chromefinder
Fishizzle, I use worms but I'm looking to upgrade!
What are the odds that today's increased WB Delaware release of 557cfs are going to hold up through the sunday afternoon?
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!
Increased WB Delaware 557cfs Releaes
- Thread starter chromefinder
- Start date
brachycentrus
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
Probably slim and none.
Rio is generating and Wallenpaupak has a boating release AND:finger: a thermal release scheduled for both days.
Someone tell me why they do a thermal release for a hatchery system and refuse to support the Upper D wild trout.
Every drop released from Wallenpaupak and the Mongaup system is water that isnt released from NYC reservoirs.
Rio is generating and Wallenpaupak has a boating release AND:finger: a thermal release scheduled for both days.
Someone tell me why they do a thermal release for a hatchery system and refuse to support the Upper D wild trout.
Every drop released from Wallenpaupak and the Mongaup system is water that isnt released from NYC reservoirs.
chromefinder
Fishizzle, I use worms but I'm looking to upgrade!
Wallenpaupack release is scheduled to be @ 232 cfs both Sat and Sun and is actually 445cfs from the boating release today until 3pm. Perhaps this is why we got the increase this morning on the WB since Wallenpaupack / Lax release will be lower Sat & Sun. I wish I had a crystal ball or at least understood the methodology enough to figure out the weekend Delaware flows a day or so in advance.
brachycentrus
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
You are right, it's nearly impossible to predict, remember though, the WB release takes 48 hrs to get to Montague and the Montague target is averaged over 24 hrs. It went as low as 1400 several times this week. By the time this water hits, they will restart generating again and Rio is generating this weekend.
NJFred
Trout Hunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by chromefinder View Post
Wallenpaupack release is scheduled to be @ 232 cfs both Sat and Sun and is actually 445cfs from the boating release today until 3pm. Perhaps this is why we got the increase this morning on the WB since Wallenpaupack / Lax release will be lower Sat & Sun. I wish I had a crystal ball or at least understood the methodology enough to figure out the weekend Delaware flows a day or so in advance.
You are right, it's nearly impossible to predict, remember though, the WB release takes 48 hrs to get to Montague and the Montague target is averaged over 24 hrs. It went as low as 1400 several times this week. By the time this water hits, they will restart generating again and Rio is generating this weekend.
1 Hour Ago 07:12 PM
Which.... once again..... is why we need temperature triggers to protect the fishery.
Originally Posted by chromefinder View Post
Wallenpaupack release is scheduled to be @ 232 cfs both Sat and Sun and is actually 445cfs from the boating release today until 3pm. Perhaps this is why we got the increase this morning on the WB since Wallenpaupack / Lax release will be lower Sat & Sun. I wish I had a crystal ball or at least understood the methodology enough to figure out the weekend Delaware flows a day or so in advance.
You are right, it's nearly impossible to predict, remember though, the WB release takes 48 hrs to get to Montague and the Montague target is averaged over 24 hrs. It went as low as 1400 several times this week. By the time this water hits, they will restart generating again and Rio is generating this weekend.
1 Hour Ago 07:12 PM
Which.... once again..... is why we need temperature triggers to protect the fishery.
Trout Fever
New member
i know one thing the rio is only release once or twice a week right now with what seemas to be two gates open a couple weeks ago the were only releasing once a week and for about a month before that i think i can only remember maybe one or two releases facts are toronto res swinging bridge monguap and rio are fill right to the brim right now with the amount of rain they could release one gate for a week striaght and it wouldnt make a differnce on the res levels
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi guys,
All good points about protecting the upper river.
Lake Wallenpaupack Hydroelectric Station - Lake Elevation
Here is the release scehdule for PPL this week. There will not be a big difference from weekend to weekday, so expect the current release from the WB to stay about the same. This of course can change if PPL release changes or a big thunderstorm hits us.
I believe that COZ from this site is working to get the Rivermaster to publish an expected release schedule 2-3 days in advance.
Jim
All good points about protecting the upper river.
Lake Wallenpaupack Hydroelectric Station - Lake Elevation
Here is the release scehdule for PPL this week. There will not be a big difference from weekend to weekday, so expect the current release from the WB to stay about the same. This of course can change if PPL release changes or a big thunderstorm hits us.
I believe that COZ from this site is working to get the Rivermaster to publish an expected release schedule 2-3 days in advance.
Jim
Last edited:
NJFred
Trout Hunter
One thing is pretty interesting to observe this month and over the last 7 days. The difference in temps at Hancock and even Lordville (with not much water coming out of the east) is quite substantial between 350CFS and 550 CFS.
It sure looks like to push a bit of cold water into the main with these hot ambients, we need at least 550 CFS out of Cannonsville. More would be better of course. A release from Cannonsville of 350 CFS doesn't cut it what so ever.
It sure looks like to push a bit of cold water into the main with these hot ambients, we need at least 550 CFS out of Cannonsville. More would be better of course. A release from Cannonsville of 350 CFS doesn't cut it what so ever.
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Fred and anyone,
As we continue to develop the next generation of FFMP, here is a question to ponder and let me know what you think.
What minimum summer release would you have on the West Branch?
Can we assume that a summer release minimum of 800 cfs would mean that there would be little or need for a "thermal bank" of water to protect the river?
So, let's take whatever you don't use from the 800 daily minimum and toss it in a bank.
That might be a good place to start.
Additionally, would you allocate any of that 800 for increasing the winter releases?
Would you allocate any of that 800 for the other rivers?
These are the kind of questions that need to be asked and then tested in order to arrive at the most efficient use of water for the system.
So have at it guys....
Jim
As we continue to develop the next generation of FFMP, here is a question to ponder and let me know what you think.
What minimum summer release would you have on the West Branch?
Can we assume that a summer release minimum of 800 cfs would mean that there would be little or need for a "thermal bank" of water to protect the river?
So, let's take whatever you don't use from the 800 daily minimum and toss it in a bank.
That might be a good place to start.
Additionally, would you allocate any of that 800 for increasing the winter releases?
Would you allocate any of that 800 for the other rivers?
These are the kind of questions that need to be asked and then tested in order to arrive at the most efficient use of water for the system.
So have at it guys....
Jim
NJFred
Trout Hunter
Jim,
Here are my thoughts.
First the obj needs to be defined. I say we should try and keep the first 6 or 7 miles of the main cool as well as the entire west branch. Neversink and then the east branch are secondary and tertiary objectives. Dumping water into the East to cool the main doesn't work. Neversink should be maintained. In my opinion too much water goes into the east at the margin where it could be put to better use in the West.
Next... I'm going to define summer as May 20th to August 20th. This is more attune to nature from my observations than first of the months which are simply human convenience points.
In terms of flow, 800CFS flow averaged across the summer is not feasible... I think. 1000CFS is 2/3% of Cannonsville capacity. Accounting for some inflow... 800cfs would probably take 40% out of the Reservoir... Prob too much.
I'd set min release around 450 CFS. Then I'd set a temp trigger at Hancock at 17 or 18 degrees C max temperature drawing down on a back for extra flow. A hot summer day like today might pull another 100CFS out. Maybe 200 CFS if in the low 90s and perhaps an additional 300CFS in mid 90s ambient.
Not sure if this meets my objective in the Main but it would be an improvement. Jim you could also raise and lower the min based upon FFMP's reservoir levels.
Now as far as fall and spring... maybe you drop the release to 325 CFS or something like that maintaining the temp trigger at Hancock.
Maybe you add a secondary trigger at Lordville to account for variation in flow in the East. That would be set higher... perhaps 24 degrees (objective not to cool lordville down but a few miles upstream).
As far as winter goes... I think you might set that to some reasonable minimum... not sure what that is and it might vary based upon cannonsville levels and snow pack moisture content.
So I have kept the concept of FFMP, introduced the old temp triggers to preserve water for all parties.... and met what I think is the objective which is to cool the upper main down for first 6 or 7 miles. Now I'm not sure this would all work but it's a proposal and a start to improve FFMP.
Here are my thoughts.
First the obj needs to be defined. I say we should try and keep the first 6 or 7 miles of the main cool as well as the entire west branch. Neversink and then the east branch are secondary and tertiary objectives. Dumping water into the East to cool the main doesn't work. Neversink should be maintained. In my opinion too much water goes into the east at the margin where it could be put to better use in the West.
Next... I'm going to define summer as May 20th to August 20th. This is more attune to nature from my observations than first of the months which are simply human convenience points.
In terms of flow, 800CFS flow averaged across the summer is not feasible... I think. 1000CFS is 2/3% of Cannonsville capacity. Accounting for some inflow... 800cfs would probably take 40% out of the Reservoir... Prob too much.
I'd set min release around 450 CFS. Then I'd set a temp trigger at Hancock at 17 or 18 degrees C max temperature drawing down on a back for extra flow. A hot summer day like today might pull another 100CFS out. Maybe 200 CFS if in the low 90s and perhaps an additional 300CFS in mid 90s ambient.
Not sure if this meets my objective in the Main but it would be an improvement. Jim you could also raise and lower the min based upon FFMP's reservoir levels.
Now as far as fall and spring... maybe you drop the release to 325 CFS or something like that maintaining the temp trigger at Hancock.
Maybe you add a secondary trigger at Lordville to account for variation in flow in the East. That would be set higher... perhaps 24 degrees (objective not to cool lordville down but a few miles upstream).
As far as winter goes... I think you might set that to some reasonable minimum... not sure what that is and it might vary based upon cannonsville levels and snow pack moisture content.
So I have kept the concept of FFMP, introduced the old temp triggers to preserve water for all parties.... and met what I think is the objective which is to cool the upper main down for first 6 or 7 miles. Now I'm not sure this would all work but it's a proposal and a start to improve FFMP.
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi guys,
Good start Fred!
Anyone else want to take a crack at a suggestion.
I would say that Fred's suggestion is a bit more conservative than the White Paper from PA/NY and uses that extra water as a bank.
I will try to make OASIS runs and DSS runs on the suggestions and see where they fall on the scale of efficiency and water conservation.
We define water conservation as the change in drought days to the system.
We define efficiency as a function of amount of release used compared to the amount of trout habitat gained.
Each variable can effect the outcome, so we will need to test them individually at first.
So, I would first change the minimum releases and leave the seasons the same. We can try a variety of releases from say 300 to 800 as a summer release on the West Branch and then compare the drought days and habitat. We will then be able to compare the White Paper release schedule directly to the new proposal both in terms of habitat lost(gained) and drought days saved(lost).
We will not introduce the temp targets at this time, nor will we change the winter releases, Neversink release, Pepacton release, etc.
A methodical approach to testing will yield a better understanding of the system.
I would suggest that we simplify the target approach and use just a target at Hancock. We know that if the Hancock temp is low enough, we will get a cold plume into the mainstem. The length of that plume will vary.
Two other questions as we set these targets;
How often do you want to succeed meeting the target?
Is the target defined as a maximum temp or daily average, or some combo of both? DEC temp targets typically were 75 degree max and 72 degree daily average.
Anybody else want to add their input?
Jim
Good start Fred!
Anyone else want to take a crack at a suggestion.
I would say that Fred's suggestion is a bit more conservative than the White Paper from PA/NY and uses that extra water as a bank.
I will try to make OASIS runs and DSS runs on the suggestions and see where they fall on the scale of efficiency and water conservation.
We define water conservation as the change in drought days to the system.
We define efficiency as a function of amount of release used compared to the amount of trout habitat gained.
Each variable can effect the outcome, so we will need to test them individually at first.
So, I would first change the minimum releases and leave the seasons the same. We can try a variety of releases from say 300 to 800 as a summer release on the West Branch and then compare the drought days and habitat. We will then be able to compare the White Paper release schedule directly to the new proposal both in terms of habitat lost(gained) and drought days saved(lost).
We will not introduce the temp targets at this time, nor will we change the winter releases, Neversink release, Pepacton release, etc.
A methodical approach to testing will yield a better understanding of the system.
I would suggest that we simplify the target approach and use just a target at Hancock. We know that if the Hancock temp is low enough, we will get a cold plume into the mainstem. The length of that plume will vary.
Two other questions as we set these targets;
How often do you want to succeed meeting the target?
Is the target defined as a maximum temp or daily average, or some combo of both? DEC temp targets typically were 75 degree max and 72 degree daily average.
Anybody else want to add their input?
Jim
brachycentrus
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
Jim,
Ist the degree of drought days determined by NYC's allowed diversion of 800mgd ?
Throw out that number and base any flow plan based on actual usage like the white paper did.
This is starting to sound familiar..........
Ist the degree of drought days determined by NYC's allowed diversion of 800mgd ?
Throw out that number and base any flow plan based on actual usage like the white paper did.
This is starting to sound familiar..........
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Fred,
Here is another small point.
I like the idea about making sure there is a plume of cold/cool water at all times inot the mainstem from the WB. I think this gives the fish a sanctuary and a path to colder water. There are lots of rainbows in the WB now.
I like this idea so much that I have long argued that we should try to do the same thing for the junction of the EB and the Beaverkill. This takes a release of 175 to 200 on the EB. This is an increase from 140 for the summer. I do not think that the small amount of extra water to provide this refuge will pose a threat at the junction with the WB.
But I digress.....
Back to the task at hand;
Was the release sufficient yesterday to meet your criteria for temperature protection?
One thing to be careful of; keep the meaning of release or flow clear. When we speak about release, that is from the dam and a flow is the amount flowing past a point.
Jim
Here is another small point.
I like the idea about making sure there is a plume of cold/cool water at all times inot the mainstem from the WB. I think this gives the fish a sanctuary and a path to colder water. There are lots of rainbows in the WB now.
I like this idea so much that I have long argued that we should try to do the same thing for the junction of the EB and the Beaverkill. This takes a release of 175 to 200 on the EB. This is an increase from 140 for the summer. I do not think that the small amount of extra water to provide this refuge will pose a threat at the junction with the WB.
But I digress.....
Back to the task at hand;
Was the release sufficient yesterday to meet your criteria for temperature protection?
One thing to be careful of; keep the meaning of release or flow clear. When we speak about release, that is from the dam and a flow is the amount flowing past a point.
Jim
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Brachy,
Good point.
Diversions have a profound effect on drought days. So we need to test each run with a range of diversions so we can see how things change at different diversions. Lets test our proposals by also running them at different diversions. We can run the diversions at 500 through 800 at 50 cfs increments.
The White Paper even goes a step further with diversions by changing the amount of diversion on a seasonal basis, more in the summer, less in winter. This is a great way to model as it more closely imitates reality.
Jim
Good point.
Diversions have a profound effect on drought days. So we need to test each run with a range of diversions so we can see how things change at different diversions. Lets test our proposals by also running them at different diversions. We can run the diversions at 500 through 800 at 50 cfs increments.
The White Paper even goes a step further with diversions by changing the amount of diversion on a seasonal basis, more in the summer, less in winter. This is a great way to model as it more closely imitates reality.
Jim
brachycentrus
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
Exactly !!
The white paper as you know modeled different releases under different diversions and measured habitat gains per the DSS model.
I think that they saw a reduction in gains after a release of 750-800 cfs.
On another note, 2 weeks ago or there abouts, there was a 180cfs release out of Pepacton and the temps at Harvard never got below 75 degrees. Granted, this was during a week of 90 plus degree days.
What happened as a consequence if I recall correctly, was that the cold water plume at junction in Hancock was dilluted more quickly per the Lordvile gauge due to the increased flow out of the East Branch/Beaverkill
I was in the Hancock & Ball's Eddy area yesterday. Water temp was 58 degrees in the morning at Ball's Eddy launch. I played in the river at the state gamelands, Balls Eddy, and briefly at Buckingham. The wind was once again my reliable companion. I missed 3 fish on dries- two on a parachute ant and one later in the afternoon on a #16 parachute sulphur. Not much bug activity, tan caddis here or there a few random sulphurs I think. Sooner or later I will lend my drought up here, this time I actually had some fish interested. I almost threw my rod down on the sulphur miss, that fish actually took it and somehow came unglued immediately- DAMN IT! Oh well, I think I'm developing that sickness many of you guys have for the place. Seriously considering looking into a seasonal campground up there, been wanting a pop-up anyway.
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Brachy,
What do you think the minimum summer release should be on the WB?
And do you agree with attempting to bring back the Thermal Bank concept?
I have attached a graph of the Harvard gauge. You can see that the bump in release did reduce the temps and helped that river. 200 during that really hot week would have been enough. The extra 60, I do not think would have been detrimental down at junction on the mainstem. But we can agreee to disagree about this idea. The bump in release was about the 6,7,8th or so.
I am curious what you think the minimum should be on the WB. Is the White Paper 525 too much as a minimum or not enough?
Thanks,
Jim
What do you think the minimum summer release should be on the WB?
And do you agree with attempting to bring back the Thermal Bank concept?
I have attached a graph of the Harvard gauge. You can see that the bump in release did reduce the temps and helped that river. 200 during that really hot week would have been enough. The extra 60, I do not think would have been detrimental down at junction on the mainstem. But we can agreee to disagree about this idea. The bump in release was about the 6,7,8th or so.
I am curious what you think the minimum should be on the WB. Is the White Paper 525 too much as a minimum or not enough?
Thanks,
Jim
Last edited:
brachycentrus
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
Cant read your attatchment. The bump in release on the EB was on the 5th through the 7th. The temps at Harvard were over 70 on both days. The release was 180. If they released 200 then maybe it may have cooled it another degree or two at Harvard. It would do nothing after meeting the Beaverkill.
Any conceptual plan has to have it's intentions defined.
If the goal is to protect and enhance the wild trout fishery of the UDR, then increased releases on the EB and Neversink is counterproductive.
I kind of like White Paper concept. It all hinges though on getting NYC to budge on the 800 mgd that is written into the decree. No small task.
I do not like the higher winter releases at all. I think there are unintended consequences to the higher releases.
All anecdotal, but we now see much more sediment in the river. The bug life seems to be changing.
The green algae/slime problem is all year now instead of just when the reservoir dropped substantially.
Didymo is much more prevalent now then before when we had a good springtime flush.
We havent a really good alewife dump since. A really good flush of the WB is needed and the springtime higher flows did that as well as dumped all the alewives into the system just when a good slug of protein was needed.
I do not agree with temp targets. Nice concept, but history shows that it didnt work as planned, unless you brought back Hankins as the target.
I think higher consistant WB releases of at least 600-700 year round would work best.
The increasing of drought days or occurances is minimal because it is measured against NYC's 800 mgd diversion which we all know is fictional.
Last edited:
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Brachy,
Okay, lets put the EB issue aside for now. It is clearly secondary in the equation. Not because it is less important to the fish, but the consequences are smaller.
So, you prefer a constant year round release of 600-700. We really need to address the flood groups on this one. I am not in favor of 1500 in the winter and summer to reduce the volume in the reservoir. This water can be used more efficiently in other ways.
I am in favor of modestly higher minimums in the winter and I think that the 80 cfs from FFMP is a help and the White PAper min of 150 would be great. I am not sure you need too much more than that, but 225 flow at Hale Eddy does keep most of the river bottom wetted. A winter flow target (as opposed to a constant release would save some water and may be effective at protecting bugs and redds.
We need to clarify flow and release. Flow is what flows past a point and release is what is released from the bottom of a dam. The flow would include spills and natural runoff.
Jim
What constitutes a good flush? 5000, 10,000, 15000 or more? We had a nice flush of 10,000 back in February, was that not sufficient?
I agree that the events you mentioned are anecdotal and I feel that they are unrelated to the flow changes we have seen the last couple of years. But that is another story.
Okay, lets put the EB issue aside for now. It is clearly secondary in the equation. Not because it is less important to the fish, but the consequences are smaller.
So, you prefer a constant year round release of 600-700. We really need to address the flood groups on this one. I am not in favor of 1500 in the winter and summer to reduce the volume in the reservoir. This water can be used more efficiently in other ways.
I am in favor of modestly higher minimums in the winter and I think that the 80 cfs from FFMP is a help and the White PAper min of 150 would be great. I am not sure you need too much more than that, but 225 flow at Hale Eddy does keep most of the river bottom wetted. A winter flow target (as opposed to a constant release would save some water and may be effective at protecting bugs and redds.
We need to clarify flow and release. Flow is what flows past a point and release is what is released from the bottom of a dam. The flow would include spills and natural runoff.
Jim
What constitutes a good flush? 5000, 10,000, 15000 or more? We had a nice flush of 10,000 back in February, was that not sufficient?
I agree that the events you mentioned are anecdotal and I feel that they are unrelated to the flow changes we have seen the last couple of years. But that is another story.
Big Spinner,
In addition to higher releases in the "Summer", I would like to see an increase in the releases in April to the beginning of the Summer period. We need water for not only environmental purposes but for recreation as well (floaters and waders alike). When the WB is at 600cfs everyone wins and the fish are less stressed and it is better for the insect life.
For example, last Spring the res stopped spilling in mid-April and there was not enough water in the WB to float and our dreaded scum problem occured making fishing difficult. Also, our Drakes were occuring late at night due to high water temps. I was in the gamelands Memorial day weekend to 300cfs and a ton of scum in the water (managed to catch a few despite).
My proposal (unscientific) is as follows:
April-425 cfs (input from Oquaga would likely make flow ~600cfs)
May-500 cfs (input from Oquaga would make flow ~600cfs)
June-August-600 cfs
September to March-325 cfs
My sense is that you may still have some spillage that could be mitigated by slightly higher releases in the spring to avoid flooding.
Chris Z
In addition to higher releases in the "Summer", I would like to see an increase in the releases in April to the beginning of the Summer period. We need water for not only environmental purposes but for recreation as well (floaters and waders alike). When the WB is at 600cfs everyone wins and the fish are less stressed and it is better for the insect life.
For example, last Spring the res stopped spilling in mid-April and there was not enough water in the WB to float and our dreaded scum problem occured making fishing difficult. Also, our Drakes were occuring late at night due to high water temps. I was in the gamelands Memorial day weekend to 300cfs and a ton of scum in the water (managed to catch a few despite).
My proposal (unscientific) is as follows:
April-425 cfs (input from Oquaga would likely make flow ~600cfs)
May-500 cfs (input from Oquaga would make flow ~600cfs)
June-August-600 cfs
September to March-325 cfs
My sense is that you may still have some spillage that could be mitigated by slightly higher releases in the spring to avoid flooding.
Chris Z
Last edited:
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Thanks Chris,
More good input.
Your suggestion is similar the the White Paper. The major differences are that you have more yearround release (325 compared to 150) and a slightly higher summer release (600 compared to 525).
Let's hear from more of you.
We are in a position to make some meaningful changes, but only if proposals are thought out and tested, sothe more ideas the better.
The FFMP framework does allow for testing several different ideas and comparing them.
Jim
More good input.
Your suggestion is similar the the White Paper. The major differences are that you have more yearround release (325 compared to 150) and a slightly higher summer release (600 compared to 525).
Let's hear from more of you.
We are in a position to make some meaningful changes, but only if proposals are thought out and tested, sothe more ideas the better.
The FFMP framework does allow for testing several different ideas and comparing them.
Jim
Last edited:
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Brach,
Let me try to clarify something.
NYC is entitled to take 800 million gallons a day (mgd) under the supreme court decree.
The last few years they have averaged about 550 - 600 as a daily average.
We can model the system at any diversion and see what happens. Ideally, we test Fred's (for example) idea with a diversion of 500, 600, 700 and 800. That will show us and NYC what will happen as the diversion changes.
Whenever you reduce the diversion you reduce the number of drought days.
Whenever you increase the releases you increase the numher of drought days.
Here is my guesstimate on drought days numbers:
Original Policy (Rev 1) yielded about 5500 drought days with 800 mgd
FFMP yields about 5800 drought days at 800 mgd
The FRED proposal will yield about 7000 drought days at 800 mgd
Now, if we change the diversion to 550 mgd
Rev 1 about 3300 drought days
FFMP about 3550 drought days
FRED about 4500 drought days
So it may not be the final amount of drought days that matter, but the amount of days relative to the baseline of REV1, no matter what the diversions are.
Guys, these are just estimates on my part, but they are good guesses. As we start to come to some agreement on a couple of new policies to run, we can try them and see what happens.
My guess is that the FRED policy and the PA/NY White Paper will have similar drought days.
IF you followed along with all this, you are getting to be almost as sick as I am!!!!!!
Jim
Let me try to clarify something.
NYC is entitled to take 800 million gallons a day (mgd) under the supreme court decree.
The last few years they have averaged about 550 - 600 as a daily average.
We can model the system at any diversion and see what happens. Ideally, we test Fred's (for example) idea with a diversion of 500, 600, 700 and 800. That will show us and NYC what will happen as the diversion changes.
Whenever you reduce the diversion you reduce the number of drought days.
Whenever you increase the releases you increase the numher of drought days.
Here is my guesstimate on drought days numbers:
Original Policy (Rev 1) yielded about 5500 drought days with 800 mgd
FFMP yields about 5800 drought days at 800 mgd
The FRED proposal will yield about 7000 drought days at 800 mgd
Now, if we change the diversion to 550 mgd
Rev 1 about 3300 drought days
FFMP about 3550 drought days
FRED about 4500 drought days
So it may not be the final amount of drought days that matter, but the amount of days relative to the baseline of REV1, no matter what the diversions are.
Guys, these are just estimates on my part, but they are good guesses. As we start to come to some agreement on a couple of new policies to run, we can try them and see what happens.
My guess is that the FRED policy and the PA/NY White Paper will have similar drought days.
IF you followed along with all this, you are getting to be almost as sick as I am!!!!!!
Jim
brachycentrus
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
Agreed,
That is why I think that the key is getting NYC to give up the water that they are entitled to, but dont use.
I think they are afraid that if they give it up, it will be forever. If you write the agreement that if they can prove need, they can have it back or whatever amount they need, then maybe, you can get some political hack to finally sign the thing.
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Brachy,
Exactly right! NYC has stated that they will not give something up when they may need it in the future.
That is why FFMP can work. We simply need to insert two or three more tables with releases, when the diversions are projected to be less than 600, 600-700 and more than 700.
Simple for us, but a giant leap for others, there is no harm in doing the modeling to show that there are many ways tosafely make this happen.
Getting back to our work, the flush of water in the spring is more dependant on rain and snow melt than anything else. IF we have a wet melt off, there will be a big flush (flood) and with only modest spring rains, we will have less. The small amounts of water released from minimum flows are not that significant. The high snow pack releases have a much more profound effect than does conservation releases.
There was not a big alewife flush this year and I am not sure why. Timing of spill, fewer fish, etc. We did see a couple of good days when there were lots of slamms on the surface eating dead and dying alweives, but it was nto consistant.
Jim
Exactly right! NYC has stated that they will not give something up when they may need it in the future.
That is why FFMP can work. We simply need to insert two or three more tables with releases, when the diversions are projected to be less than 600, 600-700 and more than 700.
Simple for us, but a giant leap for others, there is no harm in doing the modeling to show that there are many ways tosafely make this happen.
Getting back to our work, the flush of water in the spring is more dependant on rain and snow melt than anything else. IF we have a wet melt off, there will be a big flush (flood) and with only modest spring rains, we will have less. The small amounts of water released from minimum flows are not that significant. The high snow pack releases have a much more profound effect than does conservation releases.
There was not a big alewife flush this year and I am not sure why. Timing of spill, fewer fish, etc. We did see a couple of good days when there were lots of slamms on the surface eating dead and dying alweives, but it was nto consistant.
Jim
brachycentrus
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
Agreed.
I also think that economic models should be introduced in the fight. With the feds handing out Tarp and Stimulus monies, all we need up here is to open the damn valve.
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi,
Anyone else have any suggestions?
Jim
Anyone else have any suggestions?
Jim
brachycentrus
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
Jim,
Do you know if the hydro plans are still being considered for the NYC reservoirs ? If so, how would they figure into any future plans ?
Good ? Bad ? Evil ?
Do you know if the hydro plans are still being considered for the NYC reservoirs ? If so, how would they figure into any future plans ?
Good ? Bad ? Evil ?
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Brachy,
Hydro is still on the table.
I do not know that much about it.
The plan is not to change the releases, but to make power on existing releases.
I do have someone coming from NYC DEP to explain the stuff to me.
I also think that there is another threat that has been queitly moving forward.
NYC wants to connect the Delaware System to their other system. This will allow them to take closer to their 800 mgd diversion, very scary.
Jim
Hydro is still on the table.
I do not know that much about it.
The plan is not to change the releases, but to make power on existing releases.
I do have someone coming from NYC DEP to explain the stuff to me.
I also think that there is another threat that has been queitly moving forward.
NYC wants to connect the Delaware System to their other system. This will allow them to take closer to their 800 mgd diversion, very scary.
Jim
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi All,
Anyone have any other thoughts on the release plans to model?
Jim
Anyone have any other thoughts on the release plans to model?
Jim
