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!
DRBC Dec 10th Meeting Report?
- Thread starter khuhner
- Start date
Joe D
Registered User
No, I didn't. Like most of us, work gets in the way of too much that we want to do. I go to, Delaware River Basin Commission's Home Page and read what I can. Hopefully an eye witness will fill us in.
brachycentrus
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
I took a rough look at it and it appears to have less water in May, during prime time, and more in Sept.
While it says that the final product will be based on ongoing studies, it links to a new release schedule.
What scares me is a reference to protection for native species,, which to me says they take no responibility for the trout.
While it says that the final product will be based on ongoing studies, it links to a new release schedule.
What scares me is a reference to protection for native species,, which to me says they take no responibility for the trout.
Rusty Spinner
Active member
You know, that's an interesting point. Brook trout are/were native to this river system and they are never talked about. We all know about the smallies before the dams (non-natives), but few of us talks about the one species of trout native to the rivers that does need cold water. In all my years fishing up there I have caught exactly 2 brookies, both in the WB. But they do exist.
Agust
Resident TU Rat Bastard
I would never say that you should not worry, after all we all have seen the powers that be screw up the system. however, i believe the "native" species being referenced is the dwarf wedgemussel, and in order to protect it there are certain stable water regimens that may benefit us all.
I'll hold off on commenting on the proposed changes until I have had a chance to read them completely. (And get input from some of the folks who know the flow numbers much better than I.)
brachycentrus
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
Maybe that's just me being overly paranoid, but it seems there has been an ongoing effort to whittle away at protection of the tailwater fishery over the years.
First there was an aknowledged tailwater fishery with thermal protection down to Callicoon.
Then after another revision change and a valve change, the protection changed to Hankins.
Then Revision 7 came along and Hankins was supposed to be temporarily abandoned for one year as we were near draught.
Then Hankins was permanently abandoned and Hancock became the limit with an attempt to designate the Upper MS as a warmwater fishery.
Is there a legal reason for this? Who knows?
All of this occcured as flow targets were becoming increasingly met by downstream means, thus lower releases.
Hopefully the DWM will save the day.
Merry Christmas
Brachy
First there was an aknowledged tailwater fishery with thermal protection down to Callicoon.
Then after another revision change and a valve change, the protection changed to Hankins.
Then Revision 7 came along and Hankins was supposed to be temporarily abandoned for one year as we were near draught.
Then Hankins was permanently abandoned and Hancock became the limit with an attempt to designate the Upper MS as a warmwater fishery.
Is there a legal reason for this? Who knows?
All of this occcured as flow targets were becoming increasingly met by downstream means, thus lower releases.
Hopefully the DWM will save the day.
Merry Christmas
Brachy
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
Not to be Scrooge, but isn't the population of Dwarf Wedge Mussels located in the Neversink?
brachycentrus
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
John,
There may be some down there, but from what I understand, there is also a population around Lordville on the MS that was exposed last year during low flows.
In rereading this new FFMP, there will be an annual assesment of the THPDMP done by NY DEC for submission to the DRBC.
That is indeed very scary as the NY regional biologist thinks the current FFMP is great and the fishery has never been healthier.
His history with this system has not been very favorable.
Just my opinion...........
There may be some down there, but from what I understand, there is also a population around Lordville on the MS that was exposed last year during low flows.
In rereading this new FFMP, there will be an annual assesment of the THPDMP done by NY DEC for submission to the DRBC.
That is indeed very scary as the NY regional biologist thinks the current FFMP is great and the fishery has never been healthier.
His history with this system has not been very favorable.
Just my opinion...........
Last edited:
Kilgour Farms
I took the one less traveled by
The Drawf Wedge mussel is located down stream from Kilgour Spur . US Dept of Interior report 2005
This summer I saw a few guys down by the river on 191 near Equinunk and asked them what they were doing and never got a straight answer.
Figured it had to do with the Mussels.
This summer I saw a few guys down by the river on 191 near Equinunk and asked them what they were doing and never got a straight answer.
Figured it had to do with the Mussels.
Joe D
Registered User
Agreement of the Parties to the
1954 U.S. Supreme Court Decree
Effective December 10, 2008
With NYC allowed to divert 800 mg which would presumably be sent to Rondout before it made it to the city, and with Rondout being 90 to 99% full most of the time, where would they store the water if indeed they actually diverted the full 800 mg they are allowed?
1954 U.S. Supreme Court Decree
Effective December 10, 2008
With NYC allowed to divert 800 mg which would presumably be sent to Rondout before it made it to the city, and with Rondout being 90 to 99% full most of the time, where would they store the water if indeed they actually diverted the full 800 mg they are allowed?
brachycentrus
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
Joe,
I believe it goes from Rondout to the Croton system which has twice the capacity of Rondout. Too bad they dont have to include these storage containers in their reservoir release program. We would be in L1 or L2 year round.
Here is a great link that displays daily reservoir releases, power generation and NYC diversions.
Welcome to the Office of the Delaware River Master
Kilgour Farms
I took the one less traveled by
I believe the aqueducts can only handle 500 mil gallons/day. They're just hording the rest.
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Guys,
There really is no extra storage capacity in the system.
This is the really frustrating part. If NYC does not use all their allotment, it just spills and is wasted as well as increasing flood risk.
If NYC uses 500 mgd as an average, the reservoirs spill more.
There is very little risk to NYC, if any, to release more water when they are not using their full allotment. The reservoirs will still spill in the Spring.
When OASIS models are run over the 73 years of record, the reservoirs spill 48 years compared to 50 years if more water is released in the summer. Seems like not much risk to maintain healthy rivers for the next 73 years!!!
Jim
There really is no extra storage capacity in the system.
This is the really frustrating part. If NYC does not use all their allotment, it just spills and is wasted as well as increasing flood risk.
If NYC uses 500 mgd as an average, the reservoirs spill more.
There is very little risk to NYC, if any, to release more water when they are not using their full allotment. The reservoirs will still spill in the Spring.
When OASIS models are run over the 73 years of record, the reservoirs spill 48 years compared to 50 years if more water is released in the summer. Seems like not much risk to maintain healthy rivers for the next 73 years!!!
Jim
Last edited:
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Joe,
OASIS is set up to enter many different variables.
One of them is the NYC Diversion.
We have run it with many different diversions. (500, 600, 636, 700, 750, 765, 800)
OASIS then takes your changes and you run the model for the 73 years of record.
OASIS looks at the reservoir level in the FFMP matrix and selects the appropriate release for each reservoir and each day as well as making sure the targets (Montague, etc.) are met and then:
OASIS calculates the new flows and levels for the next day and then resets and does this for all 26000 days in the record.
All of the data is then stored in a massive file and you can manipulate it and graph it, etc.
You can also take out selected data and run it through the USGS DSS model that produces output showing several biological concerns. (Adult trout Habitat, Juvenile Trout, Shad, DWM, etc.
Jim
OASIS is set up to enter many different variables.
One of them is the NYC Diversion.
We have run it with many different diversions. (500, 600, 636, 700, 750, 765, 800)
OASIS then takes your changes and you run the model for the 73 years of record.
OASIS looks at the reservoir level in the FFMP matrix and selects the appropriate release for each reservoir and each day as well as making sure the targets (Montague, etc.) are met and then:
OASIS calculates the new flows and levels for the next day and then resets and does this for all 26000 days in the record.
All of the data is then stored in a massive file and you can manipulate it and graph it, etc.
You can also take out selected data and run it through the USGS DSS model that produces output showing several biological concerns. (Adult trout Habitat, Juvenile Trout, Shad, DWM, etc.
Jim
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Joe,
I think the answer has been well documented to your question.
DRBC and the parties used many different NYC Diversion levels in OASIS during evaluation.
NYC would not allow any diversions lower than 765 mgd to be used in the final plan.
FFMP currently contains 4 tables with a range of 800 to 765 mgd.
An easy and effective way to drastically improve FFMP is to add several more diversion tables. Tables for diversions of 750, 700 and 600 mgd have been suggested and tested.
I think it is reasonable to ask NYC for these extra diversion tables. These are not permanent, just like all the tables that currently exist in the FFMP. When NYC and the parties estimate a diversion for the year, the appropriate table can be used. If the expected diversion changes, up or down, the table can be also be changed.
I also believe that if you ask NYC for this concession it is also reasonable to ask that the down basin states contribute the ERQ water to the program. ERQ water does not really do anything beneficial at the present time. Eliminate the present ERQ program and allow that water to be added to the FFMP matrix to enhance releases. Studies show dramatic improvement in habitat.
Here is the way to improve FFMP that I believe we can all get behind:
Add the previously mentioned matrices to the program. Note: Just adding extra matrices to FFMP does not in itself improve FFMP. The extra matrices at lower diversion levels assumes that some or all of that non-diverted water is used within the matrix to increase releases.
Add an extra level of release, or maybe more than one, particularly to the L2 level.
Allow ERQ water to be used to supplement the releases within the matrix.
Establish minimum target flows along the river. Note: If the releases are high enough, target flows are not needed. The closer you make the target flows to the dams, the better protection you provide for the system. Clearly target flows at the dam face, which in reality become releases at those levels, unless the reservoir is spilling, would be the ultimate flow target.
Establish a small emergency bank of water to be used for unexpected conditions. Make sure that this bank can be utilized quickly to effectively deal with conditions. ERQ water is currently available for this process.
All of this creates a workable balance within the system where the needs of many are met.
It still all comes down to transferring wasted and dangerous spill to useful release.
Jim
I think the answer has been well documented to your question.
DRBC and the parties used many different NYC Diversion levels in OASIS during evaluation.
NYC would not allow any diversions lower than 765 mgd to be used in the final plan.
FFMP currently contains 4 tables with a range of 800 to 765 mgd.
An easy and effective way to drastically improve FFMP is to add several more diversion tables. Tables for diversions of 750, 700 and 600 mgd have been suggested and tested.
I think it is reasonable to ask NYC for these extra diversion tables. These are not permanent, just like all the tables that currently exist in the FFMP. When NYC and the parties estimate a diversion for the year, the appropriate table can be used. If the expected diversion changes, up or down, the table can be also be changed.
I also believe that if you ask NYC for this concession it is also reasonable to ask that the down basin states contribute the ERQ water to the program. ERQ water does not really do anything beneficial at the present time. Eliminate the present ERQ program and allow that water to be added to the FFMP matrix to enhance releases. Studies show dramatic improvement in habitat.
Here is the way to improve FFMP that I believe we can all get behind:
Add the previously mentioned matrices to the program. Note: Just adding extra matrices to FFMP does not in itself improve FFMP. The extra matrices at lower diversion levels assumes that some or all of that non-diverted water is used within the matrix to increase releases.
Add an extra level of release, or maybe more than one, particularly to the L2 level.
Allow ERQ water to be used to supplement the releases within the matrix.
Establish minimum target flows along the river. Note: If the releases are high enough, target flows are not needed. The closer you make the target flows to the dams, the better protection you provide for the system. Clearly target flows at the dam face, which in reality become releases at those levels, unless the reservoir is spilling, would be the ultimate flow target.
Establish a small emergency bank of water to be used for unexpected conditions. Make sure that this bank can be utilized quickly to effectively deal with conditions. ERQ water is currently available for this process.
All of this creates a workable balance within the system where the needs of many are met.
It still all comes down to transferring wasted and dangerous spill to useful release.
Jim
NJFred
Trout Hunter
Looked quickly at the new plan. Unless I missed it, no provision for automatic releases based upon high temperatures at Hancock or any where else for that matter. The parties can meet and decide to realease more if uninamously agreed to... but we all know what that meant this year during heat waves... too little too late.
Automatic temperature triggered releases used to be pegged at downstream gauges ....all the down the mainstem to Calicoon if I'm not mistaken. Over time, the temperature triggers where pegged to gauges up the mainstem and then into the lower WBD at Hancock and finally elminated.
Temperature triggers need to be part of the solution but we've gone backwards here.
Automatic temperature triggered releases used to be pegged at downstream gauges ....all the down the mainstem to Calicoon if I'm not mistaken. Over time, the temperature triggers where pegged to gauges up the mainstem and then into the lower WBD at Hancock and finally elminated.
Temperature triggers need to be part of the solution but we've gone backwards here.
Agree, Fred. When we had temp targets, they were used only sparingly, since they were tied into Habitat Bank water, which was insufficiently allocated (they did not want to run out and they rarely, if ever, did run out). We need either a higher minimum release during the Summer heat or max temp targets to ensure the habitat is protected during this period.
Bruce
Bruce
NJFred
Trout Hunter
Hey Bruce how are you?
Temperature triggers make a great deal of sense as part of an overall fishery plan. Why...? After a certain release level... more water is only released only if temperature triggers mandate it. The alternative is to always release higher rates whether it's hot out or not.
I would maintain that any plan without some sort of temperature trigger at high temperatures will certianly use more water.
Having said this... there are many other reasons than just to cool the system to have a steadier higher release.
Temperature triggers make a great deal of sense as part of an overall fishery plan. Why...? After a certain release level... more water is only released only if temperature triggers mandate it. The alternative is to always release higher rates whether it's hot out or not.
I would maintain that any plan without some sort of temperature trigger at high temperatures will certianly use more water.
Having said this... there are many other reasons than just to cool the system to have a steadier higher release.
Joe D
Registered User
