PADDLING FEASIBILITY STUDY PLAN

Document Sample
PADDLING FEASIBILITY STUDY PLAN Powered By Docstoc
					PADDLING FEASIBILITY
    STUDY PLAN

            Review-Copy



 LAKE CHELAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
          FERC Project No. 637




      December 16, 1998January 27, 1999




  Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County
             Wenatchee, Washington
                                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS


SECTION 1:INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 7
      1.1 Project Information............................................................................................................................... 7
      1.2 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project.............................................................. 7
      1.3 General Description of the Relicensing Process................................................................................... 8
      1.4 Recreation Overview............................................................................................................................. 9
      1.5 Needs Statement.................................................................................................................................... 9


SECTION 2:STUDY GOALS ......................................................................................... 9

SECTION 3:STUDY AREA .......................................................................................... 10

SECTION 4:METHODOLOGY..................................................................................... 10
      4.1 Data Collection.....................................................................................................................................10


SECTION 5:ANALYSIS AND REPORTING ................................................................ 12

SECTION 6:STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS ................................................... 12

SECTION 7:SCHEDULE ............................................................................................. 13

SECTION 8:BUDGET.................................................................................................. 13

SECTION 9: NEXT STEPS......................................................................................... 13

SECTION 10: REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 13

APPENDIX A................................................................................................................. 15
      Issues To Be Addressed..............................................................................................................................15


SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 5
      1.1 Project Information ................................................................................................................................. 5
      1.2 General Description of the Relicensing Process....................................................................................... 5
      1.3 Recreation Overview............................................................................................................................... 5
      1.4 Needs Statement ..................................................................................................................................... 6


SECTION 2: STUDY GOALS ......................................................................................... 6

SECTION 3: STUDY AREA ............................................................................................ 6
SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY....................................................................................... 7
      4.1 Data Collection ....................................................................................................................................... 7


SECTION 5: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING ................................................................ 98

SECTION 6: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS ................................................... 98

SECTION 7: SCHEDULE ............................................................................................... 9

SECTION 8: BUDGET................................................................................................ 109

SECTION 9: NEXT STEPS....................................................................................... 109

SECTION 10: REFERENCES ................................................................................... 109

APPENDIX A................................................................................................................. 11
      Issues To Be Addressed ...............................................................................................................................11




Lake Chelan Project No. 637                                                                                           Study Plan (Review-Copy)
SS/2100_3                                                                  Page 4                            December 16, 1998January 27, 1999
                                                   LIST OF FORMS

             WAIVER OF LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION..................................................................1713
             SINGLE FLOW EVALUATION FORM.........................................................................................1915
             FLOW COMPARISON FORM.......................................................................................................2521




                                                   LIST OF TABLES


TABLE 1: HISTORICAL LAKE AVERAGES.................................................................................................. 8




Study Plan (Review-Copy)                                                                                Lake Chelan Project No. 637
December 16, 1998January 27, 1999                               Page 5                                                   SS/2100_3
                                                                               Paddling Feasibility




                            SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Information
Chelan PUD owns and operates the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project, located approximately 32
miles north of the City of Wenatchee, on the Chelan River in north central Washington State. The
3-mile long Chelan River (shortest river in Washington State) flows from the lower end of the 50-
mile long Lake Chelan into the Columbia River. The project consists of a 40-foot high concrete
gravity dam, a 2-mile long steel and concrete tunnel and a powerhouse located at the confluence
of the Chelan and Columbia Rivers. The powerhouse contains two Francis-type turbines each
rated at 34,000 hp at 1,100 cfs and a net head of 377 feet.

Whitewater interest groups have requested that Chelan PUD study and determine the feasibility of
providing recreational flows in the 6-mile-long bypass reach of the Grace development. A section
of this reach is known as the Chelan Gorge.

This paddling feasibility study will be one of many studies that Chelan PUD, resource agencies,
and FERC and other interested parties review in determining the most appropriate allocation
of water resources on the stretch of the Chelan River.


1.2 General Description of the Region and Lake Chelan Project
The State of Washington encompasses a wide range of geographic diversity, from the
marine influenced ocean shores and Puget Sound, over the rugged Cascade Range to the
rolling hills of central Washington, to the ancient mountain ranges of north central and
eastern Washington. The Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project is located on the Chelan
River between two significantly different physiographic areas. In the Cascade Mountains
to the west, metamorphosed sedimentary, volcanic, and granitic rock predominates. On
the Columbia Plateau to the east, bedrock consists of vast, thick layers of basalt.

The climate in the project vicinity is dry and semi-arid, averaging about 10 inches of
precipitation a year, with average high temperatures of 100 degrees (Fahrenheit) and lows
of 0 degrees. In the immediate project vicinity (lower end of the lake), shrub-steppe
vegetation habitats predominate (sage/bitter brush), with cottonwoods and willows
typically occurring in riparian strips along the Lake and its tributaries. In the broader
region surrounding the project, higher elevations and increased amounts of precipitation
support softwood forest habitats.

The drainage area of the project is 924 square miles. The project reservoir is operated
between water surface elevations of 1,100 feet (MSL) and 1,079 feet to ensure optimum
utilization of the reservoir for power generation, fish and wildlife, recreation, water supply,
and flood control purposes. The average maximum drawdown of the lake for the 44 years
from 1952 to 1995 was 1084.2 feet. The reservoir has 677,400 acre-feet of usable storage
above 1,079 feet. Of this, 612,400 acre-feet can be used for power generation and 65,000
acre-feet is available for irrigation and domestic use.
Paddling Feasibility




The annual drawdown of the lake begins in early October and the lowest lake elevation
normally occurs in April. From May through June the lake refills due to spring runoff.
The reservoir is maintained at or above elevation 1,098 feet from July 1 through September
30 of each year. Since the Project was originally licensed in 1926, the lake has never been
drawn down to the minimum allowable elevation (1,079 feet). The lowest drawdown of
record was 1,079.7 feet in 1970. That occurrence coincides with the lowest annual
precipitation on record. Chelan PUD has never failed to refill the reservoir to elevation
1,098 feet by June 30.

Table 1: Historical Lake Averages
    Month         Average Inflow (cfs)   Average Outflow (cfs)         Average Lake Elevation
   January                 757                   2140                          1089.7
  February                 813                   2017                          1087.3
    March                  993                   1795                          1085.8
    April                 2076                   1204                          1086.4
     May                  5293                   1486                          1090.6
    June                  6379                   3427                          1097.3
     July                 3598                   3287                          1099.7
   August                 1506                   1677                          1099.6
 September                 759                   1586                          1098.9
   October                 673                   1935                          1096.9
 November                 1002                   2049                          1094.9
  December                 883                   2104                          1092.8
Period of record of flows: 1952-1995
Period of record for elevations:   1982-1995


1.2 3 General Description of the Relicensing Process
Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County (Chelan PUD) owns and operates the Lake Chelan
Hydroelectric Project No. 637 located on the Chelan River in Chelan, Washington. Chelan PUD is
permitted to operate the Hydro Project according to terms and conditions contained in an existing
FERC license that was issued on May 12, 1981. The license expires in 2004.

The original license was granted for the present Lake Chelan Hydro Project in May, 1926, by the
Federal Power Commission, now FERC. On May 12, 1981, FERC granted Chelan PUD a new
30- year license for the Hydro Project, retroactive to 1974 when the original 50-year license
expired.

Chelan PUD intends to seek a new federal license to operate the Lake Chelan Hydro Project and
has begun preparation for the process referred to as “relicensing”. The FERC relicensing process
is based on laws and regulations that require years of extensive planning, including environmental
studies, agency consensus and public involvement. The process to obtain a new license has


Lake Chelan Project No. 637                                                Study Plan (Review-Copy)
SS/2100_3                                     Page 8              December 16, 1998January 27, 1999
                                                                                  Paddling Feasibility


changed considerably since the existing license was issued in 1981. The Federal Power Act (FPA)
was amended in 1986 by the Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA). The new law requires
that the importance of water quality, recreation and other non-generating benefits of the natural
resource (i.e.: fish and wildlife) be weighted equally to power production.


1.43 Recreation Overview
                                                                                         s
Consistently ranked as one of the most pristine waters in the United States, Lake Chelan’ 50-mile
length acts as a natural conduit between the rugged mountain peaks uplake and the lush, fertile
downlake valley. With a depth of 1,486 feet, Lake Chelan is the second deepest lake in the nation,
extending nearly 400 feet below sea level.

The clean, crystal clear blue water of Lake Chelan offers some of the best outdoor recreational
opportunities in the country. Fishing, boating, water skiing, swimming, kayaking, parasailing, jet
skiing, and tubing are just some of the many water based activities available. In addition, the
surrounding National Forests, State and National Parks offer backpacking, hiking, camping, skiing
and other year-round outdoor activity adventures.


1.45 Needs Statement
The Chelan River Paddling Feasibility Study will be conducted by the Chelan County Public
Utility District No. 1 (hereinafter called District) and other interested parties prior to preparing
a Report on Recreation Resources (hereinafter called Recreation Plan), as per 18CFR4.51(f), for
the re-licensing of Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637.


                              SECTION 2: STUDY GOALS

The goals of this Paddling Feasibility Study (Study) are to:

• Establixh the navigability of the river channel from the dam to the conflence with the
  Columbia River;
• Establish the degree of difficulty of the 4 mile reach based upon the international scale
  of river difficulty;
• Identify a range of flows appropriate for a controlled flow study;
• Identify geographically, access points, portage routes and general safety measures
  associated with whitewater flows in the gorge.

The second part of the study, coomonly referred to as a “recreational instream flow study”
would include the following goals:

• identify the minimum and optimum flows for whitewater boating;
• determine the flow suitability for a range of water craft;



Study Plan (Review-Copy)                                                  Lake Chelan Project No. 637
December 16, 1998January 27, 1999              Page 9                                      SS/2100_3
Paddling Feasibility


• and assess the quality of the whitewater resources in the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project
  No. 637 bypass reach (challenge, play spots, safety, etc.).
• identify other areas of concern such as access, safety, liability, etc.


                               SECTION 3: STUDY AREA

The proposed study area is the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637 bypass reach from
Lake Chelan Dam to the tailrace of the Chelan Falls Powerhouse.

The bypass reach begins below the dam and continues for approximately 4 miles until it joins the
tailrace of the powerhouse near the Columbia River. The bypass reach is comprised of four
distinct sections. The 2.29 mile long upper section of the bypass reach below the dam is
characterized by a relatively wide flood plain, low gradient (approximately 55 feet/mile), and
substrate comprised mainly of large cobble and boulders. Some spawning sized gravel is contained
in the margins of the channel, deposited in these areas during high flow events during spring
runoff.

The second section of the bypass reach, 0.75 mile long, and located in the upper end of the
gorge, is characterized by a narrow channel, steep canyon walls, low gradient (approximately 57
feet/mile), and cobble and boulder substrate that is larger than the upstream section. This section
appears to contain very little salmonid size substrate. The whitewater dificulty for this section
is undetermined at this point.

The third section of the bypass reach is the “Chelan Gorge” area, 0.38 mile long. The canyon
walls are very steep and narrow. The gradient of the channel is very steep (approximately 480
feet/mile). , dropping 280 feet in approximately 2/3 of a mile. The channel is characterized by
waterfalls 5 to 20 feet high, numerous cascades, bedrock chutes, and large, very deep pools. The
substrate is very large, with some boulders exceeding 20 feet in diameter. The whitewater
difficulty for this section is undetermined at this point, but it is believed to be Class IV+ or
greater.

The fourth section of the bypass reach is located below the gorge area nad is 0.49 mile long. It is
characterized by a wide flood plain, gravel/cobble/boulder substrate, and low gradient
(approximately 22 feet/mile). This reachSection 4 extends from the bottom of the gorge section
downstream approximately 700 2,600 feet to the confluence of the powerhouse tailrace. The
whitewater difficulty for this section is undetermined at this point.


                              SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY

4.1 Data Collection
The initial feasibility/navigability phase of the study will be conducted in April or May,
1999, depending upon weather conditions. Flows for the study will likely be between 300-


Lake Chelan Project No. 637                                                Study Plan (Review-Copy)
SS/2100_3                                    Page 10              December 16, 1998January 27, 1999
                                                                                     Paddling Feasibility


900 cfs. Flows will need to be refined based upon an onsite evaluation of 500 cfs and
possibly 900 cfs prior to the feasibility phase of the study.

A controlled field assessment will be conducted in April or May 1999. The study will consist of
three releases in two days. The magnitude of the three to six releases will be 200 cfs, 300 cfs, and
500 cfsin two days. The magnitude of the releases will be based on recommendations from
the feasibility study. The exact dates of the boating study will depend on runoff patterns in the
bypass reach. The study will be scheduled for a Saturday-Sunday to best accommodate the
availability of study participants. Chelan PUD will attempt to give at least two-four weeks
(depending upon weather conditions) notice as to when the exact study dates are scheduled.

The study will rely on the expertise of regional paddlers to assess and quantify the paddleability
and desirability of various flows in the bypass reach. Because the bypass reach has not been
rated, participation in the study will be limited to expert paddlers and coordinated through one
designated contact person in thewith American wWhitewater. community.

The final determination of what craft are suitable and safe for the bypass reach will be left to the
expert paddlers who will be participating in the study.

Boaters participating in the study will meet the evening before the releases to be briefed by
the consultant, American Whitewater and Chelan PUD on the details of the study, safety
issues, review of the survey form and define any terms or rating scales unfamiliar to the
participants.

On the morning of the first day of the study, boaters will scout the approximately 4-mile bypass
reach from the Chelan dam to Chelan Falls Powerhouse Park, and make whatever safety
preparations are necessary based on the safety plan which will be developed by the boaters.
Boaters will then run the bypass reach under one of the three study flows. On the second day,
boaters will run the two remaining study flows. Time will be available before each run to scout
the bypass reach under the varying flow conditions.

At the beginning of the first of the three evaluations, participants will meet to sign liability waivers
(attached). After paddlers complete each run, they will be asked to complete a Single Flow
Evaluation Form (attached). The Single Flow Evaluation Form will be used to assess the quality
of the run at the given flow. Survey questions will solicit information regarding flow levels, play
spots, safety concerns, and aesthetics. After the third and final evaluation, participants will
complete a Flow Comparison Form (attached) to report information on their comparison of the
three flows. This Flow Comparison Form will also solicit demographic and economic
information. A study facilitator will be on-hand at the put-in and the take-out to answer any
questions that may arise about the forms and assure that all study participants fill out the
appropriate forms.

Videotaping will be performed at the three flow levels to document the whitewater characteristics
of the river reach. Chelan PUD and American Whitwater will select 2-3 safe videotaping
stations with input from the whitewater interests. Videotaping stations will be selected to capture

Study Plan (Review-Copy)                                                     Lake Chelan Project No. 637
December 16, 1998January 27, 1999               Page 11                                       SS/2100_3
Paddling Feasibility


both representative and unique reaches of the run while keeping in mind the safety of the video
operator.

The video tape will be edited by Chelan PUD and included as an attachment to the study report to
provide a brief summary of the whitewater opportunities and the activities associated with the
Study. American Whitewater interests will be asked to review the edited videotape; and a copy
of the unedited videotape will be provided to them.

• Chelan PUD is requesting that the whitewater community designate one person as a contact
  person for this study. The contact personAmerican Whitewater will be responsible for
  working with Chelan PUD to finalize the list of study participants, and contacting study
  participants with information on the study schedule once study dates have been selected. The
  contact personAmerican Whitewater will also be responsible for developing and
  implementing a safety plan which will include a rescue plan specific to the safety concerns
  associated with boating in the bypass reach. This safety plan should be submitted to Chelan
  PUD for review before March 6, 1999.


                       SECTION 5: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

Data from the surveys will be compiled and analyzed, and presented in a study report. The report
will present the following:

• Graphic displaying participant responses to each single flow release;
• Graphic displaying participant responses to comparative of flow releases;
• the range of responses and the most common value recorded (mode) on the Flow Comparison
    Form for minimum, optimum, and maximum flows;
• the range of responses regarding the difficulty classes of the river reach at varying flows;
• the range of responses regarding what class or classes of paddlers this river reach is suitable
    for under varying flows;
• the range of responses regarding what type of craft this river reach is suitable for under
    varying flows;
• a discussion of the quality of the experience and the relationship of quality to flow; and
an assessment of the number of trips that boaters would make to the bypass reach under varying
flows.


                SECTION 6: STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS

Chelan PUD will provide up to three study facilitators to organize and coordinate the logistics of
the Study. This will include assuring that participants have filed all the appropriate forms,
coordinating access at the put-in and take-out areas, and videotaping the three flows during the
Study.


Lake Chelan Project No. 637                                                Study Plan (Review-Copy)
SS/2100_3                                    Page 12              December 16, 1998January 27, 1999
                                                                                    Paddling Feasibility


The whitewater community will designate and provide one person to serve as a contact
toAmerican Whitewater will assist Chelan PUD in coordinating this study.                       This
personAmerican Whitewater will be responsible for selecting study participants (in cooperation
with Chelan PUD), assuring that participants arrive at the correct date and time for the study, and
providing trained safety and rescue personnel for the study.


                                SECTION 7: SCHEDULE

A Microsoft project schedule will be provided with the detailed study plan.

1. Develop study outline. (District and/or consultant) 14-28 days (March 20, 1999)
2. Evaluate, with agenciesinterested parties, accuracy of information.
3. Complete field assessment. 1-2 days (April/May, 1999)
94. Completion of Paddling Feasibility Study Report containing a summary and interpretation of
the information collected.
        A. Review draft summary report to be completed by July 2, 1999.
        B. Final draft summary report to be completed by August 3, 1999.
        C. Final summary report to be completed by Septemeber 30, 1999.

                                    SECTION 8: BUDGET

                           The consultant will provide a detailed budget.


                               SECTION 9:          NEXT STEPS

Upon completion of the final report, the study results will be available to the relicensing team for
consideration of possible enhancement measures. The information is expected to assist the team
in evaluating what enhancement measures are appropriate to undertake in conjunction with the
project relicensing process. In addition, the study results will be available to interested agencies
and members of the public.


                              SECTION 10: REFERENCES

Whittaker, D. et al (1993) Instream Flows for Recreation: A Handbook on Concepts and
Research Methods. USDI National Park Service.




Study Plan (Review-Copy)                                                    Lake Chelan Project No. 637
December 16, 1998January 27, 1999             Page 13                                        SS/2100_3
                                                                                 Paddling Feasibility




                                       APPENDIX A

Issues To Be Addressed
The table below lists all the comments from various groups thought to be relevant to the paddling
feasibility study. The last column is an evaluation of whether each issue will be addressed by the
study as proposed. Where the word “indirectly” is used, it is meant to indicate that the study will
provide some information useful in addressing the issue, but will not by itself provide all the
necessary information. Where “no” is used, it is meant to indicate that the study, as proposed, is
not expected to provide information that contributes substantially to addressing the issue.

Issue                                                   Group         Rank           Addressed

Bypass reach/recreation: safety                         LARC          4/149              yes
Bypass reach/recreation: safety potential for being     LARC          9/149              yes
trapped
Bypass reach/recreation: impact on power                LARC         28/149              yes
generation, cost of power
Bypass reach/recreation: safety - during spill and      LARC         29/149              yes
non-spill periods
Economics: must be economically viable to PUD           LARC         31/149              yes
Erosion: loss of soil                                   LARC         35/149              no
Erosion: habitat in general                             LARC         36/149              no
Bypass reach/recreation: safety - concern for           LARC         40/149              yes
emergency services being accessible
Bypass reach/recreation: impact on parks with           LARC         46/149              yes
higher use
Bypass reach/recreation: appropriate minimum            LARC         67/149              yes
flows
Bypass reach/recreation: impact on cultural             LARC         68/149           indirect
resources
Bypass reach/recreation: positive economic impact       LARC         75/149              yes
to Chelan Falls, City of Chelan
Bypass reach/recreation: safety - steep walls           LARC         76/149              yes
Bypass reach/recreation: flow impact on erosion in      LARC         77/149              yes
bypass
Bypass reach/recreation: vehicle traffic in bypass      LARC         87/149              yes
reach area
Bypass reach/recreation: day-use hiking                 LARC         111/149          indirect
Bypass reach/recreation: safety, vandalism, trash,      LARC         114/149            yes
graffiti
Bypass reach/recreation: interpretive opportunities     LARC         123/149          indirect
Bypass reach/recreation: land ownership along           LARC         127/149            no

Study Plan (Review-Copy)                                                 Lake Chelan Project No. 637
December 16, 1998January 27, 1999            Page 15                                      SS/2100_3
Paddling Feasibility


Issue                                                  Group       Rank           Addressed

bypass
Bypass reach/recreation: safety - photography,         LARC       130/149           indirect
aesthetics, scenic viewing
Bypass reach/recreation: potential for kayaking        LARC       149/149             yes

Flow impact on erosion in bypass                       Public      63/75              yes
Must be economically viable to PUD                     Public      68/75              yes
Trails in Chelan Gorge                                 Public      73/75            indirect




Lake Chelan Project No. 637                                              Study Plan (Review-Copy)
SS/2100_3                                    Page 16            December 16, 1998January 27, 1999
                                                                                 Paddling Feasibility




             WAIVER OF LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION
                                             (please print)

Name:

Address:




Date of Requested Access:

Purpose

The undersigned requests access to certain Chelan PUD hydroelectric project lands, specified
below, for purposes of ascertaining the lands’ recreational attributes and potential uses. Chelan
PUD is willing to grant such request without charge in return for the following agreement:

                    WAIVER OF LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION:

        Being 18 years of age or older, I understand, and show my understanding by signing this
WAIVER OF LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION, that Chelan PUD is only willing to allow
me to access Chelan PUD hydroelectric and non-hydroelectric lands along the Chelan River
corridor ("Property") if I agree, and I do hereby agree, not to hold Chelan PUD, or its
representatives, responsible for any form of personal injury or property damage which I may
suffer while on the Property and to indemnify and hold Chelan PUD harmless for any harm to
others or their property that I may cause while on the Property. I further understand by giving me
permission, Chelan PUD does not (I) assure me that the property is safe for access purposes; (2)
owe me any duty of care; or (3) assume any responsibility for or incur any liability for any injury
to person or property which I may suffer while on the Property. I further understand that the
Property and the Chelan River contiguous or near the Property are inherently risky and hazardous
and I voluntarily assume the risk of any and all hazards in making access and in ascertaining the
recreational attributes and potential uses of same. At all times while accessing the Property, I
agree to abide by and conform to the Safety Code of the American Whitewater Affiliation, a copy
of which is attached hereto as Attachment I.

        I make this waiver and agree to this indemnification of my own free will because I want
access to the Property. I further understand that the access granted by this waiver is effective
only for the date stated above.

DATE:                           Signature:




Study Plan (Review-Copy)                                                 Lake Chelan Project No. 637
December 1998January 27, 1999                   Page 17                                   SS/2100_3
                                                                                          Paddling Feasibility




                        SINGLE FLOW EVALUATION FORM

               River:           Chelan River
               Reach:           Chelan Gorge
               Date:

               Name:

PLEASE READ:
The following questionnaire has been compiled to solicit standardized information. Some
questions become easier to answer after you have seen the river under a variety of different flows.
Please do your best to completely answer every question. If the meaning of the question is
unclear, answer the question and then make a note as to your understanding of the question being
asked. Use the attached map to designate areas of special interest or concern. Thank you for your
time and help.

GENERAL INFORMATION

1.     What type of water craft did you use for this run (Circle one)?

                        a. Kayak                         b. Open Canoe
                        c. Closed Deck Canoe             d. Cataraft
                        e. Raft                          f. Inflatable kayak
                        g. Tube                          h. Other (please list)

2.     What flow does this evaluation refer to (Circle one)?

                        a.      200 cfsto be determined
                        b.      300 tbd cfs
                        c.      500 tbd cfs

3a.    How long did it take you to complete this run?            :        (hours: minutes)

3b.    Did this include any breaks for resting or scouting?              Yes        No

3c.    If you answered “Yes” to 3b, how many breaks did you take? ___________
       Approximately how long were all your breaks combined? ____________ (minutes)

4a.    On a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high), how satisfying was this run (based on today's and past
       experiences on the bypass reach run )?




Study Plan (Review-Copy)                                                          Lake Chelan Project No. 637
December 1998January 27, 1999                  Page 19                                             SS/2100_3
Paddling Feasibility




4b.     Would a higher or lower flow make this run more enjoyable?

                        a.     Higher
                        b.     Lower
                        c.     No change (this is the optimum flow)

5a.     What class would you assign to this reach at this particular flow on an overall basis (using
        the I-VI International Scale of Difficulty)?

                        a.     I
                        b.     II
                        c.     III
                        d.     IV
                        e.     V
                        f.     VI


5d.     Please label individual classes (I-VI) of any other sections of the evaluated stretch on the
        attached map. Note any other critical reaches that stood out to you as extremely difficult
        or relatively difficult to the rest of the run at this flow.

                        a.     I              d.         IV
                        b.     II             e.         V
                        c.     III            f.         VI


6.      Which skill level is this flow most suited to? (More than one choice may be circled).

                        a.     Novice
                        b.     Intermediate
                        c.     Advanced
                        d.     Expert
                        e.     Not runnable (explain)

7.      Rate this flow for the following characteristics. (Scale: 1 = poor, 5 = excellent)

                        Boatability                      1    2       3       4      5
                        Whitewater challenge             1    2       3       4      5
                        Safety                           1    2       3       4      5
                        Rate of Travel                   1    2       3       4      5
                        Length of WW Section             1    2       3       4      5
                        Big Water (waves)                1    2       3       4      5
                        “Playability”                    1    2       3       4      5
                        Aesthetics                       1    2       3       4      5

Lake Chelan Project No. 637                                                  Study Plan (Review-Copy)
SS/2100_3                                      Page 20              December 16, 1998January 27, 1999
                                                                                 Paddling Feasibility




PORTAGING / BED CONTACT

1.     Were you able to paddle the entire reach without having to drag your boat or portage
       around any locations? (If no, designate drag and portage areas on attached map.)

                      a.        Yes
                      b.        No

2.     If “No”, what hindered further travel (examples: hits, stops, falls, strainers, dangerous
       hydraulics, limited scouting opportunity, unable to assess danger, etc.)?




3.     Are there adequate portages in areas where safety is a concern?

                      a.        Yes
                      b.        No
                      c.        Other (explain)

4.     Would a higher or lower flow allow the run to be more continuous (without portages)?

                      a.        Higher
                      b.        Lower
                      c.        Neither
                      d.        Not applicable (“Yes” answer to Question 1)


SAFETY CONCERNS

1.     Which of the following things did you perceive to be a hazard to navigation (Circle all
       that apply)?

                      a.        Narrow channel width
                      b.        Exposed boulders or bedrock
                      c.        Rocks just under the water surface
                      d.        Submerged or partially submerged vegetation
                      e.        Overhanging shoreline vegetation (sweepers/strainers)
                      f.        Man-made obstacles such as bridge abutments, etc.
                      g.        Other (explain) _________________________________________
                      h.        There were no navigation hazards in this reach



Study Plan (Review-Copy)                                                 Lake Chelan Project No. 637
December 1998January 27, 1999                     Page 21                                 SS/2100_3
Paddling Feasibility


2.      If “yes”, how and where (Designate on attached map)?



3.      Would an increase or decrease in flow reduce the hazard potential?

                        a.     Increased flow would reduce hazard.
                        b.     Decreased flow would reduce hazard.
                        c.     No effect.

4.      What type(s) of water craft would be suitable for this reach? (Circle all that would be
        appropriate).

                        a. Kayak                           b. Open Canoe
                        c. Closed Deck Canoe               d. Cataraft
                        e. Raft                            f. Inflatable kayak
                        g. Tube                            h. Other (please list)

5.      For safety reasons, what concerns or hazards would you emphasize in descriptive
        materials for paddlers wishing to run this section of river under the flow you just
        paddled? (Use the attached map to designate any areas of concern.)

ANTICIPATED FUTURE USE

1.      How many miles would you be willing to travel for one weekend day of releases at this
        flow?
                    a.     50 or less
                    b.     50-100
                    c.     100-200
                    d.     Over 200

2.      How many miles would you be willing to travel for two consecutive weekend days of
        releases at this flow?

                        a.     50 or less
                        b.     50-100
                        c.     100-200
                        d.     Over 200

3.      Given this flow, would you be likely to return here for future whitewater paddling?

                        a.     Yes - likely
                        b.     Possibly
                        c.     No - not likely



Lake Chelan Project No. 637                                                       Study Plan (Review-Copy)
SS/2100_3                                        Page 22                 December 16, 1998January 27, 1999
                                                                                  Paddling Feasibility


4a.    If you answered “Yes - likely” or “Possibly” to 3, and considering opportunities
       elsewhere, how many times would you return here if this flow were made available
       for one day every other weekend April - June (total = 6 days with this flow)?

                      a.        1               b.        2
                      c.        3               d.        4
                      e.        5               f.        6

4b.    If you answered “Yes - likely” or “Possibly” to 3, and considering opportunities
       elsewhere, how many times would you return here if this flow were made available
       for two days every other weekend April - June (total = 6 weekends with this flow)?

                      a.        1               b.        2
                      c.        3               d.        4
                      e.        5               f.        6

5.     In comparison to other whitewater opportunities in central Washington, how would you
       rate the bypass reach, under this flow, for the following characteristics:
       (Scale: 1 = poor, 5 = excellent)

                      Boatability                         1       2   3     4       5
                      Whitewater challenge                1       2   3     4       5
                      Safety                              1       2   3     4       5
                      Rate of Travel                      1       2   3     4       5
                      Length of WW Section                1       2   3     4       5
                      Big Water (waves)                   1       2   3     4       5
                      “Playability”                       1       2   3     4       5
                      Aesthetics                          1       2   3     4       5

6a.    Was the put-in that you used adequate at this flow?

                      a.        Yes
                      b.        No

6b.    If “No”, what made the put-in inadequate? (More than one choice may be circled.)

                      a.        Not enough parking
                      b.        Parking too far away
                      c.        Put-in too steep
                      d.        Put-in too close to first rapid
                      e.        Other (explain)




Study Plan (Review-Copy)                                                  Lake Chelan Project No. 637
December 1998January 27, 1999                   Page 23                                    SS/2100_3
Paddling Feasibility


7a.     Was the take-out that you used adequate at this flow?

                        a.    Yes
                        b.    No

7b.     If “No”, what made the take-out inadequate? (More than one choice may be circled.)

                        a.    Not enough parking
                        b.    Parking too far away
                        c.    Take-out too steep
                        d.    Take-out too close to last rapid
                        e.    Other (explain)



8.      Provide any additional comments regarding this run below. Use attached maps to
        designate any specific referenced areas.




Lake Chelan Project No. 637                                               Study Plan (Review-Copy)
SS/2100_3                                    Page 24             December 16, 1998January 27, 1999
                                                                               Paddling Feasibility




                             FLOW COMPARISON FORM

               River:           Chelan River
               Reach:           Chelan Gorge
               Date:

Name:
Address:

Phone (w):
       (h):

THREE FLOW COMPARISON

1.                                               s
       From your past experience, and from today’ runs, what do you feel the minimum flow
       would be for kayaking this reach: ___________________

2.                                               s
       From your past experience, and from today’ runs, what do you feel the optimum flow
       would be for kayaking this reach: ___________________

3.                                               s
       From your past experience, and from today’ runs, what do you feel the maximum flow
       would be for kayaking this reach: ___________________

4.     How would you expect your desired optimum flow for this reach to rank in the following
       areas? (Scale: 1 = poor, 5 = excellent)

                        Boatability                      1   2    3      4       5
                        Whitewater challenge             1   2    3      4       5
                        Safety                           1   2    3      4       5
                        Rate of Travel                   1   2    3      4       5
                        Length of WW Section             1   2    3      4       5
                        Big Water (waves)                1   2    3      4       5
                        “Playability”                    1   2    3      4       5
                        Aesthetics                       1   2    3      4       5

5.     Of all flows you have paddled here, which flow best suits your whitewater needs?

                                a.    200
                                b.    300
                                c.    500
                                d.    Other ___________________________




Study Plan (Review-Copy)                                               Lake Chelan Project No. 637
December 1998January 27, 1999                  Page 25                                  SS/2100_3
Paddling Feasibility




6.      In terms of aesthetics or scenic quality, which of the flows that you have paddled was
        most desirable?
                              a.     200
                              b.     300
                              c.     500
                              d.     Other ___________________________

GENERAL

1.      On a scale of 1 (highly dissatisfied) to 10 (highly satisfied) how would you rate this visit to
        the bypass reach area?              (Number from 1 to 10) Please explain briefly.




2.      How far did you drive (one way) to the bypass reach?                    Miles

3.      How far away is your primary residence (one way)?               Miles

4.      Did you stay overnight in this area? (Circle) Yes       No

5.      If you answered “Yes” to 4, where are you staying?

                       I live here.                  State Land/Campground
                       Friends/Relatives             Private Campground
                       Motel/Hotel/Inn               Second Home/Cabin
                       Other

6.      Approximately how much will you spend locally (within 45 miles) on this trip (on items
        such as gas, food, lodging, camping, gear, etc.)?
        $

7.      Approximately how much will you spend overall this weekend?             $              .




Lake Chelan Project No. 637                                                   Study Plan (Review-Copy)
SS/2100_3                                      Page 26               December 16, 1998January 27, 1999
                                                                                 Paddling Feasibility




PADDLER INFORMATION

1.     What type of boat do you generally use for whitewater paddling?

                       a.      Kayak
                       b.      Canoe
                       c.      Cataraft
                       d.      Raft
                       e.      Other (specify)

2a.    On average, how many whitewater trips (single- or multi-day) do you make each year?

                       a.      1-5
                       b.      6-10
                       c.      11-15
                       d.      Over 15

2b.    Of those trips, how many are in Washington (annually)?

                       a.      1-5
                       b.      6-10
                       c.      11-15
                       d.      Over 15

3.     What whitewater rivers in Washington do you paddle most frequently?


4.     What class of whitewater do you generally desire (Circle as many as you like)?

                       a.      I
                       b.      II
                       c.      III
                       d.      IV
                       e.      V
                       f.      VI

5.     How would you rate you personal skill level?

                       a.      Novice
                       b.      Intermediate
                       c.      Advanced
                       d.      Expert

6.     How many years of whitewater paddling experience do you have? ______________

Study Plan (Review-Copy)                                                 Lake Chelan Project No. 637
December 16, 1998January 27, 1999                Page 27                                  SS/2100_3
Paddling Feasibility




7.      To which whitewater organizations, groups, or clubs do you belong?




8.      Please provide any additional comments regarding this run below. Use attached map to
        designate any specific referenced areas.




Lake Chelan Project No. 637                                              Study Plan (Review-Copy)
SS/2100_3                                   Page 28             December 16, 1998January 27, 1999

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:3
posted:4/7/2010
language:English
pages:28