National TU is FOR the Plan........

[willowhead]

For those who are concerned and or care, it appears that National TU is FOR the Plan..........Mr. Leon F. Szeptycki, National TU's Eastern Conservation Director has come out with the Official TU Statement and Comments about the Resolution to Establish An Experimental Augmented Conservation Release Program for the New York Delaware River Basin Reservoirs for the period of May 1st, 2004 thru May 31st, 2007. DRBC Docket No. D-77-20-CP For those who want to read National TU's statements and comments, go to the column on the left hand side of the Home page of this site and read. Click on NEW TU STATEMENT!. It appears that National TU has taken the only side they could under the circumstances and basically endorsed the "Plan." As they say, we need to go forward in the process. This is very good for the Main Stem Delaware River and it's tributaries, the East and West Branches, and the Neversink River. It will allow more water to be realeased in the winter time, and also provide for more water to be realeased in the summer time. Let's all let National TU know that we appreciate their support in this critical matter. Please write to National TU and thank them for all their hard work. Or, go to their web-site and let them know how much you appreiate their efforts. On behalf of the DRF and as a LifeTime Member of TU, i would personally like to thank National TU for their forsight in the matter. As you all should know it is National TU that has fought many battles since 1959 to save cold water species and the habitat. Good job again National TU. Thank you, m.j.romero Board Member Delaware River Foundation

 

[Michael M]

Mark.
Thanks for the update. I'm a TU Life Member also and I apreciate seeing the results of the work they do. I will be sending them a note also.

Michael M.

 

[MidnightPoacher]

That is huge -- to have their political influence behind this important position....

 

[Unregistered]

Mark.
Thanks for the update. I'm a TU Life Member also and I apreciate seeing the results of the work they do. I will be sending them a note also.

Michael M.

...........

Being that you have a second home in North Branch, New York - about a 10 to 15 minute drive to Callicoon or Hankins - you might want to hold off with your congratulatory letter to National TU until you check the water temperature with your thermometer this summer at Callicoon or Hankins.

I'd say it's a bit premature - especially with how high the water temperatures were in your neck of the woods both in 2002 and 2003 from late June through July.

 

[Big_Spinner]

Good Point Unregistered, A suggestion

Good Point Unregistered. Here is a suggestion. The new flow proposal will certainly benefit the East Branch and Neversink. There will be more bugs and more fish on those rivers. At least the new proposal provides for more water to be available to protect the Main Stem than was ever available before. It should be an improvement.

We need to monitor all the rivers as closely as we can for the three year term of the new flow proposal. This includes the EB, WB, Main Stem and Neversink. The Beaverkill too as a control site.

The Delaware River Foundation is working with NYS DEC, PA DEP, TNC and others to come up with a sound monitoring plan for the river system. The DRF encourages everyone with an interest to stay tuned to the DRF website. There will be monitoring protocol that will be established so everyone can take a river snapshot of the river and be included in the monitoring process. The more eyes and thermometers on the rivers the better.

Help us catalog bugs, fish, temperature and flow. We need baseline data this year.

Stay Tuned!!!!

 

[Unregistered]

Re: Good Point Unregistered, A suggestion

Good Point Unregistered. Here is a suggestion. The new flow proposal will certainly benefit the East Branch and Neversink. There will be more bugs and more fish on those rivers. At least the new proposal provides for more water to be available to protect the Main Stem than was ever available before. It should be an improvement..."[balance snipped]
..................

Time will tell J.

If the flows at Hale Eddy on the WB are anything like 2002(dry) and 2003(wet) in late June and July - which were running from 250 to 500cfs at Hale Eddy - water temps will be ranging from 74 to 83 degrees by 6:00pm at Tower Road in Callicoon.

As I said...spend a little time down here and bring your thermometer with you. 2002 and 2003 data from the main stem is already in the books.

 

[willowhead]

YES! to the "Plan"

The single most important thing is the fact that NOW we will have at least a guaranteed 225cfs flow at Hale Eddy, whereas in the past there were plenty of times especially in the summer and winter, (the two most important times) when the flow was as low as 45cfs. We CANNOT let that continue. And THAT is why we had to pass this new proposal. Some people it seems, just can't wait for the next three years of better studies to be conducted in order to get to the perminate soulution. That's unfortunate, but we must do this the right way, and the right way is to finish all the studies and that will take three more years. Fortunately we have a better situation with the new "Plan" going into effect, allowing for more water to be released than in the past, (while the studies are conducted) and then the final and perminate solution will be instituted. The final plan and perminate solution just can't be determined without doing the studies FIRST! Case Closed. Sorry, to say, but it's a "just the facts mam" kind of situation. We MUST be paitiant and let the course of events unfold in order to get to the best place for the river and the fish. m.j.romero.......

 

[Unregistered]

Re: YES! to the "Plan"

Originally posted by willowhead {Mark Romero}
The single most important thing is the fact that NOW we will have at least a guaranteed 225cfs flow at Hale Eddy, whereas in the past there were plenty of times especially in the summer and winter, (the two most important times) when the flow was as low as 45cfs. We CANNOT let that continue...[snipped for the sake of bandwidth]

...........

The facts? Try:

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ny/nwis/monthly/?site_no=01426500&agency_cd=USGS

 

[Future Fanatic]

Could our guests please identify themselves? The veracity of both your comments and intentions would be supported by doing so.
John

 

[Andre]

Unregistered, play nice and you can share your opinions, Acrimonius langusge will get your posts deleted. Again play nice and there's no problem. I hope that's fair enough.

 

[dcabarle]

Could our guests please identify themselves? The veracity of both your comments and intentions would be supported by doing so.
John

I second that...

Unregistered, play nice and you can share your opinions, Acrimonius langusge will get your posts deleted. Again play nice and there's no problem. I hope that's fair enough.

and that.

Information on both the DRF and the FUDR is posted here for all to read. I can definetely see why we need more than 225, I cannot see why we need as much as 600.

Jim Serio did a pretty good job explaining a few things to me while I was in his office the other day. Some of the things he mentioned made perfect sense and were quite obvious but at the same time, things we don't think about everyday. For instance, Exposed river bed. Do you know how many insects die because of it? Millions! The insects as we all know is food for the fish. If the fish cannot eat, they die and you have nowhere to fish. This is why I ask all of you to at least pick one of these organizations and donate or offer to help if you don't already do so.

I personally don't support either organization openly because I don't know as much about the system as I'd like to. I'd be speaking from my ass if I started to promote one publicly and it wouldn't be fair to the other.

 

[Unregistered]

I can definetely see why we need more than 225, I cannot see why we need as much as 600.

..............

Dennis, stop by Tower Road on the main stem in Callicoon or Red Barn in Hankins sometime in late June or July when you've got a flow of 225 to 550 cfs at Hale Eddy on the WB.

Put your stream thermometer into the water at around 5:00 or 6:00pm. And, wade a few steps into the pool so that you get a good reading.

You will soon find out that a flow target ranging from 225 to 550 on the West Branch is not enough enhance and care for a cold water tailwater which has wild fish. Most of the time, you will find the water temperature in excess of 75 degrees - many times over 80 degrees.

That river is called the main stem and it is designated to be a cold water wild trout fishery to Callicoon, New York.
............

"The single most important thing is the fact that NOW we will have at least a guaranteed 225cfs flow at Hale Eddy, whereas in the past there were plenty of times especially in the summer and winter, (the two most important times) when the flow was as low as 45cfs. We CANNOT let that continue." - Mark Romero, DRF Board Member
...........

Again, take a look at the facts from the USGS over many years on the WB at Hale Eddy:

Click on:

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ny/nwis/monthly/?site_no=01426500&agency_cd=USGS

I don't have a clue where Romero gets his numbers from. He should really pay more attention to USGS data which is available to all.

 

[dcabarle]

"The single most important thing is the fact that NOW we will have at least a guaranteed 225cfs flow at Hale Eddy, whereas in the past there were plenty of times especially in the summer and winter, (the two most important times) when the flow was as low as 45cfs. We CANNOT let that continue." - Mark Romero, DRF Board Member

Mark,

He's pointed us to a factual sheet. The flows you speak of (45cfs) are true however it's only true as of late fall/early winter, 1963/64, but never in Jan/Feb/March... This has not happened in over 40 years! Where are you getting your numbers from?

The average for October from 1988 - 2002 has been 468.1429
The average for November from 1988 - 2002 has been 527.2857
The average for December from 1988 - 2002 has been 582.7143
The average for January from 1988 - 2002 has been 475.4667
The average flows for all of the above are 513.4024.

Also, the flows in the summer have NEVER gotten as low as you mention. In fact, the closest I could find was from 1959, and that's a bit more than the CFS of which you've mentioned!

Dennis

 

[DaveR]

Dennis,

Those figures are monthly averages. Maybe Mark is referring to extremes? These wouldn't be listed there.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dcabarle]

Thanks Dave, you're probably right about that. I'll take a look later on to see if there's a daily average, although I doubt it very much.

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi Tony,

I am still not sure what you intend to show with the mean flow data.

If you check out this site it shows daily flows on the East Branch. The only thing that the new flow proposal changes is to eliminate those nasty minimum flows of about 70 fs in 2002. This will actually RAISE the mean flow on the river.

www.http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ny/nw...01417500&set_logscale_y=1&begin_date=20020326

The new flow proposal should prevent these cronic low flow events on all three rivers, while increasing the thermal bank water available to cool the main river.

Is it perfect, NO, is it better than the past, I think yes.

It will be important to monitor and REPORT the effects of these new flows so that we can improve on them.

I am sure through your efforts and others, we can make sure that what is best for the river gets done.

Jim Serio

 

[Big_Spinner]

www.http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ny/nwis/d...01417500&set_logscale_y=1&begin_date=20020326

Here is the complete site to get the data I spoke about.

jim

 

[Future Fanatic]

Yeah, one could release 0 cfs for 24 days, then 2000 cfs for 6 days and have the monthly average be 400 cfs. Is this the case? Probably not, but there may have been months in the summer where there are little to no release from the reservoir, but then mother nature could have supplied a hefty amount of water with rainstorms. The tributaries could have supplied this to the gauge for several days, and boosted the average immensely. Of course, that is in theory and not based upon any fact.
I believe the Cannonsville dam was closed in the mid 60's. Does anyone know how the fishery was BEFORE NYC built the reservoir? If you look at the summer(and in some cases summer/fall) averages, it seems that the dam has actually helped the summer flows (moderated them through the years). Look at the flows for 33, 36, 39, 40, 41, 43, 54, 56, 57 and 59. The summers' flows were dismal. Did the reservoir damage a world class trout fishery or create one? It's due to my ignorance that I ask, but I'm trying to understand: is the fight, to have NYC fix a problem they've created or to only further enhance this positive thing their dams have made possible?
John

 

[Unregistered]

Ok, why include a link to East Branch daily flows? That is so misleading!!! The East Branch does nothing to cool and maintain the main stem and is throttled down intentionally.

The bottom line is that the excellent fishery was artificially created by releases from Cannonsville and this proposal splits up the historic West Branch releases among the three rivers. Sure it gives more water to the East and Neversink, but who will benefit from that? Surely not the existing wild trout fishery or the economies of the region, unless you own property on the East Branch or Neversink.

 

[dcabarle]

Right now it doesn't cool down the main river, but couldn't it? It would seem that 1 side of the river is moderately cooler than the other with cooler flows only coming in from the WB. Once again, please excuse my lack of knowledge. I'm just trying to learn something new. Thanks

 

[Unregistered]

I believe the Cannonsville dam was closed in the mid 60's. Does anyone know how the fishery was BEFORE NYC built the reservoir? John

..................
Cannonsville did not exist prior to the mid sixties - nor did the cold water fishery that we now know of on the lower part of the WB - from Deposit to Hancock. It was mostly a warm water fishery in that section with trout at the headwaters of the WB near Stamford.

Cannonsville Reservoir (NYC DEP)
Year Completed: 1965
Capacity: 95.7 billion gallons
Watershed Size: 454 square miles

[ADV] Use Google [/ADV]

 

[Future Fanatic]

When I wrote "the dam was closed" I was refering to the structure itself. When they "closed" the dam and stopped diverting the flow around it, the reservoir we all know and love, was then created.

So then, we as fishermen (and businessmen), are asking NYC to enhance what they created... yes?
John

 

[willowhead]

First of all, it is NOT about "who will benifit from that?" It's about the fish and the insects. And THEY will BOTH greatly benifit from that. Dig? Certain people just seem to think it's about their businesses and not the fish and the insects. The entire system has to be looked out for, and that INCLUDES the East Branch AND the Neversink. Dig? In the past we have had measured days where the flow was as low as 45 cfs on the West Branch and that is abominable. The new plan will alliviate that. GREAT! IMHO. I guess Lefty Kreh was right when he said, "common sense, aint common."

And the only thing that "possibly will decimate our existing fishery" is to leave things the way the were. THAT was something that simply could NOT be tolorated. Therefore, IMHO anyone not in support of the three year plan is part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Of course National TU found probelms with the "Plan" so did TGF, and we all know it's not perfect. But it beats the hell out of staying where we were. And isn't that the most important thing.....to make progress. Yes, i think so. It's called a process.......it takes time. In the end we WILL have a better fishery and better fishing. HELLO.............

The only worse case Scenario that could possibly take place is the one that would happen if things were left they way they were. Barring all natural catastrophy of course. With the new plan in place we will have mitigated what may have happen under past circumstances. The thermal refuge migration you speak of for example. Problem solved with the new Plan. For the info you seek, contact the DRF office. By the way, your continued stepping down to a base level of communication is only exposing your lack of ethics. mark.....

 

[Andre]

For the record I deleted the 3 posts that are no longer here from unregistered. He or she was warned. You want to make a point do it without personal attacks. This is non negotiable.

 

[Big_Spinner]

ENOUGH GUYS

Lets all get together in Hancock (or anywhere) and hash this out. All the attention we are giving to the Delaware is great, lets just make it productive.

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ny/nwis/d...01426500&set_logscale_y=1&begin_date=20020326

Here is the West Branch Site of flows the last two years. Notice a couple of things.

In 2002 most of the flow was releases from Cannonsville. Erratic releases are never good for the river. I think we all agree that consistent releases will be better. I think we can all agree that more cold water out of Cannonsville is a good thing for the Main Stem. Correct me if you do not agree with these premises.

Now, how do we get more water and more consistant water? Better management is one way. "Creating more water" is another. There are two ways to create more water and they are both doable, but not instant fixes. One, negotiate to reduce the Montague target when all parties agree that it is safe to do. For instance, possibly when 1300 plus is required from Cannonsville, reduce that number to save some cold water. Second, we are exploring the possibility of increasing storage at Cannonsville. It appears there may be a relatively inexpensive way to add about 15 billion gallons of storage to Cannonsville. The important thing of course is to make sure that the river gets the water and not NYC.

One assertion I must disagree with; East Branch water can in fact help cool the mainstem. Even in a year like last year, when there was huge amounts of natural warm water in the system, summer releases from Pepacton did help cool the East Branch all the way to the main stem. Certainly, in most cases, West Branch releases will be more efficient, but there are times when EB releases can help.

The DRF has a Board meeting scheduled Saturday, April 10th in Hancock at 10:00 am. Our annual meeeting is scheduled after the board meeting. I invite anyone to join us to talk about this stuff. We also will have an "PA opening day and sign dedication celebrtion at the Village of Hancock Junction Pool Access on April 17th at noon. Come and help chop some knotweed at junction pool, eat a hot dog, discuss flows and go fishing!!!!

Bickering on web sites is just not productive. Lets get together, work this out and do something good for the river too.

Feel free to call the DRF office anytime to get a question answered or a concern addressed.

Jim Serio

 

[willowhead]

Good goin' Jim, I agree wholeheartedly. My intention has NEVER been to bicker. Like you, i totally agree that the releases from Pepacton Reservoir have definatly helped in cooling the main stem, at times. I just take issue when certain statements are made that are simply NOT factual. But as you noticed i never step down and attach people who don't even have an identity. Just WHAT is with that hiding thing anyway? It's a darn good thing that most intelligent people can assertain the truth without having to be brainwashed. I'll see you at the meeting Jim. But i'm busy the day of the Junction Pool get together, previous engagement planned a year ago. mark.....

 

[Future Fanatic]

I really hate sounding stupid, but I have to ask (and please don't take these questions to be sarcastic (a rare occasion indeed)in nature). If the West Branch trout fishery did not exist before the reservoir was created, then what we consider to be a great stretch of trout water has come to be in the last 40 years. What ever NYC was doing(or not doing) allowed this to happen. Has anything changed in the past few years that threatens this from continuing to be, what has been, for these past 40 years? Some kind of policy change? Why does it seem that so many people are "trying to save" the West Branch? It seems, by the way individuals and organizations are behaving, that there is some imminent threat. If my perception is incorrect, then is all of this just to make it a BETTER fishery? Or what else?
John

 

[willowhead]

moving forward

You bring up a very good point John. And what i mean by that IS: if the fishery has been holding it's own this long, WHY are so many people freaking out that we now have an even BETTER "Plan" going into effect then we've had in the past??????? HELLO??????????????? And i highly doubt ANYONE can argue the "Fact" (and THAT "Fact" alone) that the new "Plan" IS better than what we've had in the past. Therefore WHY are they NOT willing to let the studies be completed that WILL give us the information and data we need to come up with an even better "Plan" for the future on a perminate basis? HELLO??????? As to your second to last question, if, you stop, and "think"about it, there can only be one reason. And i'll let you draw your own conclusions. And before anyone jumps off the deep end.......of course obviously we do not want to always have a fishery that can barely hold it's own, we want a much better fishery that fullfills it's "Potential." It WILL, after the studies are done, the data is collected and we are able to come up with a perminate solution. In that order. Are we clear? And as far as i'm concerned that includes the entire fishery, NOT just the west branch and the main stem. I've never been a fan of the divide and conquer mentality. Yes this is highly political but what isn't nowdays? I happen to believe that there has been a tremendous amout of hard work done to get us to this point, by a lot of very concerned and well meaning people to just thow it all away and go back to what we've had in the past. Not to mention that the city and state of New York, (and other states for that matter) have finally come to understand the need for a perminate solution, both economically and environmentally. And THAT is WHY it is so IMPORTANT to keep the process moving forward, NOT backwards. Backwards meaning to stay where we were. Not as some would have you think, (backwards by approving the "Plan"). The "Plan" is a step forward in the process of comming to a perminate solution, hopefully in 2007. If 40 yrs. of what we've HAD was worse (and it was), then what we'll have if the "Plan" is approved, then how can three more yrs. of something better not be a step forward?HELLO..............mark

 

[Unregistered]

One assertion I must disagree with; East Branch water can in fact help cool the mainstem. Even in a year like last year, when there was huge amounts of natural warm water in the system, summer releases from Pepacton did help cool the East Branch all the way to the main stem. Certainly, in most cases, West Branch releases will be more efficient, but there are times when EB releases can help.
Jim Serio

.................

Wrong.

Last year - 2002 - was very wet throughout the spring and summer months in the Catskills. About 8+ inches of rain fell in August.

What kept the East Branch cooler than then West Branch last year was that the tribuatries -- especailly the Beaverkill - which dumps into the EB at East Branch, NY was running full and cool.

Check the USGS numbers if you don't believe me.

The WB - as everyone knows was running full as well - but warmer due to spillage at Cannonsville due to lack of bottom releases and surface spill which gets warmed from the sun and summer air temps.

Cool wet weather is what kept the EB cooler than the WB last year - not realeases from a reservoir called Pepacton which is about 35 miles away from Junction Pool on the MS in Hancock.

As I said Jim - bring your thermometer to the main stem at Red Barn this summer and see how warm the main stem gets with 225 to 550 cfs flow at Hale Eddy and save me some hot dogs.

 

[bjmiller]

Unless huge amounts of water are released from the Pepacton, water releases from there will have very little effect on the mainstem temps. It's just plain too far away from Hancock and the East Branch just has too many wide, shallow, and slow stretches, which allows for relatively quick warming during the warm months of the year. The other factor is water quality. Pepacton's water is more "valuable" than Cannonsville's and it is more preferrable for drinking water purposes. This is much more of a losing battle than the West Branch releases for BOTH reasons stated above. The Cannonsville releases should be concentrated on for the benefit of both the West Branch and the main.

Bruce