Q & A - F.A.Q.

Q. Due to the flooding caused by PPL releases at Lake Wallenpaupack this June, I understand that the releases are going to be greater this year to keep the Lake down in order to avoid another similar problem. If this is so then what allowances does your plan make for this. If the majority of the 1750 is supplied from Lake Wallenpaupack will your proposed 350 cfs release be enough to cool the main branch in the heat of summer?

A. The changes in Wallenpaupack operation will not have much of an effect on the Upper Delaware. Since Lake Wallenpaupack generates power, they keep the reservoir lower than NYC reservoirs. If like last year Lake Wallenpaupack is in danger of spilling and higher releases are required to help mitigate flooding on that system, the NYC reservoirs would also be near or at spilling. They will probably reach the near spilling condition earlier because of the aforementioned spill. This of course would trigger the spill mitigation releases on the reservoirs. Cannonsville release would be 1000, Pepacton would be 700 and the Neversink would be 190. These releases would of course be sufficient to protect and enhance the mainstem well down river. The other interesting consequence of this will be to provide lots of cold water on the lower east branch as well. The final point to remember, if there is that much water in the system, Lake Wallenpaupack releases will not cause a drop in upper Delaware releases because the rivermaster will not be calling for extra releases. The Montague target will be met naturally. This past year was the perfect example. I do not think there were many, if any, releases for Montague. This despite Wallenpaupack releasing lots of water. Yet, releases on the upper rivers were high for spill mitigation. As I think about it a bit more, this year is a perfect example of what would happen under your example. The release of 1000 would have predominated the West Branch this year had spill mitigation been in place starting last May. DRF and the Coalition will continue to work for passage of CP2 and with help, we can get it done. I would hate to see us go back to revision 1.

Q. A statement made about PPL releases not having an impact on the releases from Cannonsville has me confused. We all have experienced the drop in water levels on the WB prior to weekends due to the fact PPL is not generating power and cuts their releases back. So PPL releases do have an impact. And a statement made that if Lake Wallenpaupack is full then the same should be at Cannonsville. To make this statement one must assume that the same amount of rainfall will be in both the Cannonsville and Lake Wallenpaupack drainage at the same time. We all know that there has been many times when the 1750 is met from water contributions via rain storms south of the Cannonsville drainage and that many times Cannonsville is lower than Lake Wallenpaupack due to this fact. To assume that the same amount of rainfall will occur in each drainage at the same time is an assumption that is in great error. So to assume that during PPL's releases due to large storage in paupack that the same should occur at Cannonsville is simply not valid.

A. There are a couple of different factors involved here. First, what is said about the releases on weekends is true. Lake Wallenpaupack produces power Monday thru Friday and typically does not release on the weekends. Lets say Lake W. is releasing 500 for power Mon - Fri and zero on Sat and Sun. Now lets say Montague needs 1000 cfs of directed release to reach the 1750 target. So, Mon - Fri the Rivermaster will call for 500 from the NYC reservoirs and on the weekend he will call for 1000.

This protocol has been with us for many years and is essentially unchanged. There was a slight modification under Rev 7 that shifted Wallenpaupack releases from July to August, but the effect on the NYC reservoirs was minimal. (a change in about 30 cfs less release required )

What the Coalition proposed for consideration in addressing this "yo-yo" effect is to simply average the 7 day of release. This would result in a constant release of 643 cfs every day for the example above. This proposal is on the table, but we do not think the decree parties are ready to act on it, at least not in time for approval for the May 2007 proposal. This is simple and would not require "extra" water to be released. The problem, as the decree parties see it, is that this violates the 1750 target. The target flow will be too high for 5 days and below 1750 for two days. However, this is under consideration and if not adopted in May, it may be able to be adopted soon after that.

Another organization has floated the idea not to have Wallenpaupack releases not count at all against the Montague Target. So in the above example, the river master would be calling for 1000 cfs from NYC everyday of the week. This is another option, but it would require the use of more water and would be a much more difficult sale to the decree parties.