DELHI — Friends of the Upper Delaware River (FUDR), a Hancock-based nonprofit committed to safeguarding the Upper Delaware River watershed and improving its fishery, remains steadfast in its mission despite recent allegations about project uncertainty made by Delaware County Planning Director Shelly Johnson-Bennett at a Planning Committee meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 18. FUDR is committed to collaborating with local stakeholders and advancing streambank revitalization efforts, FUDR Policy Director Molly Oliver said.
DelCo Planning Criticizes FUDR
At the Feb. 18 meeting, Johnson-Bennett criticized FUDR’s handling of a $1 million Fish Creek, Hancock, restoration grant. The project includes a Delaware County-owned bridge replacement and stream restoration. Johnson-Bennett claimed FUDR’s funding commitments were unclear, leaving the county unsure whether financial gaps can be filled.
“They’re a little vague with their money. They’re a little vague with their timelines. They’re a little vague with their commitments,” Johnson-Bennett said.
FUDR allocated $400,000 of the $1 million grant toward a county-owned bridge replacement, Johnson-Bennett said.
“Well, if we get $400,000, it’s still gonna cost us more than that,” Johnson-Bennett recounted to supervisors on the planning committee.
FUDR may not be able to hold on to that grant money, Johnson-Bennett said, unless they find a match for it. And, she said, “The same dollars have been committed to six projects generally; so I have no idea. I have a hard time getting my head around all of that,” Johnson-Bennett stated to supervisors.
Johnson-Bennett’s worry is that FUDR’s approach to funding is misleading municipalities into thinking they’re getting fully funded projects, only to be blindsided by missing money and logistical nightmares. Communities are led a little astray by promises from FUDR, Johnson-Bennett said.
The Fish Creek Project
The Fish Creek, Hancock, FUDR project, in partnership with Delaware County Department of Public Works (DPW) and Trout Unlimited, will stabilize the eroded streambank, restore floodplain connectivity, and create high-quality habitats for native and wild trout and will address an ongoing issue for both flooding and habitat restoration, Oliver explained.
The total project cost is estimated to be $1.25 million, and will be offset with the $1 million grant.
The match required for this project is $250,000, Oliver said. It was secured in advance, through conversations with the DPW Committee and Jim Thomas, Delaware County DPW commissioner, Oliver said. The full cost of the bridge replacement is estimated to be $715,000 with FUDR providing $465,000 from the grant and the county providing $250,000 as the necessary match for the project.
The Junction Pool Project
As a further example of her mistrust and skepticism, Johnson Bennett stated that FUDR’s Junction Pool project in Hancock received a grant, with matching funds to be provided by Hancock Partners, a not-for-profit group in Hancock. However, Johnson-Bennett said, those funds are still controlled by Hancock Partners former executive director Richard Lowe.
“And Richard hasn’t been involved because FUDR doesn’t like Richard. And Richard’s saying, ‘Well, I’m not gonna give them their match and I don’t have to give them that money,’” Johnson-Bennett recounted to supervisors on the county’s planning committee.
Lowe refuted Johnson-Bennett’s statements and confirmed there are no trust issues between Hancock Partners and FUDR, or with him personally. Johnson-Bennett might be confused by misinterpreted or overlapping grant conversations, he said. Lowe clarified that the $85,000 secured for the Junction Pool project by Hancock Partners — $25,000 from Delaware County Economic Development and $60,000 from a private foundation — has been earmarked for the project for over two years, and is being held by Hancock Partners until needed for the planned project.
Lowe further explained that Hancock Partners lacked the necessary experience to manage river projects, leading them to transfer project control to FUDR, which successfully secured additional grant funding.
Lowe explains that he applied for National Fish and Wildlife grants twice, and, “Hancock Partners didn’t have the pedigree or the background like FUDR to do river projects,” Lowe said.
Lowe emphasizes that he was a contractor, not an executive director, and had no authority over funding decisions. He confirms that the funds were legally transferred to FUDR’s control, though they may still reside in Hancock Partners’ account until the grant is activated.
FUDR Executive Director Jeff Skelding responded to Johnson-Bennett’s claims as unfounded, fabricated and incredulous. Not only is the Hancock Partners match for the project accounted for in financial statements and reports at monthly board meetings, but all FUDR projects are funded in accordance with grant applications which are thoroughly vetted, scrutinized and audited by various funding sources.
Every dollar in a grant application and resulting project must be accounted for, Oliver said.
She is frustrated with the amount of misinformation circulated about FUDR projects, funding and operation by non-FUDR staff, Oliver said in response to Johnson-Bennett’s claims.
Grant Funding
“When we submit a grant, just like anyone else, we have to have a plan for what the match would be. It’s a carefully planned process with multiple checks and balances,” Oliver said.
“We follow all federal and state rules,” Oliver said. “We report our matching funds as part of our annual audit, and we maintain full documentation. There’s no ‘double-dipping’ or financial mismanagement. Every dollar is accounted for.”
Oliver also stressed that grant-funded projects operate on multi-year timelines, making it common for matching funds to be secured in stages.
“It’s a chicken-and-egg situation,” she explained. “Sometimes you secure the grant before the match, sometimes it’s the other way around. It’s all standard practice.”
Allegations Against a Former County Employee
Johnson-Bennett conceded that FUDR has good projects. However, she said, “FUDR’s mismanagement is taking good projects and turning them into a mess.”
She attributes that, at least in part, to what she perceives as a lack of communication between FUDR staff and with county planning.
Johnson-Bennett further complained about and criticized Oliver, who previously worked as county planning and watershed affairs staff.
“Jeff never knows what Molly is doing,” Johnson-Bennett said. “When Molly was an employee here (in the Delaware County Planning Department and later in Watershed Affairs), that was the problem. When she worked for me, when she worked for Dean, (Frazier, former director of Delaware County Watershed Affairs), [he] had no idea what Molly was doing. She was just off the left field,” Johnson-Bennett stated, and further claimed that after Oliver left county employment and took a position with FUDR, she has been “cleaning up the mess with Watershed Affairs,” without elaborating what problems exist in the department.
“The problem is,” Johnson-Bennett continued, “Jeff is retiring, and I believe Molly is taking his job.”
Frazier responded to Johnson-Bennett’s criticism of Oliver saying, “I relied on her heavily. She [Oliver] did great work.”
His experience with Oliver, he said, was “Nothing but professional, and always spot on with what she was doing.” He never had difficulty with Oliver as an employee. He would give her an assignment and “she would run with it. She was very outgoing, very smart,” he said.
Frazier elaborated saying, “To say I didn’t know what she was doing is incorrect. I knew where she was and what she was doing all the time.”
Planning for the Future
A core issue for Johnson-Bennett is a lack of strategic planning by FUDR.
“They think somehow changing the stream plan is going to fix everything. Well, it’s not,” Johnson-Bennett said, referring to FUDR’s planned updates to a years-old stream corridor management plan by the Upper Delaware River Tailwaters Coalition, largely authored by Johnson-Bennett. The plan identified potential stream management projects in each municipality below the Cannonsville and Pepacton reservoirs which FUDR was self-tasked with securing funding for.
In early February, FUDR began the initial steps of updating the plan by gathering information from supervisors in those municipalities, including Colchester, Hancock and Deposit. FUDR is in the process of surveying those supervisors asking a variety of questions, including whether projects in the initial plan were completed; whether any identified projects should be removed; whether there were new projects that emerged since the creation of the original plan; whether there were projects completed that were not originally identified in the plan, and whether there were any funding sources supervisors were aware of that FUDR might apply to complete projects.
FUDR is not attempting to edit the core Tailwaters Management Plan, Skelding emphasized. “The plan is a living, breathing document that needs to be updated regularly,” meant to change as conditions change, he said. “The plan is most effective when it keeps pace with the changing times,” Skelding said.
The Fish Creek project in Hancock, Skelding said, was identified by Hancock elected officials in the original plan as a high priority project.
Collaboration is Key
FUDR’s successful grant applications are “good-news stories” in the context of watershed protection, Skelding said. “It highlights how partnerships between nonprofits and local governments are attracting funding to the region to do this important work.”
FUDR is moving forward with its projects as planned, with construction on Fish Creek anticipated for 2026 and ongoing progress on Junction Pool’s final designs.
“We respond to inquiries, we provide documentation, and we work under strict contracts,” Oliver said. “At this time, all projects are proceeding according to plan and on schedule.”
Despite the controversy, Oliver and Skelding remain focused on the organization’s mission - to protect and restore the river.
