Mountain Blvd.; Colorado Springs, CO 80906, or email it to nors@rmi.net. If you have any suggestions, contact NORS.
Gary Adams reports that on November 18, 1999, Senators Larry Craig (R, ID), Frank Murkowski (R, AK) and Craig Thomas (R, WY), introduced a revamped "Outfitters Policy Act" of 1999, S 1969. This is the latest attempt by the guiding industry to lock up access to federal lands for special business interest. This bill will have serious consequences for all recreational users of federal lands, be they boaters, backpackers, climbers or educational groups.
Here are some of the "highlights" of the bill:
This bill is based on the premise that "outfitters are necessary to provide access to Federal land." The bill then goes on to safeguard outfitters access, assuring along the way "a reasonable opportunity for an authorized outfitter to realize a profit" with protection from unspecified "economic conditions."
Once a permit is awarded, there is no further open competition for that permit, ever. This bill safeguards outfitters who provide access to visitors who rely on the outfitter. In Grand Canyon, this reliance is more and more based on the fact that timely access to the resource demands the visitor use the outfitter for access. There is nothing in this bill that offers any safeguard to accessing federal lands to the non-outfitted public. The bill also safeguards outfitters from being liable because there are "inherent risks present on Federal land" while providing protection to the outfitter if they cannot fully utilize their allocation. Another safeguard lets the outfitter chose terms and conditions for their own performance evaluations.
Regardless of the management plan, the outfitter is not required to change how they do business until the permit is transferred or sold to another permittee. The managing agency will only have 90 days to approve a permit contract transfer. If the contracts aren't reviewed and decided by the Secretary within this time frame, the default condition is "Approved as is." The outfitters books may not be reviewed by the managing agency after the outfitter has retained them for only 5 years, and there is no public involvement in, nor is there any type of, oversight panel to monitor the permits. As a case in point, the GCPBA has twice attempted and been refused permission to attend as non-participatory observers the annual meeting between outfitted concessions and Grand Canyon National Park officials.
The GCPBA urges all users of federal land to read the bill for yourself. The bill's text is at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:S.1969:. Draw your own conclusions, then call or write your congressional representative. Your voice counts. You can also let Senator Craig know your thoughts directly by visiting the gcpba web site at http://www.gcpba.org/senate.php3. Finally, tell you friends. Have them tell their friends. It's still your Federal land. It may not be for long though.
Government: Are river users part of the problem or part of the solution in saving endangered species?
River users on the Upper McKenzie River in Oregon have recently encountered posted announcements to register before launching their party.
According to Michael Greenbaum (Mgreen5086@aol.com), the registration, which is not legally mandated, is apparently connected to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service efforts to monitor river running in conjunction with survival and recovery rates of the endangered bull trout. Agencies have also placed logs in the river for habitat enhancement along popular stretches of the river, with little or no public awareness. While studying wildlife is certainly a laudable practice, Greenbaum notes that government agencies have embarked on the study without properly notifying the public and requesting its input.
Even more fee demos loom ahead
The U.S. Forest Service is considering making the national forests available only to those who pay $50-$100, and only on a state-by-state basis, effectively weakening the country-wide premise behind national lands.
The North West Rafters Association reports on the proposed fees and passes that may be issued to recreational public land users. Among them are state-wide passes, for use in national forests only within the state where the pass was purchased; localized passes, for designated forests; interagency passes, for use on lands operated by the several governmental land-use agencies; and activity passes, which do not necessarily cover all activities.
To protest these fees to visit public lands, contact your congressional representatives and senators. Send a copy of your letter to NORS - U.S. River Conservation Team to earn river points.
Sprawling center unnecessary, opponents say
A proposed large visitors complex on the banks of the Rogue River could be the result of apathetic public reponse, fears Riverhawks' Larry Laitner, who released an announcement outlining his concerns and the potential actions of river conservationists.
In July 1999 the Medford District of the BLM proposed building the Smullin Visitor Center Complex. This complex was proposed to be built on the banks of the Rogue River at Rand, which is near Galice, Oregon. They wanted to build a one million dollar complex of offices, maintenance buildings, a theater, a campground, and a large parking area for river runners' cars.
Riverhawks appealed this decision and the decision was temporarily withdrawn to allow a 30 day comment period. This period ends on October 12, 1999. After the comment period we expect them to re-issue the decision with little change. It is VERY IMPORTANT that all of you send a comment to the BLM describing your feelings about having a new office complex built as Rand. It will be very visible from the river. It will turn an old historic ranger station into a busy administrative center. The BLM thinks ther is no real opposition to this project. If they get a hundred comments opposing this development they may have to re-think it. Your comments can be elaborate or they can be very simple, the important thing is to send them.
Here are some possible talking points: It certainly doesn't belong on the banks of a Wild & Scenic river. The proposed facility is too big and extravagant. The Medford Mail Tribune newspaper called it "overkill". There is little or no support for this proposal among the community of river users, or the public in general. A better location for a Visitor Center and Tourist Attraction would be much closer to Grants Pass and the I-5 corridor. The present Rand site, with rustic surroundings, is on the National Registry of Historic Sites. These historic buildings are consistent with other river-permit facilities in the West. The present Rand site meets the requirements of the Rogue River Management Plan, and The Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. Rustic surroundings are called for because some neighboring private landowners are prohibited from building similar structures.
BLM claims an exaggerated 23,000 visitors per year. The actual number could be 50% to 90% less as only trip leaders and commercial guides are required to stop, other people go straight to the river. BLM cites increasing demand. However, the number of boaters entering the wild section is limited to 120 per day and no increases are allowed.
A simple statement of opposition is all you really have to send, so if you are pressed for time, just say you are against it. Written comments should be addressed to: Bob Korfhage; Grants Pass Field Manager; Bureau of Land Management; 3040 Biddle Road; Medford, OR 97504. If you have any questions about the proposal, e-mail llaitner@jeffnet.org or call 541-482-1672.
Taxpayers have been paying $5 to park on public land and they may continue to pay unless public pressure convinces Congress and the Forest Service to end the Fee Demonstration Project.
The so-called Fee Demo, or Adventure Pass, should have ended last summer, but Congress agreed to extend the program. Although 80% of the fees collected should return to the areas generating them, fully 53% went to operating costs. Those in favor of the fee, including the American Recreation Coalition, an association of manufacturers, outfitters, and companies like Disney, Chevron, and Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., point to improved services at recreational sites. Opponents, however, highlight cuts, like the decrease of $13.5 million to the Forest Service in the mid-90's, as the real problem in public land funding.
Congresswoman Mary Bono (D-CA) (www.house. gov/bono), together with Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), has submitted the Forest Tax Relief Act (HR 786). Introducing her bill before Congress, Bono said the tax duplicates already dedicated public funds and "goes against the concept of experiencing our free and open land, making it a hardship on locals and visitors alike. . . This tax serves as a barrier to working families, hikers, nature lovers and all those desiring access to our national forests." Protesters in Southern California successfully convinced 30 Adventure Pass vendors to stop charging park users. You can also voice your support of the repeal of the fee by contacting your legislators about HR 786.
To post your national river news, alerts, descriptions, opinions, or observations on nationwide river issues, click to go to the River Rendezvous--National River News and Information. The webmaster will subsequently integrate your posting into the news and opinions shown above. (In the National News section, please post only news that relates to the whole United States or to multi-state regions. Post items that relate to particular rivers, or to states, under the state in question in theRiver Rendezvous--State River News and Information.)
The National Rivers Website is made possible by the generosity of the members of the National Organization for Rivers (NORS.) To start or extend your membership, go to NORS Memberships.
NORS was founded in 1978.
Back to the River Registry menu | Back to the National Rivers home page.
The National Organization for Rivers (NORS)
Membership Offices:
212 West Cheyenne Mountain Blvd.
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
(719) 579-8759. Fax (719) 576-6238.
nationalrivers@email.msn.comCopyright © by the National Organization for Rivers. All rights reserved. 4.