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!
Big Spinner - Todays Lordville Temps
- Thread starter Rivy
- Start date
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Riv,
It looks like Lordville is going to top 77 degrees today.
Not good.
I am just guessing, but it would have taken more water that could be spared from the bank to seriously reduce the temperature today.
There is so much water in the East Branch that is really warm. This makes it more difficult to reduce temps on the man stem.
The bank is 20,000 days for the entire year. A release of 1000 might have dropped the temp at Lordville another two or three degrees.
It is a balanicng act and it is difficult to decide what is best. Use all the water now and then hope for later or save some of the bank and then maybe not be able to use it at all later.
Montague releases should continue to increase and that will help. We still would like to take PPL power releases out of the equation, that would have meant an extra 300-400 cfs today from Cannonsville.
Jim
It looks like Lordville is going to top 77 degrees today.
Not good.
I am just guessing, but it would have taken more water that could be spared from the bank to seriously reduce the temperature today.
There is so much water in the East Branch that is really warm. This makes it more difficult to reduce temps on the man stem.
The bank is 20,000 days for the entire year. A release of 1000 might have dropped the temp at Lordville another two or three degrees.
It is a balanicng act and it is difficult to decide what is best. Use all the water now and then hope for later or save some of the bank and then maybe not be able to use it at all later.
Montague releases should continue to increase and that will help. We still would like to take PPL power releases out of the equation, that would have meant an extra 300-400 cfs today from Cannonsville.
Jim
brachycentrus
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
Big Spinner,
Couple of questions.
Who decides if water will be released from the bank?
How much water, if any, went unused last year?
What happens to the water that has been saved as a result of meeting Montague from PP & L?
Thanks,
Brachy
Couple of questions.
Who decides if water will be released from the bank?
How much water, if any, went unused last year?
What happens to the water that has been saved as a result of meeting Montague from PP & L?
Thanks,
Brachy
Brachy- Ill try a shot at this...
quantity, the final balance on May 28 (equivalent to May 31 at Montague)
was 11,101 cfs-days. The May 29 bank balance was re-set at 14,700
cfs-days for the coming year. Now this may look worse than it was. NYDEC can not release a drop more than mandated by rev 7. If they do, NJ would blow a gasket. So, following REV 7, they didn't need much of this left over water last summer or winter. Something else I dont agree with. I say if you have it, use it, regardless.
Rev 7 decides. If temp looks close, DEC puts in a request to NYC for release. Someone fell asleep the last 3 days.
A lot. The final habitat protection bank
quantity, the final balance on May 28 (equivalent to May 31 at Montague)
was 11,101 cfs-days. The May 29 bank balance was re-set at 14,700
cfs-days for the coming year. Now this may look worse than it was. NYDEC can not release a drop more than mandated by rev 7. If they do, NJ would blow a gasket. So, following REV 7, they didn't need much of this left over water last summer or winter. Something else I dont agree with. I say if you have it, use it, regardless.
Its not counted as saved water. (although in my opinion it shouldn't be counted towards montague at all) Rev 7 gives the fishery 20,000 CFS days and thats split up between a few different banks.
You really only think a few degrees? Looks like DEC doesnt think that much is needed. Looks like they just bumbers the releases up a few hundred CFS.
Although pulses are bad they may have had better luck timing a lower pulse 8 hrs on, 8 hours off, 8 hrs back on and maybe kept the river more than 3 degrees cooler.
I would have guessed a thousand release for 24 hrs would cool lordville more than 3 degrees if timed properly.
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Brachy,
Last question first:
What happens to the saved water as a result of PPL operations??
There is a general misunderstanding out in the public that PPL water is now being used to meet the Montague Target and that it was not counted toward the Montague Target previously. That is not true. PPL water has always been used to meet the Montague Target. That is in fact part of the decree.
There is however a change in PPL operation that was approved when Revision 7 was approved 3 years ago. That change did two things. Call me if you want the specifics, but suffice it to say that the change in NYC releases due to the change in PPL operation was minimal. Part of the change may actually be beneficial. How you ask?
The change in PPL operation was a very simple shifting of water from July into August. PPL must strictly adhere to fisrt of month lake levels. That is, the lake levels posted on their website for the first of each month must be met. If they are at the lake level before the end of the month, they cannot release for power production. The change in PPL operation actually shifted some releases from July into August. This has the opposite effect on the NYC releases. More water would be called for in July from NYC and less in August. This is a possible benefit as the higher NYC releases that would be needed in July would help the upper river when it tends to need it. The smaller releases in August are less critical beacuase typically the Montague Release requirement is much higher in August.
There was also a component of PPL operation change that would go into effect in times of drought. THE DRBC could direct water to be released from Wallenpaupack to help meet targets during drought. This may be the part of the PPL operation that you are referring to. This does in fact allow NYC to bank some extra water. Typically, drought operations are in effect in September through March and this is the time that there may be somewhat less NYC releases required due to enhanced releases from PPL. Since Rev 7 was initiated, there have been no declared droughts, so it has not been put into operation. There was however, an "Amelioration Bank" of water that was created in Revision 7 to ameliorate any negative effects that the PPL operation change caused to the Upper River Flows. As I mentioned this was not used, since drought has not been declared since Rev 7 was put into effect.
Sorry that was so long.
I am sure that you already know the answers to your first two questions, but here goes anyway.
NYS DEC makes the call on what to release from the Habitat Bank.
The amount remaining was quite high at the end of last year. I do not have the exact amount, but it was significant. Somewhat more that 50% of the bank, as I recall. This was extremely frustrating as we came to the end of May and there was water in the bank that would expire at the end of May.
The problem with banks is that the decree parties imposed so many restrictions on when the bank could be used that it was not used when it was obvious that it was not going to be used and that it would be useful to release water for the rivers.
Simply, the water could only be used to meet the target flows (Hale Eddy at a minimum of 225 cfs, for example) or when the Temperature Targets would be exceeded. THe dEC could not release water if one of those conditions would not be violated.
That brings us to today. Clearly the Temperature Target was violated today on at least the Mainstem. Lordville exceeded 75 degrees. There are also issues we have all heard befre, in that Lordville is not even the original target location. But that is another story.
I do not know but the model that predicts water temperaures is not that great (my opinion). It seems to undervalue the direct sunshine component that causes water temperatures to rise. Again though, this is the standard that guides the DEC.
The other thing that I am sure happens, is how much do you gamble with limited resources? Do you release 1200 for 4 hot days now and use up 25% of the bank that is supposed to last until next June 1st??
If you save half of the bank (10,000 cfs-days) to make sure you can meet the winter targets and then the winter is wet and you do not need it, you may not be able to use it!!! This happened last year with the floods and wet warm winter.
After all this, you can see that banks and targets are not an easy or perfect way to manage the system.
This led to the creation of a new system based on the amount of water in the reservoirs. FFMP is the result of this development. I think we can all agree that the concept is good, now we just need to make sure that the release matrix is populated with big enough numbers to protect and enhance the habitat and fisheries.
I think that is enough for now!!
Jim
Last question first:
What happens to the saved water as a result of PPL operations??
There is a general misunderstanding out in the public that PPL water is now being used to meet the Montague Target and that it was not counted toward the Montague Target previously. That is not true. PPL water has always been used to meet the Montague Target. That is in fact part of the decree.
There is however a change in PPL operation that was approved when Revision 7 was approved 3 years ago. That change did two things. Call me if you want the specifics, but suffice it to say that the change in NYC releases due to the change in PPL operation was minimal. Part of the change may actually be beneficial. How you ask?
The change in PPL operation was a very simple shifting of water from July into August. PPL must strictly adhere to fisrt of month lake levels. That is, the lake levels posted on their website for the first of each month must be met. If they are at the lake level before the end of the month, they cannot release for power production. The change in PPL operation actually shifted some releases from July into August. This has the opposite effect on the NYC releases. More water would be called for in July from NYC and less in August. This is a possible benefit as the higher NYC releases that would be needed in July would help the upper river when it tends to need it. The smaller releases in August are less critical beacuase typically the Montague Release requirement is much higher in August.
There was also a component of PPL operation change that would go into effect in times of drought. THE DRBC could direct water to be released from Wallenpaupack to help meet targets during drought. This may be the part of the PPL operation that you are referring to. This does in fact allow NYC to bank some extra water. Typically, drought operations are in effect in September through March and this is the time that there may be somewhat less NYC releases required due to enhanced releases from PPL. Since Rev 7 was initiated, there have been no declared droughts, so it has not been put into operation. There was however, an "Amelioration Bank" of water that was created in Revision 7 to ameliorate any negative effects that the PPL operation change caused to the Upper River Flows. As I mentioned this was not used, since drought has not been declared since Rev 7 was put into effect.
Sorry that was so long.
I am sure that you already know the answers to your first two questions, but here goes anyway.
NYS DEC makes the call on what to release from the Habitat Bank.
The amount remaining was quite high at the end of last year. I do not have the exact amount, but it was significant. Somewhat more that 50% of the bank, as I recall. This was extremely frustrating as we came to the end of May and there was water in the bank that would expire at the end of May.
The problem with banks is that the decree parties imposed so many restrictions on when the bank could be used that it was not used when it was obvious that it was not going to be used and that it would be useful to release water for the rivers.
Simply, the water could only be used to meet the target flows (Hale Eddy at a minimum of 225 cfs, for example) or when the Temperature Targets would be exceeded. THe dEC could not release water if one of those conditions would not be violated.
That brings us to today. Clearly the Temperature Target was violated today on at least the Mainstem. Lordville exceeded 75 degrees. There are also issues we have all heard befre, in that Lordville is not even the original target location. But that is another story.
I do not know but the model that predicts water temperaures is not that great (my opinion). It seems to undervalue the direct sunshine component that causes water temperatures to rise. Again though, this is the standard that guides the DEC.
The other thing that I am sure happens, is how much do you gamble with limited resources? Do you release 1200 for 4 hot days now and use up 25% of the bank that is supposed to last until next June 1st??
If you save half of the bank (10,000 cfs-days) to make sure you can meet the winter targets and then the winter is wet and you do not need it, you may not be able to use it!!! This happened last year with the floods and wet warm winter.
After all this, you can see that banks and targets are not an easy or perfect way to manage the system.
This led to the creation of a new system based on the amount of water in the reservoirs. FFMP is the result of this development. I think we can all agree that the concept is good, now we just need to make sure that the release matrix is populated with big enough numbers to protect and enhance the habitat and fisheries.
I think that is enough for now!!
Jim
Last edited:
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Fly Tier,
You may be right about the 1000 cfs making more of a difference. I do not know for sure.
The way it looks this year, we should be able to see this tested later in the summer. Montague releases will probably increase to the 1000 cfs level and then we can compare hot days in August to see what the temps are. The East Branch was flowing at about 500 cfs and 80 degrees today at the junction. Someone could do the math and calculate what the two rivers when mixed at the junctyion would be at and then add some number of degrees for the travel to Lordville.
I know that several groups have temperature gauges in the river this year. Hopefully, one of those groups can share the actual data when it becomes available. The Delaware River Foundation conducted similar research several years ago. We had up to 12 thermographs in the various rivers for two or three summers. I have offered that data to many groups, but have had no takers to do the actual examination of som eof these questions. The summers we collected the data did not provide ideal ranges of air temps to test and examine the various parameters. IT looks like this year there should be some very interesting information collected from the gauges in the river now. Hopefully, the groups will share that data.
jim
You may be right about the 1000 cfs making more of a difference. I do not know for sure.
The way it looks this year, we should be able to see this tested later in the summer. Montague releases will probably increase to the 1000 cfs level and then we can compare hot days in August to see what the temps are. The East Branch was flowing at about 500 cfs and 80 degrees today at the junction. Someone could do the math and calculate what the two rivers when mixed at the junctyion would be at and then add some number of degrees for the travel to Lordville.
I know that several groups have temperature gauges in the river this year. Hopefully, one of those groups can share the actual data when it becomes available. The Delaware River Foundation conducted similar research several years ago. We had up to 12 thermographs in the various rivers for two or three summers. I have offered that data to many groups, but have had no takers to do the actual examination of som eof these questions. The summers we collected the data did not provide ideal ranges of air temps to test and examine the various parameters. IT looks like this year there should be some very interesting information collected from the gauges in the river now. Hopefully, the groups will share that data.
jim
Joe D
Registered User
Jim, who is the person in the DEC that actually makes the call?
Do you not release water when it is urgently needed or save it to release when there are no/fewer fish that will benefit?
Joe
brachycentrus
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
The banked water should be used when conditions warrant, period !!!!
If the bank runs out, then you have a proven point to argue in the fight for more water.
One thing that has me totally befuddled is the constant rhetoric of releasing more water will increase drought incidence. According to the ODR website, there has only been 2 incidents of declared dought through the years and that drought was not stictly in the Delaware Basin, but throughout the Northeast. During that time, Montague releases were being met primarily from Cannonsville, with thermal protection mandated to Callicoon.
So now that Montague is being met primarily from PP & L and Rio, how could higher Cannonsville releases possibly increase drought incidence if historically it only happened 2 times.
If the bank runs out, then you have a proven point to argue in the fight for more water.
One thing that has me totally befuddled is the constant rhetoric of releasing more water will increase drought incidence. According to the ODR website, there has only been 2 incidents of declared dought through the years and that drought was not stictly in the Delaware Basin, but throughout the Northeast. During that time, Montague releases were being met primarily from Cannonsville, with thermal protection mandated to Callicoon.
So now that Montague is being met primarily from PP & L and Rio, how could higher Cannonsville releases possibly increase drought incidence if historically it only happened 2 times.
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Joe,
I am not trying to defend the current operation, since we all agree it is flawed.
I do however understand the dilemma that the DEC faces based on the limits that the decree parties have imposed upon them. (Not a big enough bank and constraints as to when that can be used.)
One of New Jerseys concerns was that DEC would use up the bank too early and then there would no water left for the rest of the year. That is why some of the water does not become available right away.
If I were managing the bank of water and could have used it without constrains. I would have done things a bit differently this Spring. I would have used more in May and early June. That would leave me even less than there is in the bank now, so I am not sure I would have released too much more water during this hot spell. I would have probably cranked the West Branch up to 700 yesterday and today and see how that helps.
As much grief as Rev 7 has taken, it has done some good things. There is no question that the East Branch and Neversink have benefited from Rev 7. I would say that the West Branch is about the same under rev 7 as previous revision. (Rev 6 - 160 cfs minimum release from June 1st to September and then 45 cfs the rest of the year). The mainstem has probably seen some warmer conditionsunder Rev 7 than previous regimes, but I do not believe it is the direct result of Rev 7. The weather conspired to hurt these rivers under Rev 7. A wet summer like we had last year put more water in the river, but it was warmer water than we wouldhave had in a dry year. Remember, in dry year, like this is shaping up to be, we get lots of cold water for Montague. I think that even the mainstem benefited from Rev 7 in the winter. Flows never were allowed to get so drastically low like we had seen under previous revisions.
FFMP with CP2 summer releases will be the next step forward in making real progress in managing this system for healthy rivers.
This is one of those opinionated days!! Certainly the trout in the mainstem do not like these warm days, I don't either. But they will survive, especially as long as te river is flowing at a good rate. This allows them to move. The rainbow fishing was fabulous last week above Callicoon. Was it fishing to rising fish in the middle of a warm day? No! But there was good dry fly fishing for several hours everyday. The water temperatures were good.
I do agree with the DEC's decision to try to hold back about half the bank to maintain winter flows. I would probably use a bit more and hope for a wet, warm winter like we had last year.
I think it is more important to maintain a cold plume down into the mainstem and make sure it is there all the time in the summer. I also believe that the same thing can be achieved on the East Branch down to the junction of the Beaverkill.
I guess that's about it for now,
Jim
I am not trying to defend the current operation, since we all agree it is flawed.
I do however understand the dilemma that the DEC faces based on the limits that the decree parties have imposed upon them. (Not a big enough bank and constraints as to when that can be used.)
One of New Jerseys concerns was that DEC would use up the bank too early and then there would no water left for the rest of the year. That is why some of the water does not become available right away.
If I were managing the bank of water and could have used it without constrains. I would have done things a bit differently this Spring. I would have used more in May and early June. That would leave me even less than there is in the bank now, so I am not sure I would have released too much more water during this hot spell. I would have probably cranked the West Branch up to 700 yesterday and today and see how that helps.
As much grief as Rev 7 has taken, it has done some good things. There is no question that the East Branch and Neversink have benefited from Rev 7. I would say that the West Branch is about the same under rev 7 as previous revision. (Rev 6 - 160 cfs minimum release from June 1st to September and then 45 cfs the rest of the year). The mainstem has probably seen some warmer conditionsunder Rev 7 than previous regimes, but I do not believe it is the direct result of Rev 7. The weather conspired to hurt these rivers under Rev 7. A wet summer like we had last year put more water in the river, but it was warmer water than we wouldhave had in a dry year. Remember, in dry year, like this is shaping up to be, we get lots of cold water for Montague. I think that even the mainstem benefited from Rev 7 in the winter. Flows never were allowed to get so drastically low like we had seen under previous revisions.
FFMP with CP2 summer releases will be the next step forward in making real progress in managing this system for healthy rivers.
This is one of those opinionated days!! Certainly the trout in the mainstem do not like these warm days, I don't either. But they will survive, especially as long as te river is flowing at a good rate. This allows them to move. The rainbow fishing was fabulous last week above Callicoon. Was it fishing to rising fish in the middle of a warm day? No! But there was good dry fly fishing for several hours everyday. The water temperatures were good.
I do agree with the DEC's decision to try to hold back about half the bank to maintain winter flows. I would probably use a bit more and hope for a wet, warm winter like we had last year.
I think it is more important to maintain a cold plume down into the mainstem and make sure it is there all the time in the summer. I also believe that the same thing can be achieved on the East Branch down to the junction of the Beaverkill.
I guess that's about it for now,
Jim
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Brachy,
Get your facts straight man.
"According to the ODR....only two instances of declared drought through the years...
That statement is just wrong.
"So, now that Montague is being met primarily by PPL...."
That statement is also wrong. Did you not read my previous post? PPL water has always counted toward Montague. PPL did not create more water!?!?! IT is still the same amount of water that will go down the river in the summer from PPL operation. The water has just been shifted from July into August.
I also do not think that we have to prove a point that there is not enough water, that point has already been made. All decree parties agree that more water for the upper delaware is a good thing. They are just not willing to give it up.
IN wet years, we all agree that there is enough water for everyone. FFMP is the first step in making more water available in wet years.
The decree parties trying to agree to a scope of work that will evaluate "safe yield of the system" is another step forward. Let's hope that this gets done.
Jim
Get your facts straight man.
"According to the ODR....only two instances of declared drought through the years...
That statement is just wrong.
"So, now that Montague is being met primarily by PPL...."
That statement is also wrong. Did you not read my previous post? PPL water has always counted toward Montague. PPL did not create more water!?!?! IT is still the same amount of water that will go down the river in the summer from PPL operation. The water has just been shifted from July into August.
I also do not think that we have to prove a point that there is not enough water, that point has already been made. All decree parties agree that more water for the upper delaware is a good thing. They are just not willing to give it up.
IN wet years, we all agree that there is enough water for everyone. FFMP is the first step in making more water available in wet years.
The decree parties trying to agree to a scope of work that will evaluate "safe yield of the system" is another step forward. Let's hope that this gets done.
Jim
brachycentrus
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
Jim,
I,m just repeating what info I can gleam from the DRBC and the ODRM websites.
The Lake Wallenpaupack drought operating plan instituted by Resolution No. 2002-33 provided for the use of lake storage to meet the Montague flow target during watch, warning and drought operations. Because the plan has the effect of conserving storage in the NYC reservoirs, it resulted in a benefit to the Basin through a substantial reduction in the modeled number of drought operating days which result from the fisheries releases. The use of water from Lake Wallenpaupack to meet the Montague target results in fewer and reduced directed releases from the NYC reservoirs - releases which directly benefit the tailwater fisheries below NYC's Delaware River Basin reservoirs. Consequently, in addition to the three-part Habitat Protection Bank, an Amelioration Bank (AB) of 3,000 cfs-days was established in Revision 7 to provide water to mitigate the potential impacts to the fisheries that may result from the Lake Wallenpaupack drought operating plan. In years during which such plan is in effect, the AB is available during drought watch, drought warning and drought operations, subject to certain conditions and limitations.
According to the site, any releases for the fishery, from water saved, requires approval from the decree parties to be used. Is this correct?
Also, according to the DRBC website, since 1980, there has actually been 3 declared droughts, not two. My mistake.
I,m just repeating what info I can gleam from the DRBC and the ODRM websites.
The Lake Wallenpaupack drought operating plan instituted by Resolution No. 2002-33 provided for the use of lake storage to meet the Montague flow target during watch, warning and drought operations. Because the plan has the effect of conserving storage in the NYC reservoirs, it resulted in a benefit to the Basin through a substantial reduction in the modeled number of drought operating days which result from the fisheries releases. The use of water from Lake Wallenpaupack to meet the Montague target results in fewer and reduced directed releases from the NYC reservoirs - releases which directly benefit the tailwater fisheries below NYC's Delaware River Basin reservoirs. Consequently, in addition to the three-part Habitat Protection Bank, an Amelioration Bank (AB) of 3,000 cfs-days was established in Revision 7 to provide water to mitigate the potential impacts to the fisheries that may result from the Lake Wallenpaupack drought operating plan. In years during which such plan is in effect, the AB is available during drought watch, drought warning and drought operations, subject to certain conditions and limitations.
According to the site, any releases for the fishery, from water saved, requires approval from the decree parties to be used. Is this correct?
Also, according to the DRBC website, since 1980, there has actually been 3 declared droughts, not two. My mistake.
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Brachy,
Given a bank of 20,000 cfs and the assumption that you have used up 5000 so far this Spring, how much would you use up in this 5 day hot spell? 5000 more?
So the 5000 more will keep the mainstem at acceptable temperatures for these 5 days. 5000 is not enough to keep Callicoon cool enough. Do you go up to 1500 per day and use 7500 of the bank for these 5 days?
We can keep a running total to see when you run out. IF you run out in August, then the system is in real trouble.
So what is your release number for the West Branch? Let's assume for the moment that the EB and Neversink are okay as they are. They are using about 300 cfs out of the bank everyday.
Jim
Given a bank of 20,000 cfs and the assumption that you have used up 5000 so far this Spring, how much would you use up in this 5 day hot spell? 5000 more?
So the 5000 more will keep the mainstem at acceptable temperatures for these 5 days. 5000 is not enough to keep Callicoon cool enough. Do you go up to 1500 per day and use 7500 of the bank for these 5 days?
We can keep a running total to see when you run out. IF you run out in August, then the system is in real trouble.
So what is your release number for the West Branch? Let's assume for the moment that the EB and Neversink are okay as they are. They are using about 300 cfs out of the bank everyday.
Jim
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Brachy,
Thanks for clearing that up. As you can see from what you posted, the change in PPL operation would only have been instituted in 3 of the last 27 years. Furthermore, there is an Amelioration Bank that will be created to compensate the Upper River for the excess stored water.
So for the last few years of Revision 7, there has been no drought declaration and thus no drought operation by PPL.
Jim
Thanks for clearing that up. As you can see from what you posted, the change in PPL operation would only have been instituted in 3 of the last 27 years. Furthermore, there is an Amelioration Bank that will be created to compensate the Upper River for the excess stored water.
So for the last few years of Revision 7, there has been no drought declaration and thus no drought operation by PPL.
Jim
Last edited:
brachycentrus
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
Jim,
I am not proposing any answers as I really dont have them. I am just trying to understand and interpret the shortcomings and the justification for them.
The more I read, it seems that the operating guidelines are just tied up in buracratic bs.
You say that PP & L releases for Montague havent had an effect on the fishery and actually are a benefit to the fishery.
I just have a difficult time trying to understand that assertion.
I am not proposing any answers as I really dont have them. I am just trying to understand and interpret the shortcomings and the justification for them.
The more I read, it seems that the operating guidelines are just tied up in buracratic bs.
You say that PP & L releases for Montague havent had an effect on the fishery and actually are a benefit to the fishery.
I just have a difficult time trying to understand that assertion.
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Brachy,
I still would like to see how you would choose to manage the current situation. My point being is that there are difficult choices to be made.
I think that your statement:
"The more I read, it seems that the operating guidelines are just tied up in buracratic bs."
is probably one of the most accurate statements that has ever been posted on this board.
I did not say that PPL releases do not have a negative effect on the fishery. They do. They always have. The upper river would be better off if PPL releases were not counted as part of the Montague equation.
What I did say is that the change in PPL release policy that was built into Rev 7 did not have a negative effect on the fishery. Remember, there are two changes in PPL operation that went into effect with Rev 7.
The first one, is the release of water from PPL for maintaining Montague during drought. This has not been implemented because there has been no drought declared.
Secondly, the possible benefit to the upper river occurs in the second change that was made in operation. That change was the shifting of PPL releases from July to August.
Jim
I still would like to see how you would choose to manage the current situation. My point being is that there are difficult choices to be made.
I think that your statement:
"The more I read, it seems that the operating guidelines are just tied up in buracratic bs."
is probably one of the most accurate statements that has ever been posted on this board.
I did not say that PPL releases do not have a negative effect on the fishery. They do. They always have. The upper river would be better off if PPL releases were not counted as part of the Montague equation.
What I did say is that the change in PPL release policy that was built into Rev 7 did not have a negative effect on the fishery. Remember, there are two changes in PPL operation that went into effect with Rev 7.
The first one, is the release of water from PPL for maintaining Montague during drought. This has not been implemented because there has been no drought declared.
Secondly, the possible benefit to the upper river occurs in the second change that was made in operation. That change was the shifting of PPL releases from July to August.
Jim
Hi Jim, I couldn't agree more that PP&L releases should be eliminated from the equation. I'm curious too to know if the inconsistent and unreliable releases from the Mongaup system are a factor. Seems to me the 'benchmark' location for target flow should be moved upstream to the Barryville gauge thus effectively removing both of those factors from the equation. I'm sure that this would be a major undertaking though since the current Montague location is the result of the decree. Likewise moving the target flow location upstream would in all likelihood require a revision of the minumum flow, another decree item.
So, my question essentially is, do you see this as do-able, and is it a battle better left for a later time or something that should be addressed in conjunction with the overall flow management agenda?
NJFred
Trout Hunter
PPL releases SHOULD BE part of the equation! The fishery equation. The problem is they are not.
The fundemental issue with the system is there is not enough water to go around. The dams don't hold back enough water relative to demand or use (Unlike some reseviors outwest). Currently The two big uses for Cannonsville and Peapacton are NYC drinking water then water to meet Montague minimum. The Montague mins are a huge use of water. Lest we all forget, Montague triggered releases about 5 or 6 years ago took Cannonsiville all the way down to nothing as for a period of 2.5 months they released in excess of 1000CFS to meet the Montague mins. These releases occured regardless of wether the fishery benefited or not (e.g. after ambients cooled down). We nearly avoided a catestrophy for the fishery.
Imagine now that use of downstream water could be water banked for the fishery to be used in an ideal manner. That is not only water from Wallenpaupak but from other downstream sources, Mongap and the Leheigh reservoirs. Cannonsville and Peapacton could be more safely run to lower levels throughout the year as the need for Montague releases are offset, water can be used when needed.
Now... the whole key here is that the upper reservoir water saved would need to be directed to the fishery otherwise as many have pointed out it can make the situation for the fishery worse (as it is today).
IMHO the use of downstream water to offload the upper reservoirs is key to finding the best solution for the fishery.
The fundemental issue with the system is there is not enough water to go around. The dams don't hold back enough water relative to demand or use (Unlike some reseviors outwest). Currently The two big uses for Cannonsville and Peapacton are NYC drinking water then water to meet Montague minimum. The Montague mins are a huge use of water. Lest we all forget, Montague triggered releases about 5 or 6 years ago took Cannonsiville all the way down to nothing as for a period of 2.5 months they released in excess of 1000CFS to meet the Montague mins. These releases occured regardless of wether the fishery benefited or not (e.g. after ambients cooled down). We nearly avoided a catestrophy for the fishery.
Imagine now that use of downstream water could be water banked for the fishery to be used in an ideal manner. That is not only water from Wallenpaupak but from other downstream sources, Mongap and the Leheigh reservoirs. Cannonsville and Peapacton could be more safely run to lower levels throughout the year as the need for Montague releases are offset, water can be used when needed.
Now... the whole key here is that the upper reservoir water saved would need to be directed to the fishery otherwise as many have pointed out it can make the situation for the fishery worse (as it is today).
IMHO the use of downstream water to offload the upper reservoirs is key to finding the best solution for the fishery.
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi guys,
Good stuff!!
The scope of work that is to be completed before September is set to include a re-evaluation of the Montague Target.
This scope of work is going to be a plan of work that needs to be completed over the next 3 years.
The scope of work needs to be in place by September so that the decree parties will vote to accept the FFMP proposal.
The revised FFMP proposal is set to be made public any day now.
Jim
Good stuff!!
The scope of work that is to be completed before September is set to include a re-evaluation of the Montague Target.
This scope of work is going to be a plan of work that needs to be completed over the next 3 years.
The scope of work needs to be in place by September so that the decree parties will vote to accept the FFMP proposal.
The revised FFMP proposal is set to be made public any day now.
Jim
Jim -
Not to complicate matters any further but don't you think the length of the day has a signficant impact on the water temps on the mainstem? For instance 10 years ago I routinely fished well past the end of Bouchexville Road in late August when the air temps were in the high 80's and the water temps were in the low 60's (great trico's down there). Of course since it was late August the release was near 1000 cfs due to drought like conditions. Does the Oasis model factor in the length of the daylight (sun)? It shouldn't be too hard to prove my point based on the historical data we have. I am going to research this a little using the cfs, water temp and air temp for a given date in late August vs the same flow late June or early July.
Not to complicate matters any further but don't you think the length of the day has a signficant impact on the water temps on the mainstem? For instance 10 years ago I routinely fished well past the end of Bouchexville Road in late August when the air temps were in the high 80's and the water temps were in the low 60's (great trico's down there). Of course since it was late August the release was near 1000 cfs due to drought like conditions. Does the Oasis model factor in the length of the daylight (sun)? It shouldn't be too hard to prove my point based on the historical data we have. I am going to research this a little using the cfs, water temp and air temp for a given date in late August vs the same flow late June or early July.
Fred and Jim my thanks to you both for your replies! Fred you make extremely valid points which IMHO make perfect sense. I guess the greatest problem would arise in coordinating and tracking all of the available sources and the associated volumes for any and all release events in order to be best able to utilize those waters to offset the need for Cannonsville releases. Sounds like quite the logistical nightmare to me! Frankly Jim I do not envy you the task of developing a means to accomplish this goal, but I DO thank you, and all who've dedicated so much personal time and effort in this on-going endeavor!:applaudit May you have the best of luck come Sept!
NJFred
Trout Hunter
Dave... you are absoulutely correct. Keeping track of flow contribution would be really tough. Very good point. Certianly the simplicity of a reservoir fill scheme translating into flow would make a good deal of sense as it would implicitly reflect upstream reservoir water saved by using downstream sources (like the recent proposals).
brachycentrus
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
As time goes on and on, I am coming to the opnion that this fishery will never, ever, reach it's potential and that the best we can eventually hope for is just a marginal Upper WB fishery.
As long as the DRBC and Decree representatives that call the shots are political appointees of their respective states, than neither a common sense or scientific management approach will ever come to fruition.
The question shouldnt be which proposal isnt whats worse for the system, the question should be, how do we get politics out of river operations?
Can it get back to the courts, or in typical political fashion, does it require a unanimous vote from the Decree parties?
As long as the DRBC and Decree representatives that call the shots are political appointees of their respective states, than neither a common sense or scientific management approach will ever come to fruition.
The question shouldnt be which proposal isnt whats worse for the system, the question should be, how do we get politics out of river operations?
Can it get back to the courts, or in typical political fashion, does it require a unanimous vote from the Decree parties?
Brachy, Excellent points. Hardest part will be keeping politics out of river operations when they are all under the guidelines that they want to keep fishery and river operations out of water resource operations.
Fisheries in NYS has done what they can possibly do under the current guidelines. NJ plays the biggest role here which doesnt make much sense but this business of Unanimous vote blows. Until they can change Unanimous to Majority, I have to agree with your first point.
I can not scream this any louder. The poison in anything getting accomplished is NJ. They are taking water rights to the extreme. Its 4 states water resources department against one states(NY) fisheries. Septemeber is going to be dreadful if things continue to go the way they are going. NJ already put some very difficult tasks on NYS to get accomplished or they will veto everything and we will be stuck with 1983 Rev 1. Maybe at that point, a passionate fishing attorney with a good bank role will file some sort of suit against the watercrats in NYC, NYS, NJ, PA and Del, get some sort of injunction to not allow what I feel more and more each day will happen. I hope I am wrong but Ive been pretty on target with my thoughts over the past few years.
While NYS takes all the heat from every interest group, NJ sits back and laughs since they are the ones seemingly pulling the strings with threats of VETO.
JOhnW,
NJ has a vote in everything because they are part of DRBC and have a right to 100MG of water a day they can divert from the D to fill their canals. Throughout the process, NJ has taken a stance that they should get more and before any drop goes to the fishery, they want more, or they at least want to be guaranteed that during any sort of drought status, their diversions stay in tact and are not effected. (they are now) so, if water goes downstream for fisheries, the extra drop that leaves the reservoir puts the reservoir closer to being in a drought status and they are against it. (this is my read on it)
Now, if they were allowed more water a day and NOT effected as much during a drought status, hey, more water for the fishery means more water for NJ to divert. Since NJ has veto Power they can make any demand they want or threaten veto which they are doing. Even with the reservoir increase in storage proposal. Im sure there are fights going on with who gets that water. There is a lot more to it, to difficult to explain and a lot the general public is not privied to. Bottom line... they have veto power, threatened to use it if things werent done their way.
NJ has a vote in everything because they are part of DRBC and have a right to 100MG of water a day they can divert from the D to fill their canals. Throughout the process, NJ has taken a stance that they should get more and before any drop goes to the fishery, they want more, or they at least want to be guaranteed that during any sort of drought status, their diversions stay in tact and are not effected. (they are now) so, if water goes downstream for fisheries, the extra drop that leaves the reservoir puts the reservoir closer to being in a drought status and they are against it. (this is my read on it)
Now, if they were allowed more water a day and NOT effected as much during a drought status, hey, more water for the fishery means more water for NJ to divert. Since NJ has veto Power they can make any demand they want or threaten veto which they are doing. Even with the reservoir increase in storage proposal. Im sure there are fights going on with who gets that water. There is a lot more to it, to difficult to explain and a lot the general public is not privied to. Bottom line... they have veto power, threatened to use it if things werent done their way.
In communications I've had with NJ DEP officials previously the attitude has been that enough Delaware water has been hijacked by NY City and they are reluctant to give up any more and it is somewhat presumptious to ask NJ to give up more when NY City is unwilling. Their hope was that any new flow agreements would make more water available to NJ but they were willing to settle for the status quo. This goes back more than a year and perhaps things have changed but I thought, at the time, that this was a pretty reasonable stance on NJ's part.
JohnW...wouldn't you think by default, if you let more water go sown the river, thats more water going past NJ canals? NJ doesnt take quite their full amount (its close)so before asking for more, use what you are alloted. Everytime something comes to the table, NJ bitches and threatens yet they do not offer up a solution. If they use their veto as they say they probably will, the sytem goes back to rev 1, NJ ends up with less water then they do today. the coalition showed all parties that under their proposed CP2 a few months ago, NJ would actually benefit.
Sad but true, NJ politicians (the dems specifically) are a bunch of self-serving, whiny, greedy idiots who pander to the ARAs. Really makes me ashamed to say I'm from this state. In my own feeble defense I can say I did not vote for either of the last 2 governers.
As regards the state not using their (our?) full current allotment I can think of 2 reasons why, one which is known fact and the other purely my own speculation.
The first is that draw-off via the canal isn't the only reason for wanting a certain volume of water. Maintaining a suitable amount of freshwater flow in the river is essential to prevent the upstream migration of the salt line in the lower river. As the salt line moves up the salt water begins to infiltrate the aquifers in both SJ and northern Del, causing many residential wells to begin pumping out salt water rendering them at least temporarily useless.
The second reason (my speculation) is that the pols want to maintain a buffer in the drawoff allocation to allow for the rapid expansion of development in this so-called 'Garden State'.
Obviously the stupidity of our pols becomes embarrassingly apparent when they veto a plan that would provide more water coming down the river, a situation that would clearly address both of the items I've outlined.
If I had my way Corzine would be rode out of town on a rail, or perhaps more suitably, floated down the river on a splintery telephone pole.
Last edited:
It's not all mindless politics (although there is a lot of that) I have been talking with NJ water supply people and they are very concerned about water supply issues.
NJ is the most densely populated state in the union with more than 1000 people per square mile. Most people in the state use groundwater supplies and many of these supplies are being overdrawn - especially in central NJ (where the Delaware and Raritan Canal leads). The population is growing (expected to add another million folks in 20 years), so the situation is getting worse not better as far as demand goes. When people don't get water, politicians take a lot of heat and the bureaucrats feel it pretty quickly. Some towns have stopped issueing building permits based on water supply. Water demand is pretty large in NJ and is growing.
As far a supply goes, water supply people are firm believers in climate change and are seeing stream flows jumping all over the place with a 100-year flood one month and record droughts a few months later. The average is staying roughly the same, but the variations are getting bigger. However, demand is constant and even goes up in low water flows because of lawn watering. As a result, the water planning folks are in a pinch and are reluctant to bargain one drop of water away, especially stored water that can get them through dry times. With all the pressure on them, NJ will always bargain hard for water. Yes, there will be crazy politics going on. However, water supply for NJ is serious business and ignoring that wouldn't make water for fisheries negotiations easier.
NJ is the most densely populated state in the union with more than 1000 people per square mile. Most people in the state use groundwater supplies and many of these supplies are being overdrawn - especially in central NJ (where the Delaware and Raritan Canal leads). The population is growing (expected to add another million folks in 20 years), so the situation is getting worse not better as far as demand goes. When people don't get water, politicians take a lot of heat and the bureaucrats feel it pretty quickly. Some towns have stopped issueing building permits based on water supply. Water demand is pretty large in NJ and is growing.
As far a supply goes, water supply people are firm believers in climate change and are seeing stream flows jumping all over the place with a 100-year flood one month and record droughts a few months later. The average is staying roughly the same, but the variations are getting bigger. However, demand is constant and even goes up in low water flows because of lawn watering. As a result, the water planning folks are in a pinch and are reluctant to bargain one drop of water away, especially stored water that can get them through dry times. With all the pressure on them, NJ will always bargain hard for water. Yes, there will be crazy politics going on. However, water supply for NJ is serious business and ignoring that wouldn't make water for fisheries negotiations easier.
