It’s official: America’s streams and rivers are in serious trouble.
This isn’t from a green group; it’s from the Environmental Protection Agency, which this week released its first comprehensive survey looking at the health of thousands of streams across the nation. The 2008-2009 National Rivers and Stream Assessment found that more than half of those systems – 55-percent – are “in poor conditions for aquatic life.”
That, of course, includes fish.
“The health of our nation’s rivers, lakes, bays and coastal waters depends on the vast network of streams where they begin, and this new science shows that America’s streams and rivers are under significant pressure,” said Nancy Stoner, the EPA’s Acting Assistant Administrator for Water. “We must continue to invest in protecting and restoring our nation’s streams and rivers as they are vital sources of our drinking water, provide many recreational opportunities, and play a critical role in the economy.”
There’s new hope that native grasslands—arguably the most threatened wildlife habitat in the nation – can be saved. But the House of Representatives will have to follow the bipartisan lead of a couple of prairie state representatives to get that done for sportsmen.
The Protect Our Prairies Act recently introduced by Tom Walz (D-MN) and Kristi Noem (R-SD) would help protect the nation’s remaining native sod and grasslands by reducing federal crop insurance subsidies for the first four years those acres are farmed.
This is a new version of the “Sod Saver” concept that has been around for some time, with the aim of preventing native grasslands from being plowed for two important reasons: This habitat is critical for a wide range of upland birds, migratory waterfowl and numerous other species; and they are far less productive for crops than other lands.
Some sportsmen wonder why they should care about what goes on in Washington. After all, outdoors sports are about recreation, not politics. Why should they care what Congress is debating and doing?
One of the best answers to that question was given in a recent report in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, one of the nation’s most prestigious journals of scholarly research. The title of the report is as jarring to hunters as it is to academicians: “Recent land use change in the Western Corn Belt threatens grasslands and wetlands. ”
Sportsmen conservation groups concerned about 20 million acres of the nation’s most important wetlands—and thousands of miles of threatened trout streams—have a message for President Obama: It’s time to walk the talk.
This involves the longest running run-around conservationists may ever have gotten. It involves two presidents and at least four congresses.
The story began in 2006 when the Supreme Court ruled that Congress never intended for the Clean Water Act to protect isolated and temporary wetlands. The ruling stunned fish and wildlife advocates because those types of wetlands are among the most critical for a wide range of wildlife especially waterfowl, as well as protecting streamsides that are essential to healthy trout populations.
The fix was obvious: Congress need only pass a law saying that it specifically wanted those wetlands included in the CWA.