Hydropower Whitewater Flow Studies
Whitewater flow studies are a critical component in a hydropower relicense proceeding for boaters. These studies set the stage for future whitewater flows by identifying a specific range of flows that optimize whitewater recreation. Whitewater flow studies should be done objectively with the goal of accurately and precisely identifying the range of flows suitable for whitewater recreation. Done properly without bias, flow studies objectively document the water volumes necessary for a range of whitewater flows between minimum acceptable and optimum, using scientific methodologies to obtain the supporting preference data. Furthermore, pinpointing the range of flows between minimum acceptable and optimum flows helps maximize the potential number of boaters, thus helping to justify the case for establishing a release schedule that truly benefits the whitewater recreation community.
Stakeholders, particularly utilities and their hired consultants, are tempted to start negotiating at the design stage of the whitewater flow study. This temptation stems from the fact that scheduled flows take water away from power generation or force the utility to generate when market rates are low. In an effort to protect their interests in power generation utilities and their contractors will try to reduce the range of flows being investigated in a whitewater flow study. The range of flows should be developed based on objective information about the reach including the following: existing and historic boating use, site reconnaissance, and hydrologic analysis. Typically, whitewater flow studies investigate a range of flows. Negotiating the range of study flows based on foregone power generation will result in biased study results. These flow negotiations should be postponed until the end of the study period. If utility project managers/consultants persist in trying to negotiate flows rather than use objective information for selecting study flows then contact the FERC staff person assigned to the project.
Whitewater Flow Study Objectives
Establishing clear objectives is a critical part of a successful recreation instream flow study. These objectives include but are not limited to the following:
- Identify whitewater recreation opportunities on the river reaches affected by the hydropower project.
- Identify minimum acceptable and optimum flows for respective recreational activities
- Develop flow preference curve
- For respective recreational activities, identify level of difficulty/skill level for different types of flow conditions.
- Identify flow-related attributes for each opportunity
- Develop relationships between flow levels and experience quality for each recreational opportunity.
- Assess relative impacts of providing specific flows for a given activity on other flow dependent river recreation opportunities.
- Assess potential impacts/biological effects of specific recreation flow regimes on aquatic habitat and associated organisms.
- A summary of boating-relevant hydrology and project operations and discussion of implications relative to the feasibility, costs, and timing involved in providing boating flows.
- Determine access and facility needs
Terminology
Minimum Acceptable Flow: Flow identified statistically through survey results whereby 50% of participants indicate they would not return at that flow because it is too low for a quality recreational experience.
Optimum Flow: Flow identified through survey results that is predominantly preferred by participants.
Bypass Reach: Hydropower jargon referring to a section of the natural river that is dewatered between the dam and powerhouse located downstream.
Types of Whitewater Flow Studies
American Whitewater has worked with utilities and their consultants on different types of study designs to investigate whitewater resources in hydropower proceedings. The currently accepted approach recognizes that a diversity of situations exists requiring different levels of resolution. Some rivers have extensive recreation use that is clearly flow-dependent and affected by project operations, on other rivers the potential for a recreation use may be unknown (e.g. a reach that has been dewatered for several years), or the use may be only marginally affected by flows that the project does not substantially affect. It is thus not appropriate to specify a single set of standards for a “sufficient” study. Instead, a progressive “phased” approach is used where each step results in increasing resolution. This phased approach is described in detail in Flows and Recreation: A Guide to Studies for River Professionals by Doug Whittaker, Bo Shelby, and John Gangemi, for the Hydropower Reform Coalition and National Park Service – Hydropower Recreation Assistance Program, 2005. The individual steps are briefly described below. These steps are synonymous with whitewater recreation studies, however, the methods have broad application to flow dependent recreation investigations in general.
Step 1: Desktop Analysis: This step is marked by compilation of existing information about river channel characteristics, natural verses regulated hydrology, known river recreational opportunities, access points and flow information. Products from this analysis typically include tables listing whitewater runs and their associated attributes, maps, video and still photos for this phase of the study. This information can be supplemented with interviews of local users either on site or electronically via the internet coupled with phone interviews. Typically, fieldwork is limited to site visits if necessary by the principal researcher to ground truth existing information or to compile information for desktop reporting purposes. Desktop studies are particularly well-suited to hydro projects with multiple dams and powerhouses potentially impacting a large number of whitewater reaches. This analysis has been completed on the San Joaquin watershed in California as part of Southern California Edison's Big Creek proceeding involving the relicensing of seven hydropower projects with multiple dams and powerhouses.
Step 2: Land Based Reconnaissance Study: The reconnaissance typically includes a facilitated user group site visit lead by a principal researcher with training in social science surveys and ideally, familiarity with whitewater boating. The user group tours the river reach with pre-determined stops at points of interest and survey questions. Ideally, flows will be provided in the river reach within an estimated recreational flow range. Some site reconnaissance studies have provided a range of flows for the visit. Providing estimated recreational flows during the site visit, particularly a range of flows, expands the information gathered. Participants complete survey forms during the reconnaissance. The lead researcher or a designated person leads a focus group discussion after participants have completed their survey forms. This study method has been used on the following rivers
High Falls section, Saranac River, New York FERC No. 2738
Bonas Defeat, East Fork Tuckasegee, North Carolina FERC No. 2698
Tamolich Falls section, Mackenzie River, Oregon FERC No. 2242
Chelan Gorge, Chelan River, Washington FERC No. 637
Step 3a: Single Flow Feasibility Study: Single flow studies are designed to confirm the presence or absence of a recreational opportunity and/or gain knowledge on the range of estimated flows appropriate for a Controlled Flow Recreation Study as well as logistical needs. A designated team recreates on a single pre-determined flow estimated to be in the appropriate range. The pre-determined flow should be selected based objective information: existing or historic use, site reconnaissance and/or hydrologic analysis. Ideally, the flow selected for the single flow study will fall within the boatable range (minimum acceptable to optimum flows). Do not allow the utility or their consultants to negotiate flows in the study design phase or arbitrarily set the flows below the perceived boatable range. For safety reasons try to avoid high challenge flows.
Participants complete a single flow survey form that prompts them to measure the recreation attributes of the flow. In some rare cases sufficient data may be collected to estimate the minimum acceptable flow and optimum flow with a level of accuracy that eliminates the need for a Controlled Flow Whitewater Study. Upon completing the single flow survey form the paddling group should be asked a series of focus group questions. Individual and group responses should be recorded for the group to view and later transcribed into the final report. The focus group questions help stimulate discussion thereby providing additional information not captured in responses to multiple choice survey questions.
Studies where a Single Flow Feasibility Study was used:
- Carmen - Smith Project on the Smith and McKenzie Rivers (FERC P-2242)
- Condit Project on the White Salmon River, since decommissioned
Step 3b: Controlled Flow Recreation Study: These studies are designed to identify minimum acceptable and optimum water volumes for flow dependent recreation. The actual methodology is described on page 40 in the Whittaker et al. (1993) publication titled Instream Flows for Recreation: A Handbook on Concepts and Research Methods. The dam operator releases a pre-determined range of flows selected by whitewater experts with site-specific knowledge, preferably participants in the relicense proceeding. Do not allow the utility or their consultants to negotiate flows in the study design phase or arbitrarily set the flows below the perceived boatable range. Flows should be selected based on objective information: results from a single flow study, existing or historic use, site reconnaissance and/or hydrologic analysis. Ideally, the flow selected for the controlled flow study will bracket the boatable range (minimum acceptable to optimum flows) with at least one flow below minimum acceptable and 2-3 flows equal to or between minimum acceptable and perceived optimum.
Studies where a Controlled Flow Recreation Study was used:
- Jackson Project on the Sultan River (FERC P-2157), Study Plan, FERC eLibrary 20060912-5117, Final Report
- Shelby, B., Whittaker, D., and Mazza, R. 2004. Assessing controlled whitewater flows on Washington State's Chelan River. Hydro-Review Vol. 23(2): 36-45. Flow Study Report
A team of participants representing the breadth of potential users recreates on each flow. After each test flow, participants respond to a single flow survey form designed to record the quality of the experience at that flow. Once all the flow levels are completed, participants complete a comparative survey form that measures the recreation attributes of one flow against another. The data generated from participant responses helps develop a flow preference curve that identifies a minimum acceptable and optimum flow. The data generated from a controlled flow recreation study is specific to the reach being paddled by participants. This data is not applicable to other segments on the same river or other rivers.
Upon completing each single flow the paddling group should be asked a series of focus group questions. This should also be done after the comparative flow survey form is completed. As noted above, individual and group responses should be recorded for the group to view and later be transcribed into the final report.
Additional Flow Study Types
Internet Based Recreation Flow Study: Recreation instream flow studies can utilize the internet for data collection means. There are certain advantages and disadvantages with internet-based studies that stem largely around the concept of facilitated verses non-facilitated studies. Internet based studies offer a distinct advantage because they expand the number of participants greatly thereby allowing increased statistical analysis. On the disadvantage side, because participants are completing the survey form without the advantage of having a facilitator on hand to explain questions or provide a contextual overview of the study, the precision and accuracy of this data can be problematic. In contrast, recreation instream flow studies with a limited test group size utilize trained facilitators to assist with understanding the survey form, specific questions and overview of the FERC proceeding. In addition, all participants are recreating under the same external conditions limiting variable analysis to flow. This facilitation greatly improves the accuracy and precision of the survey responses. A compromise that has been used in some cases is to collect responses through an internet survey and then invite a subset of respondents to participate in a focus group once a sufficient number of responses have been received. Given the advantages and disadvantages, internet-based recreation flow studies are most applicable to situations where early information gathering is helpful in developing a plan for a controlled flow study (i.e. in lieu of the desktop analysis or the single flow recreation study). It is also appropriate in cases where the existing flow regime provides opportunities over a wide range of flows and a large sample size is likely.
Studies where an internet-based approach has been used include:
- Mystic Lake on West Rosebud (FERC P-2301), See Effects on Whitewater Flows, Project Study 13, FERC eLibrary 20050301-4017
- Prospect on the North Fork Rogue (FERC P-2630)
- Drum Spalding Project on the Yuba and Bear Rivers (FERC P-2310)
- North Fork Snoqualmie, Ernie's Gorge, proposed Black Canyon Hydroelectric Project
Mail In Survey The mail-based survey is similar to the internet survey and comes with similar advantages and disadvantages. One difference is this approach typically requires the respondent to recall from past experiences. This study method can be effective in situations where an agency has records of past trip leaders or commercial outfitters.
Studies where mail-in approach has been used include:
Whitewater Flow Studies on High Gradient Streams
Many FERC jurisdictional hydropower projects contain dewatered river reaches with steep gradients (ranging from 100 to 400 feet per mile), constricted canyons with rapids, waterfalls, and limited access. These are generally categorized as high challenge runs with Class V and VI difficulty. A significant percentage of the whitewater community not only has the skills to paddle these reaches safely but also places them at the top of their destination list. The steep gradient coupled with narrow constrictions makes these whitewater reaches very sensitive to slight changes in flow fluctuations. Therefore, it is imperative that minimum and optimum flows be pinpointed through a Whitewater Flow Study.
Utilities and stakeholders in hydro relicensing proceedings often times recoil at the mere suggestion of a whitewater flow study on high gradient reaches with Class V difficulty. In some cases this opposition is sincerely based on safety concerns and general lack of familiarity with the sport. In other cases utilities skillfully use “safety” as a thinly veiled obstruction tactic to a whitewater study and the associated mitigation measures that might be required. In order to successfully address utility concerns American Whitewater published a report on liability at hydropower projects. American Whitewater has also developed a narrative justifying the need for whitewater flow studies in hydropower relicense proceedings with Class V difficulty where initially there was opposition to a flow study due to safety concerns or the fact that the utility simply believed the river was not runnable. American Whitewater highly recommends developing liability waivers and safety plans collaboratively with the utility as a means of demonstrating your sincerity with their concerns in a solution focused manner. The following guidance documents, liability waivers and safety plans used in other whitewater studies should help in the development of a plan specific to your river.
Flow Study Design and Implementation
Selecting Participants
The success of a whitewater flow study hinges primarily on the character and quality of the boating participants. Select participants based on proximity to the resource, representatives from local as well as regional paddling clubs and most importantly commitment to the flow study, the overall relicensing and restoration effort at hand. You also want participants that are team players recognizing when it is time to lead as well as follow both on and off the water. Strive for diversity in your participants in terms of age, gender, boating preferences (play vs. river running), watercraft type, private vs. commercial, etc. Participant skills should be commensurate with the whitewater difficulty of the river reach, i.e., don't put Class III paddlers on a Class IV or V reach. On the other hand you don't want all Class V hair boaters that will be bored with anything less than Class V.
Participation in a whitewater flow study is a work-day not to be confused with a play day on the river. Sure there is opportunity for fun during a flow study but participants also need to understand they are collecting valuable information used in negotiations. This role should be treated seriously. Take home message: look for paddlers that are intelligent and serve as good role models for paddle sports.
All participants should be American Whitewater members. The reason for this last requirement is simple: flow study participation is a member benefit. Membership funds American Whitewater staff work on hydro relicense proceedings and the associated whitewater flow studies—those members funding the work should be rewarded accordingly.
Participant Compensation
American Whitewater discourages monetary compensation of whitewater flow study participants. American Whitewater receives no compensation from the utility during a flow study despite the fact that American Whitewater staff largely design and execute the study in the field. Not accepting compensation enables American Whitewater to remain in a neutral and important advocacy role for the whitewater resource. Compensation compromises that neutrality and advocacy. Accordingly, American Whitewater believes whitewater flow study participants should not compromise their objectivity and advocacy during a field study.
Flow Study Invite
Participants should be formally invited via a flow study invite letter. In most cases the utility typically gets suspicious when American Whitewater recommends sending an invitation letter. The best solution is to collaboratively draft the letter with the utility and send it on the utility letterhead. The purpose of the invitation letter is to explain the flow study schedule, the proposed range of flows, the purpose of the flow study, the reason for the individual's selection to the team and the individual's responsibilities as a participant. American Whitewater treats this invitation like a contract. Typically the letter goes out one month in advance giving individuals time to plan their work and family schedules. Participants are required to RSVP so we can track the number of participants insuring the correct number and diversity of paddlers.
Flow Study Etiquette
Participant behavior during the study is very important. Boating participants are serving as role models for the paddling community. All eyes in the hydro proceeding are focused on the boating participants. Any rude or socially unacceptable behavior during the study is magnified back at the negotiation table. Don't undress in the open. Be courteous to the hydro staff, consultants and the public. Be on time. Help with loading boats etc. Boat safely. Don't run marginal lines during the study since accidents or injuries will taint the non-boating public's view of the risks associated with whitewater boating.
Number of Flow Study Participants
Generally speaking, as the difficulty of a whitewater run increases the size of the group in a whitewater flow study decreases. This is for safety but also logistical reasons as well. Class V flow studies typically are limited to anywhere from four to ten boaters. This limited sample size compromises the statistical analysis of the survey questions but is necessary particularly from a safety perspective.
As the whitewater difficulty decreases the number of participants and variety of watercraft typically increase. With a rise in participant numbers comes an increase in logistical effort and increased potential for accidents due to the corresponding loss in direct oversight of individual paddlers.
Crashing the Flow Study
Inevitably other boaters not invited as participants want to take advantage of a controlled spill in a river reach that is normally dewatered. American Whitewater tries to discourage this but ultimately we cannot prevent the public from accessing “their” rivers. American Whitewater discourages non-study participants largely because of the public and stakeholder scrutiny of the paddling community during a flow study. Limiting participation to selected individuals decreases the risk of accidents as well as modeling socially acceptable behavior. When only a handful of paddlers crash the flow study we try to fold them into the study team if appropriate based on skill, commitment and attitude. If this is not possible, in private discussions, we discourage the paddlers from using the resource that day while at the same time explaining the purpose of the study, reason for the limited number of participants and strategies for getting them involved in future flow studies. If the paddlers insist on paddling independently we simply request they paddle safely and model socially acceptable behavior since their actions will also be reflected in the study.
Water Craft Types
Selection of watercraft should be commensurate with the whitewater difficulty and hazards on the river. Typically as the whitewater difficulty increases the diversity of watercraft decreases. The greater diversity of watercraft enhances the power of the study results. Individual watercraft types typically have a specific flow preference range that may or may not overlap with other watercraft types. Kayaks typically have the widest flow range preference.
Flow Study Briefing
On the first day of a whitewater flow study it is critical for the flow study organizer (preferably an American Whitewater staff or representative) to provide an introductory talk describing the purpose of the study, objectives, brief overview of the relicense process and expected boater behavior emphasizing safety during the study. In some cases, the utility or consultant hired to oversee the whitewater study will overlook the introductory talk. Be sure to emphasize the need for this from a safety perspective as well as providing the participants with an overview of the relicense process and their responsibilities in the study. If the consultant or utility insists on giving the talk simply offer your assistance. Don't hesitate to pipe in during the group discussion to insure that key discussion points are covered.
Participants should be familiar with the survey questions prior to paddling. American Whitewater encourages reading through each survey question to the group to make sure they are aware of the questions and understand them prior to paddling.
Lastly, and most important particularly in more difficult whitewater rivers, American Whitewater establishes an on-the water leader. If there is more than one boating group in larger studies then establish a leader per boating group. This person is in charge of keeping the group together, establishing communication signals, maintaining communication on the river and safety. This might seem too controlling for the average day paddling but keep in mind this is not an average day paddling—many eyes are overseeing the whitewater study so we need to be accountable for each person on the water.Lastly, and most important particularly in more difficult whitewater rivers, American Whitewater establishes an on-the water leader. If there is more than one boating group in larger studies then establish a leader per boating group. This person is in charge of keeping the group together, establishing communication signals, maintaining communication on the river and safety. This might seem too controlling for the average day paddling but keep in mind this is not an average day paddling—many eyes are overseeing the whitewater study so we need to be accountable for each person on the water.
Video and Still Photo Documentation
Be sure to document whitewater flow studies through video and still photography. Video is an important medium for the FERC and agency staff to visually see the qualitative and navigational differences for each flow investigated. The utility should contract with a professional trained in video and still photography with experience shooting whitewater or similar outdoor action sports. Be sure to meet with the video and still photographer ahead of time to select important filming sites and review the objectives associated with video and still photo documentation of the flow study. Emphasis should be placed on capturing images at three to five locations. Sites should be selected based on their responsiveness to flow changes. The objective is to capture how the changes in flow influence navigation and whitewater quality. Selecting a known play spot susceptible to flow changes is good as well as locations where lower or higher flows will make navigation difficult. Maintaining the same camera position, angle, and zoom is absolutely necessary to systematically document whitewater opportunities at respective flows.
Whitewater Study Report Form
Be sure to memorialize the whitewater study by completing a whitewater study report and submitting that to American Whitewater. American Whitewater has conducted more than forty whitewater flow studies at hydropower projects. American Whitewater keeps a library of whitewater flow studies available to members. Contact Carla Miner at the AW Membership Office carla@amwhitewater.org or call (801) 649-2327. Previous studies can provide valuable insights into the design and implementation of your flow study.
Logistical Responsibilities
Establish logistical responsibilities with the utility and/or consultant long before implementing the flow study. Because American Whitewater's expertise we typically draft much of the study plan methodology and coordinate boating participants. The utility and/or consultant then assume American Whitewater will continue to do all the work in the field. Communicate clearly the flow study logistical needs and parties responsible for fulfilling those needs. The utility should be responsible for transportation, food and refreshments, and lodging for remote studies requiring long distance travel.
Transportation: The utility should provide a shuttle vehicle capable of carrying all the flow study participants and gear to the put-in and picking them up at the take-out. Avoid boaters using their own shuttle vehicles since this results in delays getting on the water due to coordinating shuttle vehicles, loading gear, folks getting lost, flat tires etc. Flow releases in controlled flow studies result in foregone generation—getting on the water on the pre-arranged schedule is very important to the dam operator and reflects on the ultimate success of the study.
Food and Refreshments: The utility should provide lunch and beverages for participants. Providing food keeps participants in a central location once off the water rather than traveling back to their vehicles for nourishment. Rewarding participant with a lunch also provides great incentive for completing the survey form and remaining for focus group discussions. Lastly, providing lunch is a great gesture of gratitude on the utilities part for the participants donating their time.
Lodging: In multi-day flow studies particularly with full days on the water the utility should provide lodging and meals for participants. This keeps participants in the same location thereby increasing logistical efficiency as well as keeping boaters warm and fed. Requiring boaters to camp in remote locations results in less time available participating in the study. Participants should not pay for lodging particularly when they are volunteering their time and in some cases foregoing income opportunities of their own. In some flow studies the utility has honored and recognized the commitment of time from participants by hosting a dinner. This is a nice way to wrap up a flow study as well as provide a great forum for reviewing the focus group questions.
Monitoring Whitewater Releases to Assess Potential Ecological Impacts
Eventually in the process of negotiating a whitewater release schedule in a new FERC hydro license concerns will be raised about potential ecological impacts. American Whitewater highly recommends addressing these concerns during the study phase rather than confronting them at the negotiation table once the studies have been wrapped up. American Whitewater has developed a list of recommended ecological investigations that should be conducted simultaneously with a whitewater flow study that involves controlled releases of water. It is incumbent on the utility to make sure these ecological studies are undertaken. This rarely happens. American Whitewater recommends a proactive approach whereby the whitewater flow study is integrated into the study plans of fisheries/aquatics technical workgroups also involved in the relicense proceeding.
There has been a significant amount of scientific research on the ecological impacts of peaking hydropower projects on aquatic organisms and water chemistry but very few studies have focused specifically on the ecological effects of whitewater flows. American Whitewater believes studies investigating peaking power impacts on river ecology do not serve as surrogate investigations of the impacts of controlled whitewater releases. Controlled whitewater releases and peaking power operations are markedly different in flow volume, ramping and periodicity. Peaking power operations typically exceed the upper and lower limits of the natural hydrograph, lack ramping rates and cycle repeatedly in the same day. This operational regime creates a varial zone where the river channel is periodically wetted for extended periods of time permitting colonization by aquatic organisms then later dewatered causing stranding and desiccation. Controlled whitewater releases on the other hand track the natural pre-project hydrograph, have ramping rates specific to the river channel profile and occur as stochastic events with infrequent changes in flow. Very little if any stranding occurs because there is no varial zone wetted for extended periods allowing colonization.
Selected Whitewater Literature Citations
Giffen, A. and D. Parkin. 1992. Using systematic field evaluations to determine instream flow needs for recreation. A copy can be obtained from the authors at Land and Water Associates, 9 Union Street, Hallowell, Maine 04347, (207) 623-2136.
Whittaker, D., Bo Shelby, William Jackson, and Robert Beschta. 1993. Instream flows for recreation: A handbook on concepts and research methods. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Rivers Trails and Conservation Program.