Welcome to NEFF

Sign up for a new account today, or log on with your old account!
Register

Give us a try!

Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!

Before it's banished to the back room(or at least, a side room)...

Hey guys,

good stuff from everyone.

I have been on the river fishing for a few days and not near a computer when I am coherent enough to type. (Although some of you may say I am never coherent enough!!)

A few comments:

Bob Bachman says that FUDR is opposed to the new plan since it does not answer the vital question; How much water is available for the fisheries? and that is a good point. But I do not think opposing the plan for that reason makes sense either. I guess I think that you can reverse that thinking and also say how much do we need and then find a way to get it. That seems to make more sense to me. That is the approach that DRF has supported. WHY NOT ANSWER BOTH QUESTIONS AT THE SAME TIME? That way if we only answer one we do not have to wait for the other answer. I think it will mean increasing storage on the reservoirs to get it. The OASIS model shows that to maintain a minimum 600 release through the summer, it will take more water than is presently released down the river. Somewhere between 10-30 billion gallons more, depending on the year.

One other point, under the old 371 resolution the release of 325 cfs was from 6/15-8/15 and only 45 before and after that. The change was made from that to protect this time of year and late August. I think that it has worked. Releases the last two 90 degree days would have been 45 cfs under the old regulation. That does not mean I do not want more cold water, I do, and I think we are making progress toward that goal.

We continue to push for a flow and temperature gauge at Lordville. This will give us more information and also eliminates PPL releases from the equation.

Time to go home and relax. I will be in the office this weekend should anyone want to stop in and discuss these issues in person.
 
FT or somebody can you summarize the Bachman letter for me? I have an advanced degree and still can't figure out what he's saying. Maybe I'm just educated way beyond my intelligence. I'm sure it's there I just can't figure it out. Andre
 
You guys need to be congratulated. I've never seen a post go 20 pages, and this one is obviously destined to exceed that number handily.

Talk about a hot issue! I'm impressed over the tremendous concern of the UD and the fishery it contains. The only thing I find confusing is you all seem to be saying the same thing - "let's protect the fishery" - but can't agree on how or what the best way is for everyone.

Maybe you all should get together and hash things out over a couple of pints? ;)
 
Big Spinner,

You wrote that,
"One other point, under the old 371 resolution the release of 325 cfs was from 6/15-8/15 and only 45 before and after that." Based on that you write, " Releases the last two 90 degree days would have been 45 cfs under the old regulation."

Weren't those numbers just minimums? In other words, they could be, and often were, exceeded at the direction of the water keeper(whatever title) at Montague. Therefore, your last statement is not entirely accurate. The flow could have been 45cfs or higher. I was on the west branch in early season days when the flow was raised because of severe temperatures. Some people seem to take these numbers and instead of considering them as 'minimums', consider them 'absolutes'.
 
Andre,

Bachman is basically saying that the study that is now in effect, will take 3-6 years and cost a lot of money, and bring us right back to where we are today. The Study is asking the wrong question.

more later......
 
Fly Tier,
No disrespect meant. Thanks for the FUDR reference. I've read the site, and have the following comments.
The 600cfs number proposed based on averages would be meaningful if Cannonsville was, say, 50% larger. With a larger buffer, the water could be managed to achieve the objective that we all seek. Right now, NYC has agreed to a Habitat bank of 20,000cfs days, which is about 13 Billion gallons, or just less than 5% of the total reservoir storage. To go to a 600cfs release as per FUDR, would, on average, double the required size of this Habitat bank. This calculation took into account the releases necessary for meeting the Montague target. I present this so that we all get a feel for what we are asking NYS for...and how do we think we can get them to listen??
Final point: England created a world empire by getting the people in their colonies to fight each other( India, for example)....I imagine that the NYC DEP is getting quite some solace from reading some of these posts.
 
Allan you are correct.

Those numbers were minimums and were often exceeded by the DEC or the rivermaster.

DEC would release water from its thermal bank to protect against temperatures greater than 75 degrees.

Rivermaster would release water to maintain the 1750 Montague Target.

In May of 2001 we did get warm days and a release of only 45 cfs. It was a disaster for the river. The new plan prevents that.

The water for thermal protection was in a bank separate from the River Master Release water. One old problem was the accounting of the water. Thermal releases were counted first and then if the river master needed more water it was added in. Under the new program, river master needs are counted first and do not effect the Habitat Bank.

Fly Tier

I understand Bob's concern, but why not do both studies at the same time and get all the info needed to make decisions?

TU attempted to answer the question of how much water is available with Piotrs study that showed a possible water budget that was quite large. It was a first stab at the "How much is available to the fish? question.

I am attempting to shorten what I see is the critical path to a more permanent solution. Whu delay either srudy, since they both must be done to get all parties to agree to solutions. Why not do both studies concurrently, as well as push for making more water available so that when all the data comes in we are ready to implement what the data shows?

If anyone is interested, I will hold an informal informational session at my office on Saturday at noon. Please come with questions and answers! Maybe we can plan to hold a series of mini-conferences to talk out all the issues. I think that would be most useful. Any suggestions?
 
Oasis Man,
I dont think you are understanding this, The water is there, the reservoir doesnt need to be 50% larger.

the 600CFS release has nothing to do with the habitat bank.

The average has been over 600CFS, it just been released in up and down "yo-yo releases" 1500 one day, 600 the next, then up and down.
 
Glad you are back Fly Tier!!

We need to get this issue resolved between us. We both know we are right!! Lets sit down some time and hash it out.

If you change those 1500 releases to stop the yo-yo and add it to days when you need more water, you have to mess with the Montague Target. The 1500 release days are to meet Montague. If you want to reduce that target to save water I am all for it! I think it is a great way to "create" water for the fishery and habitat. Just convince the down basin states to do that and we are really getting something done!!!
 
Fly Tier,

One other thing and I understand this is a big IF, but it needs to be done. The water saved by reducing Montague needs to be guaranteed to be used for habitat protection. NYC cannot be allowed to hold it back. A tough task, but I think it can be done.

Oops, one more thing, why not also raise the dam by 15-20 billion gallons, (again the big) IF, you make sure it is used for fisheries and habitat protection? This would also serve to keep the basin out of drought and keep all parties happy!
 
Big Spinner wrote:

"Fly Tier

I understand Bob's concern, but why not do both studies at the same time and get all the info needed to make decisions?
Click to expand...

Because they are questions at opposite ends. USGS study, is asking how little water, Bachmans says it should ask how much water.

TU attempted to answer the question of how much water is available with Piotrs study that showed a possible water budget that was quite large. It was a first stab at the "How much is available to the fish? question.
Click to expand...


Oh My, How can you be so wrong!!! No they did not. When Phil Chase and Tony Ritter (FUDR Board Members) mentioned Piotrs study at a UDC meeting last fall, TU, the DEC and Mr. Piotr himself responded immediately that it was not a scientific study, it was merely his opinion, however as you probably know, Mr. Piotrs "opinion" called for 600 CFS release during the same time frame that FUDR is recommending.
I am attempting to shorten what I see is the critical path to a more permanent solution. Whu delay either srudy, since they both must be done to get all parties to agree to solutions. Why not do both studies concurrently, as well as push for making more water available so that when all the data comes in we are ready to implement what the data shows?
Click to expand...

Which two studies are you referring to?

If anyone is interested, I will hold an informal informational session at my office on Saturday at noon. Please come with questions and answers! Maybe we can plan to hold a series of mini-conferences to talk out all the issues. I think that would be most useful. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

Why not give a formal invite to Lee Hartman, Craig Findley or Al Caucci, or even Bob Bachman?
 
Last edited:
Fanatic

The 600 cfs is a historical avg flow.This number is derived from the flow that is needed to keep the montaque target at 1750 cfs.

You like some others here seem to be confusing this with water needed for NYC.Thats not the case.The water needed by NYC is drawn down via pipes to the roundout from the resevoirs and than to nyc for drinking purposes.

The water that is released is to insure that the salt water does not come up to far into the lower Delaware.

So you are incorrect in saying we need to convince the people of NYC that we need more of there drinking water.

The fudr wants the 600 cfs,but with consistancy and no yo yo flows.They are not asking for anything more than what we have had for many years now.

Understand?

As far as $20 million being insignificant to NYC.Well it may appear that way to you and some others.If NYC felt that way about all the small little towns in NY state than what?

The point is all the "little money" from the fly fishing,hunting,,antique towns etc, adds up to be a very large significant amount of money in the end for NY state.Not to mention how it affects so many families in a positive way.

As Ben Franklin said "watch the pennies and the dollars will make themselves".
 
Last edited:
FT

I agree.Some of the board mebers from the FUDR should be present at such a meeting.

Without them what's the point?
 
Just another fact: The 225CFs flow that is now in effect was a number pulled out of thin air and there is no scientific data to substantiate such a flow. Also, the 20,000 CFS another negotiated number that came out of no where.

If I am wrong Jim, Tell me where did the 225 CFS flow number came from.

-FT
 
Why, it is no secret, as far as I know it was taken from the Sheppard study. Even Doug Sheppard agrees that the number should be higher. He based that number on the best information available to him in the early 1980's. The only way to get something better is to prove it is better. That what we are doing.
 
Jim

The sheppard study clearly indicates that 225 cfs would only protect the West branch and not the main stem.

Again why did you and the DRF back a plan that would not protect the main stem fish or insects?
 
The shepphard study Jim? Better re-read that one.

You do a lot of I thinks, how can you possibly support a plan on I thinks?
 
It was the best that we could get and the alternative was a lot worse. Remember, that we have all said this is a temporary measure.

Is 225 better than 70, certainly. That is why I supported it.

The 225 is better for the main stem than nothing. It is an improvement
 
How can it be that some one could believe that the water that is sitting behind one of the dams up here is not needed by NYC? I don't care where it winds up, it is their water to decide what to do with. Not their drinking water? That is their choice. Cannonsville water is used to meet the Montague target because NYC decides to. If they wanted to use Pepacton water or Neversink water for the target they could. THEY choose not to. If they wanted to drink Cannonsville water, they could. I have heard that they prefer the quality of the Pepacton water for drinking water. (It's a good thing they like pepacton water better than Cannonsville water, or the WB fishery might not have had a chance). In any event, NYC water is NYC water and they need it to drink and they NEED it to meet that Montague target. They determine when and how they will use it whether it be for drinking or meeting that target.

You are asking NYC to throw 600cfs into the system whether the Montague target is below 1750 or not. In the past, when the average was 640 they would release water when they HAD to. If at Montague it is 5000, you would want 600, right? If Montague was at 2000 you would want 600 right? And if Montaque was at 500 you would want 600 right? And NYC would have to add an additional 650, for a grand total of 1250. Exaggerated, but the average would not be very beneficial to NYC and certainly not near the 640 you point to often. In a bad year, they would probably love to have those 600s then that they "threw away" when the target was met without supplementation. I think that people don't understand what is being asked of NYC. I'd hate to be the politician that makes the decision to do it, and get screwed by mother nature in some way and have shortages. Can you understand the repercussions of being wrong and having it affect millions?

"Hey John,

Your premise is completely wrong here. FUDR is not taking a drop of water away from NYC when asking for a constant release of 600 CFS. Your bank account analogy therefor is incorrect and to get support from NYC residents, well, support for what? Taking nothing from them? "

FT, I want to be your accountant. :)

John
 
I believe the Pepacton and the Neversink is not capable of releasing that much water(FOR THE MONTAQUE TARGET) from there valves.Even if they where you would have flooding in some of the valleys on both rivers from the amount of water needed to keep the M. target at 1750 cfs.

You could spin the numbers like nyc does so often,however the bottom line is that they have been releasing 640 cfs as an avg for 40 years now.It demonstrates that there is enough water.

One more thing to throw into the soup,lets not forget PPL.Gotta run maybe someone else could fill in FF on the PPL issue.

FF funny how you BACKED away from your theory that the people in the small towns and the small money generated from these towns are so insignificant TO NYS?
 
FF,
You are wrong again with your numbers and for BS to think you are right, well thats wrong too.

If a release is at 600, never would the montague target be at 500. Are the fish putting the water in buckets?

Montague target at 170 has quite a few different resourses to pull from. PPL will be the big one. If you dont want to understand it now, watch the numbers as the summer progresses when PPPL starts dumping water.

there is more than enough water in the reservoirs, NYC can pull up to a certain amount every year and has never taken all they can. Habitat banjs etc. have been around for years, whether called habitat or not, they have not come close to being used.

Science and simple math with a little long division shows this. Dont take my word for it, check public records,
 
Fly Tier,

You are the confused one. FF was not suggesting that Montague would be at 500. He was suggesting that if there was only natural flow, Montague would be at 500 and that we would need more releases.

I am willing to bet a substantial amount that you will not notice any difference because of PPL this year. We did notice any difference in the years that they ran the water that is proposed in the current scheme. You all make it sound like PPL has a new reservoir full of water they will be releasing. It is still the same amount of water they have always had.

You are still asking NYC to release more than they have to. Why would they do this?

Joe,

The East Branch has valve capacity to release about 700 cfs. This would not produce flooding. I do not know what the Neversink dam can release.
 
FT you are right; I exaggerated too much. Do you understand the concept though? Should we just ignore it because it does not fit the argument you are making?

What about the year that cannonsville went down to 3%? I'm not sure where that fits in to anyone's argument, but if that can happen without a 600 minimum release, might the probability rise of it happening again, with it? Oh, and by the way, why is nobody considering the trout fishery ABOVE the dam. I know that most of you do not partake, but there is a substantial population of Bruiser Browns in those reservoirs (You should see them when they spawn!) What levels of water in the reservoirs are you guys willing to fight for to protect them? Yeah, let's hear how they don't matter.

Joe, I'm pretty sure I never said that the 20 million mattered to NYS. If I did, point it out to me and let me see what my thinking was. Any amount of money makes a difference to a small town, absolutely. Indirectly(food, gas, etc.), the money helps to keep a few service jobs, but as has been stated, just 3 months or so of the year. I'm sure there are few, full time, 12 month positions being supported solely by fishermen. I don't know, but aside from lodging, what percent of those jobs directly paid for by fishermen such as guides, are held by full time residents? Where does that money ultimately go? Can they support themselves with three months of work? My point was only that people should not portray the money brought in as being the only game in town. One shouldn't try to convince everyone that the towns fold up without it. Those towns have been around much longer than the fishery has.

Now, how dare anyone portray me as not caring about the rivers and the fish in them. I enjoy them being there and want what ever is feasibly available for them. Excuse me for being so selfish as to have an open mind and consider the other side of the argument. It seems that there are people that don't take into consideration, ALL points of view. But only considering evidence that fits one's argument is shallow. It reeks of one just wanting to WIN. I want a solution that is right for all parties involved, not because I have an allegiance to one group or one outcome, but to the hope that the best resolution can be reached for all parties.
John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
FUDR Stuff
Replies
8
Views
5K
Future Fanatic
Future Fanatic
J
FUDR Fact Sheet.
Replies
15
Views
6K
Fly Tier
F
Back
Top