Amazing What a Little Water Will Do!!!

[Big_Spinner]

Hi All,

Increase in release and the perfect amount of rain and the Delaware is transformed into a bug, fish and fishermen machine.

Just the right amount of bugs and good rising fish in places that a week ago, you would swear no fish existed.

Looks like more rain coming, so the Montague release will drop, too bad.

A bit more rain and the reservoirs will fill. This should mean a nice table change on June 1st that will restore the summer releases we have seen the last couple of summers of 500 cfs on the WB, 140 cfs on the EB and 110 on the NS.

Still wish we could get the EB up to about 190 cfs as a minimum.

Hope you got out fishing this weekend, it was so nice out.

Jim

 

[NJFred]

Good to see Jim. However let's not forget we were lucky to get cooler temps and precip just in time with Lordville pushing 78 (+4 degrees on the gauge measurement). Totally agree with you we need a thermal release in the plan. This period showed just how much we need a thermal release. Needs to be automatic. 2013 episode showed how getting parties to agree upon an release during an event takes way too long.

Frankly the other thing we need to change is Table 4a. Flows just too low. Anything higher is voluntary on behalf of NYC. But we are moving slowing in the right direction.

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi Fred,

Agree with all you say!

does not look like the parties are willing to implement an automatic thermal program for the june 1st extension of the FFMP. Hopefully, everyone will continue to press on for that to happen. I have not been too involved with the negotiations, so I cannot say what the hangup might be.

Table 4a is certainly too low. There are two ways to approach the problem:

One is to insert higher numbers into the table.

The other is to change the criteria by which we move into table A. NYC DEP still has this black box of how they determine the Table. That needs to be more transparent so that we can correct their overly conservative management. For instance, the April 20th OST summary table shows a predicted diversion that is about 600 mgd. The actual diversion since April 20th has been about 488 mgd. Over predicting forces the system into a more conservative table. We should be able to get OST Summary tables on a weekly basis so that everyone can see how the system is changing.

Don't forget though, we have had a pretty significant precipitation deficit since the first of the year.

Jim

 

[flyI4]

Jim,

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasnt a thermal "conservation bank" of water provided for in previous plans prior to the FFMP? If so- could you elaborate on why the thermal bank was once an acceptable concept, yet is now causing a stalemate among the parties? I swear I remember thermal releases being made years ago but maybe I'm just imaging this in my mind and the yo-yo flows in fact had nothing to do with thermal temps downstream-though I did learn the term somewhere and believe it was from prior years when conservation releases were OCCASIONALLY made.

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi Fly!

You are correct. The early versions of release revisions did have a thermal bank associated with "conservation releases"

There were two reasons that the thermal bank of old was retired:

Quantity and rules were not adequate and cumbersome.

Dr. Murali, who was the person at DEC in charge of decision making was retiring and DEC did not want to use staff time to implement the plan.

Hope at least some of it makes sense.

Jim


I am going to summarize these instead of show the entire schedule.

Original Release schedules (1954 decree)

WB winter 8 cfs summer 23 cfs
EB winter 6 cfs summer 19 cfs
NS winter 5 cfs summer 15 cfs

Docket D-77-20 (at the time this was a hailed as a major breakthrough and improvement)

WB winter 33 or 45 cfs summer 45 or 325 from 6/15-8/15
EB winter 50 cfs summer 70 cfs
NS winter 25 cfs summer 45 cfs

There was also a 6000 cfs/day bank for thermal stress that could be used when Hale Eddy, Harvard or Woodbourne were predicted to exceed a max of 75 degrees or a daily average of 72 degrees. This was available starting June 1 and until October 31.

Rev 1
This was implemented in 1980 and basically just made the previous docket permanently in the code. This is the permanent release plan. This is what you will hear we will go back to if a new plan is not approved by June 1st.

Same as above and thermal bank put in charge of the NYS DEC

Rev 2

Distributed the same water slightly differently.

EB had a peak summer release of 95

Rev 3

changed the WB release to summer 160 cfs starting June 1 and increased thermal bank to 9200 cfs days.

Rev 7 was a major change

Eliminated the thermal bank and established a habitat bank of 20,000 cfs/days

Conservation releases of :

WB 45 or 60
EB 35
NS 25

Flow targets - this was new and habitat bank was to be used to maintain these:

WB 225
EB 175
NS 115

FFMP and beyond

We then jumped into FFMP and tables. This was a major change which established that releases could safely be determined based on how much storage was in the reservoir and the time of year. This was the evolution of the tables.

You can see all of this on the Rivermaster website.

Under normal conditions minimum winter is 150 on the WB and summer 500 cfs.

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi Fly,

"Yo-Yo" releases are mostly the result of releases that are to be used to satisfy the Montague Target. These are commonly called "Directed Releases"

You can see a bit of this the last couple of days. The real problem can occur when we are getting directed releases of 1000 cfs and because of an anticipated storm, the rivermaster reduces the release to the minimum, in this case 150. This can happen overnight. This also happens 2 days before the storm is predicted to occur.

So far, the decree parties have been unwilling to address this issue.

Changes within FFMP are supposed to be ramped up and down over 3 days, but this does not apply to the Montague directed releases.

jim

 

[flyI4]

Thanks- these responses help provide some clarity for sure. Last question- I promise. In the late 1990s to early 2000s, i remember the west running anywhere from 500 to 1500 cfs for long periods of time during the summer, which I presume must have been done for purposes of meeting the montague flow target downstream. If I remember correctly it was the fact that the freestones were bone dry that led us to the west in the first place and I assume it was a low water year the first year I put in significant time there. That said- is the current plan allowing for more OVERALL WATER being released down the river in a given year? Thanks again for the info and to be clear I'm not asking in a critical way, just trying to further educate myself on the plan.

 

[golden beetle]

Great stuff.

New Jersey and Pa will probably build reservoirs that will take care of Montague w/o releases being needed from the Catskills...

I will guess that happens relatively soon.

Just guessing... (In DRBC publications online, it says stuff like build new reservoirs and increase capacity, but doesnt resolve exactly when, how and with clarity, if and where it will happen...)

I think the issue is whether the economics and practical reality justifies maintaining the fishery, and that issue will be clear once the Montague flows can be satisfied w/o Catskills water.

Am I right to speculate about this?

Anyway, damn good stuff.

 

[Trout Nazi]

It's all about desalination. Desalination and hemp, man.

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi Fly,

There is a thing I call selective memory when it comes to the good old days.

There were times when you are exactly correct. There were 800+ cfs releases for long periods in some years. These were often followed by dramatic drops to a trickle.

I have attached an overview of the flow on the WB for the last few years. you can pull any year you want off the USGS site to see more detail.

The late 90's and early 2000's had many very low incursions.

You will notice that since FFMP was adopted in 2006, the really low flow events are minimized.

You also asked if more water is now released?

The real answer is no. The reason is that in any given year the same (average) amount of water goes into the reservoir and has to come out.

FFMP has critically changed the TIMING of the releases. In the old days in dry years we had large directed releases and in wet years we had meager releases and lots of spills the following year.

FFMP says when there is ample water, release it in the summer BEFORE it spills. that is what it does.

Modeling shows that spills are reduced by 20+ percent. That water has been converted into "more" useful release as larger minimums and greater summer releases.

Again there is not more water, but water is distributed in a more useful way.

Jim

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi Fly,

One last graph! I promise??

Here is a graph of Stilesville flow. This is very close to the release amount unless the reservoir is also spilling.

This was a dry year and if you only visited the river in the summer, you would think that there was lots of water.

However, check out the rest of the year. Flows of 45 cfs or less for much of the year.

Jim

 

[NJFred]

Very good discussion. I've always believed that the Montague minimum is a big part of the fishery's problem in securing more water. How so? It can draw a tremendous amount of water out of the reservoirs and NYC has no choice unless down river water is available. It has been those large releases that have pulled Cannonsville down to very low levels and in some cases almost drained it. I strongly suspect, it is this demand of water that scares NYC the most not water for the fishery. In a year that looks dry, like this one, they are trying to preserve every drop for this water need instead of any for the fishery.

To illustrate, take Jim's flow chart in the post above. It looks like releases roughly averaged 500CFS in July and then in Aug and Sept were up to 1000CFS. Having done the math, 1000CFS a day release equates to 2/3% of Cannonsville capacity. So this directed Montague release used 50% of the water in Cannonsville alone. Yes there may have been some inflow, but much is unlikely. The whole reason for the release is lack of precip over the river.

What about Pepacton water? As long as I can recall, they always pull from Cannonsville. My understanding is that Pepacton has higher water quality so they will drain Cannonsville first.

What can be down about this? Well I doubt the minimum target for Montague will be lowered due to the Supreme Court decree that established this. Downstream water, as others have pointed out, has been used but there doesn't appear to be enough of that. And when we've had new sources, it hasn't been "banked" for the fishery. So there doesn't appear to be any solution here.

The bottom line therefore is those Montague directed releases are both a curse and a blessing to the fishery. Certainly there have been years where they've really helped the system. This issue also points out that Cannonsville capacity, relatively speaking, is small relative to the various demands on it's water.

Jim and others, maybe you can add some thoughts on this one.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Great stuff.

New Jersey and Pa will probably build reservoirs that will take care of Montague w/o releases being needed from the Catskills...

I will guess that happens relatively soon.

Just guessing... (In DRBC publications online, it says stuff like build new reservoirs and increase capacity, but doesnt resolve exactly when, how and with clarity, if and where it will happen...)

I think the issue is whether the economics and practical reality justifies maintaining the fishery, and that issue will be clear once the Montague flows can be satisfied w/o Catskills water.

Am I right to speculate about this?

Anyway, damn good stuff.

beetle, first of all, if NJ did want to build a reservoir, it would have to be downstream of the Montaque gauge because that gauge is at the very top of the state. Second, why would either PA or NJ want to help NY City out when both states know full well there is ample water in the upper Delaware to meet downstream states' needs?

What about Pepacton water? As long as I can recall, they always pull from Cannonsville. My understanding is that Pepacton has higher water quality so they will drain Cannonsville first.

True, but NYC has spent tens of millions of $$ over the years to clean up the water flowing into the Cannonsville Reservoir by working to fence out cattle, planting riparian buffers, bank stabilization projects, stormwater improvements, etc. Therefor, the water coming into the reservoir is approaching the higher quality of the water entering Pepacton.

 

[JOE.T]

beetle, first of all, if NJ did want to build a reservoir, it would have to be downstream of the Montaque gauge because that gauge is at the very top of the state. Second, why would either PA or NJ want to help NY City out when both states know full well there is ample water in the upper Delaware to meet downstream states' needs?




True, but NYC has spent tens of millions of $$ over the years to clean up the water flowing into the Cannonsville Reservoir by working to fence out cattle, planting riparian buffers, bank stabilization projects, stormwater improvements, etc. Therefor, the water coming into the reservoir is approaching the higher quality of the water entering Pepacton.

I suggest you should speak to Jeff Church, DEC Region 4 ,Plummer ,and Skelding at FUDR

The water in the Cannonsville is horrible,it's filled with Silt ..You have silt coming out there filling up the WB, and Algae Blooms in the reservoir that nobody knows what it is.

Ask Jeff C for his Pics and Video and about his day on the WB with FUDR last summer.

Joe T

 

[tomfly]

beetle, first of all, if NJ did want to build a reservoir, it would have to be downstream of the Montaque gauge because that gauge is at the very top of the state. Second, why would either PA or NJ want to help NY City out when both states know full well there is ample water in the upper Delaware to meet downstream states' needs?





True, but NYC has spent tens of millions of $$ over the years to clean up the water flowing into the Cannonsville Reservoir by working to fence out cattle, planting riparian buffers, bank stabilization projects, stormwater improvements, etc. Therefor, the water coming into the reservoir is approaching the higher quality of the water entering Pepacton.

They had it was scraped "Tocks Island". It was decades ago. The Federal government bought up all that land in the gap. Then they did not continue the project. You can only imaging how great the fishing would have been below it.