Misunderstandings

Facts

Flow and Temperature targets are meant to protect the cold-water fishery. 

The reality is that they actually hurt the trout fishery.  During high water table years less water is needed to satisfy a flow target, thus minimum releases are applied, resulting in warm water conditions.  During low water table years, high volume cold-water releases are necessary to satisfy flow targets.  DRBC, USGS and other public records show that, during the last few years, we have seen both situations occur, which led to almost catastrophic conclusions.  For example: The fall and winter of 2001 (a low water table year) a record amount of water (180 billion gallons) was dumped out of Cannonsville to satisfy the Montague flow target.  This depleted the reservoir to about 3% of capacity - very nearly destroying the entire West Branch and Upper main stem of the Delaware.  Last year the opposite situation applied.  We had record amounts of rainfall that filled the reservoirs to overflow capacity; the overflow largely satisfying the flow targets.  Despite existing regulations requiring they do so (671.3), the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) did not release cold water, sufficient to off set the warm water overflow, until the very end of the season.  Reservoir releases were cut to a minimum 45 cfs resulting in water temperatures rising to mid 70's in the West branch and 80's in the main stem. Under the current system, maintaining temperature targets don't work either.  First the temperature targets are too high to begin with, and second, it has been a guessing game as to when and how much to release, most often leading to miscalculations. It is precisely for these reasons that FUDR is advocating guaranteed releases.

Using the their proposed interim flow plan as the basis, the current DRBC OASIS model forecasts that the average summer flows on the West Branch, will be only slightly less than the historic 640 cfs average releases from the Cannonsville Reservoir.

There are at least two different OASIS forecasts and they are widely inconsistent. The OASIS model is simply a computer program and, like any computer program, the flows the model forecasts are based on the accuracy and completeness of the data put into the computer.  The forecast presented by the DRBC, is not the only forecast.  In its Summary application (a matter of public record) to the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission, PPL, based on their data and their runs of the OASIS model, forecast flows at Callicoon of between 600 and 900 cfs, most especially in August, far below the average of nearly 1400 cfs for the same periods.  Further, PPL's forecast would necessarily have to include inflows from the East Branch/Beaverkill and nearly a dozen tributaries; severely reducing releases from Cannonsville.  Flows that low at Callicoon have only occurred twice in the past twenty-five years – and there were fish kills.  It is this kind of conflicting information that has, in part, led FUDR to push for guaranteed minimum releases.   

In their October, '03, minutes, the Sub Committee on Ecological Flows (SEF is the committee responsible for both developing the overall basin plan and for management of the proposed related 'studies;' including those relating to the fishery) one of the committee's stated objectives was to 'remanage' large portions of these same rivers as warm water fisheries.  As stated in those minutes: "The warm water system of the Upper Delaware continues downstream from Hankins, the Beaverkill confluence, and Bridgevill down to Montague."  This objective was abandoned after FUDR, began to strongly and publicly object to the 'remanagement' of these classic coldwater trout fisheries.  It must also be realized that it is the Cannonsville Reservoir – and not the Pepacton or Neversink reservoirs – that provides the cold water releases critical for the wild trout fishery of both the West Branch and upper main stem, and it these waters that are currently the most severely threatened by the proposed plan.  Accordingly, the Cannonsville releases are FUDR's most immediate, but certainly not its only, priority – as the action described above demonstrates.  It should also be realized, that the upper portions of the East Branch is an existing wild trout fishery and that, in its Mission Statement, FUDR has called for the elimination of stocking on the East Branch, allowing the river to become a wild trout fishery, down to its confluence with the Beaverkill.  While the proposed interim plan now calls for increased releases form both the Pepacton and Neversink Reservoirs (while cutting releases from the Cannonsville) to date, FUDR has seen no documented study or research supporting the proposed higher release rates.  Conversely, FUDR is currently researching both of those Rivers and will propose appropriate release rates when that research is concluded.

Simply stated, the proposed plan is attempting to determine the absolute minimum amount of water that has to be provided to "sustain" the fishery.  A point that was reinforced by the written comment of a DEC employee and a member of the SEF Committee: "We (the DEC and SEF) are trying to design a monitoring plan that will detect a positive response by the trout if minimum flows are maintained."  Detect a positive response if minimum flows are maintained?  This minimalist approach is further reinforced by the fact that the proposed plan calls for monitoring only on the Neversink, East and West Branches - none on the main stem; effectively writing off the upper main stem fishery below Hancock.  FUDR's approach is fundamentally and philosophically different:  Rather than attempting to determine the bare minimum flows for the rivers, FUDR has determined the maximum amount of water that can be made available for the fishery – without jeopardizing any human needs; down river consumers.  The approach of safe maximum releases coupled with intelligent stream management (avoiding the yo-yo releases) will bring the fishery to maximum carrying capacity and will maximize the attendant economic impact.  Terms like "adequate," "sufficient," and similar adjectives, used to support the proposed plan, imply only survival; they do not suggest developing and enhancing a healthy, vibrant wild trout fishery.

That the proposed 225 cfs flow is only a minimum and that flows, under this proposed plan, will really be closer to the historic summer releases of over 640 cfs during the summer. 

There is no statutory or regulatory requirement for any of the participating agencies to maintain even the 225 cfs minimum flow.  With the granting of PPL's relicensing, there are also no statutory or regulatory restrictions on how much, or when, PPL can generate power – releasing more water and relieving, proportionately, NYC's obligations to release water to meet the Montague mandate.  In view of this, the Stanley Cooper, Sr. Chapter of TU has objected to the PPL relicensing before FERC and, as a result of their efforts, have been granted party status (that is, they are an actual party to the proceedings).  As a result of that involvement, the Chapter learned that the U.S. Department of Interior has also questioned the PPL relicensing and has advised FERC that it is legally obligated to conduct its own independent studies as part of the relicensing process, because of the threat posed to endangered species by low flows.  Further, the three principal agencies promoting this plan – the DRBC, the NYS DEC and NYC's DEP – are political entities; subject to changing administrations, political climates, etc.  Again, nowhere in the proposed plan are there any statutory or regulatory obligations that would insure the proposed interim plan being adhered to either now or in the future.  And it appears this proposal by NYS and NYC violates NYS’ own regulatory minimums for summer releases (671.3) from Cannonsville into the West Branch.  Bottom line:  For at least the next several years and, since there are no assurances of any legally binding future agreements, the future of this wild trout fishery relies, on three political bureaucracies essentially keeping their word from one 'generation' of politically appointed administrators to another.

That there isn't enough water to provide the 600 cfs release from the Cannonsville Dam, that the Friends of the Upper Delaware River is seeking, from May 15th, to September 15th. 

There is more than enough water: the issue isn't one of having enough water, rather of proper management.  Comparing the amount of water available, with the amount that would be used by FUDR's proposed 600 cfs releases, is neither science, complicated, nor does it require a computer model.  Using publicly available figures from the DEC or DRBC, it's simply a matter of totaling the capacities of the reservoirs; then dividing that capacity by the 600 cfs days (in gallons).  If the Cannonsville Reservoir is full on May 15th, which certainly will be the case this year (as it is most years) a continuous release of 600 cfs will draw substantially less than half the water from just the Cannonsville.  And, even that 'draw down' would be substantially offset, when naturally occurring inflows (water from the river above the reservoir, rain, run off, tributaries, etc.) is added back into the reservoir. When all three reservoirs (Cannonsville, Pepacton and Neversink) are considered, as they are in meeting the Montague target, the 600 cfs draw down is less than 17% of the total - again, less the additional inflows – bringing the draw down into the 6 to 7 % range.  These minimal additional releases are fully attributable to the Montague mandate and are fully available for down river consumers.  Further verification that there is more than enough water to maintain the 600 cfs, is reflected in the public records compiled and maintained by the DRBC, and other public sources, that clearly point out the average Cannonsville releases from May 15th, to September 15th, have been over 640 cfs, - more than the rate FUDR is seeking; again pointing the problem of management rather than the quantity of available water.  In fact, those same records show that the average natural flows, before the Dam was even built, were nearly twice the proposed 225 cfs flows. 

The New York City DEP must conserve as much water as possible, to safeguard against drought, and that conservation must take precedent over the needs of the fishery. 

According to both the DRBC and USGS, in the past twenty years there have been exactly two droughts that went through the critical summer months - an average of once a decade.  During the past twenty years, there have been three drought "warnings" that occurred in the month of September, when both air and water temperatures are naturally cooler and less of a threat to fish.  And there have been five drought "warnings" that have occurred in late fall, posing, for the same temperature reasons, even less of a threat to the fishery.  FUDR realizes that drought is a naturally occurring phenomenon that would affect this fishery – just as it would any fishery in a similar circumstance – and that there would likely be a resulting decline in fish populations.  In consideration of possible drought, FUDR has proposed that the releases necessary for the fishery be 'restricted' (and subsequently brought back up after the drought) at times and levels commensurate with any other consumer, and FUDR has consistently offered to participate in the development of a specific plan for such conditions. 

The fact that there is 'banked' water, does not equate to it being actually used or properly managed.  Since at least 1976, the NYS DEC has had an existing Departmental regulation to maintain a 6000 cfs days 'bank' to be used to protect the fishery during "thermal stress periods" – according to DEC records that bank has virtually never been fully used.  Of equal importance, there are serious and documented historic flaws in the administration of these banks that have not been addressed in the proposed interim plan:  In apparent violation of existing departmental regulations (671.5), which states "The department reservoir releases manager shall be responsible for monitoring the West Branch Delaware River, the East Branch Delaware River, the Delaware River within New York and the Neversink River on a continuous basis in order to determine whether any significant adverse environmental impacts, including but limited to fishkill incidents occur as a result of operation."  Specifically, the Reservoir Release Manager is the person responsible.  The Manager does not work weekends, takes vacation time and, accordingly, is not available to call for additional thermal releases should they be needed during those times.  In his public statements at the DRBC public hearing held on March 2, the DEC's Regional Fisheries Biologist, freely acknowledged that the habitat banks, in total, are not sufficient enough to meet the proposed plan's temperature targets of 72 degrees (F) daily average, or 75 degrees daily 'instantaneous' at the USGS monitoring station at Hankins.  During those public hearings, a number of speakers (representing organizations supporting the proposed interim plan) also pointed out that the new conditions for the proposed banks were too 'inflexible' and needed to be eased to help improve even this minimal safeguard.  Also, these 'banks include both the Pepacton and Neversink Reservoirs, not just the Cannonsville.

That the 225cfs minimum flow is the best short term agreement that New York City would accept, in order to go forward with the proposed basin wide plan. 

Again, NYS DEC regulation 671.3 raises questions: This regulation requires that a minimum 325 cfs release be maintained from the Cannonsville Dam, for the protection of the fishery, from June 15 to August 15.  The proposed interim plan calls for revising 671.3 on this, and other points, to accommodate the proposed 225 flow (a 225 cfs flow reflects approximately a 160 cfs release, essentially half of the regulatory requirement and a dramatic reduction from the historic averages of over 640 cfs for the same time period).  Further, if the flows from spillage, tributaries, runoff, etc., equal 225, New York City has, under the proposed plan, no obligation to release any cold water, including during June, July and August.  Granted, the 225 cfs flow is higher than 671.3 calls for at other times of the year; however much of those reduced releases would be offset by naturally occurring cold water flows (Spring, late Fall, etc.), by seasonally reduced needs of trout and by the necessity of meeting the Montague mandate at those times of the year.  This combination of regulation and nature raises questions as to how much 'hard' negotiating was done with New York City - in the interest of proceeding with the proposed interim plan.  It would also seem unlikely, that the DRBC resolution can supercede NYS procedure that calls for, among other stipulations, public notice and hearings, on proposed departmental regulatory changes.  The latter is an area still being researched by FUDR.

That it is the higher winter flows that are what is critical to good populations of fish. 

Perhaps.  But the most recent minutes of the Flow Management Technical Advisory Committee (FMTAC) a subcommittee of the DRBC and the 'parent' committee of the Subcommittee on Ecological Flows (it is the SEF that is responsible for developing and implementing the proposed studies), cannot be overlooked.  A number of the FMTAC scientists expressed reservations that the proposed studies could be adequately completed in less than six years; pointing out that "three years is not enough time to really sort out what natural variability is from an experimental program". If those scientific opinions are correct, it would appear that there are only three options:  Either extend for as long as an additional three years – six years in total - the 'experimental studies;' dilute either the number or the scope of the studies, or present a plan based on still incomplete data.  Regardless, it would only take one season to virtually devastate the wild trout fishery and its attendant economic impact.  At the end of what ever period of time these studies ultimately take, the recommendations for a final plan may not be implemented; that is, the NYC DEP can still, effectively, veto the entire project; leaving the fishery in likely far worse shape than it is today.

It was the Supreme Court decree that created the wild trout fishery, as it exists today, by necessitating cold releases from the Cannonsville Dam in order to meet the 1750 cfs mandate at Montague. The Supreme Court Decree is, of course, publicly available and it is a "consent decree" – that is, the four contiguous states can, indeed, modify the Montague flow target.  To date, however, FUDR has seen no compelling data or documentation that would suggest a reduction, after some half a century, is warranted.  That not withstanding, there is absolutely nothing in the proposed plan (publicly available from the DRBC) to suggest any water thus saved would be used for the fishery.  As it stands, any future reduction of the Montague flow target, serves only to reduce the NYS DEC and NYC DEP's already proposed minimal obligations to the fishery.

The study, done in compliance with the Stipulation of Discontinuance, does not recommend 225cfs. The exact wording in the study is "In order to protect the aquatic communities, particularly fish, during all types of hydrologic conditions, the following flow regimes should be considered for the waters in the Upper Delaware basin during normal and below-normal conditions, provided that temperature requirements can be satisfied:  The table that follows this statement lists 225 cfs as the flow that should be "considered" during normal reservoir storage conditions for the West Branch only! No Habitat assessment was made for the main stem of the Delaware.  The Sheppard study and the currently proposed "plan" essentially writes off the main stem trout fishery.  Sheppard specifically warns that "for the protection of the designated trout management section on the main stem Delaware River, the West Branch summer conservation releases will have to be greater than 325 cfs."

The 225 cfs minimum flow has been in use and has been successful for the past two years. 

Although winter flows have, at times in the past, been unnecessarily low and have done unnecessary harm to both insect and trout populations, FUDR's scientific advisors assure us that low late spring and summer flows with attendant warm water and the unwarranted, erratic and sudden changes in temperature, water level and velocity undoubtedly are the factors that currently limit the extent of the fishery in the Upper Delaware River (the so called yo-yo releases).

That while TU National is supporting the proposed 225 cfs "experimental' flow proposal, it is not what TU National would like to see as the long term solution. 

In both it's oral statements at the DRBC's March 2, public hearing and in it's subsequent written comments submitted for the public record to the DRBC, TU National has stated that "TU would not support this flow proposal as long term resolution to the issue," though TU does, with reservations, support it as a interim approach.  FUDR's concern is that it is the short term (a minimum of three, and now perhaps as long as six years) 225 cfs 'experiment' that may destroy the fishery, much of the critical insect populations and render a prolonged negative economic impact to the region.  The sole purpose of FUDR is the protection, preservation and enhancement of the largest, and one of the few remaining, wild trout fisheries in the East  - this is certainly consistent with TU Nationals mission statement and its highly commendable demonstrated history.  Currently, both TU National and FUDR are communicating in order to facilitate cooperative efforts to improve flows in the Upper Delaware River.

That the Friends if the Upper Delaware River is categorically opposed to the basin wide studies. 

While remaining steadfast to achieving the objectives outlined in FUDR's proposed plan for the fishery, FUDR has also consistently supported the concept of a basin wide plan. In both conversations and in meetings with the DRBC, SEF, the Nature Conservancy, TU National and others, FUDR has offered to help. That is, to partner in areas, not specific to the fishery.