Delaware River FFMP/OST: the good, the bad .....

[JOE.T]

-------

Good morning.

Jim shouldn't have any trouble finding a place for his webinar or video presentation.

Currently there are plenty of commercial vacancies in Hancock.

We should know. Both Jim and I are realtors.

By the way, here are the two videos:


Upper Delaware Council


Jim Serio / Peter Kolesar Presentation of the FFMP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w9DDXWjOSyI



--------
The Upper Delaware Council's monthly June 2013 meeting, which included a presentation and question and answers from Thomas Murphy, P.E. of the New York City Department of Enviromental Protection, can be viewed as a video and accessed at:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYVUNqzk754



Please note that this was the first time in the UDC's history of twenty -five years that NYC DEP attended as a guest.


Topics include:


The New York City Reservoirs (i.e. Cannonsville / WB Del and Pepacton / EB Del)
The Upper Delaware River System
Cold water release programs
FFMP

Tony

You'll be there with Jim and I ,Right ?

Anyone ?

Bueller?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS6f1MKpLGM

 

[JOE.T]

Just to add to your thoughts...
The guy gets it from all the folks who just can't be satisfied... and he responds to their barbed questions calmly and matter of factly.... over and over and over again. I don't know how he does it.

And on a personal note, I was headed west some time ago and realized very late I was going to be on a plane and I didn't own a 3 or 4 piece rod. Jim graciously offered to let me borrow one of his. I still have it... Just kidding... But, what a nice thing to do...

Hey John

Since your such an advocate for the wild trout fishery, I can't imagine you wont be there at Jim's
Seminar?

Hopefully I'll see you and some others there as well.

Tight Lines

Joe.T

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi Tony,

I think what you mean to ask, "why is the release so low when we have a nearly full reservoir?"

Don't want to put words in your mouth, but let me know if that is it.

The answer is that NYC does need to manage for water supply. They are overly conservative in their estimates and management.

Flows are low because it is a dry year and NYC wants to keep as close to full as they can, if the dry period continues.

The excel spreadsheet I sent out before I think illustrates the two ways that NYC can slant this to their benefit without anyone asking why?? Could you follow the spreadsheet?

NYC routinely overestimates their diversion in the calculation and this reduces the "available water" for release to the river.

As conditions change, NYC does not change the summary for weeks at a time, thus delaying what may be entry into a more robust table.

For your other question, the answer is yes, I helped to design the framework of the FFMP tables. The tables were populated in the current version of FFMP/OST from the "White Paper" that was a joint venture between NYS DEC and PA Fish and Boat.

Testing of the model showed that after some revisions we would operate in table F or G about 70-70% of the time. While one could then say, well this must be one of the times we are in the other 25-30%, but I do not think the answer is that simple. It is my belief that NYC DEP has modified the rules such that we are not in the higher tables as often. This is difficult to test, so I still come back to more transparency from NYC DEP.

Let me know if all of this has helped to answer your question.

jim

 

[golden beetle]

Hi Tony,

I think what you mean to ask, "why is the release so low when we have a nearly full reservoir?"

Don't want to put words in your mouth, but let me know if that is it.

The answer is that NYC does need to manage for water supply. They are overly conservative in their estimates and management.

Flows are low because it is a dry year and NYC wants to keep as close to full as they can, if the dry period continues.

The excel spreadsheet I sent out before I think illustrates the two ways that NYC can slant this to their benefit without anyone asking why?? Could you follow the spreadsheet?

NYC routinely overestimates their diversion in the calculation and this reduces the "available water" for release to the river.

As conditions change, NYC does not change the summary for weeks at a time, thus delaying what may be entry into a more robust table.

For your other question, the answer is yes, I helped to design the framework of the FFMP tables. The tables were populated in the current version of FFMP/OST from the "White Paper" that was a joint venture between NYS DEC and PA Fish and Boat.

Testing of the model showed that after some revisions we would operate in table F or G about 70-70% of the time. While one could then say, well this must be one of the times we are in the other 25-30%, but I do not think the answer is that simple. It is my belief that NYC DEP has modified the rules such that we are not in the higher tables as often. This is difficult to test, so I still come back to more transparency from NYC DEP.

Let me know if all of this has helped to answer your question.

jim

Jim, I dont blame NYC for their conservatism.

I just wonder if this event, which doesnt seem particularly extreme to me, doesnt lead to the conclusion that NYC shouldnt seek to lessen it dependency on a source that has it in a state of austerity, when the reservoirs are at 98 percent.

Are there any plans for alternative sources, besides the Croton coming back online?

Again, I dont blame NYC for its stinginess, if 98 percent truly isnt enough for the city to be secure with its water supply.

But I'm shakin my head...

Because this is a seasonal economy out there, and some folks could lose half the season's worth of work from this, which seems pretty extreme considering the conditions are not extraordinary as not to expect this again... and again.

 

[mudbug201]

Just to add to your thoughts...
The guy gets it from all the folks who just can't be satisfied... and he responds to their barbed questions calmly and matter of factly.... over and over and over again. I don't know how he does it.

Yeah, just to add to the chorus... I haven't known Jim as long as JC or FF, but there are some guys who you meet and you know right off the bat that they have integrity. I'm probably not one of those people. But Jim is.

Whether or not you are in support of the work he's done on behalf of the fishery (I am, but everybody has to make up their own mind) you can't question his work ethic or his intentions. The ad hominem attacks just come across as childish. Especially when we all agree about the objective, and much of the dispute revolves around highly technical differences in how we think it should be achieved.

 

[golden beetle]

Yeah, just to add to the chorus... I haven't known Jim as long as JC or FF, but there are some guys who you meet and you know right off the bat that they have integrity. I'm probably not one of those people. But Jim is.

Whether or not you are in support of the work he's done on behalf of the fishery (I am, but everybody has to make up their own mind) you can't question his work ethic or his intentions. The ad hominem attacks just come across as childish. Especially when we all agree about the objective, and much of the dispute revolves around highly technical differences in how we think it should be achieved.

Good to be polite and have some humility, especially in regards to the people who've put in effort here.

I cant comment on Jim personally tho.

Because Jim hasn't yet met the Beetle.

 

[WBDluver]

Good to be polite and have some humility, especially in regards to the people who've put in effort here.

I cant comment on Jim personally tho.

Because Jim hasn't yet met the Beetle.

And lets hope he never does. We dont want ro lose him

 

[golden beetle]

And lets hope he never does. We dont want ro lose him

You goon.

let's fish as soon as this is over with...

 

[rossk]

Hi All,

Mostly useful discussions the last few days over the current condition of the Delaware and releases from the NYC reservoirs. It still troubles me that there is so much incorrect information out there after all of these years. It is obvious that some have not even taken the time to read the FFMP.

It is not an easy read, but it is not long:

http://water.usgs.gov/osw/odrm/documents/FFMP_2014_Agreement.pdf

As always, respectful questions will be answered.

It has been asked: Do I think we are better off now on the system? No question in my mind that we are much better off.



Jim

Jim,

I know dealing with these issues is a difficult and often thankless job.

To determine if FFMP is actually an improvement, I assume someone is looking at the average water temperature, maximum water temperature, and the number of times certain temperature parameters have been exceeded at various points on the West Branch, East branch and mainstem Delaware each summer before and after it was initiated. Would you mind sharing this information?

Much appreciated.

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi Ross,

Good question.

Of course, I have multiple answers and a troubling note!!

This was essentially the basic question that the decree parties asked several years ago when we lobbied for more water.

"How do you know you will improve/protect the system if we give you more water?"

The answer was we all thought it was good, but they wanted proof.

I think the outcome goes even beyond the question you asked.

Enter the Habitat Decision Support System Model (the DSS)

Now we had a way to test various model runs against each other and see what improved and what got worse.

The DSS takes the output from the OASIS model (OASIS tracks all changes of flow in the Delaware Basin each day over 80 years of record.) and compares various runs against each other. For instance, how do things change when we increase the release on the East Branch from 140 cfs to 190 cfs in the summer?

"What does the DSS compare?" you might ask!

In many ways the DSS goes beyond the temperature questions that you asked about.

Habitat for various species are compared.

Adult trout habitat is one of several as is juvenile trout, spawning trout, benthic (bugs), etc.

The DSS output shows how adult trout habitat changes with flow and or release. An increase in flow may result in an increase in habitat and the DSS quantifies this by counting the square meters of habitat.

Now, the DSS also allows you to set a temperature target for habitat. For instance you can run the DSS with the same two OASIS output runs at various temperature targets.

So, we can see how much more trout habitat is created with the increase of release from 140 to 190 at a 68 degree maximum temp and then run it again with a 72 degree max.

So there is a lot you can, but that is still theoretical. It is based on the best science for habitat available.

Luckily there are all kinds of gauges on the rivers and one can compare the actual temperatures under various actual releases. You have to be a bit careful here, since air temp differences can skew the results, but it is a start.

More to follow

Jim

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi Beetle,

We are in complete agreement about NYC DEP and risk.

There is no blame here, protecting their water supply is what they do.

I do think that we have shown them that there are ways to improve the rivers an not raise their risk levels.

For example, FFMP design allows for 20-25 % of wasteful dangerous spill to be converted to useful release. This is a good thing.

There are other ways to accomplish this and create a win/win/neutral result.

Win - better habitat
Win - reduced flood risk
Neutral - NYC storage not affected.

Jim

 

[rossk]

Hi Ross,

Good question.

Of course, I have multiple answers and a troubling note!!

This was essentially the basic question that the decree parties asked several years ago when we lobbied for more water.

"How do you know you will improve/protect the system if we give you more water?"

The answer was we all thought it was good, but they wanted proof.

I think the outcome goes even beyond the question you asked.

Enter the Habitat Decision Support System Model (the DSS)

Now we had a way to test various model runs against each other and see what improved and what got worse.

The DSS takes the output from the OASIS model (OASIS tracks all changes of flow in the Delaware Basin each day over 80 years of record.) and compares various runs against each other. For instance, how do things change when we increase the release on the East Branch from 140 cfs to 190 cfs in the summer?

"What does the DSS compare?" you might ask!

In many ways the DSS goes beyond the temperature questions that you asked about.

Habitat for various species are compared.

Adult trout habitat is one of several as is juvenile trout, spawning trout, benthic (bugs), etc.

The DSS output shows how adult trout habitat changes with flow and or release. An increase in flow may result in an increase in habitat and the DSS quantifies this by counting the square meters of habitat.

Now, the DSS also allows you to set a temperature target for habitat. For instance you can run the DSS with the same two OASIS output runs at various temperature targets.

So, we can see how much more trout habitat is created with the increase of release from 140 to 190 at a 68 degree maximum temp and then run it again with a 72 degree max.

So there is a lot you can, but that is still theoretical. It is based on the best science for habitat available.

Luckily there are all kinds of gauges on the rivers and one can compare the actual temperatures under various actual releases. You have to be a bit careful here, since air temp differences can skew the results, but it is a start.

More to follow

Jim

I appreciate the quick response, but I'm not sure you understood the question. Models are nice, but there is only one way to know what is actually going on in the river. Review the data and compare!


I'm sure the powers that be would want actual detailed info on the temperatures seen in the rivers and how these have improved (or not) under FFMP. That's what I was looking for as well.

I realize there are numerous gages to provide this basic info, but I'm assuming someone has looked at this, done the analysis and can offer proof that FFMP has improved things.


Thanks!

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi Ross,

I got it. The modeling is theoretical and it would be nice if we could show that the system is working as the model predicts.

There is a provision in the FFMP that requires NYS DEC to file an annual report on temperatures and habitat. They are a bit behind.

Although it is cumbersome it is relatively easy to compare years for flow and temperature from the USGS gauge data.

I have attached a flow comparison between 1990 and 2014. We know that 2014 was on the wet side, I do not know about 1990, but it at least both have high flows in May. I would like to find a May that did not spill and compare to this year!!

There are any number of combinations of flow and temperature across different years that can be done.

The actual data could also be compared to daily data from the models.

jim

 

[JOE.T]

Hi Ross,

I got it. The modeling is theoretical and it would be nice if we could show that the system is working as the model predicts.

There is a provision in the FFMP that requires NYS DEC to file an annual report on temperatures and habitat. They are a bit behind.

Although it is cumbersome it is relatively easy to compare years for flow and temperature from the USGS gauge data.

I have attached a flow comparison between 1990 and 2014. We know that 2014 was on the wet side, I do not know about 1990, but it at least both have high flows in May. I would like to find a May that did not spill and compare to this year!!


Jim

So than how can you or I say that the plan is for the better or for the worse? If we don't have real data.

As Ross states models, theory's and forecasting is one thing.

The reality is and you Obviously know this but the Delaware system literally has no water in at as I write this with the Reservoirs at 98%.

Also you state that on June 1 we will have 500cfs.Is that an educated guess on your part ?

The way the plan is written anything above 225 cfs is voluntary, correct ?

Thanks

Joe .T

 

[rossk]

Hi Ross,

I got it. The modeling is theoretical and it would be nice if we could show that the system is working as the model predicts.

There is a provision in the FFMP that requires NYS DEC to file an annual report on temperatures and habitat. They are a bit behind.

Although it is cumbersome it is relatively easy to compare years for flow and temperature from the USGS gauge data.

I have attached a flow comparison between 1990 and 2014. We know that 2014 was on the wet side, I do not know about 1990, but it at least both have high flows in May. I would like to find a May that did not spill and compare to this year!!

There are any number of combinations of flow and temperature across different years that can be done.

The actual data could also be compared to daily data from the models.

jim

I still am not sure that this is useful. The idea of FFMP is to keep trout-friendly temperatures in the 3 rivers, right? Has this improved with FFMP? I certainly would not trust data provided by the state. Don't we have our own review? Has anyone done an analysis?


When I take a quick look at the USGS station data for the West Branch (Hale Eddy), East Branch (Fish's Eddy) and mainstem (Lordville) they only have temperature back to 2007. It shows better temperatures from 2012 through 2014 on the WB than in 2008-2011. But it looks to be pretty much the same throughout on the other 2 waterways. This is just from one fast look. I'd really like to see data that goes back quite a bit farther and a full-blown review of it. Do we have that? Comparing flows in 1990 to 2014 really doesn't help much.

 

[rossk]

Hi Ross,

I got it. The modeling is theoretical and it would be nice if we could show that the system is working as the model predicts.

There is a provision in the FFMP that requires NYS DEC to file an annual report on temperatures and habitat. They are a bit behind.

Although it is cumbersome it is relatively easy to compare years for flow and temperature from the USGS gauge data.

I have attached a flow comparison between 1990 and 2014. We know that 2014 was on the wet side, I do not know about 1990, but it at least both have high flows in May. I would like to find a May that did not spill and compare to this year!!


Jim

So than how can you or I say that the plan is for the better or for the worse? If we don't have real data.

As Ross states models, theory's and forecasting is one thing.

The reality is and you Obviously you know this but the Delaware system literally has no water in at as I write this with the Reservoirs at 98%.

Also you state that on June 1 we will have 500cfs.Is that an educated guess on your part ?

The way the plan is written anything above 225 cfs is voluntary, correct ?

Thanks

Joe .T

That's exactly my point. Forget about the models. Look at what has really happened. Did conditions improve with FFMP? In what way?

 

[JOE.T]

I still am not sure that this is useful. The idea of FFMP is to keep trout-friendly temperatures in the 3 rivers, right? Has this improved with FFMP? I certainly would not trust data provided by the state. Don't we have our own review? Has anyone done an analysis?



When I take a quick look at the USGS station data for the West Branch (Hale Eddy), East Branch (Fish's Eddy) and mainstem (Lordville) they only have temperature back to 2007. It shows better temperatures from 2012 through 2014 on the WB than in 2008-2011. But it looks to be pretty much the same throughout on the other 2 waterways. This is just from one fast look. I'd really like to see data that goes back quite a bit farther and a full-blown review of it. Do we have that? Comparing flows in 1990 to 2014 really doesn't help much.

Ross you can back go much further tha 2007 on USGS.

Click on Summary of all available data for this site, which is right below the "box" with Discharge, Temp etc.

 

[rossk]

Ross you can back go much further tha 2007 on USGS.

Click on Summary of all available data for this site, which is right below the "box" with Discharge, Temp etc.

So, the information is there. I can't imagine that somebody - TU, FUDR, etc. - hasn't done a full-blown analysis and looked especially at the potential improvements brought about by FFMP. Just waiting to hear.

 

[Ausable]

Jim gave me a ride to my car coming in at Balls Eddy one night when my shuttle didn't show. Very solid guy and has spent more time unpaid on this fight than anyone would.

Bottom line is we have had a freakishly dry spring and agree a thermal plan need to be in place but it is way better now than it was ever was.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi Ross,

All good points.

I clearly have a bias towards the models, as I think they are useful and powerful. Do not discount their value too quickly as the decree parties recognize them as relevant in their decision making process. As I mentioned, they can be useful.

The NY reports a step in the direction that you suggest. I tend to trust their data, although find it incomplete.

There are no other studies that I know about.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I think one of the problems is that TU has lost their way on the Delaware and certainly does not spend the money here required to do the study you suggest.

The Nature Conservancy has continued to study the Neversink, they may have some useful information for you.

USGS has also done a huge amount of field work with their studies of the dwarf wedge mussels.

You would think that TU would be interested and have money for trout. One of the issues with biological systems is that they need to be studied for many years, that means lots of money. I know they have concentrated on brookies the last few years. I am sure someone here is better qualified to speak for TU than I am.

I have tried for years to find some money to develop a website that could be used as a repository for all of the various groups to store and share their temperature data. Over the last 15 years, in addition to the USGS gauge data, there probably has been an average of 50-60 additional gauges sitting in the river. Anyone have the expertise to build that site? I can get USGS, PA Fish & Boat, NY DEC, DRBC, and many others to share their data if a sight became available.

Did you figure out how to get the data off the USGS website for data pre-2007? I can help you with that if you did not get it.

 

[rossk]

Hi Ross,

All good points.

I clearly have a bias towards the models, as I think they are useful and powerful. Do not discount their value too quickly as the decree parties recognize them as relevant in their decision making process. As I mentioned, they can be useful.

The NY reports a step in the direction that you suggest. I tend to trust their data, although find it incomplete.

There are no other studies that I know about.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I think one of the problems is that TU has lost their way on the Delaware and certainly does not spend the money here required to do the study you suggest.

The Nature Conservancy has continued to study the Neversink, they may have some useful information for you.

USGS has also done a huge amount of field work with their studies of the dwarf wedge mussels.

You would think that TU would be interested and have money for trout. One of the issues with biological systems is that they need to be studied for many years, that means lots of money. I know they have concentrated on brookies the last few years. I am sure someone here is better qualified to speak for TU than I am.

I have tried for years to find some money to develop a website that could be used as a repository for all of the various groups to store and share their temperature data. Over the last 15 years, in addition to the USGS gauge data, there probably has been an average of 50-60 additional gauges sitting in the river. Anyone have the expertise to build that site? I can get USGS, PA Fish & Boat, NY DEC, DRBC, and many others to share their data if a sight became available.

Did you figure out how to get the data off the USGS website for data pre-2007? I can help you with that if you did not get it.

I greatly appreciate all the time and info. I agree that models are helpful, but with so much great data over so long a period, we have the real stuff to look at, and I always prefer that.

Yes, I did figure out how to get the data.

It does seem incredible that TU can have full-time staff to oversee the Musconetcong River, arguably one of the least important east coast trout rivers, while the Delaware system gets no support from them. This is badly skewed.

Every few years it seems we get another crisis here. People are excited. Letters are written, petitions are signed, then we all go back to sleep. The few volunteers trying to address the ongoing issues simply aren't enough.

I think a full-scale study of the interaction between flows and temperatures needs to be produced by our side, with emphasis on what improvements have been seen with FFMP, and where we need to go from here. I don't think it would be too expensive either.

The USEPA has a collection site for volunteer water monitoring data. Look at Home | STORET/WQX | Water | US EPA We have put a lot of our own data there.

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi Ross,

USEPA site looks useful, thanks.

Jim

 

[JOE.T]

Hi All,

Mostly useful discussions the last few days over the current condition of the Delaware and releases from the NYC reservoirs. It still troubles me that there is so much incorrect information out there after all of these years. It is obvious that some have not even taken the time to read the FFMP.

It is not an easy read, but it is not long:

http://water.usgs.gov/osw/odrm/documents/FFMP_2014_Agreement.pdf

As always, respectful questions will be answered.

It has been asked: Do I think we are better off now on the system? No question in my mind that we are much better off.

Many years ago when I sat on a committee to help develop an new operating plan for the Delaware River Basin Commission someone spoke up and said they felt that "Education is the most important aspect of what we can do". At the time I thought about it for a bit and decided that it was a good idea, but certainly not the most important thing that we could do.

I have since changed my mind! Education a public and a core group of caring fishermen is the most important thing we can do to move forward to improve releases and the FFMP.

You have all read about OASIS and DSS, come and see a demonstration!

How much do you all care? I am going to host a seminar/question/answer meeting on Friday, May 22nd from 7-9 pm. The venue in Hancock to be determined. Please give me a show of hands if you are interested. I think the best way to change something is to completely understand how it works, both fundamentally and politically. It may cost you a night of fishing, but refreshments will be served.

Some highlights and lowlights:

The good:

All is not lost: On June 1st the releases should restore to Table F or G and summer releases will be 500 cfs on the WB, 140 cfs on the EB and 110 cfs on the Neversink. (Compare those numbers to June 1st releases under Rev 1, Cannonsville 45 cfs, Rev ? 160 cfs, Rev 7 225 flow minimum at Hale Eddy) How can this be?? Come and find out.

FFMP fundamentally changed the concept of NYC water management. The idea that when there is more water in the system FFMP would allow for more releases is the core idea behind the FFMP. I think it is working.

The Bad:

The EB is particularly suffering under FFMP Table A today. Rev 7 had a minimum flow at Harvard of 175 on the EB, today the flow is less than 90.

There is no Thermal Protection Plan built into the system, even though a proposal has been on the table for 2 years.

How can we improve:

Thermal Protection should be implemented

Get Trout Unlimited back involved in the process, in my opinion they have lost their way.

Require more transparency and eliminate or at least reduce the NYC DEP black box that they are allowed to operate under.

Require NYC to produce the OST Summary on a weekly basis. This will help reduce the "black box"

http://water.usgs.gov/osw/odrm/documents/OST-FFMP_Summary_2015-04-20.pdf

There are new and updated OASIS and DSS models, the more they get used the more we can all gain.

So, what do you think, is it worth the effort, or am I wasting my time?

Jim

Hi Jim

Where are we meeting Friday night ?

Thanks

Joe T

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi All,

Seminar is in my office in Hancock, Friday at 7:00 pm.

So far I think there are 6 people who said they will make it.

No one who can shoot video has volunteered.

Send me a PM if you intend to attend.

Jim

 

[Ausable]

Are they diverting water from Cannonsville? With such a minimum release we went from 99% to 96% with some water coming in at Walton. Math doesn't work unless water is sent underground.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi Ausable,

You are right.

NYC has been diverting water from Cannonsville for the last two months.

The last month they have taken about 480 million gallons a day.

This time of year the quality of Cannonsville allows them to take lots of it and conserve the other reservoirs for later in the year.

Pepacton now rates as the highest quality of the three, surpassing the Neversink.

Cannonsville is still the reservoir of choice for releases to meet the Montague Target.

NYC can be more liberal with Cannonsville water as it is still the reservoir most likely to refill.

About half of the water that falls in the basin goes into Cannonsville.

Jim

 

[babyblue]

Jim,
Thank for having us, umm, me at your office Friday for a very informative talk about the agreement, and politics of it. Thank you for taking the time.

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi Blue,

I guess you can see where one of my lectures rates compared to a green drake spinner fall!!!

Was fun, I think we will have monthly meetings of the "Delaware River Research Group"!!!

All are welcome. Bring a laptop to crunch some data.

Jim