Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi,
SEF (Subcommittee for Ecological Flows) is a subcommittee of the RFAC committee of the DRBC. SEF is supposed to comment on and make recommendations concerning new flow plan issues to RFAC. RFAC is the committee that is working on new flow plans for the DRBC.
SEF received an update from Bill Gast concerning the status of continuing negotiations between the parties. The parties are working on wording in the FFMP (Flexible Flow Management Policy). Bill feels that the parties are comfortable with the THPDMP ("ThumpDump" or Tailwater Habitat Protection) portion of the FFMP. The THPDMP is the policy that has been proposed by NYS DEC to replace Rev 7 and Rev 9.
FFMP represents a huge step forward in how these rivers will be managed. IT is an important first step in getting true flexible management of these rivers. The simple principle of "when there is more water, release more water and when there is less then it is time to be more frugal" is the basis for this plan.
CP2 developed by the Conservation Coalition enhances the THPDMP portion of the proposal. Specifically it increases the releases down the West Branch during the summer months. This is critical to help the upper mainstem.
Members of the Coalition were present at the meeting and expressed these concerns:
Need to update data used in modeling to include the years in which flooding occurred.
Need to enhance DSS model so all parties have confidence in the results presented.
Need to make comparisons that are equal in all respects so that it is truly an apples to apples comparison. That is not happeneing as of yet.
Need to make the new plan public so that interested parties can work on ideas and experiment.
Members of FUDR were present and expressed these concerns:
Feels that THPDMP is a step in the right direction, but does not go nearly far enough to help the rivers, in particular the mainstem of the Delaware.
Enhance THPDMP by adding extra levels of release within the matrix.
This summer Rev 7 thermal releases have been better for the West Branch than what would have been released if FFMP and THPDMP were in place.
Rainbows in the mainstem are in decline and need to be helped.
Members of Flood groups were present and expressed this thought:
"the process is stalled and FFMP has not been approved because it does not go far enough for flood protection. Voids need to be created and maintained."
SEF will release a list of recommendations in the next few days.
I think that the Conservation Coalition is generally for the FFMP and THPDMP, since they are such a huge step in a new direction, especially if CP2 numbers are included in the matrix.
I think that FUDR likes the general idea of FFMP, but is against the plan because it does not go far enough in mainstem protection.
I think the flood groups are against the plan because it does not create permanent voids for flood protection.
I hope I captured everyones ideas. I think that we are moving towards a postion that we can all support.
Right now the RFAC committee is not even involved with the negotiations, as the discussions have been directly between the States Reps on the DRBC. The problem here is that the river and the health of the river are far down on the list of important issues.
Keep the comments civil and I will of course respond!!
Jim
SEF (Subcommittee for Ecological Flows) is a subcommittee of the RFAC committee of the DRBC. SEF is supposed to comment on and make recommendations concerning new flow plan issues to RFAC. RFAC is the committee that is working on new flow plans for the DRBC.
SEF received an update from Bill Gast concerning the status of continuing negotiations between the parties. The parties are working on wording in the FFMP (Flexible Flow Management Policy). Bill feels that the parties are comfortable with the THPDMP ("ThumpDump" or Tailwater Habitat Protection) portion of the FFMP. The THPDMP is the policy that has been proposed by NYS DEC to replace Rev 7 and Rev 9.
FFMP represents a huge step forward in how these rivers will be managed. IT is an important first step in getting true flexible management of these rivers. The simple principle of "when there is more water, release more water and when there is less then it is time to be more frugal" is the basis for this plan.
CP2 developed by the Conservation Coalition enhances the THPDMP portion of the proposal. Specifically it increases the releases down the West Branch during the summer months. This is critical to help the upper mainstem.
Members of the Coalition were present at the meeting and expressed these concerns:
Need to update data used in modeling to include the years in which flooding occurred.
Need to enhance DSS model so all parties have confidence in the results presented.
Need to make comparisons that are equal in all respects so that it is truly an apples to apples comparison. That is not happeneing as of yet.
Need to make the new plan public so that interested parties can work on ideas and experiment.
Members of FUDR were present and expressed these concerns:
Feels that THPDMP is a step in the right direction, but does not go nearly far enough to help the rivers, in particular the mainstem of the Delaware.
Enhance THPDMP by adding extra levels of release within the matrix.
This summer Rev 7 thermal releases have been better for the West Branch than what would have been released if FFMP and THPDMP were in place.
Rainbows in the mainstem are in decline and need to be helped.
Members of Flood groups were present and expressed this thought:
"the process is stalled and FFMP has not been approved because it does not go far enough for flood protection. Voids need to be created and maintained."
SEF will release a list of recommendations in the next few days.
I think that the Conservation Coalition is generally for the FFMP and THPDMP, since they are such a huge step in a new direction, especially if CP2 numbers are included in the matrix.
I think that FUDR likes the general idea of FFMP, but is against the plan because it does not go far enough in mainstem protection.
I think the flood groups are against the plan because it does not create permanent voids for flood protection.
I hope I captured everyones ideas. I think that we are moving towards a postion that we can all support.
Right now the RFAC committee is not even involved with the negotiations, as the discussions have been directly between the States Reps on the DRBC. The problem here is that the river and the health of the river are far down on the list of important issues.
Keep the comments civil and I will of course respond!!
Jim
Last edited:
