200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
A PDF File is not generated for this File Type: Adobe Portable Document Format ver 1.5
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey Summary Report Henry M. Jackson Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2157
January 13, 2006 Prepared for: Snohomish County Public Utility District and City of Everett Everett, WA Prepared by: EDAW, Inc. Seattle, WA
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Jackson Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2157
Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 1 3.0 Survey Summary........................................................................................................ 4 3.1 Flow Summary......................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Survey Participants .................................................................................................. 5 3.3 Survey Form Data Summarized by Survey Question .............................................. 6 4.0 References................................................................................................................. 13
Attachments Attachment A
Survey, Log, and Liability Waiver Forms
Attachment B
Comment Letters on Draft Survey Form
Attachment C
Recorded Flow Levels on the Sultan River
Attachment D
Survey Participants
Attachment E
Non-Summarized Open-Ended Survey Question Responses
Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey January 2006
Page i
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Jackson Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2157
Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey Page ii
January 2006
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Jackson Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2157
1.0 Introduction This summary report presents the results of the Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey that was conducted on the Sultan River within the Henry M. Jackson Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2157) area on December 12 and 13, 2005. In order to provide assurance of protection of aquatic resources in the Sultan River during a planned powerhouse turbine test, the co-licensees provided a release of approximately 650 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water from Spada Lake into the reach below Culmback Dam. This reach ordinarily receives 20-25 cfs year-round. This planned flow release presented an opportunity to undertake other resource evaluations. While the flow release was not intended specifically to provide flows suitable for a formal controlled flow whitewater boating study, the release resulted in flow levels on the Sultan River that were potentially suitable for whitewater boating. This Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey was conducted by the Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) and City of Everett (co-licensees) to help determine if and to what extent a whitewater boating opportunity existed under the increased flow conditions on the Sultan River below Culmback dam.
2.0 Methodology Single flow surveys are typically used to elicit direct feedback about a specific flow and to estimate flow ranges from users on a river (or river reach). These surveys may also be administered at several flow levels to draw general conclusions about specific whitewater boating opportunities at each flow level. Feedback from users is often collected through a questionnaire employing a specific set of questions that is commonly used in single flow studies. Focus group discussions with boaters often follow single flow events to augment the information gathered through the questionnaire. Single flow studies are helpful in identifying opportunities at the specific flow provided, but do not tend to confirm or establish precise flow ranges for whitewater activities (Whittaker, Shelby, and Gangemi 2005; Whittaker et al. 1993). Using accepted single flow survey methodology, the purpose of the Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey was to help identify potential whitewater boating opportunities on the Sultan River under specific flow conditions provided on December 12th and 13th, 2005. The survey was specific to potential whitewater boating opportunities on the Sultan River; other flow-dependent activities (e.g., fishing, swimming, etc.) were not addressed at this time. American Whitewater (AW) was notified approximately two weeks prior to the planned release on the Sultan River that flows conducive to whitewater boating would be provided to facilitate equipment tests at the Project powerhouse. Whitewater boaters, via AW communications, were notified of the opportunity to take advantage of the planned increased flows and that the co-licensees would be conducting a voluntary post-run Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey of all boaters. A questionnaire was developed and used to elicit whitewater boater opinions and flow preferences following their experience on the Sultan River (Attachment A). Most of the Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey January 2006
Page 1
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Jackson Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2157
survey questions were developed to gather information specific to the three reaches of the Sultan River below Culmback dam. The three reaches include (see Sultan River Access Points and River Reaches Figure): • • •
Reach 1 – Below Culmback Dam to the Diversion Dam, Reach 2 – Diversion Dam to the Powerhouse, and Reach 3 – Powerhouse to Trout Farm Road River Access.
A draft questionnaire was provided to AW for review approximately one week prior to the increased flows. Three comment letters were received from AW and are included in Attachment B. Appropriate revisions were made to the questionnaire based on AW comments prior to field administration. Given the relatively unknown size of the whitewater boating population (specific to the Sultan River), a census of all whitewater boaters during the increased flows was used. Such a census was appropriate as the anticipated whitewater boater population during the increased flows was expected to be relatively small (e.g., 15 – 30 boaters). With the relatively small anticipated population, a census was the most suitable sampling technique in terms of developing valid summary results. All observed whitewater boaters on the Sultan River during the increased flows of December 12 and 13, 2005 were contacted and asked to participate in the survey. AW representatives had been notified of the uncertainty of flows after December 13. However, due to a need for further testing, the co-licensees unexpectedly continued the increased flows for an additional day. Due to their expectations that increased flows would be discontinued at the end of December 13, the co-licensees discontinued their plans for conduct of the survey past that date. No survey forms were distributed to the three boaters known to have descended Reaches 1 and 2 on December 14. During the increased flows on December 12 and 13, PUD staff administered liability waivers (Attachment A) at Olney Pass and questionnaires at three take-out locations on the Sultan River, including (see Sultan River Access Points and River Reaches Figure): 1. Diversion Dam; 2. Powerhouse; and 3. Trout Farm Road. Additionally, a survey log form was used to record the number of whitewater boaters observed, as well as the number of boaters who completed a questionnaire. The survey log form is included in Attachment A. Participation in the Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey, including the waiver and questionnaire, was voluntary.
Photo Credit: Kevin Colburn, American Whitewater.
Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey Page 2
January 2006
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Jackson Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2157
Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey January 2006
Page 3
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Jackson Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2157
The results of the Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey are presented below. Additionally, results from this survey will also be used to augment data gathered in conjunction with the Recreation Visitor Survey (RVS), which will characterize recreation resources in the Project area (e.g., describing existing use and conditions).
3.0 Survey Summary This section includes a summary of flow levels during the survey period, survey participation, and survey data. Additional detail about the data presented in this section is also provided in Attachments C, D, and E. 3.1 Flow Summary Stream flows are measured at three locations along the Sultan River downstream of Culmback dam. These locations are: the Culmback dam release (flows determined by reservoir elevation and Howell Bunger valve position), the USGS Gaging Station at the Diversion dam (Station 12137800), and USGS Gaging Station downstream of the Powerhouse (Station 12138160). Table 3.1-1 lists the average discharge recorded at each location in 4-hour increments during the 2-day survey period (December 12 and 13, 2005). Discharge at the Culmback dam release was 650 cfs throughout the duration of the survey period, as this was the desired flow level for resource protection during the powerhouse turbine tests. During times that boaters were on the Sultan River, the Diversion dam gage recorded stream flows between 668 cfs and 673 cfs on December 12 and December 13. On those same dates, boaters on the Sultan River downstream of the Powerhouse encountered stream flows generally between 1,222 cfs and 1,250 cfs (however, there were brief periods when flows were as high as 1,720 cfs below the Powerhouse). Complete records for each gage in 15-minute increments are provided in Attachment C. Table 3.1‐1. Average Flows (in cfs) Recorded at Stream Gages along the Sultan River on December 12 and 13, 2005 (note that the chart includes measurements taken at times when boaters would not have been on the river). Culmback Dam1, 2 Diversion Dam1 Powerhouse1 Time Dec 12 Dec 13 Dec 12 Dec 13 Dec 12 Dec 13 650 650 405 673 607 1,224 0:00 – 4:00 650 650 722 671 1,019 1,218 4:00 – 8:00 650 650 670 670 1,229 1,247 8:00 – 12:00 650 650 673 669 1,246 1,281 12:00 – 16:00 650 650 675 668 1,312 1,268 16:00 – 20:00 650 650 673 667 1,222 1,216 20:00 – 0:00 1 2
Average discharge at each gage is reported in cfs for each 4-hour period. Discharge at Culmback dam was 650 cfs throughout the duration of the survey.
Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey Page 4
January 2006
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Jackson Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2157
3.2 Survey Participation In total, 34 whitewater boaters signed waiver forms at Olney pass during the survey period (December 12 and 13, 2005). Of the 34 whitewater boaters who paddled the Sultan River during the survey period, all 34 were asked to participate in the Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey and 31 returned completed survey forms for a participation rate of approximately 91 percent. Table 3.2-1 provides a summary by day of survey participation. Table 3.2‐1. Survey Participation by Location and Date.1 December 12 December 13 Waivers Signed 28 6 Powerhouse Survey Forms Distributed 13 4 Survey Forms Collected 10 4 Participation Rate 77 percent 100 percent Trout Farm Road Survey Forms Distributed 14 2 Survey Forms Collected 14 2 Participation Rate 100 percent 100 percent 1
One participant was contacted and completed a survey form at the Diversion dam. This participant is not captured in Table 3.2-1.
A list of the 31 participants who completed the survey form is provided in Attachment D. Fourteen survey participants completed the form at the Powerhouse River Access and 16 participants completed the form at the Trout Farm Road River Access (one survey participant completed the survey at the Diversion dam). The average self-reported put-in time, take-out time, and trip duration is summarized in Table 3.2-2 by take-out location. Table 3.2‐2. Average Put‐In, Take‐Out, and Trip Duration by Take‐Out Location.1 Powerhouse River Trout Farm Road Access River Access Average Put-In Time 9:31am 9:23am Average Take-Out Time 3:24pm 2:08pm Average Trip Duration2 5 hours 27 minutes 4 hours 42 minutes 1
Table does not include 2 survey participants: 1 participant took out at the Diversion dam and 1 took out at the confluence with the Skykomish River. 2 The minimum trip duration at the Powerhouse River Access was 4 hours 45 minutes, while the maximum trip duration was 6 hours 50 minutes. The minimum trip duration at the Trout Farm Road River Access was 3 hours 15 minutes, while the maximum trip duration was 5 hours 45 minutes.
The majority (87 percent) of participants in the Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey had not previously participated in the RVS. Only two (6 percent)
Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey January 2006
Page 5
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Jackson Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2157
participants had previously participated in the RVS, while an additional two participants did not know if they had previously participated in the RVS. 3.3 Survey Form Data Summarized by Survey Question Summary data for each survey question are provided below. Where appropriate, survey data are presented by river reach. The three reaches include (see Sultan River Access Points and River Reaches figure): • • •
Reach 1 – Below Culmback dam to the Diversion dam, Reach 2 – Diversion dam to the Powerhouse, and Reach 3 – Powerhouse to Trout Farm Road River Access.
Question 1: During the Past 12 months, how many paddling trips have you taken on each reach of the Sultan River?
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3
Average Number of Trips 0.6 0.5 2.5
Minimum 0 0 0
Maximum 1 2 30
N1 31 31 31
1
N indicates the total numbers of participants who responded to this question.
In total, 19 survey participants reported at least one trip on Reach 1 (below Culmback dam to Diversion dam) of the Sultan River, while 16 survey participants reported at least one trip on Reach 2 (Diversion dam to Powerhouse). For Reach 3 (Powerhouse to Trout Farm Road), 21 survey participants reported at least one trip in the past 12 months. Note: many survey participants likely included their current trip in their past 12-month total reported for this question. Question 2: Which type of watercraft did you use on the Sultan River today? All survey participants reported using a kayak during their current trip on the Sultan River. Question 3: How would you rate your own whitewater boating skill level? Skill Level Novice Beginner Intermediate Advanced Expert
N 0 0 1 20 10
Percent 0% 0% 3% 65% 32%
In general, most survey participants are advanced or expert whitewater boaters. Data gathered from the survey should be considered specific to these skill levels. Novice, Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey Page 6
January 2006
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Jackson Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2157
beginner, and intermediate skill level boaters may have significantly different preferences and needs regarding whitewater experiences compared to advanced and expert boaters. Question 4: In general, which difficulty class of river do you prefer running? The six river difficulty classes include the following: • • • • •
•
Class I - Fast moving with riffles and
small waves; few or no obstructions. Class II - Straightforward rapids with waves up to 3 feet; wide, clear channels evident without scouting. Class III - Rapids with moderate, irregular waves that can swamp open canoes; strong eddies and currents. Class IV - Powerful, turbulent and predictable rapids; large, unavoidable waves and holes or constricted passages. Class V - Extremely long, obstructed or violent rapids with exposure to added risk; possible large, unavoidable waves and holes or steep, congested chutes. Class VI - These runs have almost never been attempted and often exemplify the extremes of difficulty, unpredictability and danger.
Class I II III IV V VI
N 0 0 0 22 6 0
Photo Credit: Kevin Colburn, AW.
Percent 0% 0% 0% 79% 21% 0%
Similar to responses provided to Question 3, most survey participants prefer to run more challenging classes of rivers (Class IV and V). Three survey participants did not provide an appropriate response to this question (e.g., left blank, provided multiple responses, etc.). Again, based on self-reported skill level and difficulty preferences, all survey responses should be considered specific to more advanced skill levels and preferences; less experienced boaters may have significantly different preferences and needs. Question 5: Which put-in site did you use today? All participants in the survey put-in below Culmback dam.
Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey January 2006
Page 7
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Jackson Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2157
Question 6: Which take-out site did you use today? Fourteen survey participants took out at the Powerhouse River Access and 15 participants took out at the Trout Farm Road River Access. Additionally, one participant took out at the Diversion dam and one participant took out at the confluence of the Sultan and Skykomish Rivers. Question 7: Are the existing river access sites adequate to meet your needs? Approximately 61 percent of survey participants replied that the existing river access was not adequate to meet their needs. The responses to this question are specific to the river access below Culmback dam, as this is the put-in that all survey participants used during the survey period. Most (24) survey participants, including several who replied that river access was adequate, provided one or more comments regarding access to the Sultan River. The following summarized comments were provided about existing river access: • • • •
The put-in trail was long, hard, and poorly maintained (many downed trees). A better put-in trail is needed (21 responses). There is a need for better take-out access at the Diversion dam (2 responses). Powerhouse River Access is great (2 responses). Locked gates are an issue (2 responses).
Non-summarized responses to this and other open-ended questions are provided in Attachment E. Question 8: Which reach(es) of the Sultan River did you boat today? All 31 survey participants reported boating Reach 1 of the Sultan River during the survey period. Most survey participants (29) also reported boating Reach 2. Slightly less than half (15) of survey participants reported boating Reach 3 during the survey period. Question 9: Considering today’s flow/water conditions, please rate the following characteristics for each reach you boated today. Responses provided to Question 9 are specific to the flows provided during the survey period (Table 3.1-1). High percentages of “acceptable” and “totally acceptable” ratings for the characteristics listed in Question 9 should not be interpreted to mean that the increased flows provided during the survey period are optimal for whitewater boating experiences.
Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey Page 8
January 2006
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Jackson Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2157
Boatability Availability of Challenging Technical Boating Availability of Powerful Hydraulics Availability of Whitewater “Play Areas” Overall Whitewater Challenge Safety Aesthetics Length of Run Rate of Travel Number of Portages Overall Rating
Reach 1 – Below Culmback Dam to Diversion Dam Totally Unacceptable Unacceptable Neutral Acceptable 1 (3 percent) 13 (42 percent)
Totally Acceptable 17 (55 percent)
-
-
5 (16 percent)
15 (48 percent)
11 (36 percent)
-
1 (3 percent)
11 (36 percent)
13 (42 percent)
6 (19 percent)
-
6 (19 percent)
12 (39 percent)
9 (29 percent)
4 (13 percent)
-
-
5 (17 percent)
13 (43 percent)
12 (40 percent)
1 (3 percent) -
2 (7 percent) -
6 (21 percent) 2 (7 percent) 3 (10 percent) 3 (10 percent) 1 (3 percent)
17 (59 percent) 4 (13 percent) 14 (45 percent) 12 (39 percent) 18 (58 percent) 16 (52 percent)
5 (16 percent) 26 (87 percent) 15 (48 percent) 16 (52 percent) 8 (26 percent) 14 (45 percent)
All 31 survey participants provided responses to Question 9 for Reach 1 of the Sultan River. In general, most survey participants rated the characteristics of Reach 1 listed in Question 9 as either “acceptable” or “totally acceptable.”
Boatability Availability of Challenging Technical Boating Availability of Powerful Hydraulics Availability of Whitewater “Play Areas” Overall Whitewater Challenge Safety Aesthetics Length of Run Rate of Travel Number of Portages Overall Rating
Reach 2 – Diversion Dam to Powerhouse Totally Unacceptable Unacceptable Neutral -
Acceptable 14 (47 percent)
Totally Acceptable 15 (53 percent)
-
-
3 (10 percent)
11 (38 percent)
15 (52 percent)
-
-
7 (3 percent)
13 (46 percent)
8 (29 percent)
-
5 (17 percent)
11 (38 percent)
9 (31 percent)
4 (14 percent)
-
-
6 (21 percent)
10 (34 percent)
13 (45 percent)
-
1 (3 percent) 1 (3 percent) -
6 (21 percent) 2 (7 percent) 4 (14 percent) 5 (17 percent) 4 (14 percent)
19 (66 percent) 5 (18 percent) 9 (31 percent) 9 (31 percent) 17 (59 percent) 12 (41 percent)
3 (10 percent) 23 (82 percent) 18 (62 percent) 16 (55 percent) 6 (21 percent) 13 (45 percent)
Twenty-nine survey participants provided responses to Question 9 for Reach 2 of the Sultan River. Similar to Reach 1, most survey participants rated the characteristics of Reach 2 listed in Question 9 as either “acceptable” or “totally acceptable.”
Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey January 2006
Page 9
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Jackson Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2157
Boatability Availability of Challenging Technical Boating Availability of Powerful Hydraulics Availability of Whitewater “Play Areas” Overall Whitewater Challenge Safety Aesthetics Length of Run Rate of Travel Number of Portages Overall Rating
Reach 3 – Powerhouse to Trout Farm Totally Unacceptable Unacceptable Neutral 3 (19 percent)
Acceptable 3 (19 percent)
Totally Acceptable 10 (63 percent)
-
-
4 (25 percent)
8 (50 percent)
4 (25 percent)
-
-
5 (31 percent)
5 (31 percent)
6 (38 percent)
-
1 (6 percent)
4 (25 percent)
7 (44 percent)
4 (25 percent)
-
-
2 (13 percent)
10 (63 percent)
4 (25 percent)
-
-
1 (6 percent) 4 (25 percent) 6 (38 percent) 1 (6 percent) 2 (13 percent) 1 (7 percent)
8 (50 percent) 5 (31 percent) 6 (38 percent) 7 (44 percent) 7 (44 percent) 7 (50 percent)
7 (44 percent) 7 (44 percent) 4 (25 percent) 8 (50 percent) 7 (44 percent) 2 (43 percent)
Sixteen survey participants provided responses to Question 9 for Reach 3 of the Sultan River. Similar to both Reach 1 and 2, most survey participants rated the characteristics of Reach 3 listed in Question 9 as either “acceptable” or “totally acceptable.” Question 10: Considering today’s flow/water conditions, how many times did you have to portage in each reach of the Sultan River?
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reported Number of Portages 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1
Frequency of Response 12 10 6 1 2 1 3 13 8 1 2 13 2
The number of reported portages ranges from 0 to 4 with an average of approximately 1 on Reach 1 and from 0 to 5 with an average of slightly more than 2 on Reach 2. Reach 3 had less variability in the number of reported portages (0-1) and had an average number of portages of less than 1. For Reaches 1 and 2, the number of reported portages likely varies based on each individual boater’s comfort level with running rapids. At the Trout Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey Page 10
January 2006
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Jackson Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2157
Farm Road River Access, several participants in the survey reported that many of the whitewater rapid areas on the Sultan River, especially in the upper two reaches, were clogged with downed woody debris. Woody debris in rapids generally poses a risk to whitewater boaters and some survey participants may have portaged around particularly clogged rapids, while others may have run these rapids; hence the range of responses for the number of Photo Credit: Kevin Colburn, AW. portages per reach. Question 11: Considering today’s flow/water conditions and your experience level, how difficult was maneuvering your watercraft downstream, avoiding obstacles, and setting up for running rapids in each reach of the Sultan River?
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3
Easy 6 (19 percent) 6 (21 percent) 8 (47 percent)
Moderately Difficult 19 (61 percent) 14 (48 percent) 8 (47 percent)
Difficult 6 (19 percent) 9 (31 percent) 1 (6 percent)
Very Difficult 0 0 0
For Reaches 1 and 2, most survey participants reported that maneuvering their craft downstream, avoiding obstacles, and setting up for running rapids was “moderately difficult.” For Reach 3, the same number of survey participants rated the maneuverability level as “easy” (8 responses) and “moderately difficult” (8 responses). No survey participants indicated that watercraft maneuverability was “very difficult” in any of the three reaches of the Sultan River. Question 12: Considering the flow/water conditions during your trip today, in general how would you rate the whitewater difficulty of the reach(es) you boated? The majority of survey participants (87 percent) rated Reach 1 as Class IV, while approximately 13 percent rated this reach as Class III. Similar to Reach 1, the majority (83 percent) of survey participants rated Reach 2 as Class IV. About 10 percent of survey participants rated Reach 2 as Class V, while the remaining 7 percent rated this reach as Class III. For Reach 3, 59 percent of survey participants rated the reach as Class III, while 41 percent rated it Class IV. Question 13: Considering the total length of the reaches you boated today, was the combined length of the run too short, about right, or too long? The majority of survey participants (83 percent) described the total length of the reaches they boated during the survey period as “about right.” About 14 percent of survey Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey January 2006
Page 11
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Jackson Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2157
participants thought the run was “too long,” while only 3 percent thought the run was “too short.” About half of the survey participants (15), provided one or more comments regarding the total length of the whitewater run provided on the Sultan River during the survey period. The following summarized comments were provided about the length of the run: • • • •
The run would be better in the spring/summer when days are longer (5 responses). The run was a perfect length (4 responses). The run was too long for the time of year (4 responses). Cold weather, not length, added to the difficulty of the run (2 responses).
Non-summarized responses to this and other open-ended questions are provided in Attachment E. Question 14: In general, would you prefer a flow/water level that was higher, lower, or about the same as today on each reach of the Sultan River?
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3
Much lower -
Slightly lower 1 (6 percent)
About the same 6 (22 percent) 7 (28 percent) 8 (47 percent)
Slightly higher 14 (52 percent) 11 (44 percent) 3 (18 percent)
Much higher 7 (26 percent) 7 (28 percent) 5 (29 percent)
Approximately 78 percent and 72 percent of survey respondents would prefer “slightly higher” or “much higher” flows in Reach 1 and 2 of the Sultan River respectively. For Reach 3, responses were evenly split between “about the same” and higher (combined “slightly” and “much” categories) flows. Question 15: Given the opportunity to boat each reach of the Sultan River again in the future under identical flow/water conditions, would you choose to return? If Yes, how many days per year would you return to boat identical flows on each reach?
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3
Yes Responses 31 (100 percent) 30 (97 percent) 20 (100 percent)
Average 5.8 5.9 9.7
Days per Year Median Minimum 4 1 4 1 5 1
Maximum 20 20 40
Nearly every survey participant replied that they would return to the Sultan River to boat it again under similar flows. The number of days boaters would return varied by reach, but ranged between 1 and 20 days for Reaches 1 and 2 and between 1 and 40 days for Reach 3. The median number of days boaters would return is 4 for Reaches 1 and 2 and 5 for Reach 3 (note: median, instead of average, is a more appropriate estimate for days, as it minimizes the effect of outliers [e.g., very large or small responses] on the estimate).
Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey Page 12
January 2006
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Jackson Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2157
Question 16: Overall, how satisfied are you with your whitewater boating experience on the Sultan River today? Overall, all survey participants were either satisfied (26 percent) or very satisfied (74 percent) with their experience on the Sultan River during the survey period. Please Use this space to provide any additional comments regarding your whitewater boating trip on the Sultan River today. Most (26) survey participants provided one or more additional comments regarding their whitewater Photo Credit: Kevin Colburn, AW. boating experience on the Sultan River during the survey period. The following summarized additional comments were provided: • • • •
Thank you for the opportunity to run this beautiful, fun river (15 responses). River needs higher flows (would like to experience higher flows), including an official flow study (13 responses). The heavy amount of woody debris in the river made the run more difficult and dangerous (5 responses). We will be back to boat the Sultan River again (2 responses).
Non-summarized responses to this and other open-ended questions are provided in Attachment E.
4.0 References Whittaker, D., B. Shelby, W. Jackson, and R. Beschta. 1993. Instream Flows for Recreation: A Handbook on Concepts and Research Methods. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service, Rivers and Trails Conservation Program in cooperation with Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Oregon State University, and National Park Service Water Resources Division. Whittaker, D, B. Shelby, and J. Gangemi. 2005. Flows and Recreation: A Guide to Studies for River Professionals. Hydropower Reform Coalition and National Park Service. Washington, D.C. Pictures provided by Kevin Colburn, American Whitewater, and available at URL: http://www.americanwhitewater.org/rivers/id/2245.
Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey January 2006
Page 13
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Jackson Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2157
Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey Page 14
January 2006
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Attachment A: Survey, Log, and Liability Waiver Forms
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Henry M. Jackson Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2157
Sultan River Single Flow Whitewater Boating Survey
Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) and the City of Everett are conducting an informal survey of whitewater boaters on the Sultan River. The map provided shows the Sultan River from below Culmback Dam to the Trout Farm Road River Access. Your answers are greatly appreciated and will help provide important insight into whitewater boating opportunities on the Sultan River. Additionally, your answers will help guide ongoing and future management decision-making regarding whitewater boating on the Sultan River.
Name:
Date:
Email: Approximate Put-In Time:
Approximate Take-Out Time
Have you previously participated in the Jackson Project Recreation Visitor Survey?
Yes
No
Don’t Know
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Sultan River Single Flow Whitewater Boating Survey
Jackson Hydroelectric Project
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Sultan River Single Flow Whitewater Boating Survey 1. During the past 12 months, how many paddling trips have you taken on each reach of the Sultan River (Refer to map provided)? Number of Trips Reach 1 – below Culmback dam to Diverson dam Reach 2 – Diversion dam to Powerhouse Reach 3 – Powerhouse to Trout Farm 2. Which type of watercraft did you use on the Sultan River today? (check 8 one) Kayak Closed deck canoe Large raft (>14ft.)
Inflatable kayak Open canoe
Cataraft Small raft (<14ft.)
Other
3. How would you rate your own whitewater boating skill level? Novice (no previous whitewater boating experience) Advanced
Beginner (some previous whitewater boating experience) Intermediate
Expert
4. In general, which difficulty class of river do you prefer running? (check 8 one) Class I - Fast moving with riffles and small waves; few or no obstructions.
Class II - Straightforward rapids with waves up to 3 feet; wide, clear channels evident without scouting. Class III - Rapids with moderate, irregular waves that can swamp open canoes; strong eddies and currents. Class IV - Powerful, turbulent and predictable rapids; large, unavoidable waves and holes or constricted passages.
Class V - Extremely long, obstructed or violent rapids with exposure to added risk; possible large, unavoidable waves and holes or steep, congested chutes.
Class VI - These runs have almost never been attempted and often exemplify the extremes of difficulty, unpredictability and danger.
5. Which put-in site did you use today (Refer to map provided)? (mark 8 one) 1. Below Culmback Dam (walk-in via Olney Pass) 4. Old Gaging Station River Access (river right) 2. Diversion Dam Road (walk-in river right)
5. Powerhouse River Access (river right)
3. Horseshoe Bend (walk-in river left)
6. Other
6. Which take-out site did you use today (Refer to map provided)? (mark 8 one) 1. Diversion Dam Road (walk-in river right) 4. Powerhouse River Access (river right) 2. Horseshoe Bend (walk-in river left)
5. Trout Farm Road
3. Old Gaging Station River Access (river right)
6. Other
7. Are the existing river access sites adequate to meet your needs? Yes No Î If No, please explain.
Jackson Hydroelectric Project
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Sultan River Single Flow Whitewater Boating Survey 8. Which reach(es) of the Sultan River did you boat today (Refer to map provided)?
(mark 8 all that apply) Reach 1 – below Culmback dam to Diverson dam. Reach 2 – Diversion dam to Powerhouse. Reach 3 – Powerhouse to Trout Farm.
9. Considering today’s flow/water conditions, please rate the following characteristics for each reach you boated today?
Reach 1 – Below Culmback Dam to Diversion Dam Boatability Availability of Challenging Technical Boating Availability of Powerful Hydraulics Availability of Whitewater “Play Areas” Overall Whitewater Challenge Safety Aesthetics Length of Run Rate of Travel Number of Portages Overall Rating
Totally Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Neutral
Acceptable
Totally Acceptable
Reach 2 – Diversion Dam to Powerhouse Boatability Availability of Challenging Technical Boating Availability of Powerful Hydraulics Availability of Whitewater “Play Areas” Overall Whitewater Challenge Safety Aesthetics Length of Run Rate of Travel Number of Portages Overall Rating
Totally Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Neutral
Acceptable
Totally Acceptable
Jackson Hydroelectric Project
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Sultan River Single Flow Whitewater Boating Survey Reach 3 – Powerhouse to Trout Farm Boatability Availability of Challenging Technical Boating Availability of Powerful Hydraulics Availability of Whitewater “Play Areas” Overall Whitewater Challenge Safety Aesthetics Length of Run Rate of Travel Number of Portages Overall Rating
Totally Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Neutral
Acceptable
Totally Acceptable
10. Considering today’s flow/water conditions, how many times did you have to portage in each reach of the Sultan River? Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 11. Considering today’s flow/water conditions and your experience level, how difficult was maneuvering your watercraft downstream, avoiding obstacles, and setting up for running rapids in each reach of the Sultan River? Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3
12. Considering the flow/water conditions during your trip today, in general how would you rate the whitewater difficulty of the reach(es) you boated (Use International Whitewater Scale of Class I- Class VI)? Class Class Class Reach 1: Reach 2: Reach 3: 13. Considering the total length of the reaches you boated today, was the combined length of the run too short, about right, or too long? Please explain.
Jackson Hydroelectric Project
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Sultan River Single Flow Whitewater Boating Survey 14. In general, would you prefer a flow/water level that was higher, lower, or about the same as today on each reach of the Sultan River? Much lower Slightly lower About the same Slightly higher Much higher Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3
15. Given the opportunity to boat each reach of the Sultan River again in the future under identical flow/water conditions, would you choose to return? If Yes, how many days per year would you return to boat identical flows on each reach? Yes Days No Possibly Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 16. Overall, how satisfied are you with your whitewater boating experience on the Sultan River today? Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied Please use this space to provide any additional comments regarding your whitewater boating trip on the Sultan River today.
Thank you for providing us with valuable information about your whitewater boating experience on the Sultan River.
Jackson Hydroelectric Project
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Jackson Hydroelectric Project
Single Flow Whitewater Boating Survey Log Name: Date:
Day of Week:
Site: Weather:
Number of Boaters Observed: Survey Forms Distributed: Survey Forms Collected:
Notes:
Instructions: 1. Complete top portion of log form (name, date, day of week, site, and weather). 2. Record total number of whitewater boaters observed. At all potential take-out locations (Diversion dam, Powerhouse, and Trout Farm), record total number of boaters observed on the river even if boaters do not take-out at the location you are stationed. 3. Record the total number of survey forms distributed to whitewater boaters. 4. Record the total number of survey forms collected from whitewater boaters. 5. Insert any additional notes about observations, survey distribution/collection issues, or other information that may be pertinent to the study.
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
ASSUMPTION OF RISK AND GENERAL WAIVER AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY
1)
I, ___________________________ (clearly print full legal name), recognize that the Sultan River Whitewater Paddling activity (hereinafter known as “ACTIVITY”) in which I am about to participate, is a rigorous ACTIVITY that may be physically, mentally, and emotionally stressful and may aggravate existing physical, mental or emotional conditions or cause new ones. I recognize that the ACTIVITY can be dangerous and that the dangers involved may include damage to or destruction of personal property; serious physical injury or even death arising from a variety of hazards including, but not limited to, and by way of example only, rocks, hazardous terrain, trees, debris, powerful waves, waterfalls, hydraulics, and various man-made or natural hazards; and difficulty or improbability of rescue. I understand that the Sultan River has limited previous use for whitewater recreation and that, especially with regard to segments above the Jackson Hydroelectric Project Powerhouse, has not been demonstrated to be suitable for general whitewater recreation. I further understand that there is no prepared access into the river canyon where the ACTIVITY is to be conducted, that the canyon is remote, narrow and steep, and that I am personally responsible for choosing the method, route and equipment necessary to gain access over the steep and hazardous terrain. I acknowledge that under these circumstances the usual hazards associated with whitewater paddling may be compounded. I also understand that before and during the course of the ACTIVITY there may be significant variations in river flows that could alter the character of the
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
river, and that flows at the levels released and encountered may involve additional risks. 2)
I acknowledge: a) that I am personally responsible for determining whether I have the skill and expertise to safely navigate the Sultan River, or any segment thereof; b) that I am solely responsible for selecting equipment suitable for use during my participation in the ACTIVITY; c) that no other person or entity has any obligation to attempt to rescue me, and that any attempted rescue may in fact exacerbate my condition and/or cause injury or death; d) that I have come to engage in this ACTIVITY of my own volition and that I was not invited or requested to participate in the ACTIVITY by the City of Everett (the City”) or by Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County (the “District”); and e) that operational constraints on the District and the Jackson Hydroelectric Project facilities, and river conditions, will preclude a timely reduction in the flows of the Sultan River, even to assist or facilitate rescue efforts.
3)
I understand and expressly assume all the dangers incident to the ACTIVITY on the Sultan River and hereby release all claims including, but not limited to, property damage or destruction and personal injury or death, whether caused by negligence, breach of contract or otherwise, which I may ever have against (a) the City and the District, their officers, employees, or any other persons or entities that may be involved in facilitating my or others’ use and enjoyment of the Sultan River; and (b) each and every other participant in the ACTIVITY.
4)
I represent that: a) I am 18 years of age or older; b) I am executing and submitting this release and waiver voluntarily and of my own free will; and
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
c) I have no physical, mental or emotional problems, nor any history thereof, which could impair my ability to participate in the activities of the ACTIVITY or to understand the meaning and intent of this waiver and release document. 5)
I recognize that neither the City nor the District, their officers, directors, employees, agents, successors or assigns are providing any liability, health or other insurance in connection with the ACTIVITY, and I agree to assume all financial responsibility for medical, rescue or other expenses that I may incur, and to defend, hold harmless and indemnify the City and the District, their officers, directors, employees, agents, successor or assigns for any loss or damage, including attorneys fees, that may result should I pursue an action or claim that is waived or barred by this release and waiver.
6)
I also assume full responsibility for and agree to defend, hold harmless and indemnify the City and the District, their officers, directors, employees, agents, successors and assigns against any claims, losses or judgments that may arise from any damage or harm that I may do or cause while participating in this ACITIVTY.
7)
This waiver shall be binding upon me, my heirs, successors, assigns, executors and administrators.
DATED THIS _________________ day of _______________________________, 2005.
SIGNED: _______________________________________________________________
WITNESS: ______________________________________________________________
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Attachment B: Comment Letters on Draft Survey Form Three comment letters were received from American Whitewater representatives (Kevin Colburn, Tom O’Keefe, and Andy Bridge) regarding the draft survey form for the Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey. Comments were incorporated in the final survey form as appropriate.
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
From: "Kevin Colburn"
To: "Sergio Capozzi" , Date: 12/6/2005 4:35:30 PM Subject: RE: Sultan River WW Survey Sergio, The survey/protocol represent a great start and I think I can offer some suggestions that will result in some more interesting results. I have worked on developing well over a dozen of these so far, so hopefully my experience can help make the study stronger. In general the survey is a bit too general. Paddlers are totally analytical nerds - which keeps them alive in very complex situations. W should tap into this and ask them for their specific flow recommendations, access concerns, etc. We can also do a better job of estimating demand and of describing the river in comparison to other rivers and on its own merit. So here goes... Protocol: 1. The travel times seem very ambitious to me and I have never seen the 5/ft per second figure before. Given the fact that few people have ever run this reach before I would expect some groups to take much longer than your anticipated time due to scouting and general caution. It is certainly wise to have your data collectors out there early, but I expect many groups to take off the river quite late in the day, based on feedback from tom and andy. 2. FYI - as soon as people get off the river they will be freezing. Thus, they will want to change into dry warm clothes immediately. Just let your folks know that they can hand out surveys but folks will most likely want to change their clothes and fill out the surveys in their cars with their heaters blasting on their hands and feet. It would be AWESOME to have some hot cocoa on site as a thank-you to paddlers for filling out a survey. Survey: Question #1: This question should be broken up into river segments since we really are interested in how often the paddlers utilized the bypass reach, as well as the presumably more readily used reach below the power house. Question #4: This question should read "In general, which difficulty class of river do you prefer running." Or alternately: "do you paddle most often". I am most comfortable running class 1 because I am at risk only of falling asleep, however I paddle almost exclusively on class 4 and like it the best. Paddlers pursue slightly uncomfortable situations. To capture paddlers recreational preferences - just ask them what they prefer. Question #9: "Length of Run" is a confusing questino since you have broken the river up into three reaches while paddlers will view this as one continuous paddling experience.
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Each section may be too short but the whole run could be too long. I would make Length its own question that addresses this. Question #11: Delete this question. It is relavent only to flatwater rivers and will confuse whitewater paddlers. Alternately, you could replace this with a question that asks paddlers to describe the flow volume: unreasonably low, enjoyable low, medium, enjoyable high, or unreasonably high. This is my scale, not one from the literature. This is paddler lingo, we describe runs at specific water levels using similar terminology. Question #13: Please ask "If this identical flow were regularly provided, how many days per year would you return." This takes us one step closer to assessing demand and quality of the resource. A census is good, but gaging paddler's likely use patterns is even more helpful. Additional Questions: - Ask paddler to rate the access on a 5 point scale from totally unacceptable to totally acceptable - then ask for specific suggestions/needs. - Ask how long it took each paddler to drive to the river from their home. - Have paddlers identify similar river reaches in the region (3 hour driving radius), and within a similar distance as the sultan is from their home. this could be used to estimate potential demand if use numbers exist for the other rivers. - How does the Sultan River compare to rivers within: a 1 hour drive, 3 hour drive, the pacific northwest, and the United States, using a 5 point scale: Worse than average, average, better than average, excellent, among the very best. - "The flow you paddled today was 615cfs, please estimate what you would view as the optimal flow_____, an acceptable range of flows____, minimum acceptable flow, and a maximum acceptable boating flow for paddlers of your ability level in your craft. On a scale of one to ten, with one being Totally Unsure, and ten being Totally Sure, how confident are you in these estimates?" - "If you wanted to better define the flow thresholds in the previous question, and could paddle the same reach you paddled today at 3 different flows to help you define them, what would those flows be?" _____ , ______ , and _____. This would be helpful in designing future studies if they are necessary. - ask for the number of portages each paddler made. I hope that helps, Kevin Colburn National Stewardship Director American Whitewater 328 N Washington St. Moscow, ID 83843 Office: 208-882-2711 Cell: 828-712-4825
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
From: To: Date: Subject:
P-2157-000
Thomas O'Keefe 12/7/2005 7:18:26 AM RE: Sultan River WW Survey
Sergio, Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. I agree with everything Kevin said and just have a couple more thoughts to add based on my experience with these. Yes those river travel times are pretty optimistic. You have the person at Trout Farm Road scheduled for 11 am but it's hard to imagine anyone, even under the best of conditions, making it down that fast. This is a long run and a more likely scenario is that paddlers will be taking out very close to dark. That being said if you're there at 11 am you can be quite confident that you won't miss anyone. I might consider a question to better profile your paddlers. A standard way to do this is to ask the percent days you paddle steep creeks, short playboating reaches, longer day trip, and multi-day trips. This helps you understand the feedback you're getting a little better. I would go ahead and collect contact information from folks as this will help you build a population of folks for any future survey work or interviews that we may want to do at some later date. Asking the question about flows is a good one. In interpreting the information you get from this I think it's important to be clear that this is not a question to make a decision on flows but rather to help more efficiently structure any further analysis or study. So it's the responsibility of the researcher, in evaluating the data, to be clear what they can and can not tell you but as long as you understand the constraints it will be very useful information to have. I am aware that the PAD does not commit to a flow study but if we do one having this information will provide a more efficient design (i.e. a study that will provide more robust information and at reduced cost). Another way you could ask this is to have flows in a series of increments (200 cfs, 250, 300, 350, 450, 500, 550, 600, 650, 700, 750, 800, 900, 1000, 1200, 1400, 1600, 1800, 2000) in a column and then have boaters rank on a 7 point scale from unacceptable to totally acceptable for each flow. You then instruct paddlers that if they do not feel comfortable evaluating a flow you haven't seen, then don't circle a number for that flow). Kevin's approach will of course keep your actual form shorter in length. I agree with Kevin that it would be really good to gain additional insight on question 13. I'll defer to Kevin for help with clarifying this thought, but just make sure you are very clear that you're referring to flows because access is the other issue that affects whether you would return or not and at what frequency and I think you need to address this or people will tend to lump in other aspects of their experience. For example I was there the day after the 6122 road blew out and it took us much longer than anticipated to get into
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
the gorge. Similarly, you could have a snowstorm in December that could make access more complicated and someone might say that they would never do the trip under those conditions. Thus someone may be willing to return 6 times a year at identical flow conditions but only once a year with identical access conditions. If you ask a question about access as Kevin suggests then paddlers will be less likely to lump flows and access together. A couple more questions. You said this survey is designed not just for this event, but to be general enough to be used for future opportunities that may arise. You might think about how to do this but we would be willing to post on our website (we've done this with other projects and it's a good way to collect additional data as future opportunities arise that may come up with little notice). On references, have you seen the new methods paper by Whittaker, Shelby, and Gangemi? It updates several of the concepts and methods in the Whittaker et al. 1993 reference. I've been kind of holding back on the official announcement to let everyone know that it's out (as I believe NPS and HRC want to take the lead in putting out the word) but it is on our website at: http://www.americanwhitewater.org/toolkit/Hydro/WWFlowStudy/whittaker_2005_flow s.pdf Please feel to share with others at the PUD you may wish to gain additional insight into the process. Best, Tom Thomas O'Keefe 3537 NE 87th St. Seattle, WA 98115 [email protected] voice/fax 206-527-7947 work 206-543-1567 cell 425-417-9012
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
From: "Andy Bridge" To: "Sergio Capozzi" Date: 12/7/2005 7:13:07 AM Subject: RE: Sultan River WW Survey Sergio, Thanks for giving us the opportunity to review the survey and protocol for next week’s flow study on the Sultan River. I share many of Kevin’s comments so will only pass on feedback that is not duplicated. Protocol See my changes in red below. I substituted the word increased for higher. We do not know what high flows are yet on the Sultan but they are most certainly not 650cfs. I substituted the word two potential and one known over your popular for boater take outs. The Diversion Dam has never had public access (3.5 mile hike in) as a takeout on a gated road. In fact it has not been made known to AWA that this potential takeout would be available during the water release so I would expect zero paddlers to plan on this option. Since river flows above the Powerhouse are currently managed at levels below minimum for boating both the Diversion Dam and the Power house have no history as a boater take-out. The driving shuttle is considerably longer to use the Powerhouse access then Trout Farm Road so I would anticipate almost all boaters to use Trout Farm Road which only adds two additional river miles. Given the relatively unknown size of the whitewater boating population (specific to the Sultan River), a census of all whitewater boaters during the increased flows will be used. A census is appropriate at this time, as the anticipated whitewater boater population during the increased flows is expected to be relatively small (e.g., 15 – 30 boaters). With the relatively small anticipated population, a census is the most suitable sampling technique in terms of developing valid summary results. All whitewater boaters on the Sultan River during the increased flows should be contacted and asked to participate in the survey. Whitewater boater contact will be made at two potential and one known boater take-out locations. These locations include: • Diversion dam river access • Powerhouse river access • Trout Farm Road river access
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Other comments on protocol: Your timing on boater travel time seems way off to me based on my experience. I have paddled the river 3 times. The last time we started hiking at 8 A.M. from the end of USFS 6122 and arrived at the river at 9. Made it to Trout Farm Road at 3:30 with a 30 minute lunch break. I recall several rapids we scouted, a few portages around logs, etc. This is a wilderness canyon and boaters like to enjoy the remote experience of being someplace unique. The snow depth may prevent boaters from driving on 6122 which will add distance and time. Comments on Survey Form Questions 10-14 and any additional type questions should be asked for each reach similar to Questions 8 and 9. You are asking very specific questions about three reaches that will have different flows. The PUD is estimating a release of 650 cfs from Culmback but with accretion from side streams the flow will be 100-300 cfs more in the section below the Diversion Dam. The PUD is also still planning on generating at the Powerhouse during this release so the flows below the Powerhouse will most likely be in the 1,200-1,400 cfs range. Depending on rain and potential snowmelt we might have very different flows for each section during the 3-4 days. Kevin and I will be on the river Monday. Tom mentioned that you might be interested in a “wrap up meeting” on site while everything is fresh in our minds. I live at the Trout Farm takeout and will be happy to host you and a few others Monday afternoon/evening. Since it is dark at 4:30 I hope that all paddlers are off the water and changed by 5 P.M.
I will call you Thursday to discuss further.
Andy Bridge Sultan River Streamkeeper American Whitewater Affiliation
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Attachment C: Recorded Flow Levels on the Sultan River Recorded flow levels at Culmback dam were 650 cfs throughout the survey duration. Recorded flow levels at each of the other stream gages (Diversion dam and Powerhouse) on the Sultan River are provided in 15-minute increments for December 12th and 13th, 2005.
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Recorded Flows at Diversion Dam Stream Gage Date & Time 12/12/2005 0:00 12/12/2005 0:15 12/12/2005 0:30 12/12/2005 0:45 12/12/2005 1:00 12/12/2005 1:15 12/12/2005 1:30 12/12/2005 1:45 12/12/2005 2:00 12/12/2005 2:15 12/12/2005 2:30 12/12/2005 2:45 12/12/2005 3:00 12/12/2005 3:15 12/12/2005 3:30 12/12/2005 3:45 12/12/2005 4:00 12/12/2005 4:15 12/12/2005 4:30 12/12/2005 4:45 12/12/2005 5:00 12/12/2005 5:15 12/12/2005 5:30 12/12/2005 5:45 12/12/2005 6:00 12/12/2005 6:15 12/12/2005 6:30 12/12/2005 6:45 12/12/2005 7:00 12/12/2005 7:15 12/12/2005 7:30 12/12/2005 7:45 12/12/2005 8:00 12/12/2005 8:15 12/12/2005 8:30 12/12/2005 8:45 12/12/2005 9:00 12/12/2005 9:15 12/12/2005 9:30 12/12/2005 9:45 12/12/2005 10:00 12/12/2005 10:15 12/12/2005 10:30 12/12/2005 10:45 12/12/2005 11:00 12/12/2005 11:15 12/12/2005 11:30 12/12/2005 11:45 12/12/2005 12:00 12/12/2005 12:15 12/12/2005 12:30 12/12/2005 12:45
Discharge (cfs) 322 288 265 244 225 212 202 194 188 184 435 739 744 744 744 744 748 744 744 748 744 744 748 744 744 744 739 744 694 681 621 621 638 672 672 672 672 672 672 672 676 672 672 672 672 672 672 672 672 672 672 672
12/12/2005 13:00 12/12/2005 13:15 12/12/2005 13:30 12/12/2005 13:45 12/12/2005 14:00 12/12/2005 14:15 12/12/2005 14:30 12/12/2005 14:45 12/12/2005 15:00 12/12/2005 15:15 12/12/2005 15:30 12/12/2005 15:45 12/12/2005 16:00 12/12/2005 16:15 12/12/2005 16:30 12/12/2005 16:45 12/12/2005 17:00 12/12/2005 17:15 12/12/2005 17:30 12/12/2005 17:45 12/12/2005 18:00 12/12/2005 18:15 12/12/2005 18:30 12/12/2005 18:45 12/12/2005 19:00 12/12/2005 19:15 12/12/2005 19:30 12/12/2005 19:45 12/12/2005 20:00 12/12/2005 20:15 12/12/2005 20:30 12/12/2005 20:45 12/12/2005 21:00 12/12/2005 21:15 12/12/2005 21:30 12/12/2005 21:45 12/12/2005 22:00 12/12/2005 22:15 12/12/2005 22:30 12/12/2005 22:45 12/12/2005 23:00 12/12/2005 23:15 12/12/2005 23:30 12/12/2005 23:45
676 672 672 676 672 668 672 672 676 672 676 672 672 672 676 676 676 672 672 676 676 672 676 676 676 676 672 676 676 672 676 672 672 676 672 672 672 668 676 672 672 672 672 672
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Recorded Flows at Diversion Dam Stream Gage Date & Time 12/13/2005 0:00 12/13/2005 0:15 12/13/2005 0:30 12/13/2005 0:45 12/13/2005 1:00 12/13/2005 1:15 12/13/2005 1:30 12/13/2005 1:45 12/13/2005 2:00 12/13/2005 2:15 12/13/2005 2:30 12/13/2005 2:45 12/13/2005 3:00 12/13/2005 3:15 12/13/2005 3:30 12/13/2005 3:45 12/13/2005 4:00 12/13/2005 4:15 12/13/2005 4:30 12/13/2005 4:45 12/13/2005 5:00 12/13/2005 5:15 12/13/2005 5:30 12/13/2005 5:45 12/13/2005 6:00 12/13/2005 6:15 12/13/2005 6:30 12/13/2005 6:45 12/13/2005 7:00 12/13/2005 7:15 12/13/2005 7:30 12/13/2005 7:45 12/13/2005 8:00 12/13/2005 8:15 12/13/2005 8:30 12/13/2005 8:45 12/13/2005 9:00 12/13/2005 9:15 12/13/2005 9:30 12/13/2005 9:45 12/13/2005 10:00 12/13/2005 10:15 12/13/2005 10:30 12/13/2005 10:45 12/13/2005 11:00 12/13/2005 11:15 12/13/2005 11:30 12/13/2005 11:45 12/13/2005 12:00 12/13/2005 12:15 12/13/2005 12:30 12/13/2005 12:45
Discharge (cfs) 672 672 672 672 676 672 676 672 672 672 672 672 672 672 672 672 672 672 672 668 668 672 668 672 672 672 672 668 672 672 672 672 672 668 668 668 668 672 672 668 672 668 672 668 672 672 668 668 672 672 668 668
Date & Time 12/13/2005 13:00 12/13/2005 13:15 12/13/2005 13:30 12/13/2005 13:45 12/13/2005 14:00 12/13/2005 14:15 12/13/2005 14:30 12/13/2005 14:45 12/13/2005 15:00 12/13/2005 15:15 12/13/2005 15:30 12/13/2005 15:45 12/13/2005 16:00 12/13/2005 16:15 12/13/2005 16:30 12/13/2005 16:45 12/13/2005 17:00 12/13/2005 17:15 12/13/2005 17:30 12/13/2005 17:45 12/13/2005 18:00 12/13/2005 18:15 12/13/2005 18:30 12/13/2005 18:45 12/13/2005 19:00 12/13/2005 19:15 12/13/2005 19:30 12/13/2005 19:45 12/13/2005 20:00 12/13/2005 20:15 12/13/2005 20:30 12/13/2005 20:45 12/13/2005 21:00 12/13/2005 21:15 12/13/2005 21:30 12/13/2005 21:45 12/13/2005 22:00 12/13/2005 22:15 12/13/2005 22:30 12/13/2005 22:45 12/13/2005 23:00 12/13/2005 23:15 12/13/2005 23:30 12/13/2005 23:45
Discharge (cfs) 672 668 676 663 672 668 668 663 668 668 668 663 663 668 668 668 668 668 668 668 668 668 668 668 668 668 668 668 668 668 668 668 663 668 668 668 663 668 668 663 668 668 663 668
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Recorded Flows at Powerhouse Stream Gage Date and Time 12/12/2005 0:00 12/12/2005 0:15 12/12/2005 0:30 12/12/2005 0:45 12/12/2005 1:00 12/12/2005 1:15 12/12/2005 1:30 12/12/2005 1:45 12/12/2005 2:00 12/12/2005 2:15 12/12/2005 2:30 12/12/2005 2:45 12/12/2005 3:00 12/12/2005 3:15 12/12/2005 3:30 12/12/2005 3:45 12/12/2005 4:00 12/12/2005 4:15 12/12/2005 4:30 12/12/2005 4:45 12/12/2005 5:00 12/12/2005 5:15 12/12/2005 5:30 12/12/2005 5:45 12/12/2005 6:00 12/12/2005 6:15 12/12/2005 6:30 12/12/2005 6:45 12/12/2005 7:00 12/12/2005 7:15 12/12/2005 7:30 12/12/2005 7:45 12/12/2005 8:00 12/12/2005 8:15 12/12/2005 8:30 12/12/2005 8:45 12/12/2005 9:00 12/12/2005 9:15 12/12/2005 9:30 12/12/2005 9:45 12/12/2005 10:00 12/12/2005 10:15 12/12/2005 10:30 12/12/2005 10:45 12/12/2005 11:00 12/12/2005 11:15 12/12/2005 11:30 12/12/2005 11:45 12/12/2005 12:00 12/12/2005 12:15 12/12/2005 12:30 12/12/2005 12:45
Discharge (cfs) 728 844 802 750 695 657 610 590 556 541 523 509 495 477 468 459 600 938 957 944 951 944 944 964 951 957 970 1060 1280 1280 1280 1280 1280 1270 1230 1200 1180 1180 1210 1220 1220 1220 1220 1230 1220 1240 1210 1340 1450 1300 1240 1210
Date and Time 12/12/2005 13:00 12/12/2005 13:15 12/12/2005 13:30 12/12/2005 13:45 12/12/2005 14:00 12/12/2005 14:15 12/12/2005 14:30 12/12/2005 14:45 12/12/2005 15:00 12/12/2005 15:15 12/12/2005 15:30 12/12/2005 15:45 12/12/2005 16:00 12/12/2005 16:15 12/12/2005 16:30 12/12/2005 16:45 12/12/2005 17:00 12/12/2005 17:15 12/12/2005 17:30 12/12/2005 17:45 12/12/2005 18:00 12/12/2005 18:15 12/12/2005 18:30 12/12/2005 18:45 12/12/2005 19:00 12/12/2005 19:15 12/12/2005 19:30 12/12/2005 19:45 12/12/2005 20:00 12/12/2005 20:15 12/12/2005 20:30 12/12/2005 20:45 12/12/2005 21:00 12/12/2005 21:15 12/12/2005 21:30 12/12/2005 21:45 12/12/2005 22:00 12/12/2005 22:15 12/12/2005 22:30 12/12/2005 22:45 12/12/2005 23:00 12/12/2005 23:15 12/12/2005 23:30 12/12/2005 23:45
Discharge (cfs) 1220 1220 1240 1230 1230 1220 1230 1240 1220 1230 1220 1230 1240 1250 1320 1230 1220 1230 1270 1380 1450 1480 1480 1520 1240 1230 1230 1220 1220 1230 1240 1220 1220 1230 1220 1230 1220 1230 1220 1210 1220 1210 1210 1220
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Recorded Flows at Powerhouse Stream Gage Date and Time 12/13/2005 0:00 12/13/2005 0:15 12/13/2005 0:30 12/13/2005 0:45 12/13/2005 1:00 12/13/2005 1:15 12/13/2005 1:30 12/13/2005 1:45 12/13/2005 2:00 12/13/2005 2:15 12/13/2005 2:30 12/13/2005 2:45 12/13/2005 3:00 12/13/2005 3:15 12/13/2005 3:30 12/13/2005 3:45 12/13/2005 4:00 12/13/2005 4:15 12/13/2005 4:30 12/13/2005 4:45 12/13/2005 5:00 12/13/2005 5:15 12/13/2005 5:30 12/13/2005 5:45 12/13/2005 6:00 12/13/2005 6:15 12/13/2005 6:30 12/13/2005 6:45 12/13/2005 7:00 12/13/2005 7:15 12/13/2005 7:30 12/13/2005 7:45 12/13/2005 8:00 12/13/2005 8:15 12/13/2005 8:30 12/13/2005 8:45 12/13/2005 9:00 12/13/2005 9:15 12/13/2005 9:30 12/13/2005 9:45 12/13/2005 10:00 12/13/2005 10:15 12/13/2005 10:30 12/13/2005 10:45 12/13/2005 11:00 12/13/2005 11:15 12/13/2005 11:30 12/13/2005 11:45 12/13/2005 12:00 12/13/2005 12:15 12/13/2005 12:30 12/13/2005 12:45
Discharge (cfs) 1220 1230 1230 1220 1230 1220 1220 1220 1230 1220 1220 1230 1220 1220 1220 1240 1230 1230 1230 1220 1210 1230 1220 1210 1220 1210 1220 1210 1210 1220 1210 1210 1230 1270 1220 1230 1230 1220 1220 1220 1230 1230 1240 1220 1540 1210 1230 1210 1210 1230 1240 1220
Date and Time 12/13/2005 13:00 12/13/2005 13:15 12/13/2005 13:30 12/13/2005 13:45 12/13/2005 14:00 12/13/2005 14:15 12/13/2005 14:30 12/13/2005 14:45 12/13/2005 15:00 12/13/2005 15:15 12/13/2005 15:30 12/13/2005 15:45 12/13/2005 16:00 12/13/2005 16:15 12/13/2005 16:30 12/13/2005 16:45 12/13/2005 17:00 12/13/2005 17:15 12/13/2005 17:30 12/13/2005 17:45 12/13/2005 18:00 12/13/2005 18:15 12/13/2005 18:30 12/13/2005 18:45 12/13/2005 19:00 12/13/2005 19:15 12/13/2005 19:30 12/13/2005 19:45 12/13/2005 20:00 12/13/2005 20:15 12/13/2005 20:30 12/13/2005 20:45 12/13/2005 21:00 12/13/2005 21:15 12/13/2005 21:30 12/13/2005 21:45 12/13/2005 22:00 12/13/2005 22:15 12/13/2005 22:30 12/13/2005 22:45 12/13/2005 23:00 12/13/2005 23:15 12/13/2005 23:30 12/13/2005 23:45
Discharge (cfs) 1220 1390 1420 1260 1220 1220 1220 1210 1720 1290 1220 1210 1240 1220 1210 1210 1450 1760 1270 1210 1210 1220 1210 1210 1210 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 1210 1220 1220 1220 1210 1210 1220 1210 1220 1210 1210 1220 1230 1210
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
Attachment D: Survey Participants
P-2157-000
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
Name Alan Willard Hillary Neevel Amy Brown Will Robins Christopher F. Lamblotte Eric Mickelson Peter Mattson Chris Tretwold David J.H. Wilson Michael Rausch Chris Ohta Jonathan Clifton Chris Fee Chris Totten Jennie Goldberg Robert McKibbin Jeff Robinson Jeff Bowman Eric Bessette John Fuqua Ryan Bradley Michael Harms Lisa Farin Kevin Colburn Jesse Sears Andy Bridge Brian Zderic Terry Lien Steven Strong Jon Almquist James Contos
P-2157-000
Email [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] fuqua376 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Attachment E: Non‐Summarized Open‐Ended Survey Question Responses Non-summarized responses for each open-ended survey question are provided by question in this attachment. Responses have not been edited.
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Question 7: Are the existing river access sites adequate to meet your needs? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
It would be nice if there was a better trail to the Culmback dam put-in. But the put-in is very difficult. It's a tough hike in but still worthwhile. But long hike in. Powerhouse access is great! Put-in below Culmback dam is a long and difficult hike through brush. If gates are open access is ok. But the season of the flow makes the run harder than needs to. The put-in (below Culmback) could use some trail maintenance. IE: sawing gaps in downed trees. Trail to put-in is difficult. Put-in trail quite primitive. The trail is awful after it enter the clearcut. Better trail. The Culmback dam access was difficult. Needs better trail Having the gate to PH locked so early doesn't work. Would like drive-in (or closer access to diversion dam and near the stringer bridge). A better put-in site would be great. But it would be nice to cut some of the logs on the landslide on the hike to the put-in. Trail maintenance at access and dam would be great. Put-in #1 is very long and hard to hike. Trees down on road. Kidding - hike 1.5 hours - clean up trail and stick to summer releases. Effort to reward ratio 2:1 as of winter experience. Put-in below Culmback was okay, but hike was extremely long. Put-in at Powerhouse is good, but would like to be able to drive past gate. Put-in trail needs work. Take-out/put-in at Diversion dam would be great. The hike in needs to be improved. Along with better access to the take-outs year round and no gates. Better trail below Culmback dam. Clear out trees. Would be nice to have closer vehicle access to the trail below Culmback dam. Also, the trail could be improved. Otherwise, great!
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Question 13: Considering the total length of the reaches you boated today, was the combined length of the run too short, about right, or too long? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
About right assuming you got an early start and are well prepared for a long day, otherwise it is a very long run. Too long with cold and shorter day - summer time ideal. This run makes for a long day, but tons of fun! It's wilderness class 4 part of the adventure is the challenge of time/portages, etc. I love this river but access when days are longer would help. This is a great length for a river run during summer months, however, it is a very full day with little room for errors during winter. Perfect length for winter day. About right for a spring/summer run. A little too long for winter with short daylight hours and having to hike through snow. If no hike-in, then length is ok. The length was fine but the cold weather made us paddle quickly. Knew and prepared for long run. The length really can't be changed as its perfect. Combined with the 2 hour hike, it felt a bit long. I was tired and cold. The length was great. It would be nice if it ever flowed in the spring or summer. Great length. Awesome long wilderness river! The full 11 miles was excellent. If done in sections, the logistics are marginally worth the hassle.
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Please Use this space to provide any additional comments regarding your whitewater boating trip on the Sultan River today. • • • • •
• •
• • • • • •
• •
• • • •
Very fun river, thanks for the opportunity to paddle it! Thanks! Y'all were very friendly. I will definitely be back! I would like to see other water levels. Amazing opportunity, I hope I get back. Thanks! Most beautiful river run I've done. I really had a great time on the river today. I would love to have more releases such as today's, particularly at times of year when there is a bit more daylight. However, winter boating is fun too! It just makes for a challenge to do the run with daylight remaining. I have run the whole Sultan 4 times now. It is a great challenging run. The artificial flows have made the river more dangerous than needs be by not flushing wood. The open gates at the top do improve access. It seems the river could use some flood stage flows to clean up some of the wood in a lots of rapids. This may be the most wood I have seen in a river ever. And not large wood that has been there for years but loose small pieces that were scattered everywhere. Otherwise a beautiful, fun, exciting run. Lots of wood in the canyo. It would be good to plan flow releases for boaters after the first fall flood event. Hike in definitely tiring. Run is beautiful and very fun. December day was nice with snow (for views) but the day was a bit chilly! Thank you. Would love to see other/varying water levels. We would like to see more water levels. Today was great! I would love more releases on the Sultan. It is a truly classic whitewater run!! Thanks. Very much appreciated the water and the opportunity to paddle the Sultan again. However, I still think it's very important that a formal flow study be conducted as part of the relicensing process. This is important to get more scientific info and to be sure on the best flows. P.S. Great, friendly staff! Open dam more often. I would paddle the Sultan more if the level was higher. The landslide on the old road/hike to the put-in was a pain. It would be nice to cut a path through the many downed trees. I would be happy to assist with this. The landslide on the river (in Reach 2) was an easy portage. Overall, the river needs more water perhaps double today's volume. Little more water and better access would be nice. Consistent flow ~900cfs on section 3 would be really nice. Would love to have releases on the weekend! This is an awesome river and with better access it would get used much more. Good run, needs more water ~2000cfs. Needs a big flush - lots of wood - unnatural amount. Saw fish, but landslide might prevent the migration. Very good drops with lots of fun ledge - but woody!
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
• • •
• • • •
P-2157-000
It would have been great if the flow had been high enough (prior to today) to have moved some of the wood out. Nevertheless, we enjoyed ourselves immensely and appreciated the opportunity to experience this challenging run. It's a really beautiful river and very fun. Each section was great. It was a great time. The access need to be improved. It would be nice to see more water and in different times of the year. This river will appeal to a greater number of padderls then many harder rivers. I think it is a great class 4 river. The people who paddled it today are expert boaters and I feel the majority of use on this river will be boaters of a lower level. Wonderful recreational wilderness experience in old growth river canyon. Long 11-mile upper canyon is a rare treasure to be located on the western Cascade slope close to Seattle. The run was great. I'm happy to have had the chance. Great trip, beautiful. Reach 1 and 2 need a little bit more water (another 300400cfs). The multitude of tarps on the river banks was a bummer. More water would be nice ~1000cfs, especially for the stretch below diversion dam where several bony rapids encountered. Thanks!
200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket#
P-2157-000
Submission Contents P-2157, cover letter to FERC, dated 1/24/06, regarding attached technical summary report. P2157_cover_letter_012406.pdf········································· 1-1 P-2157, report dated 1/13/06 regarding whitewater opportunity as recreation resource on Sultan River P2157_boating_flow_report.PDF········································· 2-57