NARROWSBURG, NY — The Upper Delaware Council (UDC) forwarded an opposing analysis of the National Park Service non-conformance determination to the Highland Planning Board days before it was to make a ruling on whether the proposed Camp FIMFO site plan review required a negative or positive declaration for a New York State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) assessment.

The decision to send the review, conducted by Shepstone Management Co., to the planning board was announced at the September 26 meeting of the UDC Project Review board. The review was a $1,575 expenditure approved in August.

According to UDC Executive Director Laurie Ramie, when the review was commissioned, the council said it was an “educational exercise” to compare the UDC and NPS reports and would discuss what to do with it when received.

National Park Service (NPS) Superintendent for the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River Lindsey Kurnath, who inherited the FIMFO controvery when she arrived in the river valley some nine months ago, shared “frustration” that she was left out of the decision to send the critical analysis to the Highland board. She categorized the action as a breach of “trust,” and described the difficult position the action puts her in.

“So, trust is the cornerstone of a functional partnership and I just truly don’t know what to do now that I can’t believe and can’t trust what’s going to be committed to in meeting minutes,” she said.

She ended her remarks with a question to the committee. “What would you do in my shoes, when you have a partner you can’t trust who blatantly disrespected the federal agency that’s financially supporting [them]? What exactly would you do if you were me?”

Members of the council assured Kurnath that their decision was not personal to her. One member explained the decision to forward the Shepstone analysis to the planning board was because of its pertinence, with the intention that it would foster a more informed decision by the planning board.

One member expressed his views on the review: “I just look at this as a project under review—under the standards set forth in the river management plan and the burden was on us to review it to see if it does conform. We did the review and determined that it does conform. Shepstone reiterated that position in much more detail than we did.”

A unique situation

Since the UDC’s inception, this is the first time in which the UDC and the NPS have not been able to reach an agreement about a recommendation for a project. Each agency conducts a review of projects in the designated river valley—from large-scale projects like Camp FIMFO to small-scale proposals like short-term rentals and retail establishments. Each project is initially assessed by the UDC to determine if it complies with the River Management Plan. The recommendation is passed on to the NPS for its review.

The River Management Plan, through the Land and Water Use Guidelines, is a document that lays out the regulations that projects, zoning laws and ordinances within the river corridor must adhere to.

A dual assessment

So what happens when the NPS and the UDC differ in their interpretation of a project’s compliance with the River Management Plan?

Interestingly, until now, it had never happened.

Ramie told the River Reporter that the voting members of the UDC and NPS have disagreed in the past but have always come to a decision. FIMFO is the exception.

In a decision that was fraught with internal conflict, a majority of UDC’s voting members agreed with UDC’s resources and land use specialist Kerry Engelhardt, who found the Camp FIMFO project to be in compliance. The NPS did not.

At issue is whether the replacement of tenting sites with park-model RVs attached to sewer, water and electric lines are temporary units. The NPS says they are permanent; Engelhardt and Shepstone say that they are temporary. Additionally in his analysis, Tom Shepstone, the principal of Shepstone Management Co. reiterated that the land and water use guidelines are just guidelines.

On the agenda for the September 27 Highland Planning Board meeting was its own independent determination of a negative or positive declaration of environmental impacts of the project. That board voted 3-2 to require a State Environmental and Quality Review (SEQR) assessment saying it is a large-scale project that needed further review.

How the park service’s determination and the opposing view of the UDC will be addressed following the SEQR review process remains unclear at this moment.

The backbone of the relationship

The UDC was formed in 1988 following an act of Congress that established the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River as a partnership between federal, state and local governments to collectively manage the unique and important watershed. The council is federally funded by a line item in the National Park Service budget. The budget, set at $300,000 in 1988, has not been increased.

The voting members are representatives from 13 out of the 15 local New York and PA governments that border on the Upper Delaware River. The National Park Service does not have voting power but ultimately has the responsibility to protect the river.

“At its core, my job is to be the manager of the scenic and recreational river and manage it in accordance with what Congress told us to do: to protect this place. My resources, the resources at my disposal are my responsibility to make sure they’re being spent in a way that respects these hardworking Americans’ tax dollars,” Kurnath said.