I'm just trying to point out to those who say the plan is not working, shouldn't have been agreed to etc. etc that it does currently appear to have some value. I know we have warm summer months coming and the mainstem could be in jeopardy later and it's not what everyone wants but I've always felt it's a small step in the right direction. Surely, at this point in time 225 250 cfs is far better than 50,100,150 cfs which it could be without the current plan.
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!
Mainstem
- Thread starter dcabarle
- Start date
brachycentrus
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
Johnw said:
Thats absurd. Look at the previous post of historical flows.
Was this weekend on the mainstem crowded enough for everybody ? No. Just wait for the " articles" coming out about this "serene" river and the west branch to come out in Fly Fisherman. I shared an upper east pool with 2 strangers yesterday. A little tight for my taste but doable, when 2 large SUV's crammed with anglers pulls up along the roadway and one of the occupants shouts out the window " Hey you, how are they hittin? Any march browns on the water?" Well, after a terse response from one of the other wading anglers who did not like his fishing interupted, I quess they heard what they wanted to hear for soon our "serenity" was shattered by 5 additional anglers who did not know that ours is the "quiet sport" ( isn't that what it says under the heading of flyfisherman mag.). 8 fisherman in a pool best suited for 1 or 2. On a Tuesday ! They must have read about this spot in a magazine. Does anybody look for pools on their own anymore? It's all shortcuts now, nobody seems willing to pat their dues. Is this scenario what we have to look foward to from now on ? I left that circus and was able to find some space somewhere else ( which will remain nameless ) but I was steamed after being forced out of what used to be a quiet spot.
beaverkill
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
brachycentrus said:
Historical flows do not address this specific year or JohnW's question. The flow under the old plan would more than likely be lower.
If you looked at historical flows you would be aware that the West Branch at the dam site gets about 80% of the historical flow before the construction of the dam while the East Branch and Neversink at their dam sites only receive about 25% and 20% respectively.
We need to look forward and work toward getting more water for the system and distributing that water more equitably and efficiently for the health of the ecosystem.
brachycentrus
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
I agree, but one question.
Are you saying that in order to get more water for the ecosytem we must jeopardize the existing wild trout population.
That what it sounds like to me.
When the stocked trout run out of the Beaverlkill this summer, will they turn left or right?
Under the present agreement, it doesnt matter. All they will find is warm water.
It is absolutely unbelievable that any agreement that potentially jeopardizes this fishery was agreed to, even if it is in the short term.
Pray for drought. !!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you saying that in order to get more water for the ecosytem we must jeopardize the existing wild trout population.
That what it sounds like to me.
When the stocked trout run out of the Beaverlkill this summer, will they turn left or right?
Under the present agreement, it doesnt matter. All they will find is warm water.
It is absolutely unbelievable that any agreement that potentially jeopardizes this fishery was agreed to, even if it is in the short term.
Pray for drought. !!!!!!!!!!!!
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
brachycentrus said:
Bracycentrus, FUDR supporter, yes?
I just wanted to make sure that what you are saying is that you are (as well as asking all of us to) praying to a higher being for drought? I thought that one of the tenets of FUDR was to energize the local economies? You are asking to mess with the pre-existing 50 million dollar agricultural economy of Delaware county to support the 17 million dollar fishing economy?
Does anyone know where the FUDR or the DRF stand on this whole "pray for drought" issue?
I know that farmers pray for rain, so maybe there are enough of them to "out pray" the drought seekers... does it work that way?
beaverkill
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
brachycentrus said:
That's not what I am saying. I would rather see the cold water fishery extended by opening up more water for the wild trout to seek refuge - ie East Branch.
I believe most of the stocked trout from the Beaverkill stay in that system and find thermal refuge there. If they do drop down they will find cold water in the Upper East Branch or West Branch or thermal refuges in this system.
I think the agreement is not perfect but will help certain areas of the system that have been extremely short changed on water in the past. I will concentrate my efforts on making sure the current flow minimums and temperature targets are met and that the entire system gets more water in the future.
WB Catechumen
Square Tail Chaser
Jim wrote:
A RELEASE of 200 cfs. should be a minimum to help protect the aquatic life above Deposit. 45 - 60 cfs release from a reservoir that holds 96 billion gallons of water is an absolute travesty.
What was the outcome of A.C.'s suggestion to move the guage from Hale Eddy to Stilesville last year? Any news? Any progress? My guess would be NO. These people have no interest in letting more water go down the drain than absolutely neccessary.
Attached is a picture of Stilesville at 45-60 cfs.
NOT pretty
A RELEASE of 200 cfs. should be a minimum to help protect the aquatic life above Deposit. 45 - 60 cfs release from a reservoir that holds 96 billion gallons of water is an absolute travesty.
What was the outcome of A.C.'s suggestion to move the guage from Hale Eddy to Stilesville last year? Any news? Any progress? My guess would be NO. These people have no interest in letting more water go down the drain than absolutely neccessary.
Attached is a picture of Stilesville at 45-60 cfs.
NOT pretty
Attachments
beaverkill
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
I agree that gauges below all three dams would be great to protect their upper sections. The Pepacton has a minmum release of 35 cfs with a capacity of over 140 billion gallons. That is really pathetic and needs to change!
brachycentrus
Just finished a River Runs Through it!
Absolutely a FUDR supporter.Future Fanatic said:
I was also a member of the original Delaware Coalition, the predesessor of the Delaware River Foundation. Then a member of the DRF.
When the DRF brought in the Nature Conservancy and stacked the Board with members that lived on the East Branch and their objectives changed, then I bailed.
Let me be real clear here.
I am all in favor of more water for the entire ecosystem but never will I see the logic in a plan that potentially jeopardizes the existing fishery.
In my mind, the three rivers have completely different needs and issues and never should have been linked in any discussion.
And your attempt to drag in agricultural issues is meek and cheap, even for a Serio groupie like yourself !!!!
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Wow, I have groupies now!!! Cool!!!
I have attached a WORD file that gives what flows and releases would be today under the old plan.
Report on todays FMTAC and SEF meetings to follow.
Jim
I have attached a WORD file that gives what flows and releases would be today under the old plan.
Report on todays FMTAC and SEF meetings to follow.
Jim
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Protecting Trout and rivers and economics of fishing to the region.
I have always stated protect the fish and rivers first and the fishing will take care of itself.
Personally, I would give up a week or two of floating and good fishing now, so that we have lots of cold water through the summer and a summer of great fishing. We are setting up for that to happen.
Jim
I have always stated protect the fish and rivers first and the fishing will take care of itself.
Personally, I would give up a week or two of floating and good fishing now, so that we have lots of cold water through the summer and a summer of great fishing. We are setting up for that to happen.
Jim
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Brachy,
Not sure why you think that the current plan jeopardizes the fishery?
The DRF wants you back.
Jim
Not sure why you think that the current plan jeopardizes the fishery?
The DRF wants you back.
Jim
Jim,
Which "old plan" are you talking about?? The 160 CFS minimum release between 5/15 and 9/15 or the 325 CFS minimum release between 6/15 and 8/15?
Your "prediction" of Montague needing water next week I believe will not happen. This morning, the Montague flow was at 2500 CFS and rising. New Jersey will be getting rain today and the Upeer Delaware will not be participating in that very much. Will the "next" plan provide guaranteed "cold" water or will it be just a flow regime? Will the "next" plan have temp targets and if so, what will they be(72 daily average and 75 daily max don't work) and where? At least with the 325 CFS release from 6/15 to 8/15 was something that could be counted on and in most years (possibly not this one though), the fishery could make it until 6/15 without harm. Each successive plan has provided less "guaranteed cold water" than the previous. I hear the DEP folks are quite "happy" with the current plan.
Bruce
Which "old plan" are you talking about?? The 160 CFS minimum release between 5/15 and 9/15 or the 325 CFS minimum release between 6/15 and 8/15?
Your "prediction" of Montague needing water next week I believe will not happen. This morning, the Montague flow was at 2500 CFS and rising. New Jersey will be getting rain today and the Upeer Delaware will not be participating in that very much. Will the "next" plan provide guaranteed "cold" water or will it be just a flow regime? Will the "next" plan have temp targets and if so, what will they be(72 daily average and 75 daily max don't work) and where? At least with the 325 CFS release from 6/15 to 8/15 was something that could be counted on and in most years (possibly not this one though), the fishery could make it until 6/15 without harm. Each successive plan has provided less "guaranteed cold water" than the previous. I hear the DEP folks are quite "happy" with the current plan.
Bruce
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
brachycentrus said:
My attempt to drag in agricultural issues was meek and cheap? Huh. I thought I would get hammered on the dragging religion into it. FUDR has made it abundantly clear that their "fight" in part is to help the local economies. For Delaware County, agriculture is a huge part. My "attempt" was to point out (although my sarcasm switch was engaged) the incongruity of a statement that prays for drought. If a group was so concerned with the economic health of a region... Well, maybe that group would look also to fill empty factories such as the one located in Hancock, you know, the one that one passes on the way to Bard Parker. This would certainly help the region, but of course it would not help the fish or the people whose business IS fish. To these organizations, the economy of the region is secondary to the boosting of water in the rivers. The trickle down effect to the average Joe in Delaware county is all he can hope for. That's obvious.
Speaking of cheap, bracycentrus, a groupie? As I've said many times before... I've met Jim twice. Once we had a ten minute conversation about knotweed and the other time I said "Hello" and "Goodbye" when we cleaned up a dump on the banks of the West Branch (missed ya there). I don't even belong to the DRF; hardly the makings of a groupie.
I don't know you, but I guess some here do. But, you switched from a group where the members were looking out for the East Branch(property owners, right? I've heard this before) and went to one where many of the members have businesses that are dependent upon cold West Branch flows? Are you just a concerned trout fisherman, or a businessman?
This may seem naive, but mother nature linked all these rivers, and the Supreme court tied them all to Montague, so the idea that they should (or could) all be treated as separate entities seems suspect. All three rivers help the economies of the region also, yes?
Do I think that NYC is a water hog? Yes. Do I think that some of their tactics in their dealings with the towns in their watersheds in terms of their agreements are negative? Absolutely. But I live in NY. About half of the population of my state depends upon that water being there. The perception (I think) is that these groups want to risk putting into jeopardy millions of people and businesses for s few million bucks in an upstate region. I know, I know, there is more than enough water. Until that is shown to someone with enough power (Congrats on opening Cliff Crouch's eyes BTW)to do something about it we're all just spittin' in the wind.
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Bruce,
Both of the old plans would have the flows I mentioned until June 1st. The 325 plan would have the flows and releases I mentoned until June 15th.
The reason the 325 plan was changed to 160 and June 1st was because fishermen complained about the late May and early June conditions. Fish were not happy anywhere.
I think I mentioned that Montague releases would start next week if there was no rain. That was the prediction that Tony posted. Looks like showers coming, but no huge rain.
Montague is rising from PPL, not natural flow today.
Jim
Both of the old plans would have the flows I mentioned until June 1st. The 325 plan would have the flows and releases I mentoned until June 15th.
The reason the 325 plan was changed to 160 and June 1st was because fishermen complained about the late May and early June conditions. Fish were not happy anywhere.
I think I mentioned that Montague releases would start next week if there was no rain. That was the prediction that Tony posted. Looks like showers coming, but no huge rain.
Montague is rising from PPL, not natural flow today.
Jim
dcabarle
Administrator
Big_Spinner said:
Jim,Under the old plan here are what the flows and release would be today:
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
Location Flow Release
<o
Hale Eddy 96 45
Harvard <60 45
Bridgeville <50 23
Considering Hale Eddy (Flow 96 / Release 45)... Where are those numbers from? The average for todays date is, (1054cfs). 90 is the minimum. Am I reading that wrong?
WB Catechumen
Square Tail Chaser
Temp Targets
Bruce,
I think you can forget about enhanced temp targets.
I think it was Wayne E. that talked briefly about how on only a few occasions last year the temp targets downriver couldn't be met.
He went on to say that this protocol won't change. When there is a lot of warm water coming in from the E.B. at Hancock, it would be a waste of water to try to cool the river all the way to Hankins.
(Just when the fish need it most)
In addition, in August when more water was needed from the habitat bank, it was held in reserve because of the DEP's fear that the bank would run out of water late last winter.
How stupid is that?
All the more reason to get rid of the confusing woefully inadequate Habitat bank that should refill when the reservoir recovers water, let alone spills for months on end.
Would you take a trip across the desert with only a half tank of gas when a full tank is needed and readily available?
I wouldn't think so.
Bruce,
I think you can forget about enhanced temp targets.
I think it was Wayne E. that talked briefly about how on only a few occasions last year the temp targets downriver couldn't be met.
He went on to say that this protocol won't change. When there is a lot of warm water coming in from the E.B. at Hancock, it would be a waste of water to try to cool the river all the way to Hankins.
(Just when the fish need it most)
In addition, in August when more water was needed from the habitat bank, it was held in reserve because of the DEP's fear that the bank would run out of water late last winter.
How stupid is that?
All the more reason to get rid of the confusing woefully inadequate Habitat bank that should refill when the reservoir recovers water, let alone spills for months on end.
Would you take a trip across the desert with only a half tank of gas when a full tank is needed and readily available?
I wouldn't think so.
Big_Spinner
Trout Hunter
Hi Dennis,
Hale Eddy numbers came from the rules of the old plans and the current flows from Oquaga Creek and other creeks.
The release would have been 45 cfs.
There was 31 coming from Oquaga Creek and 20 coming from other sources.
45+31+20=96 for a flow at Hale Eddy on 5/19/05 under the old plans. 225 seems quite a bit better doesn't it?
The other way to get there.
The release today was 201. The flow at Hale Eddy was 245.
245-201=44 from other sources
45 (old release) + 44 = 89 cfs today under the old plan
Hope this helps,
Jim
Hale Eddy numbers came from the rules of the old plans and the current flows from Oquaga Creek and other creeks.
The release would have been 45 cfs.
There was 31 coming from Oquaga Creek and 20 coming from other sources.
45+31+20=96 for a flow at Hale Eddy on 5/19/05 under the old plans. 225 seems quite a bit better doesn't it?
The other way to get there.
The release today was 201. The flow at Hale Eddy was 245.
245-201=44 from other sources
45 (old release) + 44 = 89 cfs today under the old plan
Hope this helps,
Jim
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
"Hale Eddy numbers came from the rules of the old plans and the current flows from Oquaga Creek and other creeks.
The release would have been 45 cfs.
There was 31 coming from Oquaga Creek and 20 coming from other sources.
45+31+20=96 for a flow at Hale Eddy on 5/19/05 under the old plans. 225 seems quite a bit better doesn't it?
The other way to get there.
The release today was 201. The flow at Hale Eddy was 245.
245-201=44 from other sources
45 (old release) + 44 = 89 cfs today under the old plan"
Jeez Jim (person I've only met twice and could only honestly call an acquaintance),
You really know how to kill a thread. You did not expect any positive comments, did you? Not even one "well maybe in this ONE case, with this ONE scenario, with THESE particular weather factors it's just SLIGHTLY better than an old plan"?
The release would have been 45 cfs.
There was 31 coming from Oquaga Creek and 20 coming from other sources.
45+31+20=96 for a flow at Hale Eddy on 5/19/05 under the old plans. 225 seems quite a bit better doesn't it?
The other way to get there.
The release today was 201. The flow at Hale Eddy was 245.
245-201=44 from other sources
45 (old release) + 44 = 89 cfs today under the old plan"
Jeez Jim (person I've only met twice and could only honestly call an acquaintance),
You really know how to kill a thread. You did not expect any positive comments, did you? Not even one "well maybe in this ONE case, with this ONE scenario, with THESE particular weather factors it's just SLIGHTLY better than an old plan"?
