~ Water Resources Association ~

Water Resource Associations of the Delaware River Basin

Spring '04

Chairman's Message

Once more it is getting to be spring on the Delaware, and the familiar sounds return: birds singing, snow melt water gurgling in the rivers, and the Delaware River Basin Commission trying to put together enough financial support from the legislatures of the four Basin states to maintain its program. For virtually all publicly funded agencies, budget time is not a happy time. For the DRBC, it is particularly hard.

The problem that the DRBC faces each spring is difficult for a number of reasons. This is likely to be the seventh year that the federal government has failed to provide financial support for the basic agency functions. The Basin states are also hard-pressed by poor economies, unfunded federal initiatives, and taxpayer revolt, to name just a few factors. So the DRBC has downsized, sought out study grants to help fill its budget gap, and drawn from user revenue intended as project funds to support its operating budget.

The DRBC fills an important role as manager of the waters. Without it, there would be just four states drawing from the common pool without constraints. The largest withdrawal (up to 800 million gallons per day) is the City of New York’s diversion. The DRBC is the forum where the four states and the City can and usually do cooperate to make the best use of the resource, to manage the City’s reservoirs so that downstream recreational and fishery assets are maximized, and to avoid the slow and uncertain process of Supreme Court litigation to protect the watercourse.

Some of the problems that the DRBC was formed to address, such as projected major growth in population and water consumption, have not occurred as predicted. Most structural development for water supply or flood control has little appeal today. The DRBC has drifted into related planning areas, possibly lured by grants as well as other factors. Some of the planning (such as the current major “Basin Water Resources Plan”) is very broad and extends beyond the powers of the Commission to implement. The DRBC’s initial voyage into TMDL allocation for PCBs appears to have potential value (particularly since the Delaware River is the boundary not only between states but also between EPA Regions, pointing up again the unique positioning and opportunity for “value added” from the DRBC). But the TMDL project has also been very costly. As more TMDLs are attempted, there should be tighter management methods.

There is a need for the DRBC to survive, and to remain a significant force in the management of our water resources. If it is to find adequate financial resources so that it can continue to achieve its primary purposes, the Commission needs close managerial focus, impeccable cost control, and the support of all of us.

Ken Myers
WRA Chairman

Upper Delaware Interim Fishery Management Plan is Proposed

On March 3, 2004 a proposed resolution by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for an interim fisheries management plan in the upper Delaware was brought before the Delaware River Basin Commission for consideration. The three-year interim plan (May 1, 2004-May 31, 2007) increases the amount of water stored in New York City’s Cannonsville, Neversink and Pepacton reservoirs for fishery protection and allows for more flexibility by NYSDEC to release that water. Priority will be given to thermal protection, especially during drought operations. The current minimum flow target of 225 cfs in the West Branch at Hale Eddy would be retained and new flow targets in the East Branch at Harvard (175 cfs) and the Neversink at Bridgeville (115 cfs) would be established. These flow targets were based on a 20-year-old NYSDEC report but will be revisited in a study being undertaken by DRBC’s Subcommittee on Ecological Flows (SEF), chaired by Colin Apse of The Nature Conservancy (TNC). The interim plan also calls for reduced minimum target flows during Drought Watch, Drought Warning and Drought.

According to DRBC, the revised drought operating plan for PPL’s LakeWallenpaupack complements the interim fishery plan. DRBC’s OASIS modeling studies show that implementation of the PPL plan offsets the increased frequency of drought occurrences that otherwise would result from the increased fisheries releases called for by the interim fisheries management plan. The combined plans thus allow for increased fishery protection while maintaining the Montague and Trenton flow targets and the diversion capabilities of the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court Decree Parties.

The interim fishery management plan increases the total volume of available fishery protection storage during normal operations from the present 14,900 cfs-days (9.6 billion gallons) to 20,000 cfs-days (12.9 billion gallons). Moreover, with the new PPL plan in effect, an additional 3,000 cfs-days (1.9 billion gallons) of storage would be available during drought operations, of which 1,000 cfs-days would be used for supporting minimum flow targets during Drought Watch and Drought Warning and the remaining 2,000 cfs-days would be used to meet flow targets during Drought.

The NYSDEC, New York City Department of Environmental Protection, DRBC, and a number of stakeholder groups have been working for several years to develop this interim plan. It was driven by the development of a wild trout fishery that some consider to be the best in the east. In turn, the fishery helped create a sector of the regional economy that caters to fishermen. No doubt businesses in the upper Delaware region have been bolstered by the goods and services offered to fishermen. If flows are good, fishing is good and everyone is happy. If we have a drought and/or flows are too low and releases from the reservoirs are reduced, the aquatic community is stressed, fishing suffers and fishermen don’t return. The question becomes: “What is a an acceptable flow and how long should it last to sustain the fishery under normal and drought conditions?”

From my vantage point there are at least four major environmental organizations that have a stake in the answer to the last question and in its determination: TNC, Trout Unlimited (TU), the Delaware River Foundation (DRF) and, a newly formed organization, the Friends of the Upper Delaware (FUD). TU, DRF, and FUD appear particularly interested in and concerned for flows in the West Branch.

TNC is leading the effort by SEF to determine scientifically-based flow regimes that would sustain the aquatic communities throughout the Basin, with priority for the Upper Delaware. Their studies will be completed within a three year window if they are not extended.

DRF, whose founder, Jim Serio is a fishing guide on the Delaware, has stated their general support for the interim fishery management plan but recognizes it as a step in a longer process and have provided a number of caveats and suggestions for improvement. They recognize that the 225 cfs minimum flow at Hale Eddy is just that, a minimum flow, and that under normal weather conditions the flows will average about 600 cfs in the West Branch. They also recognize that the plan will significantly increase minimum flows on the East Branch of the Delaware and the Neversink. They believe that these increased flows will help improve a depressed fishery (as compared to the West Branch) in these two systems. They also support the proposed LakeWallenpaupack operating plan because of the additional 3,000 cfs-days to be made available in drought conditions. More information on their position can be found on www.delawareriverfoundation.org. It is my understanding that TU (National) supports the DRF position.

Enter the Friends of the Upper Delaware in September 2003. Their position, as stated on their webpage, www.flyfisherman.com/environment/fdelaware, is that a 225 cfs flow at Hale Eddy for four months during the summer would be detrimental to the West Branch fishery. It appears that they are assuming that the maximum summer flow would be 225 cfs during the period of the interim fishery management plan. In fact, this is not the case. They instead call for a sustained release of 600 cfs during this period. They make no mention of the releases from the reservoirs needed to sustain the target at Montague or NYSDEC releases from the thermal bank to sustain temperatures. They also oppose the LakeWallenpaupack drought operating plan because drought releases from LakeWallenpaupack to support the Montague target would sometimes replace releases from the New York City reservoirs. Their statement also makes no mention of the increase in flows in the East Branch and the Neversink or, in their opinion, if these increased flows provide a benefit to the fishery under the interim plan.

If all this wasn’t enough there is also the dwarf wedgemussel, an endangered species, that has taken up residence in the tailwaters below the reservoirs. The confounding factor in having such a species present is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), under the Federal Endangered Species Act, may have authority to dictate certain flows needed to maintain their population. If USFWS takes a strident approach in protecting the wedgemussel, any fisheries release plan will have to complement a wedgemussel maintenance strategy. In any case, the SEF will be considering the needs of the wedgemussel in its studies.

There is no doubt that there has been a tremendous amount of good technical work and hard discussions to develop this Interim Fishery Management Plan. Certainly, the parties to the Supreme Court Decree and the other stakeholders who have worked cooperatively to frame the plan should be commended. Although the plan might not be everything to all people it is moving the fishery in the right direction. Hopefully, discussions and research will continue to further identify how New York City reservoirs can best be operated to meet some very diverse needs.

-The Editor