5012 (14608790)

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

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
Jackson Hydroelectric Project

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


Page ii January 2006

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

January 2006 Page 1

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 Photo Credit: Kevin Colburn, American Whitewater.
voluntary.

Page 2 January 2006


January 2006 Page 3

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
0:00 – 4:00 650 650 405 673 607 1,224
4:00 – 8:00 650 650 722 671 1,019 1,218
8:00 – 12:00 650 650 670 670 1,229 1,247
12:00 – 16:00 650 650 673 669 1,246 1,281
16:00 – 20:00 650 650 675 668 1,312 1,268
20:00 – 0:00 650 650 673 667 1,222 1,216
1
Average discharge at each gage is reported in cfs for each 4-hour period.
2
Discharge at Culmback dam was 650 cfs throughout the duration of the survey.

Page 4 January 2006

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)

January 2006 Page 5

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?
Average Number
of Trips Minimum Maximum N1
Reach 1 0.6 0 1 31
Reach 2 0.5 0 2 31
Reach 3 2.5 0 30 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 N Percent

Novice 0 0%
Beginner 0 0%
Intermediate 1 3%
Advanced 20 65%
Expert 10 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,

Page 6 January 2006

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.
Photo Credit: Kevin Colburn, AW.
Class N Percent
I 0 0%
II 0 0%
III 0 0%
IV 22 79%
V 6 21%
VI 0 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.

January 2006 Page 7

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.

Page 8 January 2006

Reach 1 – Below Culmback Dam to Diversion Dam

Totally Totally
Unacceptable Unacceptable Neutral Acceptable Acceptable
Boatability - - 1 (3 percent) 13 (42 percent) 17 (55 percent)
Availability of Challenging
- - 5 (16 percent) 15 (48 percent) 11 (36 percent)
Technical Boating
Availability of Powerful
- 1 (3 percent) 11 (36 percent) 13 (42 percent) 6 (19 percent)
Hydraulics
Availability of Whitewater
“Play Areas”
Overall Whitewater
Challenge
Safety 1 (3 percent) - 6 (21 percent) 17 (59 percent) 5 (16 percent)
Aesthetics - - - 4 (13 percent) 26 (87 percent)
Length of Run - - 2 (7 percent) 14 (45 percent) 15 (48 percent)
Rate of Travel - - 3 (10 percent) 12 (39 percent) 16 (52 percent)
Number of Portages - 2 (7 percent) 3 (10 percent) 18 (58 percent) 8 (26 percent)
Overall Rating - - 1 (3 percent) 16 (52 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.”
Reach 2 – Diversion Dam to Powerhouse

Totally Totally
Boatability - - - 14 (47 percent) 15 (53 percent)
Technical Boating
Hydraulics
“Play Areas”
Overall Whitewater
Challenge
Safety - 1 (3 percent) 6 (21 percent) 19 (66 percent) 3 (10 percent)
Aesthetics - - - 5 (18 percent) 23 (82 percent)
Number of Portages - 1 (3 percent) 5 (17 percent) 17 (59 percent) 6 (21 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.”

January 2006 Page 9

Reach 3 – Powerhouse to Trout Farm

Totally Totally
Boatability - - 3 (19 percent) 3 (19 percent) 10 (63 percent)
Technical Boating
Hydraulics
“Play Areas”
Overall Whitewater
Challenge
Safety - - 1 (6 percent) 8 (50 percent) 7 (44 percent)
Aesthetics - - 4 (25 percent) 5 (31 percent) 7 (44 percent)
Number of Portages - - 2 (13 percent) 7 (44 percent) 7 (44 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?
Reported Number Frequency of

of Portages Response
Reach 1 0 12
1 10
2 6
3 1
4 2
Reach 2 0 1
1 3
2 13
3 8
4 1
5 2
Reach 3 0 13
1 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

Page 10 January 2006

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
portages per reach. Photo Credit: Kevin Colburn, AW.
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?
Moderately
Easy Difficult Difficult Very Difficult
Reach 1 6 (19 percent) 19 (61 percent) 6 (19 percent) 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

January 2006 Page 11

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).

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?
Much lower Slightly lower About the same Slightly higher Much higher
Reach 1 - - 6 (22 percent) 14 (52 percent) 7 (26 percent)
Reach 2 - - 7 (28 percent) 11 (44 percent) 7 (28 percent)
Reach 3 - 1 (6 percent) 8 (47 percent) 3 (18 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?
Days per Year

Yes Responses Average Median Minimum Maximum
Reach 1 31 (100 percent) 5.8 4 1 20
Reach 2 30 (97 percent) 5.9 4 1 20
Reach 3 20 (100 percent) 9.7 5 1 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).


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).

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.

January 2006 Page 13


Attachment A: Survey, Log, and Liability Waiver Forms
Henry M. Jackson Hydroelectric Project

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
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
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 Cataraft Other
Open canoe Small raft (<14ft.)
3. How would you rate your own whitewater boating skill level?
Novice (no previous whitewater boating experience) Advanced
Beginner (some previous whitewater boating experience) Expert
Intermediate
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.

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
Totally Totally
Unacceptable Neutral Acceptable
Unacceptable Acceptable
Boatability
Technical Boating

Hydraulics

“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 Totally
Boatability
Technical Boating

Hydraulics

“Play Areas”

Overall Whitewater
Challenge

Safety
Aesthetics
Length of Run
Rate of Travel
Number of Portages
Overall Rating


Totally Totally
Boatability
Technical Boating
Hydraulics
“Play Areas”
Overall Whitewater
Challenge
Safety
Aesthetics
Length of Run
Rate of Travel
Number of Portages
Overall Rating
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.

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.

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.
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
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
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: ______________________________________________________________
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.
From: "Kevin Colburn" <kcolburn@amwhitewater.org>

To: "Sergio Capozzi" <CapozziS@edaw.com>,
<andy@wernerpaddles.com>
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.
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
From: Thomas O'Keefe <okeefe@riversandcreeks.com>

To: <CapozziS@edaw.com>
Date: 12/7/2005 7:18:26 AM
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
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
okeefe@riversandcreeks.com
voice/fax 206-527-7947
work 206-543-1567
cell 425-417-9012
From: "Andy Bridge" <andy.bridge@wernerpaddles.com>

To: "Sergio Capozzi" <CapozziS@edaw.com>
Date: 12/7/2005 7:13:07 AM
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

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

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.
Recorded Flows at Diversion Dam Stream Gage
Date & Time Discharge (cfs) 12/12/2005 13:00 676

12/12/2005 0:00 322 12/12/2005 13:15 672
12/12/2005 0:15 288 12/12/2005 13:30 672
12/12/2005 0:30 265 12/12/2005 13:45 676
12/12/2005 0:45 244 12/12/2005 14:00 672
12/12/2005 1:00 225 12/12/2005 14:15 668
12/12/2005 1:15 212 12/12/2005 14:30 672
12/12/2005 1:30 202 12/12/2005 14:45 672
12/12/2005 1:45 194 12/12/2005 15:00 676
12/12/2005 2:00 188 12/12/2005 15:15 672
12/12/2005 2:15 184 12/12/2005 15:30 676
12/12/2005 2:30 435 12/12/2005 15:45 672
12/12/2005 2:45 739 12/12/2005 16:00 672
12/12/2005 3:00 744 12/12/2005 16:15 672
12/12/2005 3:15 744 12/12/2005 16:30 676
12/12/2005 3:30 744 12/12/2005 16:45 676
12/12/2005 3:45 744 12/12/2005 17:00 676
12/12/2005 4:00 748 12/12/2005 17:15 672
12/12/2005 4:15 744 12/12/2005 17:30 672
12/12/2005 4:30 744 12/12/2005 17:45 676
12/12/2005 4:45 748 12/12/2005 18:00 676
12/12/2005 5:00 744 12/12/2005 18:15 672
12/12/2005 5:15 744 12/12/2005 18:30 676
12/12/2005 5:30 748 12/12/2005 18:45 676
12/12/2005 5:45 744 12/12/2005 19:00 676
12/12/2005 6:00 744 12/12/2005 19:15 676
12/12/2005 6:15 744 12/12/2005 19:30 672
12/12/2005 6:30 739 12/12/2005 19:45 676
12/12/2005 6:45 744 12/12/2005 20:00 676
12/12/2005 7:00 694 12/12/2005 20:15 672
12/12/2005 7:15 681 12/12/2005 20:30 676
12/12/2005 7:30 621 12/12/2005 20:45 672
12/12/2005 7:45 621 12/12/2005 21:00 672
12/12/2005 8:00 638 12/12/2005 21:15 676
12/12/2005 8:15 672 12/12/2005 21:30 672
12/12/2005 8:30 672 12/12/2005 21:45 672
12/12/2005 8:45 672 12/12/2005 22:00 672
12/12/2005 9:00 672 12/12/2005 22:15 668
12/12/2005 9:15 672 12/12/2005 22:30 676
12/12/2005 9:30 672 12/12/2005 22:45 672
12/12/2005 9:45 672 12/12/2005 23:00 672
12/12/2005 10:00 676 12/12/2005 23:15 672
12/12/2005 10:15 672 12/12/2005 23:30 672
12/12/2005 10:30 672 12/12/2005 23:45 672
12/12/2005 10:45 672
12/12/2005 11:00 672
12/12/2005 11:15 672
12/12/2005 11:30 672
12/12/2005 11:45 672
12/12/2005 12:00 672
12/12/2005 12:15 672
12/12/2005 12:30 672
12/12/2005 12:45 672
Recorded Flows at Diversion Dam Stream Gage
Date & Time Discharge (cfs) Date & Time Discharge (cfs)
12/13/2005 0:00 672 12/13/2005 13:00 672
12/13/2005 0:15 672 12/13/2005 13:15 668
12/13/2005 0:30 672 12/13/2005 13:30 676
12/13/2005 0:45 672 12/13/2005 13:45 663
12/13/2005 1:00 676 12/13/2005 14:00 672
12/13/2005 1:15 672 12/13/2005 14:15 668
12/13/2005 1:30 676 12/13/2005 14:30 668
12/13/2005 1:45 672 12/13/2005 14:45 663
12/13/2005 2:00 672 12/13/2005 15:00 668
12/13/2005 2:15 672 12/13/2005 15:15 668
12/13/2005 2:30 672 12/13/2005 15:30 668
12/13/2005 2:45 672 12/13/2005 15:45 663
12/13/2005 3:00 672 12/13/2005 16:00 663
12/13/2005 3:15 672 12/13/2005 16:15 668
12/13/2005 3:30 672 12/13/2005 16:30 668
12/13/2005 3:45 672 12/13/2005 16:45 668
12/13/2005 4:00 672 12/13/2005 17:00 668
12/13/2005 4:15 672 12/13/2005 17:15 668
12/13/2005 4:30 672 12/13/2005 17:30 668
12/13/2005 4:45 668 12/13/2005 17:45 668
12/13/2005 5:00 668 12/13/2005 18:00 668
12/13/2005 5:15 672 12/13/2005 18:15 668
12/13/2005 5:30 668 12/13/2005 18:30 668
12/13/2005 5:45 672 12/13/2005 18:45 668
12/13/2005 6:00 672 12/13/2005 19:00 668
12/13/2005 6:15 672 12/13/2005 19:15 668
12/13/2005 6:30 672 12/13/2005 19:30 668
12/13/2005 6:45 668 12/13/2005 19:45 668
12/13/2005 7:00 672 12/13/2005 20:00 668
12/13/2005 7:15 672 12/13/2005 20:15 668
12/13/2005 7:30 672 12/13/2005 20:30 668
12/13/2005 7:45 672 12/13/2005 20:45 668
12/13/2005 8:00 672 12/13/2005 21:00 663
12/13/2005 8:15 668 12/13/2005 21:15 668
12/13/2005 8:30 668 12/13/2005 21:30 668
12/13/2005 8:45 668 12/13/2005 21:45 668
12/13/2005 9:00 668 12/13/2005 22:00 663
12/13/2005 9:15 672 12/13/2005 22:15 668
12/13/2005 9:30 672 12/13/2005 22:30 668
12/13/2005 9:45 668 12/13/2005 22:45 663
12/13/2005 10:00 672 12/13/2005 23:00 668
12/13/2005 10:15 668 12/13/2005 23:15 668
12/13/2005 10:30 672 12/13/2005 23:30 663
12/13/2005 10:45 668 12/13/2005 23:45 668
12/13/2005 11:00 672
12/13/2005 11:15 672
12/13/2005 11:30 668
12/13/2005 11:45 668
12/13/2005 12:00 672
12/13/2005 12:15 672
12/13/2005 12:30 668
12/13/2005 12:45 668
Recorded Flows at Powerhouse Stream Gage
Date and Time Discharge (cfs) Date and Time Discharge (cfs)
12/12/2005 0:00 728 12/12/2005 13:00 1220
12/12/2005 0:15 844 12/12/2005 13:15 1220
12/12/2005 0:30 802 12/12/2005 13:30 1240
12/12/2005 0:45 750 12/12/2005 13:45 1230
12/12/2005 1:00 695 12/12/2005 14:00 1230
12/12/2005 1:15 657 12/12/2005 14:15 1220
12/12/2005 1:30 610 12/12/2005 14:30 1230
12/12/2005 1:45 590 12/12/2005 14:45 1240
12/12/2005 2:00 556 12/12/2005 15:00 1220
12/12/2005 2:15 541 12/12/2005 15:15 1230
12/12/2005 2:30 523 12/12/2005 15:30 1220
12/12/2005 2:45 509 12/12/2005 15:45 1230
12/12/2005 3:00 495 12/12/2005 16:00 1240
12/12/2005 3:15 477 12/12/2005 16:15 1250
12/12/2005 3:30 468 12/12/2005 16:30 1320
12/12/2005 3:45 459 12/12/2005 16:45 1230
12/12/2005 4:00 600 12/12/2005 17:00 1220
12/12/2005 4:15 938 12/12/2005 17:15 1230
12/12/2005 4:30 957 12/12/2005 17:30 1270
12/12/2005 4:45 944 12/12/2005 17:45 1380
12/12/2005 5:00 951 12/12/2005 18:00 1450
12/12/2005 5:15 944 12/12/2005 18:15 1480
12/12/2005 5:30 944 12/12/2005 18:30 1480
12/12/2005 5:45 964 12/12/2005 18:45 1520
12/12/2005 6:00 951 12/12/2005 19:00 1240
12/12/2005 6:15 957 12/12/2005 19:15 1230
12/12/2005 6:30 970 12/12/2005 19:30 1230
12/12/2005 6:45 1060 12/12/2005 19:45 1220
12/12/2005 7:00 1280 12/12/2005 20:00 1220
12/12/2005 7:15 1280 12/12/2005 20:15 1230
12/12/2005 7:30 1280 12/12/2005 20:30 1240
12/12/2005 7:45 1280 12/12/2005 20:45 1220
12/12/2005 8:00 1280 12/12/2005 21:00 1220
12/12/2005 8:15 1270 12/12/2005 21:15 1230
12/12/2005 8:30 1230 12/12/2005 21:30 1220
12/12/2005 8:45 1200 12/12/2005 21:45 1230
12/12/2005 9:00 1180 12/12/2005 22:00 1220
12/12/2005 9:15 1180 12/12/2005 22:15 1230
12/12/2005 9:30 1210 12/12/2005 22:30 1220
12/12/2005 9:45 1220 12/12/2005 22:45 1210
12/12/2005 10:00 1220 12/12/2005 23:00 1220
12/12/2005 10:15 1220 12/12/2005 23:15 1210
12/12/2005 10:30 1220 12/12/2005 23:30 1210
12/12/2005 10:45 1230 12/12/2005 23:45 1220
12/12/2005 11:00 1220
12/12/2005 11:15 1240
12/12/2005 11:30 1210
12/12/2005 11:45 1340
12/12/2005 12:00 1450
12/12/2005 12:15 1300
12/12/2005 12:30 1240
12/12/2005 12:45 1210
Recorded Flows at Powerhouse Stream Gage
Date and Time Discharge (cfs) Date and Time Discharge (cfs)
12/13/2005 0:00 1220 12/13/2005 13:00 1220
12/13/2005 0:15 1230 12/13/2005 13:15 1390
12/13/2005 0:30 1230 12/13/2005 13:30 1420
12/13/2005 0:45 1220 12/13/2005 13:45 1260
12/13/2005 1:00 1230 12/13/2005 14:00 1220
12/13/2005 1:15 1220 12/13/2005 14:15 1220
12/13/2005 1:30 1220 12/13/2005 14:30 1220
12/13/2005 1:45 1220 12/13/2005 14:45 1210
12/13/2005 2:00 1230 12/13/2005 15:00 1720
12/13/2005 2:15 1220 12/13/2005 15:15 1290
12/13/2005 2:30 1220 12/13/2005 15:30 1220
12/13/2005 2:45 1230 12/13/2005 15:45 1210
12/13/2005 3:00 1220 12/13/2005 16:00 1240
12/13/2005 3:15 1220 12/13/2005 16:15 1220
12/13/2005 3:30 1220 12/13/2005 16:30 1210
12/13/2005 3:45 1240 12/13/2005 16:45 1210
12/13/2005 4:00 1230 12/13/2005 17:00 1450
12/13/2005 4:15 1230 12/13/2005 17:15 1760
12/13/2005 4:30 1230 12/13/2005 17:30 1270
12/13/2005 4:45 1220 12/13/2005 17:45 1210
12/13/2005 5:00 1210 12/13/2005 18:00 1210
12/13/2005 5:15 1230 12/13/2005 18:15 1220
12/13/2005 5:30 1220 12/13/2005 18:30 1210
12/13/2005 5:45 1210 12/13/2005 18:45 1210
12/13/2005 6:00 1220 12/13/2005 19:00 1210
12/13/2005 6:15 1210 12/13/2005 19:15 1220
12/13/2005 6:30 1220 12/13/2005 19:30 1220
12/13/2005 6:45 1210 12/13/2005 19:45 1220
12/13/2005 7:00 1210 12/13/2005 20:00 1220
12/13/2005 7:15 1220 12/13/2005 20:15 1220
12/13/2005 7:30 1210 12/13/2005 20:30 1210
12/13/2005 7:45 1210 12/13/2005 20:45 1220
12/13/2005 8:00 1230 12/13/2005 21:00 1220
12/13/2005 8:15 1270 12/13/2005 21:15 1220
12/13/2005 8:30 1220 12/13/2005 21:30 1210
12/13/2005 8:45 1230 12/13/2005 21:45 1210
12/13/2005 9:00 1230 12/13/2005 22:00 1220
12/13/2005 9:15 1220 12/13/2005 22:15 1210
12/13/2005 9:30 1220 12/13/2005 22:30 1220
12/13/2005 9:45 1220 12/13/2005 22:45 1210
12/13/2005 10:00 1230 12/13/2005 23:00 1210
12/13/2005 10:15 1230 12/13/2005 23:15 1220
12/13/2005 10:30 1240 12/13/2005 23:30 1230
12/13/2005 10:45 1220 12/13/2005 23:45 1210
12/13/2005 11:00 1540
12/13/2005 11:15 1210
12/13/2005 11:30 1230
12/13/2005 11:45 1210
12/13/2005 12:00 1210
12/13/2005 12:15 1230
12/13/2005 12:30 1240
12/13/2005 12:45 1220
Attachment D: Survey Participants
Name Email
Alan Willard alanwillard@hotmail.com
Hillary Neevel hneevel@hotmail.com
Amy Brown amyb35@hotmail.com
Will Robins will@seattleraftandkayak.com
Christopher F. Lamblotte clamblotte@earthlink.net
Eric Mickelson mickelea@msn.com
Peter Mattson peterm23@excite.com
Chris Tretwold zenofwhitewater@yahoo.com
David J.H. Wilson david_jh_wilson@hotmail.com
Michael Rausch mrausch@u.washington.edu
Chris Ohta chrisotha@hotmail.com
Jonathan Clifton
Chris Fee kirsplat@hotmail.com
Chris Totten info@fluidadventures.com
Jennie Goldberg jennie@nwwhitewater.org
Robert McKibbin mrrobbiebaby@hotmail.com
Jeff Robinson ajeffro12@yahoo.com
Jeff Bowman bowmanjs@gmail.com
Eric Bessette ebessette@gmail.com
John Fuqua fuqua376
Ryan Bradley bradler@cc.wwu.edu
Michael Harms harmsway501@yahoo.com
Lisa Farin farin@dlux.net
Kevin Colburn kevin@americanwhitewater.org
Jesse Sears sear7868@uidaho.edu
Andy Bridge andy.bridge@wernerpaddles.com
Brian Zderic bzderic@yahoo.com
Terry Lien tll@tugdev.com
Steven Strong steven.strong@comcast.net
Jon Almquist jon.almquist@cascadedesigns.com
James Contos jcontos@fhcrc.org
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.
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!
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.
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!
• 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 300-
400cfs). 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!
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

5012 (14608790)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

5012 (14608790)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5012 (14608790)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

200601245012 Received FERC OSEC 01/24/2006 01:20:00 PM Docket# P-2157-000

Jackson Hydroelectric Project

Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey

Jackson Hydroelectric Project

Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey

Jackson Hydroelectric Project

Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey

Jackson Hydroelectric Project

• Reach 1 – Below Culmback Dam to the Diversion Dam,

Additionally, a survey log form was used to

Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey

Jackson Hydroelectric Project

Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey

Jackson Hydroelectric Project

Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey

Jackson Hydroelectric Project

Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey

Jackson Hydroelectric Project

• Reach 1 – Below Culmback dam to the Diversion dam,

Skill Level N Percent

Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey

Jackson Hydroelectric Project

Question 4: In general, which difficulty class of river do you prefer running?

The six river difficulty classes include the

• Class I - Fast moving with riffles and

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

Jackson Hydroelectric Project

Question 6: Which take-out site did you use today?

Non-summarized responses to this and other open-ended questions are provided in

Question 9: Considering today’s flow/water conditions, please rate the following

Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey

Jackson Hydroelectric Project

Reach 1 – Below Culmback Dam to Diversion Dam

Reach 2 – Diversion Dam to Powerhouse

Twenty-nine survey participants provided responses to Question 9 for Reach 2 of the

Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey

Jackson Hydroelectric Project

Reach 3 – Powerhouse to Trout Farm

Reported Number Frequency of

The number of reported portages ranges from 0 to 4 with an average of approximately 1

Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey

Jackson Hydroelectric Project

Farm Road River Access, several

Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey

Jackson Hydroelectric Project

Non-summarized responses to this and other open-ended questions are provided in

Approximately 78 percent and 72 percent of survey respondents would prefer “slightly

Days per Year

Informal Single Flow Whitewater Boating Opportunity Survey

Jackson Hydroelectric Project

Overall, all survey participants were

Please Use this space to provide

Most (26) survey participants

Non-summarized responses to this and other open-ended questions are provided in

Whittaker, D, B. Shelby, and J. Gangemi. 2005. Flows and Recreation: A Guide to

DATED THIS _ day of _______________, 2005.