To help people better understand the health of the Upper Rio Grande Basin, a first-ever "report card" gave the overall river basin a "C" for its moderate condition, and warned improvements are needed.
A group of ecosystem scientists and local conservation advocates said the moderate rating comes with a warning there is not enough water to sustain all users' needs and maintain a healthy river ecosystem.
Paul Tashjian, director of freshwater conservation at Audubon Southwest, said actions are necessary to ensure people and wildlife have continued water access.
"We're water-challenged, and I think that what I liked about the report card, is that it really looked at all the water users alongside of each other and valued all of them together," Tashjian remarked. "Not just the living river, but also the importance of our farming communities, the importance of our compact."
He added New Mexico's Upper Rio Grande had the highest score, while the Lower Rio Grande got the lowest score at 41% or "C minus." The report card is meant to provide a backbone for developing meaningful resiliency strategies.
Casey Brown, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, who helped develop the report card model, said it showed limited water availability is due to climate change, interstate management issues, infrastructure, and increased demand from a growing population.
"Here's how much water we have. How are we going to allocate that water among its very competing uses?" Brown asked. "What our model does is help make it clear what those different allocations mean, in terms of trade-offs for the different water users."
Enrique Prunes, manager of the Rio Grande for the World Wildlife Fund, which also participated in creating the report card, said the Upper Rio Grande, flowing from its headwaters in Colorado, through New Mexico and ending in Texas, has supported people and wildlife for thousands of years.
"There are many communities that depend on the water that this river provides," Prunes outlined. "Agriculture -- 85% of the water that is used in the Rio Grande goes to agriculture -- but of course, for biodiversity, for ecosystems, that component of the environment is very important."
get more stories like this via email
As West Virginia opens its door to the plastics recycling or "advanced recycling" industry, a recent report found only a fraction of plastics are recycled and plastics labeled as biodegradable in reality can take years to degrade.
One study found biodegradable plastic bags were still fully intact after three years of being buried in the soil. There are currently no federal standards regulating bioplastics, or products claiming to be biodegradable or compostable.
Judith Enck, president of the group Beyond Plastics, said the plastic recycling plants being built in Appalachia increase exposure to microplastics and pose health risks for neighboring communities.
"Chemical recycling just takes plastics heated at a really high temperature to make small amounts of fossil fuels, or uses vast amount of toxic chemicals to try to break down old plastic and make it new plastic," Enck explained. "(It is) the last thing we need."
Plastic production is forecast to increase by 70% over the next 20 years, with roughly half designed for single-use products, according to the report.
Enck argued without significant reduction in plastic packaging, consumers will continue to ingest chemicals like PFAS, lead, mercury, vinyl chloride and other chemicals found in food and beverage packing.
"We're particularly concerned by a chemical called polylactic acid, PLA," Enck noted. "That is typically made from corn or sugar crops, and they also contain toxic chemicals."
Microplastics and nanoplastics are produced when plastic products break down into tiny fragments, which end up in soil and waterways.
Enck pointed out plastic particles have been found in honey, beer, salt, tea bags, fruit, vegetables, seafood and meat. Microplastics have been found in human blood, organs, brains, breast milk and in newborn babies. Research has linked microplastics exposure to heart attacks, stroke, and diseases related to hormone disruption.
get more stories like this via email
Two new studies find that without sustained intervention, California may permanently lose big sections of old-growth giant sequoia groves.
The majestic trees only grow on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. Since 2015, 20% of them have died, mostly in three megafires in 2020 and 2021.
David Soderberg, Ph.D, a biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey and a study co-author, said the blazes incinerated many of the older, seed-bearing trees.
"You're getting much larger patches of fires burning at what's called high severity. So, you have this kind of bad combination for the sequoias where many more of the mature trees are dying, and there are many fewer of the seedlings regenerating," he explained.
The studies show there are substantially fewer seedlings than in the past, and those that germinate are imperiled by drought and heat stress linked to climate change. The Giant Sequoia Lands Coalition partners have planted more than 500,000 native seedlings in severely burned areas where reproduction has been insufficient.
Paul Ringgold, chief program officer with the Save the Redwoods League, said the idea is to give forest regeneration a head start.
"When you're planting seedlings, you're planting trees that have been grown in the nursery for two years or more. They're more robust than a seedling that is sprouting from a seed, giving it a little bit of an edge against the impact of drier, hotter summers," he said.
Old-growth sequoia are the world's largest trees and depend on fire to reproduce. But Ringgold noted that past fire-suppression efforts have led to a buildup of excessive fuel loads in the forests. So, extensive projects are underway to clear out dead vegetation and make the groves more resilient to fire.
Disclosure: Save the Redwoods League contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Endangered Species & Wildlife, Environment, Public Lands/Wilderness. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Nearly 10,000 Montanans have petitioned the U.S. Forest Service to prevent mining activity in the iconic Smith River watershed.
The Smith is known for its majestic views and numerous wildlife species but it is also a huge draw for outdoor enthusiasts seeking to "disconnect." The Smith River Public Lands Coalition has called on the Forest Service to withdraw mineral leases granted to a company planning a $4 billion copper mine on private land near Sheep Creek, which feeds the Smith more than half of its water.
Josh Seckinger, a Bozeman-based Smith River guide, estimated he has floated the 5-day, 59-mile-long Smith 100 times. He thinks the copper sulfide mine drainage would be devastating.
"It just decimates anything with gills downstream," Seckinger pointed out. "That's fish, that's amphibians, that's aquatic bug life. It's a terrible way to sterilize a river."
Mine developer Black Butte Copper said it is committed to preserving Montana's water while creating economic development opportunities in the state, and claims it can build the mine in an environmentally friendly way.
Seckinger noted beyond the environmental and wildlife damage the mine drainage could cause, it also threatens the local landscape and the recreational economy built around the Smith River. He argued it is not just a hit to the businesses but to Montanans who want to experience the trip. It requires winning a permit in a state lottery.
"It is my hope that every resident of this state puts in for a lottery permit and wins, so they get the chance to experience this place," Seckinger emphasized. "Because once you experience this place, you understand immediately why it needs to be protected."
Black Butte Copper has bought nearly 700 claims on the public lands surrounding the one near Sheep Creek, potentially allowing the company to further expand its mining operations.
get more stories like this via email