Whitewater is great, flow studies are not. Pulse releases are akin to turning a firehose on a person and washing them off of the sidewalk- the same thing happens to the bugs and fish that live in the river system. Perfect example is the North Fork Feather- AW pushed for pulse flows for recreation only to learn that these flows were stranding frog eggs when the release ended.
Instead of pushing for recreational pulse releases on pristine remote rivers, why can t paddlers hit those during naturally boatable periods and stick to the already impacted runs like the American or Tuolumne during the summer. Should skiiers make snow in august cause they cant wait for real snow? Boaters should be concerned that the rivers they know and love can be stripped of life by just a single out of season pulse of water released for a recreational study.
I am not advocating against paddling, river conservation or access to padling opportunities. I am advocating for better management of rivers, mimicking natural flow regimes and not "waterslides" turned on in july for recreation.
Please consider the health of the watersheds around you before you push for out of season flows for a single user group.

American Whitewater represents a wide range of river users, some of whom would prefer "waterslides" that can be turned on and off and many who believe pretty much as you do, that we should try to mimic natural flow regimes. AW has to work closely with resource agencies to get anything done. We want to be responsible stewards and advocates for healthy rivers.

Flow study methods are evolving over time and we seem to be moving towards more opportunistic flow studies when that is possible. With opportunistic studies we convince the dam operator to simply provide good flow information in the years leading up to relicensing. This allows boaters to utilize and report on a range of flows as provided by normal dam operations during spill periods. This should cost less and gives more boaters the opportunity to participate in the studies. However, some reaches almost never see spills, or see such erratic spills that a more formal flow study is necessary to get moderate flows.

One miss perception that I frequently run into, even from resource people, is the idea that whitewater flows are highly unusual and extreme events for dam controlled rivers. My experience has been that flows needed by boaters are really small compared to the pulse flows and fluctuations common on many dam controlled rivers. So for instance we argue that raising the flow in a river from 50 cfs up to 1500 cfs over a weekend and then back down is a horrible thing to do to certain fish. We don't know for sure that it is, but it can be argued logically. However, if the power company has a problem with a gate or a generator or has logs at the top of the dam that they want to dump, they might spill 10,000 cfs for an hour or two, and nobody accept me and AW will notice.

If it is a big runnoff year, maybe flows will jump up to 20,000 cfs or so for a day or two, then drop way down, then jump back up for a few hours. When spills end, they tend to end suddenly. Go look at the hourly flow reports for any dam during spring spill to see what I mean. On the other hand the conditions in natural runoff rivers can be pretty extreme and the aquatic denizens have evolved for those conditions. We can ask the question about how much harm a 1,500 cfs flow causes to critters adapted to 10,000 cfs flows. We should also ask the question about whether river critters benefit from periodic high flows. We know that in natural regimes, high flows do benefit river animals in a variety of ways. Higher flows tend to bring down more food and open up more habitat.

When we propose boating flows on a reach, we always discuss a moderate ramping rate. Because of our involvement and the obvious double standard, resource agencies are starting to ask for moderate ramping rates for other kinds of spill and release events. Fishing and other environmental advocates are pushing for similar standards, especially when we work together and listen to each others concerns. However, even now, if the dam operator decides to go from 0 cfs to 5,000 or 10,000 or 30,000 cfs in a matter of minutes, that is what they will do. It is much more common than you may realize.

I think that most boating flow releases have far less impact than other common dam practices, however, by advocating for such releases we have forced studies that may give us much better understanding of river life in the long run. AW frequently does not succeed in obtaining boating flow schedules. Usually we are not turned back by environmental concerns but rather by forces that do not want any water flowing in a river when it could be flowing in a pipe. When AW negotiations result in pulse flows it is always a compromise. We would like to have natural flows in the river all the time, but we are there in numbers only on weekends. The power companies and dam operators would like to have zero flow in the river so they can run it through their ditches and powerhouses. (I am exaggerating. They are mostly super decent people but they have different perspectives) They compromise by giving us some water on the weekends. We compromise by helping the resource agencies get higher minimum flows during the week at the expense of higher flows on the weekends.

The frog egg issue which you allude to on the NF Feather is an example of a controversy which has actually lead to a longer term increase in flows rather than pulse flows. Weekend boating releases were implemented for a year or two till an agency argued that frog eggs were being damaged, washed away or stranded. My understanding is that there was and remains a debate about whether this damage was actually happening or to what extent. A compromise was reached where a lower level of boatable flows is released for several weeks, with a gradual ramp up at the beginning of the period and a gradual ramp down at the end of the period. The boatable flows are also less than the natural hydrograph for that time period.

In summary, pulse and boating flows are compromises. As we learn more about river ecology they may be used less or they might actually be used more but with better timing or ramping. Whitewater boating releases are generally quite small compared to the erratic flow changes common to dam controlled rivers. The attention that boaters and other river users are bringing to this will hopefully lead to long term improvements in how dams are operated.

Paul Martzen

As an avid whitewater boater and fisherman, I cannot condone out of season pulse flows. The timing of this post is perfect. 4dice creek is a great boating and fishing creek. Right now should be the peak of fall dry fly fishing, but the insects are largely gone. All the surrounding creeks have great hatches but Fordyce is barren. The only logical explanation are the out of season pulse flows done this summer that entirely disrupt the normal life cycles of insects that have evolved for eons around low summer/fall flows and peak flows in the spring.

Last year Canyon Creek experienced the same phenomenae. Huge recreational pulse in September not only flushed the insect life but prematurely initiated the brown trout run up from the reservoir (they normally wait for the first rains which keep sustained higher flows). When the play days were done, and boaters gone, the creek was dropped to "normal" flows and the fish were sitting ducks to bear, otters, etc and the relative overpopulation of fish predispose them to diseases and lack of sufficient food (that had been blown out of the river).

Rivers DO need to be scrubbed, but in a way that mimick the natural hydrograph as much as possible. To promote anything otherwise is nothing but transparent and self-serving hype that makes AW look pretty hypocritical in the eyes of the environmental community.

Ralph Cutter
South Yuba River Citizen's League (SYRCL)
Nevada City, CA

Hello Ralph,

I assume that you have already submitted your information about Canyon Creek to the resource agencies and to FERC. Perhaps you have already argued endlessly with local AW representatives. I don't think any recreational releases took place in 2009. I imagine that your information carried considerable weight, especially if you have good evidence or it can be obtained by resource studies.

I am not personally familiar with Fordyce or Canyon Creek, but I have tried to link good flow information to the AW web pages so it is easier to see what the flow patterns have been like on these reaches.
[americanwhitewater.org]
[americanwhitewater.org]
I assume you were talking about the Canyon Creek section from French Lake down to Bowman lake. Dreamflows has records for most of the last 3 years and shows a few spikes at different times. Looks like a lot of data is missing.
[www.dreamflows.com]
It appears that none of the gauges on this reach other than dreamflows, show flows other than minimum releases. There is no online historical data of spill flows on this reach. So I have no way of knowing what kinds of spill patterns have occurred on this creek in the past.

On Fordyce there is historical data and it appears to me that flows have fluctuated pretty wildly through out every year that I have looked at going back to the 1960's. It seems pretty clear that these fluctuations are due to hydro operations and that recreational use is secondary and opportunistic. AW has been successful in altering the release in the fall so it is more usable by boaters, but it appears that fall releases were occurring long before boaters discovered them.

Paul Martzen
Fresno, CA

Paul,
I agree that AW should be "responsible stewards and advocates for healthy rivers". I also understand that dams are largely under the control of power companies and flows occur as energy is needed. Yes dam operators can and do release huge amounts of water seemingly at will sometimes. That doesnt make it ok. In my time as a ww guide i have seen rivers double in flow over an hour or two from an accidental release or damaged equipment. These are generally not healthy flushing/ morphological flows. I think we can agree that rivers do need high flow events to maintain and create natural features, habitat and make things tough for invasive species.
Just like with the greater water issues of the state, there is no easy fix to this issue. I would love to have a variety of great boating opportunities year round but what is the cost to the environment? I do commend AW for actively voicing their opinions and working to promote whitewater boating however i disagree with part of the mission. I would like to see the focus on access to rivers, environmental stewardship and utilizing existing resources.
Dams are a "necessary evil" and should be managed as near to natural conditions as feasible. Yes I may sound idealistic but the status quo isnt working out so well.

Jeffrey Sanchez
Associate Hydrologist
Chico, CA

I need to re-visit my previous post.

Though I am a member of SYRCL I am not their spokesperson. My statement is NOT to attributable to SYRCL. I shouldn't have used my membership as a platform to launch my personal opinion. I'm sorry for the inconvenient and unfortunate timing of my statement.

Bob Center sent some graphs of reservoir elevations on Canyon creek that clearly show the reservoirs being drained every year during late summer and fall, for hydropower generation. That appears to be the purpose of these reservoirs (French Lake, Foucherie and Sawmill), to hold water through the summer then release it in the fall. There are no diversions in these reservoirs, so the water is released into Canyon Creek, down to Bowman reservoir from where it is diverted for power production. In an earlier message I stated that there were no releases in 2009. That was incorrect. There were the usual fall releases, but they were not recreational releases except that boaters were able to utilize them.

Fall releases into Fordyce Creek are for exactly the same purpose.

Boater use of these flows is opportunistic. Once boaters found out about the flows and about these creeks, they started utilizing them.

Weekend recreational releases on the NF Feather are for recreation, but the frog egg issue which Jeffrey pointed out, drastically changed the way the releases are done.

Closer to my area, around Fresno, Ca there have been very high fall flows on several rivers. Most due to a big rainstorm, but not all.

The Kaweah hit 21,000 cfs which is about 3 to 4 times an average peak run off.
[www.americanwhitewater.org]
[c2.com] Kaweah River Page has photos and info about the flood and about changes to the river.
The Kings river hit 9,000 cfs on Oct 14 which is an average springtime peak run off, but it went from 200 cfs to 9,000 cfs in a few hours.
[www.dreamflows.com] (this graph will only show this for 20 days or so)

Rivers all over the state were huge from this storm. Does show that nature can have big fall releases if it wants to. A lot of boaters got out to take advantage of these flows.

The San Joaquin is entirely dam controlled, but the power companies save their annual maintainance till the fall when flows are generally the lowest. One reservoir needed some work on the release gates, so instead of the usual 40 cfs, flows were fluctuating quite a bit in Patterson Bend.
[www.americanwhitewater.org]
[www.dreamflows.com] (graph is good for the next 20 days or so)
This CDEC plot might be a permanent link.
[cdec.water.ca.gov]
This CDEC plot indicates that flows hit 15,000 which is pretty amazing even to me. Otherwise flows fluctuated up and down erratically sometimes as low as 100 or 200 cfs, sometimes as high as 3,800 cfs. I boated it on a day when flows were somehow stable at about 1,200 cfs, but it could have changed at any moment. Occasionally during the fall in the last few years this reach has gotten boatable flows for a few hours on unpredictable days. Often those flows have been in the middle of the night.
If I could negotiate for a recreational release on this reach, I would ask for flows of around 1,800 cfs on a few weekends, during the day, probably in the fall as that is when we would have the most likely hood of actually getting releases. But that is 20 years down the road. Maybe things will be different by then and the next person to work on this will have better ideas than I.

Paul Martzen
Fresno, CA

The South Yuba River Citizens League (SYRCL) has been working collaboratively with AW in the context of the re-licensings of the Yuba and Bear Rivers for over 4 years, as well as statewide through AW's leadership in the California Hydropower Reform Coalition. SYRCL considers AW a valued partner and AW’s contributions in these relicensings have only served to advance SYRCL’s re-licensing goals for improved aquatic habitat and restored anadromy in the Middle and South Yuba Rivers. It's a great thing that the two organizations share these broader stewardship goals. AW has recognized and supported from the beginning of the Yuba relicesnings that artificial pulse flows for strictly recreational purposes are not feasible in the Yuba system. AW has dug in deep, become expert in the operations of the Yuba system and I'm confident that we'll reach our shared--and ambitious--goals regarding salmon restoration and improved cold water habitat.

When we're celebrating that victory for the Yuba, AW will enjoy a large measure of the credit. And, I hope and trust that we'll also be celebrating with a greater number of ideal whitewater days--certainly an interest of many of our members, too--by fine-tuning some seasonal flows, with kayaks going down while the spring-run Chinook are heading up.

Jason Rainey
SYRCL Executive Director