Releases 3

[Big_Spinner]

Hi guys,

A couple of good suggestions before things got out of control.

Hi Jim

Why not 325 CFS FROM 6/1-6/14

750 CFS From 6/15 - 8/14

325 CFS 8/15 - 8/31

This is an interesting suggestion. This uses 10,000 more cfs days than the current plan. There are several other options for the use of this water. Perhaps the vaunted 600 cfs from June 1 to Aug 31 and this would leave an extra 900 cfs for use on really hot days.

There are several other permutations that could be tested.

I am not sure that 325 would work all that well, but it is worth a test. Don't forget we already have 400 in May, so a drop to 325 seems counter productive somehow.


For some readers -The 325 CFS comes from the Shepard Study done years ago, Norm Mcbride from Region 4 (DEC) also backed up this number I believe. It says that 325 CFS will provide thermal protection for the trout, bank to bank the entire length.

The Sheppard report does talk about 325 and later personal communications with Doug Sheppard indicated he felt this was the minimum needed to keep the river bottom wet. The NY DEC/PA F&B White Paper went a step further and suggested the 525 cfs that we are close to today.

I do not believe that anyone has given up on the Thermal Relief plan. It was not accepted in the recently approved new version of the FFMP. It took 3 years for the powers to approve FFMP after it was first proposed, so we are on schedule!!

Here is the other suggestion that has some merit:

The current release of 140 in the summer on the East Branch is not adequate sometimes in the summer. Although I lobbied for a summer release of 190 cfs (this is what was sometimes needed under Rev 7 to keep the EB cool). I always hoped that there would be enough release from Pepacton to achieve a similar situation at the junction of the Beaverkill that the 500 release from the WB creates at the EB/WB junction. Essentially a cool plume that reaches down into the East Branch below the Beaverkill. My guess is that a release of perhaps 225 to 250 would accomplish this cool plume refuge on the East Branch.

Any other suggestions?

I have always said that I will answer reasonable questions, so keep it normal. Rants will not be tolerated and I will just go back underground for a few months. Although, some of you may prefer that!!!

Jim

 

[tomfly]

This is the problem with a man made ecosystem. In its nature it is based on an elusion. The problem with elusions is they always reveal their truths. GB stated that the west branch is the best Fishery in the US. I could make a compelling argument just on that base alone. Unlike the Big Horn and Missouri Rivers in Montana the Upper Delaware system is dependent upon human intervention to maintain the system. Without it the system would collapse. Brown trout and Rainbows are not indigenous to the northeast. The reason is adaptability. Native Brook trout through natural selection have the ability to overcome the 5 to 6 weeks in the summer when the O2 levels are diminished and the water quality is not conducive to most other species of Salmonids. Bookies have earned the right to survive the onslaught of warmer water temperatures.

On top of the elusion of the man made ecosystem. The systems main purpose is to provide drinking water to millions of people. When the North East experiences a prolonged drought It will magnify the release problem. I am not talking about 5 or 6 months of low perception. I am talking about 5 or 6 years and longer of it. It has happened in the past it will happen again. When it happens the fishery will become unsustainable below the wanted resource. (water). We are already starting to see Belly up Polices (Just keep it cool enough so the trout are not belly up). without a drought
When a sustained drought does hit. Add the increase in population over the past few decades. The flow problems would amplify expediently. The water rights of thirsty humans will always supersede the climate controlled fishery. What flow rates should be released today will not be the case in the future. Let’s just enjoy the fishery while we can. In the future it will be striped away .

 

[brachycentrus]

Hi guys,

A couple of good suggestions before things got out of control.

Hi Jim

Why not 325 CFS FROM 6/1-6/14

750 CFS From 6/15 - 8/14

325 CFS 8/15 - 8/31

This is an interesting suggestion. This uses 10,000 more cfs days than the current plan. There are several other options for the use of this water. Perhaps the vaunted 600 cfs from June 1 to Aug 31 and this would leave an extra 900 cfs for use on really hot days.

There are several other permutations that could be tested.

I am not sure that 325 would work all that well, but it is worth a test. Don't forget we already have 400 in May, so a drop to 325 seems counter productive somehow.


For some readers -The 325 CFS comes from the Shepard Study done years ago, Norm Mcbride from Region 4 (DEC) also backed up this number I believe. It says that 325 CFS will provide thermal protection for the trout, bank to bank the entire length.

The Sheppard report does talk about 325 and later personal communications with Doug Sheppard indicated he felt this was the minimum needed to keep the river bottom wet. The NY DEC/PA F&B White Paper went a step further and suggested the 525 cfs that we are close to today.

I do not believe that anyone has given up on the Thermal Relief plan. It was not accepted in the recently approved new version of the FFMP. It took 3 years for the powers to approve FFMP after it was first proposed, so we are on schedule!!

Here is the other suggestion that has some merit:

The current release of 140 in the summer on the East Branch is not adequate sometimes in the summer. Although I lobbied for a summer release of 190 cfs (this is what was sometimes needed under Rev 7 to keep the EB cool). I always hoped that there would be enough release from Pepacton to achieve a similar situation at the junction of the Beaverkill that the 500 release from the WB creates at the EB/WB junction. Essentially a cool plume that reaches down into the East Branch below the Beaverkill. My guess is that a release of perhaps 225 to 250 would accomplish this cool plume refuge on the East Branch.

Any other suggestions?

I have always said that I will answer reasonable questions, so keep it normal. Rants will not be tolerated and I will just go back underground for a few months. Although, some of you may prefer that!!!

Jim

Jim,
These are finite numbers. Where does the OST come into play ? I thought the entire premise of that plan would be that they could predict with almost absolute condfidence when water would be available and probability of refill great.
They touted the OST and I have yet to see it in action. Actually, I have. When storms were predicted 3 days out, they didnt release any extra water and this was after the June 1 water year date at 100% capacity.

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi Brachy,

Just take some time and read the document. It has specific criteria for releases for the examples you mentioned. Stop in sometime and I can give you the nickel tour.

The OST is in place and operating and they do use weather forecasting out about 14 days, but acknowledge that the weather forecasts seriously lose accuracy after 48 hours and beyond.

Starting July 1st, if the reservoirs are near or over capacity, we will move into L1 level of release to try to reduce the level. We are at 99% capacity now and as July moves forward.

Look at figure one in the document to determine what level.

If we are in L1, then look at Figure 2 to determine what type of Level 1 release (a.b or c)

Then if not in level 1 or if you now know what level of while in L1, go to table G and read off the release.

You will see that there is a good chance for 1500 releases from Cannonsville coming soon.

Jim

 

[trico mike]

My question is what is a feasible and obtainable goal? Is keeping the water to lordville 70 or under possible? Under a prolonged drought as tomfly had mentioned what would happen to the flow plans. I also wonder why more wager can't be released from pepacton to help in cooling the main. It seems such a waste that right now it is spilling and when it is done the flow will be cut back. How much cold water is available in the reservoirs before it runs out? My only suggestion would be to cut the flows back when we have a stretch of cooler weather,and save the water until it starts to get hot instead of running 500 out of cannonsville all the time.

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi Trico,

All good points.

Temperature targets were tried for many years and are very difficult to manage. The thought was that higher minimum releases would reduce the need for temp controls most of the time. This has been the case. We tried to balance the available water in a way that would minimize man hours for management. A constant flow is easier to manage, but is not as efficient in the quantity of water used. What you are asking for is what we tried to get done this year, without reducing the minimum flows. We asked for a bit more water for a thermal protection plan, it was not approved.

East Branch water vs West Branch water for cooling the mainstem. The DSS modeling showed that the more efficient use of water for cooling the mainstem comes from the WB. The reason is simple math. The distance from Cannonsville is less than from Pepacton, so the water gets to the mainstem cooler. However, I have tried to make the argument that we could accomplish a similar positive impact at the junction of the Beaverkill and EB by producing a cool plume that enters the lower east branch. This is similar to what the original plan was to try to accomplish at the EB/WB junction, create a cool plume. The questions always are, how cold and how far downstream? More water accomplishes both. There is a thermal conundrum also. releasing more water on the EB to create a cool plume on really hot days is a bit counterproductive at the mainstem. The increased flow that comes down the mainstem from the higher release tends to reach the mainstem near ambient air temp. This means that although there was a beneficial effect to trout habitat at the EB/BK junction there could be a negative effect at the EB/WB junction.

For example: If you are releasing 500 cfs from the WB and it hits the MS 60 degrees, that water would have to cool maybe a total of 500 cfs EB that is at 80 degrees if you had an EB release of 250+150bk+100tribs cfs. If you have a release of only 150 then the total needing to be cooled drops to 400 cfs at 80 degrees. There is a point at which you can overcome this with large EB releases. I would have to look those numbers up, but they are in excess of 400 cfs release from the EB.

With all of the demands for water from the system, we have run out of the best quality cold, clear water a couple of times the last 3 or 4 years. This does not mean the release is coming out at 70 degrees, but it will warm into the high 50s or even a bit more. It also tends to carry lots of sediment, brown algae and other stuff growing in the thermocline of the reservoir. You may remember unfishable Septembers due to nasty brown water. Now to be fair, the fish health is more of a priority than the fishing, but it is nice when both can gain. The question is, "Is 65 degree dirty brown water at 500 in August better than 400 clear cold water?"

A prolonged drought can get nasty, but there are some good points from a fishery perspective.

BAD: As the system starts to dry up, the release tables start to drop from Table G and move toward Table A. Minimum releases drop considerably. When there is lots of water, we all benefit, when we are in a drought, we all suffer.

GOOD: what also tends to happen is the Montague Target needs to be met and directed releases are made to keep the target high. This is a bit counter-intuitive, which is why in the old days, we all wished for a drought. If there was a dry summer, the releases may be as high as 1100 from the WB to satisfy the Montague Target. The same holds true to some degree now. We have not seen a drought since the advent of the FFMP, so we do not know how it will perform. I do know we will all screaming for more water!! Minimum flows will be much higher under an FFMP drought than previous plans, but still low. The drought of the 60's, about three consecutive years is about the only time that the system did not fully recover from a dry year by the spring of the following year. It can and will happen again.

Jim

 

[trico mike]

Jim,thanks for the answers to my questions. I have a few more follow ups. Why can't the flows be used more effectively to control water temps. I know you sort of answered this but the scenario I was thinking of for an example. Run more cfs during the peak heat of the day and less during the cooler times,nights and early mornings. I'm not to educated on this subject but it would seem if you ran 700 for half the day and 300 the rest of the night you would use the same amount of water but the colder plume would reach further down the main during the hottest part of the day. I probably sound foolish but I was just wondering.

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi Trico,

This is a good question. We actually thought about some type of cycling, but there is still the desire to have a system that requires less hours to manage.

A daily cycle may not be all that effective. We have seen a couple of times where a cold plume at night may be more useful and protective. It gets cold water way downriver at night. Hard to say, the DDS Habitat Model is not sensitive enough to see if there might be benefits. I am not sure what the biologists would say, but I think daily fluctuations may not be good. It depends what part of the river you are trying to protect.

jim

 

[brachycentrus]

Hi Trico,

This is a good question. We actually thought about some type of cycling, but there is still the desire to have a system that requires less hours to manage.

A daily cycle may not be all that effective. We have seen a couple of times where a cold plume at night may be more useful and protective. It gets cold water way downriver at night. Hard to say, the DDS Habitat Model is not sensitive enough to see if there might be benefits. I am not sure what the biologists would say, but I think daily fluctuations may not be good. It depends what part of the river you are trying to protect.

jim

Any plan has to keep the river wet, bank to bank especially during the heat of the day. When the river is low and the rocks are protruding or exposed, it heats the river up hyper fast then you would wast a good portion of that plume just cooling the river back down.
Anyrelease out of the East Branch with the thought of cooling the MS is just not possible. Jim's idea of keeping it cool to the junction on the Beaverkill, I believe is notonly doable but has been done all year so far. Watch what happens after this week at the temps at Harvard and the Beaverkill gauge and note the difference. The distance is way too great and the influence of the heated Beaverkill makes that impossible. Besides common sense, read up on the Shepard study and McBride's telemetry study to see how far the trout did a thermal migration just to escape the warm water. Of course, the dumb as dirt hatchery stock hardly moved and died while one wild fish in particular moved from the Willow all the way to Stilesville.
In a perfect world, they would leave this water alone, build the filtration plant and use the Croton system and the Hudson, but that will never, ever, happen.
Myself, personally, I want to know the thermal effects of the hydro stations that they plan on installing at both dams. From what I read, they will warm the release water after it leaves the turbines, so in that case, a thermal number at say the Hancock gauge would be important.

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi Brachy,

Can you post the documents that say the turbines will warm the water? I need more information about that.

Thanks,

Jim

 

[brachycentrus]

Jim,
I just did a Google search on Hydro Turbines warming discharge. There was a lot of info, some conflicting depending on the type of turbine,, temps going in, spin rate, how long will they be generating for. Nothing definitive, one of those deals where exact info on the turbines is needed. General consensus though was that any water driven turbine would warm the water, to what extent, is unknown.
Of virtually all of the articles I read, they all emphasized siltation buildup behind the dams. We know that the existing dams capacity has already been reduced over the years with siltation and the rivers, especially the WB has been heavily silted in, to the point of cjhanging insect populations and species migration, so maybe the real worry should be more siltation. I dont know.
Anyway, here is one article that I googled up quick, there are a ton more.

http://water.usgs.gov/edu/wuhy.html

 

[thrashers.wheat]

Unlike the Big Horn and Missouri Rivers in Montana the Upper Delaware system is dependent upon human intervention to maintain the system. Without it the system would collapse. .

Both of these streams are tailwaters...

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi Guys,

Just so you are aware of a possible change in release:

Any significant rain the next couple of days will result in L1a or b releases on the East Branch (700 cfs) and West Branch (1500 cfs).

I will keep you posted on where we are at.

Jim

 

[BrownChickenBrownTrout]

Jim,
I just did a Google search on Hydro Turbines warming discharge. There was a lot of info, some conflicting depending on the type of turbine,, temps going in, spin rate, how long will they be generating for. Nothing definitive, one of those deals where exact info on the turbines is needed. General consensus though was that any water driven turbine would warm the water, to what extent, is unknown.
Of virtually all of the articles I read, they all emphasized siltation buildup behind the dams. We know that the existing dams capacity has already been reduced over the years with siltation and the rivers, especially the WB has been heavily silted in, to the point of cjhanging insect populations and species migration, so maybe the real worry should be more siltation. I dont know.
Anyway, here is one article that I googled up quick, there are a ton more.

http://water.usgs.gov/edu/wuhy.html

This is a simple engineering calculation. What's the rated shaft horsepower of said turbines?

Once that's known, a quick max can be calculated.