Welcome to NEFF

Sign up for a new account today, or log on with your old account!

Give us a try!

Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!

East Branch Delaware River - NYS DEC Application

TR

"You can observe a lot just by watching." Y. Berra
Good morning.

Would anybody know what these "boulder clusters" would be for?


-------

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Notice of Complete Application


Date: 03/28/2012

Applicant: WILD TROUT FLYRODDERS INC 5440 RTE 30 EAST BRANCH, NY 13756

Facility: TOMANNEX STATE FOREST BUMP RD HANCOCK, NY

Application ID: 4-1236-00430/00003

Permits(s) Applied for: 1 - Section 401 - Clean Water Act Water Quality Certification 1 - Article 15 Title 5 Stream Disturbance

Project is located: in HANCOCK in DELAWARE COUNTY

Project Description:

The applicant proposes to conduct a fish habitat improvement project on the East Branch of the Delaware River by placing boulder clusters in 15 different locations for a total disturbance of 300 feet within the waters of the East Branch adjacent to Tommanex State Forest. The project is located on property owned by NYSDEC and the applicant will be required to secure a Temporary Revocable Permit from NYSDEC to conduct the work. The project is located off State Highway 30 west of Shinhopple, between Shinhopple and Houck Mountain Road.

Availability of Application Documents:

Filed application documents, and Department draft permits where applicable, are available for inspection during normal business hours at the address of the contact person. To ensure timely service at the time of inspection, it is recommended that an appointment be made with the contact person.

State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Determination

Project is an Unlisted Action and will not have a significant impact on the environment. A Negative Declaration is on file. A coordinated review was not performed.

SEQR Lead Agency None Designated

State Historic Preservation Act (SHPA) Determination

Cultural resource lists and map have been checked. No registered, eligible or inventoried archaeological sites or historic structures were identified at the project location. No further review in accordance with SHPA is required.

Availability For Public Comment

Comments on this project must be submitted in writing to the Contact Person no later than 04/19/2012 or 15 days after the publication date of this notice, whichever is later.

Contact Person

MARTHA A BELLINGER

NYSDEC

65561 STATE 10

STAMFORD, NY 12167-9503

(607)652-7741

###
 
TR,

I do not know exactly what they are for...But the applicant, Wild Trout Flyrodders is a FFF affiliated flyfishing club started and run by Glen Erickson...Glen has a weekend house on the Upper East and is a diehard EB flyfisherman... In the past he told me that he wanted to try and put some improvements in the river which would help with some siltation and enhance habitat... At the time He said he was talking with an engineer, he must be trying to move his plan forward....
 
This would be the same gentleman that put the huge boulders upstream of Long Flat? In the opinion of a guide up there that did nothing but hurt that stretch. The boulders were monsters, like smart Volkswagon Beetles.
 
This would be the same gentleman that put the huge boulders upstream of Long Flat? In the opinion of a guide up there that did nothing but hurt that stretch. The boulders were monsters, like smart Volkswagon Beetles.


-------

The complete NYS DEC application can be accessed by clicking the following link:

East Branch Delaware River - NYS DEC Application

State land.

Photos, maps and the applicant's rationale.

12 noon readings on the UDR system:

041712.png
Data courtesy of USGS / Graphic: ::Fishing Report for the Upper Delaware River - Catskills - Poconos:: New York and Pennsylvania

TR
in Narrowsburg
 
Wouldn't adding that many boulders to the river raise the height of the water?

Sorta like if Anarctica melted that would flood only of the tip of South America.

I don't see a problem with either one of those.
 
If done properly it would create and /or increase habitat by allowing a channel to form below the boulder clusters. The exact location would determine the depth of the channel or "hole" it creates as would any additional flow velocity.

Most of the proposed section of river is fairly nondescript and the additional cover and channel deepening would add character to the water. Additional cover in this section of the East Branch would be beneficial to the trout.
 
If done properly it would create and /or increase habitat by allowing a channel to form below the boulder clusters. The exact location would determine the depth of the channel or "hole" it creates as would any additional flow velocity.

Most of the proposed section of river is fairly nondescript and the additional cover and channel deepening would add character to the water. Additional cover in this section of the East Branch would be beneficial to the trout.



-------


The East Branch Delaware River is listed to be a navigable river by New York State.

I wonder how those large boulders will affect navigability on the EB since they are being placed on New York state owned land / riverbed (Tommanex) by a private party who had already completed a similar project on private lands at a smaller scale a few years ago on the same river.

See attached site plan filed by applicant.

Not sure how the National Park Service would welcome the same project if, for instance, a private individual wanted to do the same on the Main Stem UDR.

My guess is that it wouldn't go through.


Kindest regards,

TR





eastbranch.jpg
 
-------

The East Branch Delaware River is listed to be a navigable river by New York State.

I wonder how those large boulders will affect navigability on the EB since they are being placed on New York state owned land / riverbed (Tommanex) by a private party who had already completed a similar project on private lands at a smaller scale a few years ago on the same river.

See attached site plan filed by applicant.

Not sure how the National Park Service would welcome the same project if, for instance, a private individual wanted to do the same on the Main Stem UDR.

My guess is that it wouldn't go through.


Kindest regards,

TR

I guess one has to ask oneself if he is more concerned with trout and the benefit to their ecosystem OR with how difficult it may be to maneuver a boatload of clients down the river.

Isn't it "environment first"?
 
the river's navigability will not be impacted by the improvements, as the river's flow needs to be fairly high in the first place for the river to be floatable ( its not exactly the kind of water that is suited for a drift boat unless its high water conditions). At floatable flows, the river will be up and a place to float through shouldn't be hard to find. Worst comes to worse you walk the boat through along the bank
 
I guess one has to ask oneself if he is more concerned with trout and the benefit to their ecosystem OR with how difficult it may be to maneuver a boatload of clients down the river.

Isn't it "environment first"?

-------

Uh-oh. Here we go... here come the flotilla of driftboats.

My question really concerned private equity / private individuals making "improvements" to public land and streambeds knowing that a New York stream has been deemed navigable for far longer than the East Branch has been a tailwater coldwater fishery with the construction of Pepacton (c. 1954 / 1955).

See:
NY Code - Article 3: NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE STATE

John, I don't float the upper EB so it's really not a concern to me specifically - however there are those that canoe it upstream of Harvard, NY to East Branch and then down to Hancock.

My point was that I don't believe that private individuals would not receive permission from the National Park Service to place obstructions (except for bridges and exisiting coffer dams), for whatever purpose, at certain locations on the main stem UDR (federal water) riverbottom / streambed without an uproar from the canoe lobby, liveries and individuals.

TR
 
You can always count on FF to provide the political and social impact dialogue. Have yet to see a fishing report/tid bit from the man in my 10 years on the forum
 
Last edited:
It's not on National Park Service water so what the park service would or wouldn't do isn't an issue. It's first about fish habitat and the fish. If navigability were a concern the state would dredge a channel for safe passage.

It's a fortunate thing that there are private individuals who are willing to enhance and maintain fish habitat at their expense on public water for the benefit of every angler. These projects are things that unfortunately the DEC can't afford to do on their own. If the DEC finds that the project is detrimental to the environment then they can deny the permit.
 
Have yet to see a fishing report/tid bit from the man in my 10 years on the forum

I don't know about that.

After all his description of apple wood for BBQing hog is very close to a fishing report if you ask me.
 
TR;207594Uh-oh. Here we go... here come the flotilla of driftboats.[/FONT said:
My question really concerned private equity / private individuals making "improvements" to public land and streambeds knowing that a New York stream has been deemed navigable for far longer than the East Branch has been a tailwater coldwater fishery with the construction of Pepacton (c. 1954 / 1955).

See:
NY Code - Article 3: NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE STATE

John, I don't float the upper EB so it's really not a concern to me specifically - however there are those that canoe it upstream of Harvard, NY to East Branch and then down to Hancock.

My point was that I don't believe that private individuals would not receive permission from the National Park Service to place obstructions (except for bridges and exisiting coffer dams), for whatever purpose, at certain locations on the main stem UDR (federal water) riverbottom / streambed without an uproar from the canoe lobby, liveries and individuals.

TR

I'm sorry TR.
I must have jumped to conclusions.
I read way too much into your post.
You were concerned with canoers; got it.

You can always count on FF to provide the political and social impact dialogue. Have yet to see a fishing report/tid bit from the man in my 10 years on the forum.

This is a flyfishing forum?


What's flyfishing?

---------- Post added at 07:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 AM ----------

I don't know about that.

After all his description of apple wood for BBQing hog is very close to a fishing report if you ask me.

But those posts get all the attention.

I'm sorry about offering free apple wood to my fellow board members that I delivered to one individual so he could smoke meat for a free bamboo event for OTHER board members (an event I did not even attend...) ;) I'm sorry for trying to help him find a local pig for his NEXT free event for fellow board members... I guess trying to be a nice guy goes unappreciated by SOME PEOPLE.

And Jeepers... just days ago I offered a flyfishing tid bit about my fail on the West Branch... Ya see, at the very LEAST Fly14 missed THAT one. But he catches all my political/social posts. I do it for him and others like him. They don't give a shit about my mediocre at best fishing skills and experiences.... ;)
 
-------

Uh-oh. Here we go... here come the flotilla of driftboats.

My question really concerned private equity / private individuals making "improvements" to public land and streambeds knowing that a New York stream has been deemed navigable for far longer than the East Branch has been a tailwater coldwater fishery with the construction of Pepacton (c. 1954 / 1955).

See:
NY Code - Article 3: NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE STATE

John, I don't float the upper EB so it's really not a concern to me specifically - however there are those that canoe it upstream of Harvard, NY to East Branch and then down to Hancock.

My point was that I don't believe that private individuals would not receive permission from the National Park Service to place obstructions (except for bridges and exisiting coffer dams), for whatever purpose, at certain locations on the main stem UDR (federal water) riverbottom / streambed without an uproar from the canoe lobby, liveries and individuals.

TR
if u cant control a canoe or kayak around some rocks in basically frog water,,which the upper section is very slow..then staying on dry land is where you should be..
 
It's not on National Park Service water so what the park service would or wouldn't do isn't an issue...

--------

My point is if this project were on the Main Stem UDR, federal water under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, the likihood of Erickson's application would be denied just like somebody constructing an eel weir in the river unless it had been grandfathered in prior to 1978 of The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

A navigable river. That came first.

TR


------


These projects are things that unfortunately the DEC can't afford to do on their own. If the DEC finds that the project is detrimental to the environment then they can deny the permit.


Well, you're right about that one Joe. The state has very little funds to make "improvements" or accquistions on their public land.

By the way there are a few boulders at the New York State DEC Callicoon Access on the Main Stem near Callicoon Creek. Seems that NPS will no longer take responsibility for that access via UDC WU/RM meeting this past week.

Maybe Erickson wants them for his project?

Tight lines.

Be sure to use sulphurs next week.

TR
 
A navigable river. That came first.
TR

SO, if all the trout streams in America could be improved to benefit the habitat for trout but create some small obstacles for people navigating those trout streams, you'd be on the side of navigation?
 
... They don't give a shit about ....

WHOAaa there Future Beetle in training.

This isn't a Boy Scout post so lets get those emotions under check there.





Must be NY school teacher thing.
Or he thinks he is still out in his barn yard
talking to his goats... BAAaaaa fuck-it.
 
Last edited:
WHOAaa there Future Beetle in training.

This isn't a Boy Scout post so lets get those emotions under check there.





Must be NY school teacher thing.
Or he thinks he is still out in his barn yard
talking to his goats... BAAaaaa fuck-it.


I get the sense FF is the kind of guy that is going to force his opinions on you regardless of others' lack of desire to engage in a political debate, the kinda guy who starts talking politics and religion after a few beers.
 
-------


John, I don't float the upper EB so it's really not a concern to me specifically - however there are those that canoe it upstream of Harvard, NY to East Branch and then down to Hancock.



TR
I dont see how these improvements would negatively affect canoe or pontoon boats...Personally, I do not see an advantage of driftboats on the Upper East unless it is well over 1000 cfs, at which point the boulders would not hinder navigation..

As others have said, this is pretty much a featureless pool that has been seeing growing pressure...There was a time when I would have pools on the EB to myself, now there are a dozen people squeezed into pools at times...These improvements, I believe, are meant to increase habitat and fishing opportunities...




I guess one has to ask oneself if he is more concerned with trout and the benefit to their ecosystem OR with how difficult it may be to maneuver a boatload of clients down the river.

I know Glenn, and DO NOT believe that he is doing this for anything other than trying to enhance the river that he loves...

My point was that I don't believe that private individuals would not receive permission from the National Park Service to place obstructions

Probably not...Unless they are a big corporation with Lobbing power and campaign contributions....
 
Probably not...Unless they are a big corporation with Lobbing power and campaign contributions....


----

Incredible!

theboulders.jpg

Sulphurs gents...sulphurs next week and it's NOT even the end of April in the Catskills!
 

Attachments

  • boulders.jpg
    boulders.jpg
    68.9 KB · Views: 357
Last edited:
I get the sense FF is the kind of guy that is going to force his opinions on you regardless of others' lack of desire to engage in a political debate, the kinda guy who starts talking politics and religion after a few beers.

It's funny how people can look at a situation an see two different things....

You can "sense" that I'm "forcing my opinions" but fail to address what you might have "sensed" about the intentions of the first post in this thread.

Did you not think that TR had a purpose when he posted this thread having to do with his opinion on the topic? Can't one engage in a "debate" based on a stated or implied opinion that someone has posed? TR brought it up; did he have a "lack of desire to engage in a political debate"?

But, yes, I'm more than happy to pose questions, based on his "opinion", that might be uncomfortable for one to answer. I can't "force" my opinion on anyone... and in fact, you really don't even "know" what my opinion is on this topic...

After a few beers, I'm more than happy to talk about the weather, but if you want to bring up a political opinion...
 
The structure and tone of your response shows what I'm talking about, its always an intellectual debate with you, and often revolves around politics, policy, ect. You only post to participate in, or even begin politically/social related posts and its obnoxious. This may not seem like a fishing forum at times , but its equally as difficult to argue its a political blog as you tend to make it. Its not just this series of posts, but ALL of your posts that I'm referring to. Can you attempt to contribute something that is directly related to fishing?(without arguing politics/social issues are directly related to fishing).
 
The structure and tone of your response shows what I'm talking about, its always an intellectual debate with you, and often revolves around politics, policy, ect. You only post to participate in, or even begin politically/social related posts and its obnoxious. This may not seem like a fishing forum at times , but its equally as difficult to argue its a political blog as you tend to make it. Its not just this series of posts, but ALL of your posts that I'm referring to. Can you attempt to contribute something that is directly related to fishing?(without arguing politics/social issues are directly related to fishing).

I can't stop shaking my head. You've been here TEN YEARS and I'M the one you call out as "obnoxious". Good one.

Here's a tip: Ignore me.

And equally funny is that your post is "liked" by a fellow guide whose posts HERE revolve around the political water wars... too much... ;)

Is he obnoxious, too? :)
 
Last edited:
--------

My point is if this project were on the Main Stem UDR, federal water under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, the likihood of Erickson's application would be denied just like somebody constructing an eel weir in the river unless it had been grandfathered in prior to 1978 of The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

A navigable river. That came first.

TR


------





Well, you're right about that one Joe. The state has very little funds to make "improvements" or accquistions on their public land.

By the way there are a few boulders at the New York State DEC Callicoon Access on the Main Stem near Callicoon Creek. Seems that NPS will no longer take responsibility for that access via UDC WU/RM meeting this past week.

Maybe Erickson wants them for his project?

Tight lines.

Be sure to use sulphurs next week.

TR

Well, you're right about that one Tony. If it were in the NPS water, but it's not, the NPS might look at it differently. But then again, its not an eel weir either, or even close to being one. Let's not confuse one set of regulations with another. Even the NPS has a precedent of improving and restoring fish habitat on their waters throughout the US.
 
Back
Top