thoughts?

[rford]

CGTA Cubed x 30,000 vs. Learned Behavior = XY or XX

HLR,

I am using your post as a vehicle to put in my two cents. Not a personal thing.

I think this thread went way off topic. It is an important topic that I rarely hear discussed and that is what will happen, When , not if, there is a devastating fish kill. Something we may be readily approaching.

I think GBS was offering a simple solution with no mal intent. Face it, some people are not as concerned as to the origin of the fish Stocked, Wild , Alien etc.. And if their opinions are dismissed as a non valid point of view, groups like the DRF and FUDR will be hard pressed to gain their support. “ More Flys with Honey” I believe is the expression.

However, I feel he lacked the empathy for the fact that none of us want to even think about that, and how hard the many volunteer groups that work to save , protect and improve the Upper Delaware are working to make this better for all of us. And I thank them all.

I have one message, divided the groups will succeed at alienating grass roots support, and with out a united message will always be dismissed as a cause not worthy by the politicians.

Endorsing any plan set forth by the powers that be is a strategic mistake. Negotiation 101.

They don’t need anyone’s endorsement or approval; they will do what they will do. What they ( NYC) need is Heat.

What we need “ The constituents of the organizations is a clear concise explanation of what is wrong with the current Operating Procedures, and what it will take to Make it Right.

And this needs to be One Page, Bullets!

And a clear way to relentlessly bombard them with pressure via letters, petitions and media.

Attacking each other makes NYC more powerful and dilutes the cause at hand!

I strongly suggest that both groups call an emergency meeting and a truce, put together a letter NOW, working together. Send a copy of the letter to every fish site within a 500 hundred mile radius and beseech us all to take the time to send it to the proper channels, to at least try and remediate the doom that is clearly impending our trouty friends as we speak !

GreenButtedSkunk,

Re-stocking does nothing to protect the Wild Trout fishery in your backyard. In fact, it would exacerbate the problem and ruin the fishery even more. Yes, technology and proper sound SCIENTIFIC research BASED upon valid DATA (hint, hint DRF and DRBC) is the answer -- BUT -- introducing a stocked fish into the fishery is not just short sighted -- it creates more problems:

HLR, I agree we should Not stock the Upper Delaware, unless we have to. We are not prepared to if we have to in the event of a man made, natural or whatever. If we want to protect these fish, we should have a brood supply in case of emergency. But if we are going to re stock, we should follow some guidelines…see below where I disagree with all due respect.
(1.) Increased competition for native and Wild fish for space, food and the introduction (potentially) of inferior genetics in the fish population. By the stocking and/or introgression of genes from escaped aquaculture fish, the genetic integrity of the wild trout that live in the Delaware fishery would be compromised.

Disagree, The genetics of a trout vs. an elephant are almost identical. Do not confuse genetics with learned / encoded behavior / physical characteristics.
Evolution is a process of elimination not the subtle addition of behavior or physical attributes. For example the brook trout in stream A appear different than in stream B.
Survival of the fittest. The trout with the best camouflage flourish mate and survive and become a sub-species, not a genetic singularity. That is what has happened with the Rainbows of the Big D and Browns of The West Branch. They are a unique sub-species ( even to their stocked forefathers)that have adapted to that environment and I agree we do not want to dilute them, however I understand Re-Stocking to mean harvesting them, stripping their eggs and Supplementing the river with a special stocking program to enhance the fishery.
(2.) Stocked fish cannot survive and frankly do not know how to exist outside of the cement troughs of their origin.

Disagree, That’s like saying humans that are born via in-vitro fertilization are “ less than”. In fact I disagree so much that my “ OPINION “ is that if a real study was done comparing a 3 year survival rate of fertilized eggs in the wild vs. hatchery fertilization was done you would find a staggering inverse result, However with that said, I believe at 3 years, you find a reverse relationship in long term survival with the blue ribbon going to the wild fish whom has had to endure a much self reliant life and would far out last the hatchery reared fish. All this would depend on how young the fish were when they were released, with the quality of the fish increasing the younger they were released.
(3.) You have basically created a put and take fishery that may provide angling opportunities for what -- maybe 3 months?

All depends on the regulations of that river, and of course the water quality of that river.

(4.) You have killed what attracts anglers from around the world to visit this precious jewel - the Delaware River System that both confounds and challenges fisherman consistently (when there is water to support them). That would indeed further kill the economy.

The sad fact is that Rivers and River economies are cyclical. Many rivers out west have had their hey days and have bounced back. Nothing is constant. Not even gravity,( the earthquake that caused the Tsunami last December made the earth a little smaller, making gravity a little stronger on earth , but increasing the speed we rotate around the sun making Time change and days shorter, Bong Hit? )
It just makes it easy for us stupid people when math guys and science guys say there are constants.
(5.) How about the economic realities of managing the entire life cycle of STOCKED Fish? Have you considered that particular viewpoint? Probably not: Fishing license fees pay for the management of the hatchery infrastructure, insurance, taxes, personnel/payroll, benefits, trout food, trout eggs, transportation of trout, transportation vehicle management (gas, maintenance, insurance). Does that sound optimal?

Once again, That is the norm in NY state, in most states for that matter, one more river is not going to break the Fish Bank.The Delaware River system is a viable and functioning (when you don't flood out the river and cut off the water releases like DRBC is so capable of performing) WILD trout fishery.
Do you not realize that this is a PRECIOUS fishery that needs protection and support? The easy answer is to ignore it AND it will go away.

Totally agree, and hope everything I said will never need to happen, but if it does it would be nice to have those Delaware strain eggs available? But sadly I feel it will take a disaster for the powers to be to get there head out of there $&*. By the way what we the Fisherman consider a disaster, they may not. Most people don’t care, don’t fish and if you have not noticed the Pop ups for Tsunami relief have already ended and a ½ million people died. Do you think the world gives a flying f about some dead fish?

The bell is ringing and I am not so convinced that DRF and DRBC have the fishery's best intentions in the forethought of their mind.

How full do the reservoirs have to be before they start to release waters to circumvent flooding and maybe enhance versus kill off one of most precious jewels in their possession? Maybe another drowning or two and further flood damage to more property will open your eyes further?

If not, go fish the Beaverkill or other put and take fisheries. Maybe they can meet your immediate short-term goals of just catching a fish.

HLR

 

[HydeLowRider]

JW1970 --

I have the letter of which I will post the text later today. However, some NJFlyFishing board members have taken some deeper interest than just a surface discussion and have written letters, for example:



http://www.njflyfishing.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=575&highlight=collier

"I sent a letter to the DRBC about two years ago, directed to a Mrs. Collier. In the letter, I stated my admiration for the inherent beauty of the surrounding Delaware River region and also my faithful following of driving my family numerous times on 600-mile round-trips to fish in the area. Additionally, I stated how my focused attention on the Delaware River fishing has directly impacted the local economies in that region in a positive direction.

She sent a letter back to me stating her appreciation for the tone and dedication that my correspondence positioned, among other things.

Plainly, just document your inherent interest in assuring that the fishery will have stable flows to allow the river reach its potential and how this directly affects you in a personal and financial perspective.
__________________
DTW,
Always keep a reel full of backing..."

Thanks

 

[JOE.T]

You guys can call it the blame game,Jim bashing,whatever you want.

The bottom line is that at the time Jim and the DRF did nothing to oppose the new plan.They went right along with it with no resistance at all.

The DRF acting as advocate to the fishery should have at leat opposed the plan and asked for something more,but they didnt.I happend to know this since I was on the board of directors for the DRF at that time.Thats when I resigned.

The plan that was put in place essentially rights off the Main stem of the Delaware as a Wild trout fishery.And BTW it happends to be the best wild trout fishery East of the Rockies.How do you right off the Main stem of the D?
Anybody want to answer that question please?

Macfly?
JW1970?
Fanatic?
Anyone?

Cant wait to hear from you all regarding that specififc question.

Why is that nobody is asking Jim why he backed a plan that was bad for the fishery(main stem)?


The FUDR is working night and day, meeting after meeting phone call after phone call working hard to implement a plan that is good for the entire fishery.

Another thing with the resources we have here(resevoirs with cold water) there is no reason in the world that we as anglers shouldnt be fishing the Delaware during the summer.Thats absurd!

This is the main reson why I go to Montana every summer,since the fishing is so inconsistant here at that time.

Who did we blame or bitch to then?We bitched among ourselves on the stream or in the shops,and we called NYC to complain.Hope that answers your question Fanatic?

This is about going forward and beleive me the FUDR is doing just that,however our "battle" is not only aggainst the DRBC and NYC its also indirectly with the DRF since they continure support anything and everything that the DRBC puts out there and they oppose everything the FUDR is doing.

What I suggest to those of you that really care about the fishery,is to write letters,and make phone calls and get involved with the FUDR in any capacity that you can.

 

[Future Fanatic]

You guys can call it the blame game,Jim bashing,whatever you want.

The bottom line is that at the time Jim and the DRF did nothing to oppose the new plan.They went right along with it with no resistance at all.

The DRF acting as advocate to the fishery should have at leat opposed the plan and asked for something more,but they didnt.I happend to know this since I was on the board of directors for the DRF at that time.Thats when I resigned.

The plan that was put in place essentially rights off the Main stem of the Delaware as a Wild trout fishery.And BTW it happends to be the best wild trout fishery East of the Rockies.How do you right off the Main stem of the D?
Anybody want to answer that question please?

Macfly?
JW1970?
Fanatic?
Anyone?

Cant wait to hear from you all regarding that specififc question.

Why is that nobody is asking Jim why he backed a plan that was bad for the fishery(main stem)?


The FUDR is working night and day, meeting after meeting phone call after phone call working hard to implement a plan that is good for the entire fishery.

Another thing with the resources we have here(resevoirs with cold water) there is no reason in the world that we as anglers shouldnt be fishing the Delaware during the summer.Thats absurd!

This is the main reson why I go to Montana every summer,since the fishing is so inconsistant here at that time.

Who did we blame or bitch to then?We bitched among ourselves on the stream or in the shops,and we called NYC to complain.Hope that answers your question Fanatic?

This is about going forward and beleive me the FUDR is doing just that,however our "battle" is not only aggainst the DRBC and NYC its also indirectly with the DRF since they continure support anything and everything that the DRBC puts out there and they oppose everything the FUDR is doing.

What I suggest to those of you that really care about the fishery,is to write letters,and make phone calls and get involved with the FUDR in any capacity that you can.

"The plan that was put in place essentially rights off the Main stem of the Delaware as a Wild trout fishery."

Do I think that the current flows are satisfactory for long term trout survival? No. That is my opinion. Just as your quote is an opinion. You have the word "essentially" in there, but I think you are implying that this three year plan would destroy the fishery of the main stem. Granted, I believe that "the plan" does not protect much of the Main Stem, but it wasn't protected all that much before, was it? Or should I say that each of the current and previous plans protected the river differently based upon timing of weather and releases? Obviously all previous plans were not good, otherwise we wouldn't all be fighting for a new one...
Given the study on the movement of trout that was posted here just recently, the fish seem to be more capable of protecting themselves and more resilient than we had been led to believe. I think the fuller answer to your question though, will be answered with the answer to your second question.

"Why is that nobody is asking Jim why he backed a plan that was bad for the fishery(main stem)?"

That question has been asked many times and answered by Jim himself.
He has said:

"It was the best that we could get and the alternative was a lot worse. Remember, that we have all said this is a temporary measure.
Is 225 better than 70, certainly. That is why I supported it.
The 225 is better for the main stem than nothing. It is an improvement."

He also stated:

"The DRF position is to help in any way possible to help the powers get to long term solutions for these rivers.

The DRF supports the new fisheries plan because we feel it is better than what we had and because it is only a stepping stone to a better flow and release regime. This new regime will include the EB, WB, NS and MS and improve all the rivers."

I think he answered.


How does Montana get their fishing to be so consistent that you can go there every summer when the D craps out? I've never had the pleasure of fishing there. But how are they successful?

"This is about going forward and beleive me the FUDR is doing just that,however our "battle" is not only aggainst the DRBC and NYC its also indirectly with the DRF since they continure support anything and everything that the DRBC puts out there and they oppose everything the FUDR is doing."

Nothing to say about this except, boy that statement is disheartening.

 

[oasis man]

Oasis Man Responds

Since I have been away for a few days fishing (!) I have missed the spirited discussion that has been ongoing. But I need to make several points, from a personal point of view.
1. I applaud the efforts of both groups that are working to improve the Upper Delaware fishery. For those people that are not engaged (ie, attend the meetings, understand the power that New Jersey and Delaware (Not just New York City) have over the release plan, etc.) I say, talk is cheap....take time to attend the meetings, and/or support those that do.
2. I have pointed out at the FMTAC meetings, on several occasions, that, even with the minimal flows that are targeted in Revision 7, with the 20,000 cfs days in the current Habitat Bank, these minimum flows can be met for only about half of the years. This means that the current three year SEF study has only a 12.5% chance of meeting the Revision 7 minimum flows for all three years. I can't imagine going to my corporate board of directors in the private sector and asking them to approve a project that had only a 12.5% chance of success! But then, we are talking government here.
3. As miserable as the current plan is, the alternative on the table at the time was even worse.
4. In my view, a massive united effort is required to come out with a better plan in two years, and what we ought to be discussing here is what amount of committment are people willing to make..in time, $$$$, and action. Words are indeed cheap.

 

[JOE.T]

Jack,

Your right talk is cheap thats why I am disgusted with so many on this board that talk talk talk and never do the walk, and quite frankly have no clue as to what is "really" going on.As busy as I am running two businesses and raising a family (and fishing) I always find time to do something for the cause.I care about one thing only and that is the fishery.The entire system.

Jack I have a lot of respect for you and I hope that one day you either get involved with the FUDR or even better Jim Serio steps down and you take over!Your a sharp level headed guy and thats what the DRF needs right now.

I think with someone like you running the "ship" at the DRF the two groups could easily join together.That would be great.

Jim Please step aside once and for all and believe me guys I am not the first person that has asked Jim to step down,he has even been voted off the board before to!

It would be the best thing for the fishery,and if thats whats most important to you than please ask Jim to step aside.
Regards

Joe.t

 

[MACFLY]

Reply to JOE T

Joe,

The question I asked was very simple and straight forward. You were there so what alternatives were available at the time that were truly viable. What would all of the parties have agreed to. I was not there and I would guess many on this board were not there at the time. You were on the board of the DRF and so you must have insight into the details. If another interim plan was available that was better for the system than lets hear about it. You made a statement that this plan writes off the main stem as a fishery. Since it is considered an interim plan I am confused as to how this could be the case. The other question I asked is whether or not the existing plan is better than what was in place previously. I recall prior to the existing plan many times when water was not released as it was supposed to be. In order to answer that question I would ask what would the conditions be today on the delaware if the previous plan was still in place.

 

[millrun]

This thread saddens me! We all want the same thing (water conditions that maintain a great wild trout fishery) yet we spend so much time bashing each other and we are so fractured that we will not accomplish anything. We need to STOP looking for who is at fault and should be spending more time looking for solutions. A good place to start which has been suggested by others is to negotiate a treaty between the two organizations. The only chance we have to accomplish our goals is with MASS. Not prayer but with the largest group of people possible. "Mass" gives us a louder voice because all of our time, effort and money would be spent on a common goal. Unless we do, we will not be successful. The heads of both organizations need to get together ASAP and work out an aggreement. Easier said then done, however, if they don't, we will be lamenting the same low water conditions next year. We are losing a great fishery, surely we can set aside personal agendas and egos so that this won't happen.

 

[HydeLowRider]

Jim,

It looks like there was an increase in the release from Cannonsville. Will this stay at the current rate or decrease?

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi,

This release of 450 cfs is an increase of 230 cfs from the previous day. This release is a combination of thermal protection and Montague. I am not so concerned about large increases in release. (This mimics nature) The damaging thing is to have large decreases in releases. NYC and NYS are working on how to incrementally reduce release.

The Montague release will increase as things dry up. Hopefully, the Montague release will be enough so that when PPL and Mongaup start to make power, there will still be more water needed to meet Montague. We are still worknig to get the weekend increases in releases, due to Montague shutting down, averaged into the week so there is not an increase of release on Thursday.

Remember, when PPL makes power, they only do it Monday through Friday. This means that if Montague needs 800 and 500 is met by PPL Monday through Friday, the release from Cannonsville will be 300. On the weekend when PPL stops producing, the Cannonsville release goes to 800. This usually happens on Thursday to get to Montague on time. What we want to have happen, is allow 300 times 5 days and 800 times 2 days be averaged for the week. This yields 3100 divided by 7 days for a constant release of 443. This is much better for the rivers and the fishing. This uses the same amount of water, but allows Montague to fall below 1750 for two days and be above it for 5 days. This needs approval from the decree parties.

Also Montauge target increases to 1820, from 1750, on June 15th. This is to satisfy the Excess Release Credits that the down basin states still control. This increase in target will mean more water for the rivers. That will be an increase of 70 cfs needed to meet Montague.

East Branch and Neversink are also benefiting from releases to maintain their minimums. This does take some water away from the West Branch and Main Stem when Montague releases are needed. Currently, the East Branch and Neversink releases total about 225 cfs to maintain their minimums of 175 and 115. This is about 75 cfs more water than released from these reservoirs then would have been released in other years. This 75 cfs extra water from these reservoirs will help meet Montague. So this means that when the rivermaster needs water instead of requesting a release of 400 cfs, in previous years, he will only need to call for 325.

I, of course, want more water for the system as we all do. I do feel that this new revision 7 is working exactly as planned. This is a stepping stone to a new flexible plan. We protected the rivers though the winter and late May with minimums on the rivers and now the Habitat Bank is being used for thermal protection until the Montague flows take over. If this pattern continues. Habitat bank water can be saved to protect the rivers through the next winter season.

The 450 release is reading 450 at Hale Eddy. There is only 2.5 cfs measured at Oquaga Creek. Oquaga Creek was over 7000 two months ago. We are dry.

Interesting to note: Callicoon was down to 725 today. I minimum target of 1000 cfs at Callicoon would have kicked in releases for the upper river earlier than the Montague target. Hopefully, the new Lordville Gauge will allow an even better gauge of upper river needs.

Hope this helps,

jim

 

[HydeLowRider]

Jim,

Thank you for responding.

If the East Branch and NeverSink are indeed getting more water - I find that to be a positive.

Sincerely,

Dennis T. Watson

 

[NJFred]

A couple of thoughts....

1) If we only had more water!!... Cannosville is rated at 95.7 billion gallons. This means that with a typcial summer resevior inflow of 100 to 200 CFS (I am assuming the bulk of water inflow to the resevior comes from the upper WBD... does anyone know if this is true?)... Any release to meet montague of 1000 or more (remember when the resevior was drained a couple years back due to this?) Drains Cannonsville at a rate approaching 20% of rated capacity per Month! In 3 months Cannonsville could lose 50 to 60% of its water.

2) Given water is scare... good flow solutions will need to depend on how much water Cannonsville starts with after the Spring runoffs and rain.

3) Good flow solutions will need to incorporate downstream water (more of it for Montague so more of it can be banked for the West Branch) and other sources Pepacton? (although NYC is loath to part with this water as it would appear that it is cleaner than Cannonsville... or so I've been told) and water down the Neversink.

4) Much water is simply wasted due to poor management.

5) Solutions must not simply work for system averages (fill rates, flows etc) but for the typcial year to year variance seen in the system.

Most importantly ONCE VOICE IS NEEDED... has any one suggested the two groups set aside their differences, compramise and merge together? I for one would love to see this.

 

[Big_Spinner]

West Branch drains roughly 600 square miles.

East Branch drains roughly 400 square miles.

Neversink drains roughly 200 square miles.

So, about 50% of inflow to the system comes from the West Branch. Cannonsville is really too small for the drainage area.

We will get increases in storage on Pepacton and Cannonsville. This should happen by 2015. This extra storage will be used for flood protection and fisheries management. When full, we will get about 30 billion more gallons of storage. This is about 45,000 cfs-days of water. (45,000 cfs-days = 450 cfs for 100 days) There will be a push to make sure that this water is used for fisheries. It actually will mean a bit more water than that calculation. The increase in height will allow for more efficient conversion of spill to storage and controlled releases.

You also bring up a good point about drainiing Cannonsville. The new flexible plan will address this. First, there will be a cap of 800-900 (this is my conjecture) on Cannonsville. Second, if more is needed, either the Montague target will not be met or water will be released from elsewhere. It continues to make no sense to waste water in a drought by meeting Montague.

Jim

 

[Future Fanatic]

So, about 50% of inflow to the system comes from the West Branch. Cannonsville is really too small for the drainage area.

We will get increases in storage on Pepacton and Cannonsville. This should happen by 2015. This extra storage will be used for flood protection and fisheries management. When full, we will get about 30 billion more gallons of storage. This is about 45,000 cfs-days of water. (45,000 cfs-days = 450 cfs for 100 days) There will be a push to make sure that this water is used for fisheries. It actually will mean a bit more water than that calculation. The increase in height will allow for more efficient conversion of spill to storage and controlled releases.

Jim

So, any idea how much of Delaware County's agricultural valleys get submerged? Is it land that NYC already owns, or will they have to buy more?

 

[Big_Spinner]

Hi John,

It depends on how high the dams get raised.

NYC may have to aquire about another 100 acres to raise the dams. They already own the rest of the land.

They may not have to buy anymore at all.

See ya,

Jim

 

[jaydub]

Sounds like a very long-term plan that in reality will most likely take longer if done at all. In a more reasonable time frame, attention needs to be focused on how to get away from this interim plan and get additional baseline water or a released-based plan until the study period is complete. The study period in itself is a concern, it was going to be 2 years - then 3 years, now it is even going to take longer - who knows how many years that it now is going to take? Plus, it sounds like there is not enough money to complete the study at all. Water from the Hudson River needs to be considered, there are many cities and towns using that water now. Before spending money on increasing the dams, all the major leaks on the distribution piping system need to be repaired.

A focus on more short-term objectives is really what is needed;
1. All groups need to identify my letter to the DRBC that the Oasis model needs to be improved; correct data, accurate data and all data needs to be included.
2. All groups need to identify by letter to the DRBC that the Oasis comparison study with the FUDR plan needs to be removed from the DRBC web site and identified that it is not an accurate comparison. If done again, the correct data needs to be imputed. Also, if done correctly, it will most likely show that there is enough water for a 600-cfs release plan.
3. All groups that supported the DRBC plan should identify by letter to the DRBC that the current interim plan has too much of a negative impact to the fishery. The last two summers were very damaging to the Main Stem fishery and then this year the WB and Main Stem took a negative hit from mid May to June.
4. It needs to be identified to the DRBC that these negative impacts to the fishery are not acceptable and that the economic negative impact to the area caused by them is not acceptable.
5. The watershed keeps getting a negative hit and the banks of water for the fishery are not use, this should tell you that the baseline of water for the fishery needs to be increased or a released based plan needs to be used.

 

[NJFred]

Thanks guys for the response. It would ne nice if the Montague minimum can be challenged particularly in a dry year (assuming the water can be banked for the fishery!) I would hate to see them do what they did several years back.

On a separate note, Hope you're getting some of the rain we are getting in NJ. With warmer weather upon us and the recent low water I fear for the trout in the upper Main in particular!