Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 19 <br /> <br />States, only &/0 of the land mass supported ripar- <br />ian vegetation, and we have already lost two-thirds <br />of these lands. We can expect remaining riparian <br />habitat to continue to diminish if the loss of stream <br />habitat isn't stopped. <br />The dialogue of this symposium centers on the <br />Mim:Jissippi River drainage, one of the world's great <br />river systems. This system drains about 12% of the <br />area of North America and is the most significant <br />environmental factor influencing the Gulf of Mex- <br />ico.Fisheries managers in the 28 states in the <br />~issippi drainage have identified more than 90 <br />tributaries and 80 species of fIsh of great concern. <br />Fisheries scientists and managers participating in <br />this symposium will discuss nearly a third of these <br />90 tributaries. These researchers are intimately <br />familiar with their river system's habitat, water <br />quality, flora, and fauna and with the relationships <br />between the components of these ecosystems. They <br />are the best hope to guide restoration of lost fIsh <br />and wildlife values. These same researchers will <br />readily admit the limitations available data dictate; <br />however, they will also point out that sufficient <br />information is available to stop the loss today and <br />to begin a process of restoration. Recommending <br />more research in lieu of action is, in our opinion, <br />unconscionable. <br />Governments do not set out to destroy riverine <br />values, and water development projects have pro- <br />vided such benefIts as flood control, navigation, <br />irrigation, and power production. But in the devel- <br />opment process, the ecosystems have been dam- <br />aged, and values have been lost. Rivers suffer from <br />the cumulative effects of thousands of small, and <br />some not so small, abuses. It is essential to adopt <br />an approach that balances habitat conservation <br />with water resources development. <br />Much of the problem with the way we have <br />treated rivers has to do with the way our institu- <br />tions and governments are organized. IT one wished <br />to condemn rivers to a long, slow, and sure death, <br />the present governmental process was seemingly <br />designed to achieve that end. North America is <br />shared by three countries. Much of the border be- <br />tween the United States and Mexico is dermed by <br />a line drawn down the center of the Rio Grande <br />River. To the north, much of the border between the <br />United States and Canada is defIned by a line <br />dividing the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence <br />River. Farther to the north and west along the <br />border between Alaska and British Columbia, most <br />rivers beginning in Canada's interior run through <br /> <br />southeastern Alaska and empty into the Pacific <br />Ocean. <br />If governments were able to exert complete con- <br />trol over fIsh, as they can over their citizens, one <br />could imagine that Mexican fIsh would be confined <br />to the south side of the Rio Grande River and U.S. <br />fIsh to the north side. Salmon migrating out of <br />Canada would be required to carry passports and <br />to clear U.S. customs to reach the ocean pastures <br />to grow. These same salmon would be required to <br />clear Canadian customs when returning to their <br />natal streams to spawn. Unfortunately, fIsh artd <br />environmental problems show little regard for the <br />boundaries that derme our territories. <br />Selecting the middle of adjoining rivers as the <br />boundary between countries and states has made <br />management of these systems difficult. Mid-river <br />state boundaries are especially common in the <br />Mississippi River watershed. Consequently, 28 <br />states, the Federal Government, and numerous <br />Indian tribes share responsibility for management <br />of the resources in the Mississippi River basin. In <br />addition, the Federal Government has divided the <br />responsibility for fIsheries, water, and habitat be- <br />tween 37 agencies within 9 executive-level depart- <br />ments. It would be difficult to design a more com- <br />plicated management system for river resources. <br />But even worse, the Federal Government, as well <br />as many of the states, is organized by constituent <br />group (recreational, commercial, aquaculture) and <br />salinity (freshwater vs. marine). Most of our <br />coastal states have separate management agen- <br />cies for sport and commercial fIsheries. The fish do <br />not realize this of course, and essential decision <br />making with regard to water quality and habitat <br />maintenance has become bogged down as states <br />engage in "turf battles. II Governments also squab- <br />ble over states rights versus federal rights versus <br />tribal rights, while the health of rivers has been <br />lost. <br />The range, difficulty, and complexity of chal- <br />lenges that confront managers of the multiple <br />jurisdictions affecting a river system are stagger- <br />ing. But if we can put differences and squabbling <br />aside and overcome the multiple-jurisdiction <br />problems to build systemwide approaches to navi- <br />gation and electrical power, why can't we develop <br />systemwide approaches that include fIsh and <br />wildlife? The rule-making process created these <br />circumstances, and it is the rule-making process <br />that can lead to change; however, priorities will <br />have to change. . <br />