2018 top 10 endangered waters

I came across this in the news today. I would be interested in the respectful articulation of opinion on this topic by members here.

Generally, my own is that any potential threat to fish and water quality is something I would rather see averted. This seems like a pretty clear threat.

Wow. Take no chances. By the way: Are there many lakes / rivers in the continental U.S. where pregnant women and children can pretty much eat fish every day i.e. no health advisory????

All Right!!! I see another mining thread brewing. Gentlemen, no low blows. Good Luck.

The problem with information of which you have provided it has little in the way of presenting clarity. Each of those scenarios presented are one sided with no opposing perspective.

As we have seen, the arguments pro and con about a mine bordering the BWCA is far more complicated than a paragraph or two claiming imminent destruction of that which we hold dear.

And we cannot secure our southern border with a wall because we might impact the Rio Grande? Seriously?

I for one, do not trust the environmental lobby as I have seen far to much misinformation and plain dishonesty which clouds a reasonable discussion. They typically paint worst case "sky is falling" scenarios which are often over the top.

If we were to believe their continuous dire warnings you would think the United Sates had not cleaned up its act considerably from the 60's 70's and 80's. Air and water quality has VASTLY improved including a reduction in so called "green house gas" emissions.

If we keep getting ourselves so bound up in red tape that we cant operate, all based on emotionally based unsound arguments, we can look forward to all sots of unintended consequences (like poverty and misery). Plenty of very harsh laws on the books already which punish bad actors who pollute.

oth: " Wow. Take no chances. By the way: Are there many lakes / rivers in the continental U.S. where pregnant women and children can pretty much eat fish every day i.e. no health advisory????"

I would research that a little more.

The current administration is not environmental friendly, so expect more than endangered water in the future!

bobbernumber3: "The current administration is not environmental friendly, so expect more than endangered water in the future!"

Who told they they are not environmentally friendly? We can drill in Anwar and the caribou will be just fine thank you very much.

Point being, you don't have to subscribe to radical environmentalism to have common sense policies which still include clean air and clean water. I keep hearing Trump this and Trump that but please show me where the results of this administrations common sense policies are anything other than overwhelmingly beneficial.

100% of sulfide mines have caused significant environmental damage and pollution. Those who should not be trusted are those who say this one will be different. They also told us the previous mines would be clean and not cause any damage and they were 100% incorrect.

mastertangler: "Who told they they are not environmentally friendly? "

Really? Are you that uninformed? You have to be told what to know?

Can you trust National Geographic as a source??

Link

Gadfly: "100% of sulfide mines have caused significant environmental damage and pollution. Those who should not be trusted are those who say this one will be different. They also told us the previous mines would be clean and not cause any damage and they were 100% incorrect. "

How many mining companies leave their mining activity areas in the same pristine condition as which they found them? Sure, they are supposed to, but how many actually do? This specific type of mine leaves residues for way longer than our lifetimes. Being from Florida, we all know what mitigation and land trading means. This is a bad deal across the board. Money talks. We need to figure it out without endangering the little bit of untainted land remaining.

We all have a love of canoe country for what it is today. If we don't protect it, it will be gone, at least the way it is today.

This thread needs to be moved to the General Discussion forum. I don’t want to read about another mining thread or a political thread like this one is turning into. I want to read about lures, Leeches and slip bobbers in the fishing forum.

Interesting to see these reports have all water in the BWCAW being polluted for 500 years, with fish and every form of aquatic vegetation dying as a result of a mine that does not exist!!! :)

SV, I get it. I posted in fishing because I am genuinely interested in the perspective of those who fish - a group that tends to be a little more diverse than those I generally run around with though we are bound with the common love of fishing.

I did come across this in Nat Geo and post a link that does unfortunately overly politicize the topic with a bias against our current executive and legislative branches. It is not my intent to criticize the president or any party, only have a respectful dialogue about whether or not others believe this to be a threat to fish and fishing.

MT, I agree. If copper mining would alleviate human suffering, poverty or hunger, there are sacrifices that we should make. I hope to enjoy a discussion that will cause us all to think about the risks and benefits.

bobbernumber3: "

mastertangler: "Who told they they are not environmentally friendly? "

Really? Are you that uninformed? You have to be told what to know?


Can you trust National Geographic as a source??


Link "

Want to talk about the first one in your link? The threatened species rule where environmentalists have been granted special standing in court to bring suits wether they are legitimate or not and thus tie the hands of just about anybody in layers upon layers of expensive red tape? Often for years and years.........and all by merely suggesting that it might have some impact on a species which is "threatened" (not endangered). I wonder who gets to make that determination? Does that sound like a good law to you? It doesn't to me.

Everybody wants their cake and eat it to. I wonder how many folks would do without all the products which makes life so very civilized as they demand an end to mining, and end to oil and gas production etc. etc. Get rid of your smart phone, ditch the car, heat your home with wood you hand cut and I will have enormous respect for your point of view.

Purely political propaganda. Take the endangered Mississippi River Gorge in above link for instance. Suddenly after 101 years of existence, Lock and Dam Number 1 (AKA the Ford Dam) is a threat to an opportunity for untamed river flow through the Twin Cities. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

mastertangler: "

bobbernumber3: "

mastertangler: "Who told they they are not environmentally friendly? "

Really? Are you that uninformed? You have to be told what to know?



Can you trust National Geographic as a source??



Link "

Want to talk about the first one in your link? .... "

bobbernumber3: "

mastertangler: "Who told they they are not environmentally friendly? "

Really? Are you that uninformed? You have to be told what to know?



Link "

translates to: how dare you disagree with me

Dances with Sheep: "

bobbernumber3: "

mastertangler: "Who told they they are not environmentally friendly? "

Really? Are you that uninformed? You have to be told what to know?



Link "

translates to: how dare you disagree with me"

Its all good..........Bobber has strong opinions and is completely convinced that those with a differing point of view concerning the Trump administrations environmental policies are in egregious error. He is a passionate defender of what we all hold as supremely important, wild places. I applaud that and we have that in common.

I am not so quick, however, to jump on the "destroy Trump" bandwagon. It seems to me the country can have economic progress and the prosperity and the security that prosperity provides and still have common sense environmental regulations which don't cripple our ability to compete in what is a global marketplace.

What we have had previously is an unaccountable EPA which passes law after law with little regard for the cost / benefit analysis. Huge costs for little gains is not wise IMO. Lets be smart and not have knee jerk reactions to every action that the administration takes. If the results are unacceptable we can react. But for now lets have a wait and see attitude..........prosperity often brings its own solutions to problems as R&D can be utilized via venture capitalists who see the potential for bringing on new types of energy. Whoever can figure out how to replace fossil fuels will be the richest person on the planet........thats quite an incentive.

Ely had several mines late 1800’s and early to mid-1900’s.
Question for everyone. What kind of regulations did they have back then if any.
So would that mean all they lakes are already polluted from mining.
I have not heard that they are contaminated…

sheephead: "Ely had several mines late 1800’s and early to mid-1900’s.
Question for everyone. What kind of regulations did they have back then if any.
So would that mean all they lakes are already polluted from mining.
I have not heard that they are contaminated…
"

This is a different type of mining with a much more dangerous byproduct.

sheephead: "Ely had several mines late 1800’s and early to mid-1900’s.
Question for everyone. What kind of regulations did they have back then if any.
So would that mean all they lakes are already polluted from mining.
I have not heard that they are contaminated…
"

Well to be fair it seems to me that the scale of mining back in days of long ago would be completely different than what we are capable of doing now given the equipment advances involved. The potential for a catastrophic mishap is exponentially increased due to the sheer volume of material being extracted. I am somewhat ignorant about mining but that seems a very basic and plausible concern historically speaking????

mastertangler: " Lets be smart and not have knee jerk reactions to every action that the administration takes. If the results are unacceptable we can react. But for now lets have a wait and see attitude "

The problem with this approach is that it takes time for policies, especially environmental, to bear their full effects. 1 year or even 4 years is nothing in this type of time line. What we should all be in agreement on is that the current administration is more concerned with economic output than environmental protection, compared to previous administrations. This is clearly evidenced with things like coal regulation, an executive order to rescind the Clean Water Act, a House bill to sell off federal public land for development, and in our case renewing the mining leases for Antofagasta and canceling the environmental impact study.

The questions we need to ask, are:
- What is the economic impact of the mine? How much of the revenue created will stay in Ely, how much in the US, and how much will go back to Chile?
- What is the economic impact of the Boundary Waters tourism industry?
- What is the likelyhood that the new type of mining will pollute the BWCA to the point where it harms the tourism industry?

Weighing all of those will tell you if it's a good economic choice, and then of course you have to weigh that against the more obvious effect of potentially destroying one of the most beautiful areas of our state.

SoMpls: an executive order to rescind the Clean Water Act"

Although I am in complete favor of NOT allowing the type of mining proposed anywhere near the BWCA, are you sure about that item?

AmarilloJim: "

SoMpls: an executive order to rescind the Clean Water Act"

Although I am in complete favor of NOT allowing the type of mining proposed anywhere near the BWCA, are you sure about that item?"

Clean Water Rule***, thanks for catching that.

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/statement_of_sportsmen_on_the_clean_water_rule

AmarilloJim: "

SoMpls: an executive order to rescind the Clean Water Act"

Although I am in complete favor of NOT allowing the type of mining proposed anywhere near the BWCA, are you sure about that item?"

They meaning Trump and Pruitt have talked about doing that.

Ladies and Gentleman what is overtly obvious is that the EPA has gotten to big and to powerful and is filled with unaccountable bureaucrats (non elected) who churn out more and more legislation on a continuous basis and its time to reign them in. Thousands of people whose entire reason for existence is to curtail economic activity and try to micro manage not only public lands but private lands as well.

If an administration ever wanted to curtail Americas economic might the way to do it would be through excess regulation where companies would have to have an army of lawyers just to be up to speed with ever changing laws, then spend endless dollars on impact studies which might take years only to find out your project has been suddenly stopped because there is a certain type of snail present and your being sued in court.....more money and you haven't even started. Madness!

So yes, this administration understands that producers need their hands untied and can go forth with their activities and can provide jobs and prosperity for people who want to work. If we get bad actors who pollute throw the book at them and fine them out of existence.

Trump, Pruitt, and others of their ilk ignore EPA's mission, which they are bound to uphold. It has nothing to do with jobs creation or pandering to fossil fuel companies:

"The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment."

Yes, that is what it still says on the official government website.
Our Mission and What We Do

Dances with Sheep: "

bobbernumber3: "

mastertangler: "Who told they they are not environmentally friendly? "

Really? Are you that uninformed? You have to be told what to know?



Link "

translates to: how dare you disagree with me"

Yes. That was the message I was getting. So I deleted my comment.

Thanks for your kind followup comments MT.

SoMpls: "

sheephead: "Ely had several mines late 1800’s and early to mid-1900’s.
Question for everyone. What kind of regulations did they have back then if any.
So would that mean all they lakes are already polluted from mining.
I have not heard that they are contaminated…
"

This is a different type of mining with a much more dangerous byproduct. "

Sulfur was mined in the area. There is on old sulfur mine by Babbitt. The water shed from that mine flows into Birch Lake which flows into the bwca.

So how is this mining different and much more dangerous then mining sulfur? What different dangerous byproduct?

Can we get away from the politics for a min so someone can explain how to mine fish to me? Cant find anything on google.

My opinion.....

While I completely recognize that human existence on this planet will always have a cost to some other part of our environment I also recognize that excessive damage to the environment is possible.

I expect some landscapes to change, some species will fail to adapt and human needs will drive change on the planet. Also I realize we have the potential to cause unwanted excessive damage. Rivers should not start on fire, ever. Luckily I believe we have shown that it is possible to partially "recover" some environments such as lake Erie.

Using other known lobbies as a guide I am very very skeptical of the environmentalism lobby. If I had to guess I would say im more tolerant of mining practices than they would like me to be.

SoMpls: "

sheephead: "Ely had several mines late 1800’s and early to mid-1900’s.
Question for everyone. What kind of regulations did they have back then if any.
So would that mean all they lakes are already polluted from mining.
I have not heard that they are contaminated…
"

This is a different type of mining with a much more dangerous byproduct. "

There was sulfuric acid in the water dripping from the ceilings of the underground mines near Ely.
Rain gear prevented the miners clothes from getting holes in them from it.

inspector13: "Purely political propaganda. Take the endangered Mississippi River Gorge in above link for instance. Suddenly after 101 years of existence, Lock and Dam Number 1 (AKA the Ford Dam) is a threat to an opportunity for untamed river flow through the Twin Cities. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!"

+3

Yes, that one is pure fantasy.

sheephead: "Ely had several mines late 1800’s and early to mid-1900’s.
Question for everyone. What kind of regulations did they have back then if any.
So would that mean all they lakes are already polluted from mining.
I have not heard that they are contaminated…
"

A big difference would be early mines were underground and generated a lot less tailings for exposure to the elements to cause leaching and runoff.

Current mining practices are almost always open-pit with much more exposed rubble to the elements.

Reserve Mining Company, (now NorthShore Mining) has had rock dumps (overburden they strip off the taconite ore and dump in another area) that contain Copper/Nickel ore for going on 60 years.
These mine dumps have been exposed to the air and rain since then, and I haven't heard of any catastrophes occuring ??

The Great Outdoors: "Reserve Mining Company, (now NorthShore Mining) has had rock dumps .... and I haven't heard of any catastrophes occuring ??"

That would be good and a success!! The EPA Hazardous Waste Guidelines and Regulations enacted in the late 70's applied to the mining industry. And not everything you see coming out of a mine and dumped into piles is hazardous, of course.

You also have to look at the watershed around the Kawishiwi river and its physical makeup.
Like White Iron downstream the alkalinity or fertility is very low and has a pH of around 6.1 which is already acid. With no buffer capability because of the water being so sterile and additional acid runoff will push it down below 5pH. At that low level various fish will have difficulty when spawning with the eggs not hatching.
Look what happen in the northeastern U.S. like Maine. Because of acid rain they have lakes with zero fish present now. These were once good brook trout lakes.



Montana and its copper mining problems

I grew up in Maine and can second that. No one back there seems to believe me, but the trout fishing is vastly better here in California -- non-native but wild-reproducing trout in the sierras are far more numerous than wild brookies back home, and the various tailwaters and spring creeks out here mean BIG rainbows and browns.

Call me an extremist, but I honestly do not agree with this well-meant quote below. What I believe is that the planet is overrun by humans, and our quality of life is cheapened by this in many ways, and any few places that still are, or even feel, wild and unspoiled, should be guarded against development by tanks and fighter jets. And maybe a kayak navy :D

"If copper mining would alleviate human suffering, poverty or hunger, there are sacrifices that we should make."

But I thought all the BWCA lakes already died from acid rain years ago..

: "But I thought all the BWCA lakes already died from acid rain years ago.."

Actually Pinetree makes a valid point concerning acidifying effects on lakes and rivers. This possibility is certainly not to be discounted and waved off with a shrug of the shoulders. High content of acid makes for a sterile watershed.

An example of this is in Killarney Provincial Park where a number of the lakes in this beautiful area are completely devoid of any fish whatsoever due to high PH levels. I am not privy to the cause however and do not know if it was pollution or if it was naturally occurring.

I do remember acid rain being the big scare back in the 70's and there was much hullabaloo about that. Fortunately this country has done much the past several decades to achieve cleaner standards in our air and water and improve the quality of life.

I am currently reading "In the Kingdom of Ice" (the grand and terrible polar voyage of the USS Jeannette) by Hampton Sides (the same guy who wrote the fabulous read "Ghost Soldiers"). What I am struck by is the scientific and geographical consensus of that time period was convinced of warm open oceans at the north pole surrounded and protected by a belt of ice and if a ship could only penetrate this belt that clear sailing onward to the north pole could be had. The point being that despite the most knowledgable of perspectives, reality has a way of inserting itself.

Is the tailing area / dam much ado about nothing provided it is secured with modern technology? Or is it a potential fiasco? I honestly don't know. What would be interesting is to have an understanding of the consequences of worst case scenario and what the percentage of that happening...........and from an objective source (not the "hair on fire" radical environmental left who I am sure will describe an apocalyptic type event i.e. "if the mine is allowed it will be the end of life as we know it") and not from those who have a vested financial or political motivation.

I am sure an environmental impact study has been done. What does that say?

mastertangler: ....Fortunately this country has done much the past several decades to achieve cleaner standards in our air and water and improve the quality of life.
"

Yes... on this we agree. We probably don't agree on how cleaner standards were achieved, so I won't mention that.?

bobbernumber3: "

mastertangler: ....Fortunately this country has done much the past several decades to achieve cleaner standards in our air and water and improve the quality of life.
"

Yes... on this we agree. We probably don't agree on how cleaner standards were achieved, so I won't mention that.?
"

It is a complete nonsense to insinuate that the environmental left is wholly responsible for bringing about change in environmental standards. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Much of the national park system was brought about via a Republican president and the EPA was proposed by Richard Nixon who was a Republican if I'm not mistaken.

But yea, I get the narrative that the right wing wants dirty air and dirty water. It would be laughable except some folks actually believe this nonsense.

mastertangler: "

bobbernumber3: "

mastertangler: ....Fortunately this country has done much the past several decades to achieve cleaner standards in our air and water and improve the quality of life.
"

Yes... on this we agree. We probably don't agree on how cleaner standards were achieved, so I won't mention that.?
"

It is a complete nonsense to insinuate that the environmental left is wholly responsible for bringing about change in environmental standards. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Much of the national park system was brought about via a Republican president and the EPA was proposed by Richard Nixon who was a Republican if I'm not mistaken.

But yea, I get the narrative that the right wing wants dirty air and dirty water. It would be laughable except some folks actually believe this nonsense. "

Ouch, ouch... touchy. Sorry to have hit your nerve so hard. I told you we would not agree. I shoulda put it in quotes so you would know it was a joke.

Your response is like an aggressive SMB is a shallow bay rising to a lightly casted surface bait.

I don’t know enough about the pros and cons or the specifics to comment on them, but I can’t help but be bugged that the owner of the mining outfit is from Chile. Chile? I’ll leave it at that.
I don’t care who’s right or what’s left. Definitely anti here. I may not know much, but I know enough to know that.

Don't like them don't like them foreigners, eh?

And you said this thread would not get political, just like every mining thread.

scat: "I don’t know enough about the pros and cons or the specifics to comment on them, but I can’t help but be bugged that the owner of the mining outfit is from Chile. Chile? I’ll leave it at that.
I don’t care who’s right or what’s left. Definitely anti here. I may not know much, but I know enough to know that."

I find it ironic that the foreign corporation owners argument commonly being used against the proposed mine are by some that own Subaru's, Toyotas, Volkswagens, Kia's, Saabs, Hondas, etc, and never seem to be concerned that these vehicles are made by foreign corporations, and the profits also go overseas!!
I'm not even gonna get into computers, cell phones, radios, etc that just about everyone owns?? :)

bobbernumber3: "

mastertangler: "

bobbernumber3: "

mastertangler: ....Fortunately this country has done much the past several decades to achieve cleaner standards in our air and water and improve the quality of life.
"

Yes... on this we agree. We probably don't agree on how cleaner standards were achieved, so I won't mention that.?
"

It is a complete nonsense to insinuate that the environmental left is wholly responsible for bringing about change in environmental standards. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.


Much of the national park system was brought about via a Republican president and the EPA was proposed by Richard Nixon who was a Republican if I'm not mistaken.


But yea, I get the narrative that the right wing wants dirty air and dirty water. It would be laughable except some folks actually believe this nonsense. "

Sorry to have hit your nerve so hard. I told you we would not agree. I shoulda put it in quotes so you would know it was a joke.


"

Um, which is it? Is it a joke.........or we would not agree on a substantive matter? I prefer clarity over agreement.

inspector13: "Take the endangered Mississippi River Gorge in above link for instance. Suddenly after 101 years of existence, Lock and Dam Number 1 (AKA the Ford Dam) is a threat to an opportunity for untamed river flow through the Twin Cities. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!"

Removing the ford dam is confusing to me. One of the reasons it was closed was to stop the carp and other invasive species from moving upstream. Now they propose to remove it???

jhb8426: "Removing the ford dam is confusing to me. One of the reasons it was closed was to stop the carp and other invasive species from moving upstream. Now they propose to remove it???"

Actually, Asian Carp DNA has been detected as far north as the Coon Rapids Dam.

It is not about dam removal. It is about publicity. I believe that the America’s Rivers organization (the ones who put out this list) is for the protection of our rivers as PETA is to preventing animal cruelty. Both are extremist political organizations.

Did you read the one about the Kinnickkinnic which is also on the list? The City of River Falls already has target dates for the removal of those dams.