HARRISBURG, Pa. - Pennsylvania's Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan for reducing pollution flowing into Chesapeake Bay can't meet its 2025 goals, but the Environmental Protection Agency is not taking required actions.

Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA is supposed to impose consequences on any Chesapeake Bay watershed state that fails to meet its goals under the Clean Water Blueprint.

According to Harry Campbell, executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in Pennsylvania, the Keystone State has a good plan, but it falls short of pollution reduction goals by 25% and is underfunded by more than $300 million a year.

"Without that resource investment in clean water, that plan will not be fully implemented," Campbell points out. "And a plan, no matter how good it is, is only as good as it's implemented."

The EPA has released its evaluation of the plan but did not take action to hold Pennsylvania accountable for its deficiencies.

Ninety percent of the pollution flowing into Chesapeake Bay comes from the watershed states, including Pennsylvania.

Campbell notes that the EPA has a variety of actions it can take when those states' pollution reduction efforts miss the mark.

"Withholding permits that EPA is obligated to review," he explains. "Making more farmers and municipalities and wastewater treatment plants obtain permits. Withholding or redirecting funding."

In 2010 the Chesapeake Bay Foundation sued the EPA for failing to uphold the Clean Water Act and in light of the agency's failure to act may consider doing so again.

But Campbell says ultimately, it's up to state lawmakers to ensure that the funding is there to help farmers control nutrient and sediment pollution and municipalities control storm water runoff that affects water quality in Pennsylvania and downstream,

"Any delay in supporting those folks working on the ground is another day we lose for flooding, fewer trees planted, cover crops that keep soils on the land and polluted runoff that impacts our rivers and streams, our drinking water, health and wellbeing," he states.

Campbell adds that Pennsylvania's 33,000 family farmers are working hard to reduce pollution, but they can't do it alone.

RUBY MOUNTAINS, Nev. -- Nevada is the driest state in the nation, yet few of its rivers and streams have federal protections.

Now a new report identifies the waterways most in need of safeguards. The study found the Truckee River, Lamoille Creek and Pine Creek in the Alta Toquima Wilderness meet the most criteria for protection.

Caitlin Littlefield, lead scientist for Conservation Science Partners, co-authored the report.

"As the climate continues to warm and as our population has grown, we place greater demands and stress on these freshwater resources," Littlefield explained. "We really run the risk of compromising their integrity and undermining how important they are ecologically."

Researchers evaluated the waterways on water quality, ecological importance and recreational value. The data should provide a baseline for wildlife agencies to designate the waterways as either outstanding national resource waters or as state or federal wild and scenic waters.

Russell Kuhlman, executive director of the Nevada Wildlife Federation, said the higher-elevation streams are crucial habitat for fish and other wildlife.

"The report highlights the ones in the Ruby Mountains that are so vital for our Lahontan cutthroat trout, the most iconic fish species that we have here, maybe along with the pupfish," Kuhlman pointed out.

The state currently is suffering though a multi-year drought, with water levels dropping daily at Lake Mead. Water agencies are bracing for cuts to agricultural customers, possibly by next year. New protections for state waterways could stand in the way of future development or mining projects.

DURANGO, Colo. - Colorado's rivers and streams supply drinking water and outdoor recreation opportunities, and support biodiversity and wildlife, but less than 4% are fully protected.

New research by Conservation Science Partners found the majority of the state's 15,000 unprotected river miles could qualify for Outstanding National Resource Waters designations. The group's lead scientist, Caitlin Littlefield, said Colorado waterways are under increasing threat due to climate change and population growth.

"We really need to get out ahead of these changes and protect these rivers and streams that have the most integrity as soon as we possibly can," she said. "It's not something we're going to regret, and will only serve our wildlife, and our ecosystems and our human needs, in the future."

The report, commissioned by The Pew Charitable Trusts, found the waterways meeting the most criteria for protections were in the western half of the state. It said Colorado's highest-value rivers - those that haven't been modified and contribute significant value to people, wildlife and ecosystems - include the headwaters of the Dolores River, Roubideau Creek and Taylor River.

Ashleigh Tucker, managing partner at 4Corners Riversports in Durango, said people travel great distances to experience Colorado's rivers and streams for paddle-boarding, rafting and fishing. She added that their value has become even more pronounced in the pandemic, when closures found more Coloradans seeking activities outdoors.

"Colorado's economy relies on outdoor recreation," she said, "and so it's definitely something that we need to be supporting and protecting for future generations, so that people can continue to come and see our beautiful rivers, and see them clean and free-flowing."

Outdoor recreation contributes $12.2 billion to the state's economy, according to the Outdoor Industry Association. Scientists identified a total of 662 river miles that scored in the top 25% statewide for meeting all Outstanding National Resource Waters criteria. Some 133 river miles ranked in the top 10% are headwater streams in the Gunnison, San Isabel and San Juan national forests.

---

Support for this reporting was provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Minnesota continues to battle aquatic invasive species in certain lakes. As the state fights these threats, there are calls for the Department of Natural Resources to develop a more robust management plan.

The state's overall blueprint for combating zebra mussels and other habitat-disrupting pests was written in 2009. DNR leaders have said they're putting a new plan together, with invasive species detected in more waterways this summer.

Jeff Forester, executive director of Minnesota Lakes and Rivers Advocates, said he hopes it's a comprehensive strategy, with better coordination of on-the-ground efforts.

"Nobody really knows what anybody else is doing, and it's not targeted toward specific and achievable goals. It's not coordinated," Forester said of the current plan.

He said the DNR should guide detailed collaboration between lake associations, county governments and others doing prevention work. The DNR has anticipated a new plan over the next year, and said it will include such information as the impact of climate change.

A bill in this year's Legislature called for a new management plan every five years. Ann Pierce, the DNR's deputy director of ecological and water resources, said that kind of timeline would require more federal reviews, potentially delaying prevention funding from Congress.

"Having to have the federal government have to review it, which takes time - sometimes up to a year - it's going to put kind of a roadblock in some of that annual granting process," she said.

However, Minnesota Lakes and Rivers has contended that those issues shouldn't be connected. It noted that the federal grants are a narrow scope in combating aquatic invasive species, and thinks the state should focus on its own plan. The bill's sponsor said there's room for compromise, but will keep pressing for urgency.

Carroll Schaal, lakes and rivers section chief for the Wisconsin DNR, which last updated its management plan in 2019, acknowledged that it was a big undertaking, and federal involvement was only one part of the approach.

"[The] federal money at stake isn't that significant," he said. "I mean, we're very appreciative of it. But you know, we're able to, with our own resources, adjust to the current conditions."

On the Minnesota side, the DNR said its planning doesn't prevent making an alteration if a crisis prompts one. But it insists required updates aren't optimal in carrying out a broader plan.