The Delaware river is a place where anglers are deeply committed. They learn their bugs, become good casters quickly, and learn how to present to selective fish. Despite the commitment that exists to the sport itself however, very few people understand the flow plan that governs the tailwaters in the area and impacts the entire Delaware River system as a whole. It’s complicated and there isn’t a legitimate resource out there for understanding it in its entirety. To grasp it, a history lesson is first required to provide context.
THE START OF THE TAILWATERS
The Delaware river via its two branches the west and east branch officially became dam controlled in the mid 1900’s. The City of New York built a series of dams to create reservoirs as a means for supplying water to the City of New York, which included the Pepacton Reservoir and Cannonsville Reservoir. The East Branch had a dam put in place first, which was built in Downsville in 1954. The West Branch was later in the progression with the dam being built to form Cannonsville Reservoir in 1964.
At the time these dams were put in place, the west branch did not have an established trout population. It was a warm water fishery at best. The East Branch did have an existing trout population. The mainstem also had an existing trout population, even before the dams were put in place.
After the dams were first built, there was no flow plan. Minimum flow for the west branch was 45 cfs. Because of this extreme shift and sudden control of flow that was preventing the Main Delaware from receiving the flow it traditionally received from natural rainfall, there was litigation that ensued. Downstream businesses way down on the mainstem in southern New York State and New Jersey brought lawsuits claiming that the flows had been diminished to an extent that it was harming their businesses that were centered around rafting, canoe rentals and so on. This led to what is known as the “1954“decree” which as part of that decision created the “Montague Target” as a solution to the dispute. The Court ordered that the flow must be 1750cfs at Montague (Top of New Jersey) throughout the year, which is important to understand in the context of summer. That will be addressed below and how it fits in. The Montague target has nothing to do with the flow plan, however no matter what the flow plan is, the Montague Target must be complied with. This has led to more water on dry years being given than the current flow plan provides for, and in years past sometimes led to a lot more water being provided than what the established minimums were even before we had a flow plan. This is important to conceptually understand and keep separate from “the flow plan” as they are two different things.
INITIAL MANAGEMENT OF THE EAST BRANCH AND WEST BRANCH TAILWATERS AFTER THE DAMS WERE INSTALLED
For decades after the dams were built, there was no flow plan. If you ask around you might hear different, but the fact is this again comes down to people not understanding that the Montague target wasn’t a flow plan, just luck and oddly enough luck when we had dry summers. What is important to understand is that Montague New Jersey is at a point in the Delaware’s downstream progression where numerous tailwaters exist and enter as tributaries upstream of this target line, and that there are a lot of other streams that enter the Delaware upstream of this target location as well which are freestone tributaries. The way the other tailwaters coming into the Delaware have been managed over the years, and the priority by which these tailwaters have been used to meet the Montague 1750 CFS target I think is where a lot of confusion lies in the flow plan and how the rivers are managed.
If during the summer, the Delaware at Montague is not naturally going to meet the 1750 cfs flow requirement, water must be released from one of the tailwaters upstream of Montague to meet that minimum flow target. There has been a series of changes in how/when tailwaters such as the Lackawaxen River (a tailwater) versus the West Branch of the Delaware were used as the additional source of water to meet the Montague flow target of 1750cfs. There is also the Mongaup River, which has volatile releases as part of a hydro electric management plan that also lends itself to recreational kayakers and boaters. The fact is that most summers you remember when the west branch was high, or had “yo yo” flows, this was due to the fact that the west branch was being used to meet the downstream Montague target and minimum flow of 1750 cfs during a dry year. This had nothing to do with the flow plan at the time. This had to do with the City of New York complying with the terms of the federal decree. The fact is however, a dry summer can in fact bode well for the Delaware for this very reason. Little to no meaningful tributary inflow from freestone streams entering the Delaware ultimately requires the City of New York to release more water than normal under any existing flow plan to maintain this minimum flow at Montague New Jersey. Oppositely, wet summers where tributaries entering the main stem are contributing meaningful flow to the mainstem ensure that the West Branch will be managed in a way where the release is exactly what the flow plan says it should be. There won’t be any deviations from that plan.
FLOW PLAN HISTORY
With Montague target and how it independently can impact flows being explained, lets turn to the progression of flow plans and management of the Delaware system now. Prior to the early 1980s, the West Branch and East Branch did not have minimum flow requirements like we have today. The minimum flow requirement for the west branch of the Delaware to put things in perspective was 45 cfs between the time period of 1964 and the early 1980s. The first flow plan that went into effect for the Delaware River was known as “Rev 1”, which was put into effect in 1983. This flow plan was put into effect by the DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION, which is a government entity comprised of a representative from each state that the Delaware flows through (NY,NJ,PA,DEL) plus a representative from New York City and the Federal government. Any flow plan must be unanimously approved by all members of this agency in order to be deemed effective. This is important to understand. From the standpoint of the process involved- any amendment or proposed new flow plan must be approved and ratified by the Delaware River Basin Commission. This is a group of people that don’t really pay much attention to this stuff, but which also take almost a robotic position that has been taken historically on behalf of their constituents/state and political territory out of muscle memory. It’s not just New York City. The opportunity to amend/review changes to flow plans comes up for formal review every 3-5 years. We are presently not up for review for another 3 years.
The political process understood, focusing on the flow plan history is important and where it started to where it is now. The history of “Rev Revisions” serving as the initial flow management plans for the river ranged from Rev 1-9, which were modified versions of the original Rev 1 that were enacted and replaced prior versions of the flow plan over the years of 1983-2007 approximately. This was all leading up to the current flow plan now as the Flexible Flow Management Plan (“FFMP”) that was enacted in 2007 and which has remained in place since that time. The FFMP, pros and cons, and things to consider will be touched on later on in this article. For now its important to lay out and understand the prior plans so everything makes sense.
Over the course of these various revisions of Rev 1-9, there was not a minimum flow for the west branch until sometime in the mid to late 1980s, which required that the west branch be 360 cfs at Hale Eddy during the timeframe of June 15 – August 15th. This was the first meaningful minimum flow concession from the City in the history of the river’s management. Some of the later flow plans via the “revision” era also did have sizeable thermal banks that were used to keep the river at Lordville below 75 degrees. The bank was not large enough to keep the river cold all summer, but it was a large enough thermal bank to offset the impact of the especially hot periods most summers involved during the time this plan was in effect.
The west branch did not have minimum flows that were in place for the months and time period that fell outside of this stated window. I witnessed this firsthand the first year that my dad purchased our cabin in 2001, when the river was running 90 cfs in the backyard above hale eddy in April that year. The river during these years saw the west branch at hale eddy hitting 70 degrees and beyond on some summers where the weather was hot but Montague was still flowing at 1750 cfs or more therefore negating any potential for a targeted release from the West Branch. The river was not the always cold 50 something degree river that anglers know it as today.
The east branch was a total after thought during this time period. 90-120 cfs were common flows seen on the river during the season.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DELAWARE’s TROUT FISHERY AND THE ADVOCACY THAT FOLLOWED: THE DELAWARE RIVER FOUNDATION
A trout fishery did not start to exist overnight on the Delaware Branches after the dams were put in place. In fact, the west branch was stocked with trout until approximately 1990. The upper east branch was stocked with trout below the dam up until just a few years ago.
The fact is that the 1970’s/early 1980’s are a time that we know the tailwaters were starting to show established and healthy wild trout populations. The average size of fish and situation was not what it is today, but it was getting better over time. The population of established wild trout numbers became notable to the point stocking was stopped in or around 1990, about 5 years before I first fished the west branch for myself. I was 9 years old at this time, knew very little. But I know the first morning I ever went out to fish the west branch, I was there at first light and saw an upper 20’s inch brown almost beach itself chasing a small brown or baitfish onto the shore, trying on numerous occasions to get it before the fish gave up. In the next few years that followed, I saw a brown of similar size jump numerous feet in the air to grab a monarch butterfly right in front of my face 20 feet away. It was a time that the river was mature enough that those fish were there in catchable numbers, and in 1996 one did get caught which is the fish still hanging on the West Branch Angler wall when you go to the bar downstairs. An over 30’’ brown caught on a simple white zonker by an angler when the flow was around 3500 cfs in April. Then, those flows were viewed as very high as equipment was not what it is today, and flies weren’t either. I was actually there that weekend and the river seemed “blown out” by everyone I saw including our own guide. Now, we would think that is totally fishable and expect to find dries somewhere with fish on them. It was a different time and developing phase in the history of the fishery. And that fish shows those fish were there and able to be targeted. There were less than a dozen boats floating the Delaware during this time period on any given day you fished. All branches and systems included. The system was managed far worse, but the pressure was totally non-consequential. The result was fish were eating and growing fast year over year. The early 1990s into the early 2000’s serves as the peak window for the Delaware before pressure and other factors started the undeniable decline for the tailwater branches of the Delaware system that began in or around 2010.
THE DELAWARE RIVER FOUNDATION AND ITS WORK THAT RESULTED IN THE FFMP
Understanding the Delaware’s history from a trout fishing standpoint requires also knowing those who did the most during the pivotal years in question. A name that anglers attribute more to real estate that fly fishing and river work now is the name Jim Serio. It’s important to emphasize how much this man did for the river during the critical years in question, for free, despite attacks from the local fishing community that got greedy quicky as the river became a known quantity in the 1990s. Jim was a local resident who managed the West Branch Angler in the 1990’s, and solely founded the Delaware River Foundation in 2000. This was the first conservation group to be formed on the Delaware River for purposes of advocating for cold water releases and protecting the trout fishery that had developed on the Delaware Branches over the recent decades. Jim Serio founded this organization at a time that the river had started to become a known quantity in the east as a premier river destination and also when the internet was just beginning to serve as a promotional tool for this sport. Business interests reflected that, as The West Branch Angler opened in the 1990s and Al Cucci opened his Delaware River Club as well during this timeframe. Anglers that historically had always gone to Roscoe as their hub town to fish the historically known Beaver kill were now driving the extra 30 minutes to go try the Delaware instead. There was a fraction of the guides on the river that there are now, maybe 15-25 in the 1990s and for that reason at the time that Jim founded DRF in 2000 there was not the same base to draw support from as there is today.
Jim didn’t approach running this organization (DRF) like a grassroots hippy just wanting something better without being able to specify what that was. He was very concise. Jim’s approach to lobbying for more as part of a comprehensive flow plan for the Delaware Branches was based on math, not emotion. He partnered with world renowned mathematician Peter Kolesar, who provided both credibility and hard numbers to support growing conversations with the parties of the DRBC And City of New York that increased releases were feasible and did not threaten the City’s water supply. Modeling was used to show how much water came over the dams each spring, with that being deemed excess that could be discarded by the City as part of a release plan the year prior over a seasonal scheme that prioritized higher releases during the summer and still higher than normal releases during the spring although lower than summer levels. With enough data and math to back it up, Jim gained traction in his efforts and ultimately got the DRBC to adopt the Flexible Flow Management Plan in 2007.
While Jim’s efforts should have been applauded as the FFMP objectively as a matter of fact resulted in more water being made available to the river than ever before under the dam era, the result was attacks from guides and businesses that claimed Jim hadn’t negotiated for enough. Down river anglers, guides, and businesses were fixated on getting enough water to keep their preferred sections of river cold all year, with no regard for math or how much water was actually available. The demand from downstream anglers was 750 cfs out of Cannonsville, a convenient number that was not based on math at all ,but was known to be enough water to keep the entire west branch cold and a good portion of the upper mainstem below 70 degrees as well. The fact was however that the math didn’t support that there was enough water available in Cannonsville to release 750 cfs. Nothing makes this more clear than the fact the FFMP has been the flow plan and has not had any material modifications pertaining to releases and CFS on the west branch since it went into effect in 2007. There is not enough water to supply the river with 750 cfs all summer as demanded by agitators at the time. What’s worse, is that after what should have been a celebrated victory for Jim Serio and the river, Jim dissolved the Delaware River Foundation due to the attacks he received by the river community at large. Friends of the Upper Delaware River was formed as an organization to challenge and undermine DRF originally, with Jim simply saying enough was enough after he had volunteered more than a full time job’s worth of time for 7 years to achieve what he did via the FFMP. To be clear, the Friends of the Upper Delaware River have never successfully advocated for more water or higher releases than Jim Serio fought for and obtained via his designed FFMP that was thanks to both his work and that of Peter Kolesar. The point being that what Jim and Peter accomplished wasn’t easy, and that making an argument for more water than what was given under the FFMP was not something that could be persuasively proven by math, data, or any other evidence. Is it perfect? No. But it was at the time far better than what was in place. And no one has been able to present anything better or lobby for material changes to the plan he fought for and had implemented by the DRBC parties in 2007. SO- before going on I think it’s important to thank the man. Most pioneers on a river system get forgotten and don’t get the credit- this is my attempt to not let that be the case here.
UNDERSTANDING HOW THE FLEXIBLE FLOW MANAGEMENT PLAN (FFMP) WORKS
The FFMP is a plan that has been mapped out in the form of tables that considers available water in the reservoirs (reservoir capacity), precipitation patterns, and historical averages for capacity and precipitation to determine which category we fall in on the FFMP for flows during a given time period. Because the FFMP was designed originally with the notion that NYC was seeing reservoir spill regularly every year, the plan relied on math to get acceptance of this plan in the first place saying there was a surplus that could be used during the year to avoid that spill from going over the dam or being overly significant. The plan prioritizes higher summer releases with both spring and fall having lower norms for releases across the board regardless of whether it has been a wet of dry year.
This is not something that is commonly understood by anglers that have been fishing the Delaware for just the last 5 to maybe 10 years, because spring has largely involved seasons where there was a surplus of water and spill coming over the dams during April and early May. This of course made the flow plan irrelevant, as spill was coming over the top and has led to flows on the West Branch commonly being 1k cfs or more during the month of April, and flows even being over 1k cfs on the East Branch during the month of April. In the event that spill was not occurring, flows called for under the FFMP assuming normal/average levels and data for all meaningful categories would dictate that flows for the WB would be in the range of 300-400 cfs.
June 1st marks a shift under the FFMP from spring to summer. Under the seasonal chart, there is a higher or larger allocation of water to the west branch than during the spring months. Even with somewhat lower than normal capacity or below average precipitation being the pattern, the plan calls for somewhere between 400-600 cfs depending on capacity and the other variables pertaining to precipitation and reservoir capacity.
The fall season under the FFMP starts on September 1. This continues up through December 1. Flow rates in what you now should be seeing is a peg hole system for each season are resembling to the levels that are called for in the spring under the FFMP.
Winter, the peg hole system levels get even lower, ranging from December of a given year up through March 31st of the following year. The flows called for during this time period range between 150-600 cfs depending on reservoir capacity compared against average capacity for that time of year along with precipitation patterns. Because typically the reservoir is not replenished most years during the early winter months, often we see a zone between 150-300 cfs during the winter time period.
In summarizing it in layman’s terms, the FFMP calls for somewhere between 300-400 during the spring up through June 1st assuming somewhat average conditions, it calls for somewhere between 400-600 cfs during the summer with the same variables considered. It goes back to a spring like plan for cfs for the months of September up to December 1st. And December 1st through March 31st involves similarly peg hole system levels in the ranges of what spring and fall calls for, if not slightly lower in years where the reservoir has not replenished and we have a cold winter season that doesn’t allow for refill until what is fairly classified as early spring.
There is no such thing as a tailwater management plan where anglers don’t have a grievance. Anglers are like a teacher’s union that always is sure to bitch they aren’t getting treated fairly as part of the labor process from muscle memory and union efforts to make sure that’s the case. The problem with tailwaters is, there is no union to help a potentially large group of complainers get organized. In the case of the Delaware, most don’t even know what the FFMP is or how the tables work. This is the crux of this article and why I am writing it. A simple google search will reveal the tables of the FFMP and flow plan for the quarterly seasons that involves numerous categories/release schedules per season depending on whether it’s a normal, slightly dry, very dry, or extremely low year with both reservoir capacity and future precipitation patterns not indicating any relief. Simply stated, the plan says we get reasonable flows for the entire year, prioritizes summer releases as being higher than spring and summer where the temps are cooler and we don’t need help from higher releases to keep the river cool for much of its length. The system isn’t perfect because the City of New York utilizes software as a black box x factor set of variables that we are not able to see and which they do not disclose. Sometimes everything is average or above but we are not being given the water that is called for under that table consistent with higher end releases for a given season. This is because the city proclaims their data or metrics are saying its likely there is a drought pattern coming in the future or some other x factor nonsense, which they won’t disclose to justify being cautious. This being instead of honoring the flow plan in a literal fashion based on res levels and factors we can all see and know are normal if not above those normal levels for the season. You can google FFMP flow tables to get a sense of charts that show release schedules for each season to visually make sense of what has been described here. This is the FFMP which has been in place since 2007.
CURRENT ISSUES/ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT
When the FFMP was put into place in 2007, it was a different river that did not face the same issues it has today. Stable flows in 2007 sounded great, in most ways are great biologically for trout to thrive and do well in a tailwater setting. But this plan did not contemplate the pressure the river would come under from the sport’s surge in growth that occurred over the next 20 years. Stable is not good. Fish don’t move. They become pets. People know where these pets are and the fish get absolutely punished, domesticated, and deformed by regular catch and release throughout the season per fish. I think fish size is arguably down on the west branch 2-4’’ from the early 2000’s, as these fish have become so pressured that they are afraid to eat even in perfect water temps throughout the year. When fish are not aggressively feeding as they do when not harassed to a fault, growth rates slow and fish die before they get as big as they once did. The days of hooking or landing 5 or more browns a day on the west branch in July that are 20-23’’ on dries in an afternoon are done and won’t ever happen again. I don’t think there’s as many 22’’ fish in the west branch period as there once was. 24’’ fish were never common on the Delaware system and I won’t even attempt to mislead or make that suggestion that they were. But 21-22’’ fish were and many years the second half of June through July were the months I landed a significant number of fish in that size class for the season. If you can land an honest 20’’ or better fish a week fishing every day on any given week in july now on the west branch you are accomplishing something. The 22’’ fish being found rising during the day in summer conditions is just not something you are going to see anymore with any regularity. The fact is finding a 22’’ fish rising on the west branch period now, no matter the time of year or hatch is arguably a fish of the season situation. There are very few 22’’ fish landed each season now on the west branch that are 22’’ on a dry fly throughout the entire season. That is a result of pressure, slowed growth rates, and also a separate issue that has to do with bug life. Which requires its own section.
When flows became overly steady and stable starting in 2007, the fact is we were focusing on what the trout do best in. Hypothetically, it should also make sense that the bugs do better when the rocks they live on or under are covered by water instead of sometimes exposed. BUT- there is another perspective to assessing that question of what is best for the bugs. An environment that is overly stable has the effect of narrowing the bio diversity in that piece of water. 400-500 cfs all summer with the same temps, no variation, creates a fish bowl that some things can live in and some can’t. When we had more variation, while it took some days out of consideration for fishing, it also allowed for more biodiversity. To be fair, this variation was not really due to the flow plan- it had to do more with the fact that Montague target releases were for a period of time years back first coming out of the west branch. This meant dry July= increased releases out of Cannonsville. This would be the case for a bit, then a thunderstorm or something would negate the reason for elevated releases out of the WB, and the wb would drop back down. This pattern would seemingly repeat itself throughout most summers. However, when there was a shift to using first the water available in lake Wallenpaupack (which feeds the Lackawaxen), this meant that the wb would not likely ever be necessary to hit the Montague target until late July, early august. And that would require dry conditions then to exist to even trigger that need. That in addition to steady, always stable flows created a stale environment that limited biodiversity and which in my opinion is what needs to be researched most in terms of explaining the significant decline in certain insect species on the system from the wb downstream. (1) sulphers (2) numerous blue winged olive species that used to be incredibly prevalent (3) isos (4) march browns. Am I saying that these bugs are gone? No- but they are not even comparable to how good they once were. Invarias (big sulphers) being the most absent in my opinion over the last 10 years. Iso’s are an insect that feed on other bugs, so the drop in Iso’s in my opinion is correlated to other bugs coexisting during their maturity period also being down. Btw- you don’t have to take my word for it- you can just look at the condition of the fish come summer time. These fish aren’t fat and resembling of the fish that were commonly caught 15 years ago. They are skinny, and displaying of signs consistent with angler induced stress along with decreased food supply. They can’t even feed at night now without getting a mouse to the face once a week. The condition of the fish tells the story.
WHAT ARE THE REALISTIC AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT?
I think that one option is considering reduced flows at night during the months of June through mid September. This would in turn allow us to preserve more water to be released during the daytime and warmest part of the day. Create variety in flows and move fish around. All while using the same amount of water we already use. It is hard for the DRBC to say no to that proposal as a starting point. I think reducing flows somewhere around the range of 200-250 for a period of 6-8 hours and restarting releases at a time early morning that the water would be downstream and hitting the mainstem is the debate and trying to come up with a first pilot for trial and error of this concept.
Secondly, we need a larger thermal bank. The fish aren’t dying downriver, and by the way the point of the thermal bank isn’t to just be able to pump water all summer to keep it fishable like its April all the way down. But- having additional reserves to not let lower mainstem areas get cooked during prolonged hot spells is something that is feasible and important for the river to ensure the fish remain healthy and also I think helps preserve the fall season that is underrated and based in large part on how much the fish take a beating during the summer months.
The math Jim Serio came to when they came up with the FFMP isn’t wrong and is still relevant today. There isn’t enough water to consistently have higher flows out of Cannonsville. A given year like this where there is more than normal in the reservoirs as a whole doesn’t disprove the flow plan itself. There have been numerous years in the last decade where Cannonsville got to 40% or lower, and pepacton wasn’t far behind. Releasing more water on the upper east branch doesn’t really increase the fishing opportunities there. The fish will go nocturnal for the most part during the summer months anyway. The flows even if doubled to 300 cfs, would not make the upper east floatable for the insist on floating Delaware crew. And that would be the case for the lower east as well that would be too warm and too low to float regardless.
This being the case, I think managing the water we have is the most realistic thing that can be fought for now. We don’t need to float at night. Can we refrain from mousing at night when the fish are in 200 cfs just so we can have way better flows and colder temps during the day for a longer portion of the Delaware system? I don’t know and think anglers need to look themselves in the mirror when considering this saying ethics as an angler are more important than the gram.
Finally, an issue that needs to be rectified is the fact that often when the Montague target starts getting met by the West Branch in August, and into September, we see sudden drops in flow where the West Branch goes from being 750-1200 to suddenly 250-300 in a day. This sudden drop often occurs in the second half of September, or very early October. This is because on dry years, we often get a fall rain that is heavy during this same time period, which brings in substantial trib flow to the Delaware above Montague, thus negating the need to use the west branch to hit the Montague target. The impact of this on the brown trout spawn is something that hasn’t been studied, but also doesn’t take a genius to understand is harmful. You can’t have superficially high flows in September when fish are getting into the prespawn mode and beginning to lay their redds, only to cut the pipe mid process and leave those redds dry. Given the fact that the Lackawaxen is not a wild trout fishery, the argument is there to say that the West Branch should be the source of water used first in the early summer during dry seasons, and that regardless of Montague target demands, the west branch must be at a certain low flow by September 15th is an important provision to consider. I arguably think it can be said that having the west branch at low flows to start the month of September is a good thing- not necessarily for fishing but for the success of the spawn. If the fish spawn in conditions they perceive to be low, they will lay their redds in runs that are prime lies and not going to be left dry on the rocks no matter how low the flow gets. This also serves the benefit of ensuring higher success rate when the young of the year fish hatch and have to withstand the winter ahead. It is also worth noting that with the year round fishing being authorized now under the recent and still standing DEC regulations that went into place a couple seasons ago, low flows starting in September will serve as a natural ethical enforcement of stopping guys from floating the river at times that the angling community has stated fishing should cease on the upper river. Of course, it has not. But, at 250 cfs, most aren’t forcing the issue. Low flows would essentially enforce the ethical position that most anglers I think want to be adopted by the fishing community at large.
In the event the DRBC insists on turning to the Delaware system last in line for meeting the Montague target- meaning hitting 1750 at the top of New Jersey via the Catskill rivers will not happen until late July or August if necessary- I think there is a secondary argument that can be made that the Montague target can be met by a split release from the three Catskill River dams and tailwaters. Rather than release all water from Cannonsville and increase the flow to meet the Montague target via the west branch. By doing this, the west branch would not become too artificially high going into the pre spawn window. The other rivers may see some type of fishing benefit further downstream than normal for the mid to late summer months, and the correction back to normal fall levels once we get the inevitable fall rain that causes the Montague target releases to end will not be such an extreme pullback.
To try and concisely bundle up the above in terms of room for improvement, the major areas for improvement are potentially being smart about lobbying for use of water during daytime/warmest part of day time periods to maximize the water we have, and also trying to ensure the fall period when browns spawn is protected with steady and favorable flows that cause fish to spawn in areas that are prime lies and areas that are likely to produce the most success for YOY fish entering the next season. The FFMP is biased in a sense that it tries to make flows best when fisherman want to, and later on in the summer HAVE TO fish the tailwater sections. But, the truth is a healthy river and ensuring we have the best returns of wild fish often is dictated most by the fall and winter months where spawn rate success is determined. We aren’t asking for more water in the fall and shouldn’t in the future, low water is fine so long as it doesn’t go from high to low. But we need to avoid sudden changes in flow during critical spawning periods in the fall and winter season. A thermal bank with legitimate volume to offset heat waves that extend beyond a day or two is also something that would be desirable- but the fact is the mainstem fish have been fishing a way to survive the summer and heat for a century- and even before the dams were in place. I do not ever get concerned those fish are not going to make it- they always do. And there is not enough extra cold water to truly make the mid to lower mainstem throughout the summer months- so expecting a thermal bank capable of accomplishing that is an unrealistic goal while I understand the desire to dream of it being possible and what the river would be under those circumstances. One final point I will make is that over the last 15 years, water consumption in the City of New York and it’s residents has steadily declined. Covid no doubt has led to a further decrease in consumption as full time residents and employees coming into the city has not been restored to numbers consistent with what was the case prior to the Covid pandemic. If this trend continues, there is potentially an argument to be made that the demands and needs of the City for it’s water supply have diminished to the extent that there is more water available to the fishery. Will they concede that ever? Likely- No. But as data continues to mount- it is something that needs to nonetheless be monitored and raised when opportunities arise for debating what excess water exists for purposes of the river and the trout fishery here.
FFMP SUMMARY
The history cited above to start this article explains how we got here and the trout fishery began. My opinions on the harms of the FFMP, especially given the surge in fishing pressure that has impacted these rivers in the last decade, is something that I think incentivizes a nuanced approach to using the water we have prioritizing higher flows during daytime hours and warmer temp periods. Anywhere you look around the country, anglers are at odds with another series of interest groups when it comes to tailwaters. Out west the battle is with the agricultural sector that takes priority over the anglers. Here, the City of New York and their need to ensure there is enough drinking water for a substantial population of people takes priority over the trout that live in our waters. Our system as it exists now isn’t that bad when compared to other tailwaters that see trout take an even further backseat to everything else that could potentially matter with regards to how the water is used and allocated.
There is room for improvement and the major areas for improvement are those I stated above. There will come a time in 3 years where the support of this river’s anglers will be assistive in lobbying for meaningful changes to the FFMP and trying to get more water/use the water we have more efficiently for the greater good of trout and anglers that fish this system/ and also to ensure spawning success is maximized regardless of flow changes we are able to lobby for or not. Being informed on the FFMP now, what it means and how it works is how we make sure our angler base is informed, and not just a bunch of village idiots that write checks and gossip not knowing what they are talking about. We need an informed demographic if we are going to mobilize and make the position of anglers mean something when coming forward with proposals in the future. As an angler it is arguably your duty to care about the river system you fish, and to do your part. In a complex tailwater such as this, it requires some homework and understanding the forces at play. I appreciate you taking the time to read this and any further research you do to become familiar with the FFMP so that you can intelligently advocate for the river in the future.