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!

Trout Unlimited Statement on the Delaware River Flows

Joe D

Registered User
Trout Unlimited Statement on the Delaware River Flows
“A river is more than an amenity, it is a treasure. It offers a necessity of life that must be rationed among those who have power over it.”
-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1931 Delaware River Diversion Case

Trout Unlimited (TU) is dedicated to the ecological preservation of the Upper Delaware River environment and its trout fisheries. Because of this, our organization and its New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania Councils cannot support the reservoir release schedules that are contained within the interim Flexible Flow Management Program (FFMP) due to the significant damage these releases will bring to the Delaware River’s ecosystem. In particular, under the interim releases the trout fisheries of the Upper Delaware River’s main stem will be lost due to lethal rises in water temperatures and loss of habitat. Additionally, the interim release schedule harms American shad populations and habitat, dwarf wedge mussels and other fish and wildlife as well as the recreational tourist economy of the Upper Delaware region. TU does, however, support in principle the FFMP adaptive release concept to address the flow management issues in the Delaware River basin.

It is well documented that there is more than enough water in the Upper Delaware River for all the Decree Parties and for healthy aquatic habitat for trout, shad, and the many other species that live in and along the Neversink, East and West branches, and Main Stem of the river. The current constraint under which the FFMP is modeled, however, is invalid, biased, and inflexible:

• New York City’s annual diversions from Neversink, Pepacton, and Cannonsville reservoirs over the past ten years have averaged 508 mgd. Yet the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) has consistently required that all OASIS modeling of future scenarios consider an annual New York City diversion of 765 mgd. This means that over 290 mgd is available for ecosystem benefits downstream of the reservoirs, not the 35 mgd that the DRBC is currently modeling.

• By imposing a release schedule calculated for extreme water supply diversions (765 mgd) when the actual annual average diversions are much lower (508 mgd), the DRBC’s interim FFMP will result in far more reservoir spills and significantly higher reservoirs each year than the OASIS model currently predicts. This is wasteful and irresponsible management of the Delaware River’s water.

• New York City’s annual average diversions have been decreasing over the past 15 years, and they are not projected to increase for the foreseeable future.

Given New York City’s average diversions and the resulting additional water in the Upper Delaware River, the following changes will correct the deficiencies of the FFMP with no risk to any of the Decree Parties’ water rights and availability.

(1) The releases in the interim FFMP must be increased. Higher reservoir releases from Cannonsville are needed from May to September to protect trout habitat in the lower West Branch and Main Stem Delaware River. Similarly, higher release rates are required for the Neversink and East Branch tributaries to protect against low flows and high water
temperatures. In light of the large quantity of available water that will not be diverted to New York City and will eventually find its way downstream as spillage over the dams, TU cannot accept any FFMP without an increase in releases from all three reservoirs. The OASIS model can substantiate this, and the DSS model verifies the considerable habitat gains for the rivers.

(2) More release levels and seasons are necessary in the interim FFMP. The interim FFMP structure is very inflexible; during most summers, releases will remain in L2 more than 75 percent of the time. At a minimum, additional graduated levels need to be added to both the L1 and L2 Storage Zone. The FFMP will also benefit from additional seasons, particularly because of traditional water temperature and flow problems in mid- to late-May, early-June, and the summer period through mid-September whenever Montague flow target releases are not made.

(3) Weekly averaging of the Montague flow target is needed. The wildly fluctuating releases that result from the efforts to meet Montague flow target shortages must be eliminated. These extreme daily variances create dangerous water temperature fluctuations to the biota and disrupt various forms of recreation on the rivers. Proactive directed releases must be based on a weekly average target rather than daily variances. Anticipated hydropower generation releases from the Lackawaxen and Mongaup rivers make this entirely feasible and such a weekly averaging should be instituted immediately. Using anticipated water diversions, anticipated Montague target releases, and projected hydropower releases, the Rivermaster can institute a weekly Montague release that accounts for these factors and eliminates these harmful and unnecessary daily fluctuations.

(4) Directed releases for the Montague flow target must be balanced from the reservoirs. Some portion of the Montague releases should be apportioned as necessary to the East Branch and Neversink rivers when the Rivermaster requires water releases for the Montague flow target. Such an allocation in releases will provide more aquatic habitat to the three tailwaters and help avoid draining Cannonsville during dry years.

(5) A formal annual review of the FFMP is mandatory. A process must be established to provide for an annual review of the FFMP to assess its performance. Consistent review, analysis, and response are needed to address any of its shortcomings and incorporate new research. Because these aquatic environments are extremely sensitive, we stress the need for the DRBC to maintain the ability to act quickly at times to avoid long-term environmental damage from loss of aquatic habitat. Any formal process to review and respond to new information or environmental conditions must include the stakeholders and not be unnecessarily hindered by the bureaucratic process.

TU recognizes the extraordinary efforts that are necessary for the equitable apportionment and management of the Upper Delaware watershed for both the DRBC and the Decree Parties. We recognize that management needs for these rivers will remain dynamic and require constant assessment. By implementing the above courses of action to correct the deficiencies of the interim FFMP, the DRBC and the Decree Parties can use their power to significantly improve the health of the Delaware River and its treasured trout fisheries—and with no risk to New York City or any other Decree Party’s water supplies or rights.
_________________
"If people don't occasionally walk away from you shaking their heads, you're doing something wrong." John Gierach
 
The public hearing will take place on Wednesday, January 16, 2008, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. or until all those who wish to testify have had an opportunity to do so; it will take place at the West Trenton Volunteer Fire Company, 40 West Upper Ferry Road, West Trenton, N.J. Persons wishing to testify are asked to register in advance with the Commission Secretary at (609) 883-9500 ext. 224.

Written comments will be accepted through the close of business on Friday, January 18, 2008. All testimony and written comments submitted to the Commission during its previous hearings or comment period on the FFMP, including comments on the form of the FFMP that was published on the Commission’s website in February 2007, will be included in the administrative record for this action and need not be re-submitted. Written comments may be submitted by email to paula.schmitt@drbc.state.nj.us; by U.S. Mail to Commission Secretary, DRBC, P.O. Box 7360, West Trenton, NJ 08628-0360; or by fax to 609-883-9522. In all cases, the commenter’s name, affiliation and address should be provided in the comment document, and “FFMP” should appear in the subject line.
 
Interesting that there have been no comments on this post. TU initially seemed much more positive about FFMP. What changed I wonder?

Bruce
 
Interesting that there have been no comments on this post. TU initially seemed much more positive about FFMP. What changed I wonder?

Bruce

I wonder if anyone got the same email today from TU regarding their view of the FFMP.
 
Interesting that there have been no comments on this post. TU initially seemed much more positive about FFMP. What changed I wonder?

Bruce

Could it be that this was the strategy all along? That is, to get an "adaptive release" policy IN PLACE and then to fight for higher flows(scientifically supported, of course :) ) under THAT plan?

Just a guess.
 
I don't know and can't speculate on TU's strategy (or the DRBC's, for that matter); I'd prefer to let them do that. But each and every one of TU's most recently articulated points seem reasonable and worth pursuing. As a negotiating tactic, if you don't ask, you certainly never will get. TU has put out specific things to ask for.

I know the issue is complicated, but from my trips over the past fifteen years, I can definitely say that the rainbow population in the Main Stem has suffered recently and unless the current release formulas are changed to give them more water at the right times and temperature (dam releases as well as tributary viability), will continue their precipitous decline, perhaps to none.

Will we "settle" for self-sustaining trout populations limited only to the upper reaches of the West and East Branches? Time will tell. But right now I'd like to ask for more than that miserable scenario.
 
I don't know and can't speculate on TU's strategy (or the DRBC's, for that matter); I'd prefer to let them do that. But each and every one of TU's most recently articulated points seem reasonable and worth pursuing. As a negotiating tactic, if you don't ask, you certainly never will get. TU has put out specific things to ask for.

I know the issue is complicated, but from my trips over the past fifteen years, I can definitely say that the rainbow population in the Main Stem has suffered recently and unless the current release formulas are changed to give them more water at the right times and temperature (dam releases as well as tributary viability), will continue their precipitous decline, perhaps to none.

Will we "settle" for self-sustaining trout populations limited only to the upper reaches of the West and East Branches? Time will tell. But right now I'd like to ask for more than that miserable scenario.

Doesnt this alwasy come down to what was achievable at the time. I mean was it ever possible that something more beneficial to the trout would have happened. Just curious on your thoughts. I dont think many if any would say they dont want more water and more consistent releases.
 
Doesnt this alwasy come down to what was achievable at the time. I mean was it ever possible that something more beneficial to the trout would have happened. Just curious on your thoughts. I dont think many if any would say they dont want more water and more consistent releases.

MACFLY,

I think I understand you when you say things always come down to what was achievable at the time. Sure. I agree. I also think that when we underestimate what we all can do, before we try, we cut ourselves short, get "realistic" and shortchange ourselves. Sometimes I think only afterwards (months or even years later) do we really, really find out what actually COULD have been done "at the time." Anyway, this is getting all too philosophical for me.

What I really want to respond to is your last comment about "many ... would say..." I sure hope so! This is again where I agree with you. Everybody who has lasted through this thread should go back up to post #2 above and find out where to say it, where to send it and otherwise make up their own minds on how loud to say it. If not before this Friday, then say it again later. I'm sure there will be more opportunities. It's just that it's always, ALWAYS too premature to predict who listens.
 
I recently read something in either Fly Fishing or the TU Magizine where TU was not going to get involved in legal battles anymore. Maybe this is the result, a softer less combative approach.
 
EC,
There was a short article in American Angler about this. National wanted the softer approach, the local chapters were not happy about this approach. National went back to their original guidelines and will allow local chapters to get involved in legal battles. I believe access is what that was all about.
 
IMHO, The access issue is a battle of whether or not TU is a bottoms up or a top down organization. The National Board wanted to stay out of access issues - but access is important for the grass roots chapters, especially in the Western states. If the locals can't access streams they don't care as much about maintaining them. Most legal issues go up to National since they have the resources for legal action and most local chapters don't. National didn't want access issues to pull them away from conservation issues and made the policy that TU wouldn't get involved with access - their view was it is not a conservation issue and TU is a conservation organization. However, access is important to many local chapters and a compromise position was hammered out.

The Delaware issue was to get all sides together - which finally seems to be happening. The debate was pretty heated with an easy does it school and an in your face school. Now that the adaptive framework has been adopted, everybody now has a common path to getting more and more even releases. The flood people have common ground with the trout people too with the question of why do the reserviors have to be topped off all the time?
 
The problem with this approach - seeming to agree with the Flex Flow Plan and then, after it is in place, arguing that it is not enough to protect the river, is that is makes the river advocates look like a bunch of whiners who are never satisfied. I think the general public is going to get tired of this - after every "success" the fishermen are out complaining yet again.

But I'm only an expert in public image, not negotiating with the government. So maybe it is the best approach - it remains to be seen.
 
The problem with this approach - seeming to agree with the Flex Flow Plan and then, after it is in place, arguing that it is not enough to protect the river, is that is makes the river advocates look like a bunch of whiners who are never satisfied. I think the general public is going to get tired of this - after every "success" the fishermen are out complaining yet again.

Bingo! Here we have a man that thinks for himself. Not just one of the huddled masses.

Cdog
 
I do not know what approach is right.

For years the FUDR has held thier collective breath under the premiss tht there is enough water to release 600 CFS 24/7/365. The all or nothing approach.

The DRF has taken a more adaptive appoach based on modeling that call for minimum releases durring spefic blocks of time evoloving into the CP2 Plan
You could call this walk before you run approach.

TU has been hovering about for years but until recently has not been the front runner. Now it appears they have united the groups collective approach.

For years I have had one main opinion, that until the collective fish voices speak as one, it gives the powers that be the ability to sit back and watch the circus and do nothing.

From what I have read about tailwaters , a consistant flow is the most important thing.

Problem here compared to out west is that you dont have NYC out there. Western resovoirs are like the size of Rhode Island and a 1500 24/7 approach is common with no real concerns. Here we often get 1500 but as part of a see saw regime based on weather and down stream basin demands.

The net net is that this past summer the west branch hovered in the 200 - 400 range with the occasional thursday night dump in the 800 range. The fish in the west branch were fine. However with the low water conditions in the beaverkill swamp and the lower east branch, with the upper east having little to no effect once it passed Jaws, the Main stem was entirely dependant on the west branch, that did not release enough water to really help keep it cool enough, ergo a lot of rainbows in the lower west.

If the was to perpetuate year after year, the main stem rainbow fishery could suffer or migrate to the west branch inturn effect the west branch population of browns. Rock scissor paper browns win but all population degrade.

Ralph
 
Back
Top