NJFred
Trout Hunter
Hi all,
Here is a letter from FUDR I recieved in my e-mail last night outlining why FDUR filed the intent to sue. Interesting reading.
FUDR’S LETTER OF INTENT
TO TOWN OF HANCOCK
BACKGROUND AND CLARIFICATION
In response to the widespread channelizing and dredging that has been done in the Township of Hancock after the recent flooding, on August 25th, FUDR filed a formal Sixty Day Notice of Intent to sue the Town citing serious violations of the Federal Clean Water Act. This action was taken after attempts to contact Town officials to explore alternatives and stop the destruction, were unsuccessful. In the ensuing weeks, as a result of this action, there has been considerable controversy surrounding FUDR and the filing of the Intent Letter. Much of this discussion has been emotional, much has been inaccurate, much misunderstood and some misrepresentative. My hope, with this letter, is to try to clarify and set the record straight.
Certainly, for FUDR to deny that we are concerned about the fishery, would contradict our mission and would be disingenuous. We do care. The wholesale channelizing has severely damaged – some permanently - every trout spawning tributary on the East Branch and many on the New York side of the main stem. Critical aquatic insect life has been obliterated, fish have been trapped in the excavations and died, and silting and erosion – a concern for both the environment and area residents - will be dramatically increased. However, FUDR’s action is far from being just about the wild trout, as some publicly argue. There are numerous, reputable hydrologic, scientific and environmental engineering studies and position papers published on the problems caused by channelizing. These expert scientific opinions illustrate that with the same amount of rain, channelizing increases both the volume and the velocity of the water in a channelized tributary. As an example, the upper most
channelized tributary on the East Branch will add increased volume and velocity as it enters the East Branch. As it travels downstream, each channelized tributary will do the same, that is, add increased water volume and velocity. These cumulative increases, tributary by tributary, become increasingly destructive the farther downstream they travel. Every tributary on the East Branch has been channelized. Depending on the amount of rain, the increased volume/velocity can be dramatic - and it can be dangerous. Channelizing is neither an immediate remedy, nor a long-term solution. The damage to wildlife, the damage to the environment and the increased dangers to floodplain residents are all among the reasons why channelizing is against Federal law, State law and, in many instances, Town law.
Some in the area who don’t understand the human and environmental dangers of widespread, massive channelizing have adopted the phrase “people over fish.” They publicly accuse me and this organization of caring more about the fish than people. I sincerely hope that comment is made from emotion, not conviction. In the recent flooding, people lost their homes, their family belongings, their jobs – and some their lives. To accuse this organization of caring more about catching a fish than these tragic losses is as callous as it is despicable.
In their reaction to the Letter of Intent, some have suggested that the widespread channelizing and dredging was in direct response to an emergency. There certainly were - and in some instances, there remain - critical emergencies: medical attention, evacuation, housing, relocation, infrastructure, social services that had to be addressed. It’s a tragically long list that rightfully includes the removal of flood related debris from the tributaries. Yet many of the large-scale excavation/channelizing projects didn’t begin until days - in some instances weeks - after the flooding had ended. Were these emergency measures? And it has also been publicly acknowledged, that one of the added benefits to the channelizing, was the opportunity for mining gravel from the tributaries for use on Town roads.
Another misunderstanding, is that FUDR is an organization of wealthy out-of-towners who care nothing of the region or its people; that our only concern is in pursuing a recreational interest in fly fishing. FUDR, much like any membership organization, does have some who are wealthy and some who certainly are not. Most members, like the average organization, fall somewhere in between. Many of our Board and our general members live in, or very near, the Town of Hancock, and a good many more live in communities along the Delaware River. Many of these members suffered property damage - some suffered severe property damage. All were affected. As travel restrictions began to ease, some of these members did in fact lend a helping hand to family, friends and neighbors. These same members also kept FUDR updated on the tragic state of affairs. We were genuinely heartsick. Shortly after the 4th of July holiday, I called Town Supervisor Sam Rowe and offered whatever help this
organization might be able to provide. He was appreciative. He has, in subsequent conversations with both myself and with others, confirmed my call and the fact that we were the only organization to make such an offer.
Contrary to the suggestions of some, FUDR has demonstrated a longstanding concern for the region and its residents. We have consistently stressed that a healthy, vibrant fishery would have a positive effect on the region’s economy. Does emphasizing this potential impact help us accomplish our mission regarding the fishery? Perhaps, to some limited extent. However, stressing the economic potential the fishery could bring, was intended far more to help increase awareness within the region of the valuable resource it has, a resource that could be marketed to the further benefit of the region. There are areas of common interest that this organization has long and publicly advocated. Chief among these has been our call for adequate and constant releases for the fishery. Such releases, in addition to helping the fishery, would lower full or high reservoir levels, important during flood prone periods. We’ve consistently argued that water should be released from the bottom
of reservoirs to, at least, equally offset reservoir spillage. In these areas, and I believe in other areas, we do have a common interest and a common opposition: the NYSDEC and the NYCDEP.
We would also point out, that for nearly a year before the recent flooding, we have stressed the need for scientific floodplain/tributary restoration. We sought out a firm that specializes in restoration. We developed, in concert with that firm, a long-term restoration program and we announced Phase I of that plan at a meeting of several state, local and Town officials, and the leadership other conservation organizations. The presentation was held at the Hancock Town Hall. During the presentation, the problems inherent with channelizing and dredging were clearly presented. Also clearly presented was that floodplain restoration, by far the largest part of the proposed Plan, was specifically intended to mitigate water volume and velocity from traveling downstream – a benefit to people and the environment, but of relatively little direct benefit to the fishery. Tributary restoration (especially below the floodplains) is the lesser aspect of the proposed plan and would be
of more direct benefit to stream stabilization and to the fishery. FUDR’s proposal detailed the need for substantial local official and citizen input and involvement (essentially a partnership), and for hiring local workers whenever possible.
We regret having to take the course of action we did - filing a Sixty Day Notice of Intent to sue. However, we would also point out that attempts to contact Town officials before sending the Letter, were not given the courtesy of a reply. Email sent to the Town, et al, pointing out the problems of channelizing, was apparently disregarded. It’s our understanding one of the reasons for a legally required sixty day Notice of Intent, before a suit can be brought, is to allow time for the opposing parties to see if a non court means can be found to correct the damage. FUDR attempted to do this on three separate occasions – Town officials rejected each of these attempts. Less than two days after Town officials received the Letter of Intent, Supervisor Rowe called and we had a long conversation, at the end of which we agreed to meet, to jointly tour the tributaries with independent restoration experts and to assess what could be done to correct the damage. I believe we each
felt the conversation ended on a positive and proactive note. Two days later, the Supervisor called and informed me that the meeting was off; that the Town Attorney wanted to “take the matter to court.” Apparently, despite this, two weeks later, the Supervisor did tour the tributaries with two members of the FUDR Board; we were later informed the Town Council opposed any further cooperative efforts. And again, over the Labor Day weekend, a NY State Assembly member offered to serve as an intervener; we agreed, were told the Supervisor agreed, however the Town Council rejected the Assembly member’s offer.
It’s unfortunate that Town officials didn’t seek the counsel of appropriate expertise either before or at the time the heavy equipment stopped removing debris and began channelizing. Scientifically based, comprehensive, tributary restoration that helps to safeguard both people and the environment - and that could have been done at the time – now desperately needs to be done. We remain hopeful that Town officials will reverse their decision and choose to work with this organization to properly correct the damage.
Sincerely,
Craig Findley
President
Friends of the Upper Delaware River
<www.fudr.org>
Here is a letter from FUDR I recieved in my e-mail last night outlining why FDUR filed the intent to sue. Interesting reading.
FUDR’S LETTER OF INTENT
TO TOWN OF HANCOCK
BACKGROUND AND CLARIFICATION
In response to the widespread channelizing and dredging that has been done in the Township of Hancock after the recent flooding, on August 25th, FUDR filed a formal Sixty Day Notice of Intent to sue the Town citing serious violations of the Federal Clean Water Act. This action was taken after attempts to contact Town officials to explore alternatives and stop the destruction, were unsuccessful. In the ensuing weeks, as a result of this action, there has been considerable controversy surrounding FUDR and the filing of the Intent Letter. Much of this discussion has been emotional, much has been inaccurate, much misunderstood and some misrepresentative. My hope, with this letter, is to try to clarify and set the record straight.
Certainly, for FUDR to deny that we are concerned about the fishery, would contradict our mission and would be disingenuous. We do care. The wholesale channelizing has severely damaged – some permanently - every trout spawning tributary on the East Branch and many on the New York side of the main stem. Critical aquatic insect life has been obliterated, fish have been trapped in the excavations and died, and silting and erosion – a concern for both the environment and area residents - will be dramatically increased. However, FUDR’s action is far from being just about the wild trout, as some publicly argue. There are numerous, reputable hydrologic, scientific and environmental engineering studies and position papers published on the problems caused by channelizing. These expert scientific opinions illustrate that with the same amount of rain, channelizing increases both the volume and the velocity of the water in a channelized tributary. As an example, the upper most
channelized tributary on the East Branch will add increased volume and velocity as it enters the East Branch. As it travels downstream, each channelized tributary will do the same, that is, add increased water volume and velocity. These cumulative increases, tributary by tributary, become increasingly destructive the farther downstream they travel. Every tributary on the East Branch has been channelized. Depending on the amount of rain, the increased volume/velocity can be dramatic - and it can be dangerous. Channelizing is neither an immediate remedy, nor a long-term solution. The damage to wildlife, the damage to the environment and the increased dangers to floodplain residents are all among the reasons why channelizing is against Federal law, State law and, in many instances, Town law.
Some in the area who don’t understand the human and environmental dangers of widespread, massive channelizing have adopted the phrase “people over fish.” They publicly accuse me and this organization of caring more about the fish than people. I sincerely hope that comment is made from emotion, not conviction. In the recent flooding, people lost their homes, their family belongings, their jobs – and some their lives. To accuse this organization of caring more about catching a fish than these tragic losses is as callous as it is despicable.
In their reaction to the Letter of Intent, some have suggested that the widespread channelizing and dredging was in direct response to an emergency. There certainly were - and in some instances, there remain - critical emergencies: medical attention, evacuation, housing, relocation, infrastructure, social services that had to be addressed. It’s a tragically long list that rightfully includes the removal of flood related debris from the tributaries. Yet many of the large-scale excavation/channelizing projects didn’t begin until days - in some instances weeks - after the flooding had ended. Were these emergency measures? And it has also been publicly acknowledged, that one of the added benefits to the channelizing, was the opportunity for mining gravel from the tributaries for use on Town roads.
Another misunderstanding, is that FUDR is an organization of wealthy out-of-towners who care nothing of the region or its people; that our only concern is in pursuing a recreational interest in fly fishing. FUDR, much like any membership organization, does have some who are wealthy and some who certainly are not. Most members, like the average organization, fall somewhere in between. Many of our Board and our general members live in, or very near, the Town of Hancock, and a good many more live in communities along the Delaware River. Many of these members suffered property damage - some suffered severe property damage. All were affected. As travel restrictions began to ease, some of these members did in fact lend a helping hand to family, friends and neighbors. These same members also kept FUDR updated on the tragic state of affairs. We were genuinely heartsick. Shortly after the 4th of July holiday, I called Town Supervisor Sam Rowe and offered whatever help this
organization might be able to provide. He was appreciative. He has, in subsequent conversations with both myself and with others, confirmed my call and the fact that we were the only organization to make such an offer.
Contrary to the suggestions of some, FUDR has demonstrated a longstanding concern for the region and its residents. We have consistently stressed that a healthy, vibrant fishery would have a positive effect on the region’s economy. Does emphasizing this potential impact help us accomplish our mission regarding the fishery? Perhaps, to some limited extent. However, stressing the economic potential the fishery could bring, was intended far more to help increase awareness within the region of the valuable resource it has, a resource that could be marketed to the further benefit of the region. There are areas of common interest that this organization has long and publicly advocated. Chief among these has been our call for adequate and constant releases for the fishery. Such releases, in addition to helping the fishery, would lower full or high reservoir levels, important during flood prone periods. We’ve consistently argued that water should be released from the bottom
of reservoirs to, at least, equally offset reservoir spillage. In these areas, and I believe in other areas, we do have a common interest and a common opposition: the NYSDEC and the NYCDEP.
We would also point out, that for nearly a year before the recent flooding, we have stressed the need for scientific floodplain/tributary restoration. We sought out a firm that specializes in restoration. We developed, in concert with that firm, a long-term restoration program and we announced Phase I of that plan at a meeting of several state, local and Town officials, and the leadership other conservation organizations. The presentation was held at the Hancock Town Hall. During the presentation, the problems inherent with channelizing and dredging were clearly presented. Also clearly presented was that floodplain restoration, by far the largest part of the proposed Plan, was specifically intended to mitigate water volume and velocity from traveling downstream – a benefit to people and the environment, but of relatively little direct benefit to the fishery. Tributary restoration (especially below the floodplains) is the lesser aspect of the proposed plan and would be
of more direct benefit to stream stabilization and to the fishery. FUDR’s proposal detailed the need for substantial local official and citizen input and involvement (essentially a partnership), and for hiring local workers whenever possible.
We regret having to take the course of action we did - filing a Sixty Day Notice of Intent to sue. However, we would also point out that attempts to contact Town officials before sending the Letter, were not given the courtesy of a reply. Email sent to the Town, et al, pointing out the problems of channelizing, was apparently disregarded. It’s our understanding one of the reasons for a legally required sixty day Notice of Intent, before a suit can be brought, is to allow time for the opposing parties to see if a non court means can be found to correct the damage. FUDR attempted to do this on three separate occasions – Town officials rejected each of these attempts. Less than two days after Town officials received the Letter of Intent, Supervisor Rowe called and we had a long conversation, at the end of which we agreed to meet, to jointly tour the tributaries with independent restoration experts and to assess what could be done to correct the damage. I believe we each
felt the conversation ended on a positive and proactive note. Two days later, the Supervisor called and informed me that the meeting was off; that the Town Attorney wanted to “take the matter to court.” Apparently, despite this, two weeks later, the Supervisor did tour the tributaries with two members of the FUDR Board; we were later informed the Town Council opposed any further cooperative efforts. And again, over the Labor Day weekend, a NY State Assembly member offered to serve as an intervener; we agreed, were told the Supervisor agreed, however the Town Council rejected the Assembly member’s offer.
It’s unfortunate that Town officials didn’t seek the counsel of appropriate expertise either before or at the time the heavy equipment stopped removing debris and began channelizing. Scientifically based, comprehensive, tributary restoration that helps to safeguard both people and the environment - and that could have been done at the time – now desperately needs to be done. We remain hopeful that Town officials will reverse their decision and choose to work with this organization to properly correct the damage.
Sincerely,
Craig Findley
President
Friends of the Upper Delaware River
<www.fudr.org>
