Puntledge River Kayak Pulse Flow Cost Benefit Assessment

Transcription

1 Puntledge River Water Use Plan Puntledge River Kayak Pulse Flow Cost Benefit Assessment Reference: PUNMON #5 (PUN 220.4F) Puntledge River Kayak Pulse Flow Cost Benefit Assessment Year 4 (2009) Study Period: June 2009 Golder Associates Ltd. Box 2059 Squamish, BC V8B 0B4 Tel: (604) Fax: (604)

2 PUNTLEDGE RIVER KAYAK PULSE FLOW COST BENEFIT ASSESSMENT (2009) ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT UNDER THE PUNTLEDGE RIVER WATER USE PLAN Submitted to: Ms. Eva Wichmann, R.P.Bio. BC Hydro Vancouver Island Generation 10 John Hart Road Campbell River, BC V9H 1P1 REPORT Report Number: Distribution: 4 Copies- BC Hydro (2 Electronic) 2 Copies - Golder Associates Ltd.

3 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT UNDER THE PUNTLEDGE RIVER WATER USE PLAN Executive Summary BACKGROUND A Water Use Plan (WUP) was implemented in 2005 for the Puntledge River near Courtenay, British Columbia. This set into motion a new operating regime for the Comox Dam affecting the flows on Puntledge River, and a monitoring program designed to address both fisheries and recreation uses of the river by assessing specific outcomes and effectiveness of the WUP. The anticipated benefits of the alternative (new) operating regime compared with the previous regime include enhanced fish habitat, migration and spawning conditions, and enhanced whitewater recreation opportunities below the dam. MAIN OBJECTIVES This report is the fourth annual monitoring report concerned with the socioeconomic implications of the planned kayak pulse flow event to benefit whitewater recreation. The purpose of this first phase of study is to document descriptive statistics on the event for consideration by the provincial Comptroller of Water Rights in assessing the effectiveness of the kayak pulse flow releases in providing a net benefit to society. A future phase of this 5-year study will assess the economic costs and benefits that accrue to this initiative under the WUP, and also will address social costs and benefits. KEY RESULTS Certain social and economic benefits (not quantified at this time) were associated with the event. There were 183 registered participants in the fifth annual Puntledge River Paddle Festival organized by the Vancouver Island Whitewater Paddling Society (VIWPS), and possibly more paddlers (not registered in the event) benefiting from the scheduled flow release. In addition to the kayakers, there were 24 rafters who were guided down the river by a local white water rafting company. Therefore, approximately 207 people participated in the Paddle Festival. Registration data for previous years indicate the 2009 participation level shows an increase from 2008 (155 registered participants) and a similar level to 2007 (181 registered participants). Most of the surveyed paddlers of kayaks, canoes, and rafts came from elsewhere on Vancouver Island and the mainland, with 14 % classified as local, which is similar to the numbers observed in The event participants spent the weekend paddling and socializing in the Comox Valley community and in doing so the visitors generated some measure of local economic impact. Most of these visitors expressed a strong interest in returning for the event next year, reflecting their reported high level of satisfaction with the Puntledge River flow levels and more generally with all aspects of the whitewater paddling festival. The results of this fourth annual monitoring study indicate that the net cost of the kayak pulse flow was approximately $75,000 as calculated by BC Hydro. This calculation was based on the volume and rate of water released multiplied by a cost of $40 per MWh. This was the first year where there was a cost for the water lost for power generation. All four previous years of the Paddle Festival were essentially free because snowmelt and more typical weather conditions, providing an abundance of water for this time of year, did not require the release any additional water that would otherwise be used for power generation. CONTEXT The interpretation of monitoring results is limited because the study design evaluates only the current WUP flow regime, allowing for no comparisons with the quality of whitewater paddling under other (previous) operating conditions. Therefore it is only reasonable to provide a subjective evaluation of the effects of the kayak pulse release flows on the opportunities for whitewater recreation and the quality of the experience. Report No

4 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT UNDER THE PUNTLEDGE RIVER WATER USE PLAN Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION Background Study Purpose METHODS Study Approach Study Location and Context Study Methods Study Limitations SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS Participant Trip Characteristics Participant Interest in the Puntledge River Participant Interest in the Puntledge River Paddle Festival Participant Experience of the Event and Preferences Participant Satisfaction and Suggestions for Improvement SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS Potential Benefits and Costs Additional Observations Recommendations for Future Annual Monitoring Studies CLOSURE REFERENCES APPENDICES APPENDIX I Survey Instrument APPENDIX II Detailed Survey Data Summary Report No i

5 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT UNDER THE PUNTLEDGE RIVER WATER USE PLAN 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Water use planning undertaken by BC Hydro is an initiative targeted at achieving an appropriate balance between water use interests including power generation, domestic water supply, fish and wildlife needs, recreation, and other uses. In recent years, Water Use Plans (WUP s) for rivers with hydroelectric facilities on them have been completed through a consultative planning process involving different First Nations, government agencies, and stakeholders. Between June 2001 and June 2003 a draft WUP was developed for the Puntledge River near Courtenay, BC, and then submitted for review and approval by the provincial Comptroller of Water Rights. The 18-member Puntledge River WUP consultative committee recommended a preferred operating regime for the Comox Dam affecting the flows on Puntledge River, and specified a monitoring program that would address both fisheries and recreation uses of the river in assessing specific outcomes and effectiveness of the WUP. Those recommendations in effect were approved through the flow Order made in January 2005 by the Comptroller of Water Rights under provisions of the Water Act. Anticipated benefits of the preferred alternative compared with the previous operating regime included enhanced fish habitat, migration and spawning conditions, and planned kayaking opportunities below the dam (BC Hydro 2003). Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was retained by BC Hydro in May 2006 to initiate one of the five distinct WUP 5-year monitoring projects for the Puntledge River, namely the Kayak Pulse Flow Cost Benefit Assessment. This report presents the results of survey data collected in the fourth year of monitoring, during the fifth annual kayak pulse flow that has been scheduled to facilitate the Puntledge River Paddle Festival event. No data describing event participation or benefits was collected in This monitoring study is planned to extend between the years 2006 and 2010 (inclusive). 1.2 Study Purpose This study is concerned with whitewater recreation activities and associated social and economic values that are affected by the WUP, and with the effectiveness of that plan in achieving the stated plan objective to: Maximize the diversity and quality of the outdoor recreation experience in the Comox Lake Reservoir and the Puntledge River (BC Hydro 2003). More specifically, over five years the study would elucidate the benefits and costs associated with a scheduled, annual whitewater event during which a targeted kayak river flow, for eight hours each day, would take place on a weekend. Pulse flows are released from the dam to provide what whitewater paddlers consider to be optimum conditions. The primary management question addressed by this study is: What is the economic cost and benefit of the kayak pulse flow releases, after 5 years? The secondary management question is: What is the social cost and benefit of these releases? The purpose of each annual monitoring report is to document descriptive statistics on the paddling festival event for consideration by the Comptroller of Water Rights in assessing the effectiveness of the kayak pulse flow releases in providing a net benefit to society, and for future analysis involving comparison of annual monitoring results. Report No

6 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT UNDER THE PUNTLEDGE RIVER WATER USE PLAN 2.0 METHODS 2.1 Study Approach The terms of reference for this study were structured by BC Hydro such that certain socioeconomic data would be collected, analyzed and reported on annually to address chiefly the secondary management question. Subsequently, in order to address the primary management question, more comprehensive data collection and analysis (enabling economic impact analysis using accepted methods) is to be done only in the fifth and final year of a 5-year monitoring program. The study was implemented by BC Hydro in this way at the request of the Vancouver Island Whitewater Paddling Society (VIWPS). Accordingly, the monitoring program has two distinct study components, those being a first phase of annual study (years one through five) involving survey design and implementation to address the secondary management question, and the second phase of study to be completed in year five involving actual economic impact analysis. The first phase of study reported on here entailed the following tasks: Selection of site and means of on-site survey; Development of survey instrument; Performing a count of participants at the paddling festival event; Administering the survey instrument during the event, primarily to: Determine the origin of event participants (i.e. locals vs. tourists ); Determine the duration of stay for non-local participants; Characterize the quality of the event from the perspective of the participants (in terms of flow conditions, event organization, safety, etc.); Compiling and analyzing the data; and, Summarizing the survey data results and related information in an annual report. The results presented in this fourth annual monitoring report will be used in future assessments of trends and participation rates associated with the event in years one (refer to Golder 2006) through five, and will serve as one general indicator of WUP performance. 2.2 Study Location and Context The study terms of reference called for primary field data collection to be performed during the planned annual kayak pulse flows and associated Puntledge River Paddle Festival event, held June 6 and June 7, 2009, in Courtenay, BC This event was organized by VIWPS through the cooperation and sponsorship of BC Hydro, and other significant contributions made by volunteers and tourism industry sponsors. All participants in the event were required to register at a booth that was set up on-site and staffed by volunteers, with pre-registration being encouraged through discounted prices for the event. All participants were required to be or become members of the Whitewater Kayak Association of BC (WKABC) or VIWPS (a WKABC member club) for reasons of insurance coverage for the event. Report No

7 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT UNDER THE PUNTLEDGE RIVER WATER USE PLAN The focus of the festival event was two full days of activities on the Puntledge River between Browns River confluence and the Maple Pool Campground, including whitewater kayaking, canoeing, guided river runs, a slalom race, and an informal freestyle competition ( Expression Session ). In an effort to provide diversity of opportunity for different skills levels and different watercraft, VIWPS had coordinated with BC Hydro for pulse flows to be released starting at 60 m3/s on Saturday morning, increasing to 85 m3/s on Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning, and then ramping up to 110 m3/s for Sunday afternoon. The lower Puntledge River is recognized as a stand-out play run, having numerous waves and other hydraulic features at certain water levels which provide whitewater paddlers (in kayaks and also in canoes that are specially designed and customoutfitted for whitewater play) with opportunities to surf, spin, and execute various other movements and stunts while making their way downstream in groups. The key focal area for the festival event was the Maple Pool Campground, which served as registration and staging location for the festival as well as the accommodation for the majority of participants. The campground was the location of most social interaction that occurred between event participants (and organizers, and non-participants) throughout the weekend. This was a change from years prior to 2008, in which the event was staged from the Puntledge RV Campground. 2.3 Study Methods The survey instrument used for data collection was developed by Golder in 2006 to reflect the study terms of reference, and also to incorporate most of the suggestions made by VIWPS and endorsed by BC Hydro. Further, the survey instrument was designed to probe participant origins and other general information so as to enable some generalized socio-economic analysis of the event (e.g. to determine what proportion of the event participants were non-local, which implies a measure of economic impact). The survey instrument is presented in Appendix I. The survey instrument was administered over the course of the festival event weekend at the following locations and time periods: Event participants were approached individually by one of the two Golder research assistants between 11am and 6pm Saturday and between 8:30am and 4:30pm Sunday at the campground or on the bus transporting participants up river. Event participants were informed of the BC Hydro monitoring study and asked to complete a survey form; Survey forms and pens were available at the registration table at the campground entrance for most of the weekend, and VIWPS volunteer registrars encouraged registrants both individually (at the time of registration) and collectively (during a Saturday presentation) to complete the survey forms; and, Event participants were rewarded for their participation in the survey with the offer of an energy efficient light bulb donated by BC Hydro. Report No

8 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT UNDER THE PUNTLEDGE RIVER WATER USE PLAN Data from the completed survey forms were compiled in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, and descriptive statistics were employed for analysis of the data. To facilitate the utilization of general summary statements in this report with respect to the descriptive statistics, the following convention was consistently used: "Few" means <5 % of respondents "Some" means 5 20 % of respondents "Many" means % of respondents "About half" means % of respondents "A majority" means % of respondents "Most" means % of respondents "Almost all" (or "virtually all") means % of respondents "All means 100 % of respondents. All percentages presented in the results section were calculated based on the number of survey participants who responded to the question being discussed. While a literature review was not included within the scope of work for this project, a number of references sources are cited within the course of this study. The project personnel for this study relied on local knowledge, familiarity with the sport, and directly related project experience to provide additional information and context for this study. 2.4 Study Limitations This phase of the study was limited to collection and analysis of mostly qualitative non-economic data, as per client direction (reflecting the client s consultation with the VIPWS). The project terms of reference indicate the need to collect and analyze economic data to enable economic impact analysis, but the client has determined that the economic impact assessment will be the focus of a more comprehensive phase of data collection and analysis to be completed in the fifth and final year of study. It should be noted that certain data collected in each year of the monitoring study (e.g. data describing overall participation rates and the breakdown of local vs. tourist participation in the event) will be useful for the future economic impact assessment. While the study design enables the collection of data and analysis of certain social and economic implications of the pulse flows and paddling event, the study design does not facilitate a rigorous, multi-parameter assessment of whether the WUP performance measure of enhanced whitewater paddling quality was or is being achieved through the preferred alternative operating condition. There is no known baseline for whitewater paddling quality at the previous operating condition. Approximately 87 % of event participants (160 participants) were surveyed in the course of this study. The study results reflect the expressed opinions of only those event registrants who chose to participate in the survey. No identifiable groups are known to be under represented in the survey responses reported herein. The surveys were administered in 2006, 2007 and 2009 by Golder personnel. In 2008 the survey was administered to participants by BC Hydro personnel. The survey was administered in a similar fashion for each annual monitoring event to maintain consistency between years. Report No

9 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT UNDER THE PUNTLEDGE RIVER WATER USE PLAN While the matter of identifying flow preferences is not central to the objectives of this monitoring study, it is duly noted that not all survey respondents had the benefit of having paddled at the Sunday flow levels before responding to the two survey questions concerning flow preferences. Some of the survey respondents who completed the survey conceivably would have answered the two questions differently had they been surveyed on Sunday afternoon and not prior. However, it was expected to be unlikely for the survey administrator to intercept all paddlers as they came off the river on Sunday afternoon and to get their cooperation in completing the surveys at that time. Furthermore, study results indicate that many of the survey respondents had attended the festival in previous years, so those respondents would be in a position to comment on the different flow levels regardless of whether they completed the survey on Saturday or Sunday. 3.0 SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS Selected results from the survey conducted during the weekend event are presented below in the form of descriptive statistics under broad thematic headings, with a brief discussion on the limited number of qualifiers with respect to statistical method. A more comprehensive and detailed summary of survey results is presented in Appendix II. A total of 187 people were registered participants in the whitewater paddling festival over the course of the weekend. Of these event participants, 160 (87 %) were surveyed during the course of this study to provide insight into socioeconomic implications of the annual pulse flow release and associated festival. Twenty three survey respondents (14 %) were local (i.e. residing within 25 km of the Puntledge River, as defined for the purpose of future economic impact analysis), similar to the percentage seen in Besides these Comox Valley residents, a majority of respondents reported either Vancouver Island (48 %) or other parts of BC (31 %) as their place of residence. Six survey respondents were from other provinces in Canada, and 6 were international visitors from New Zealand, Great Britain, Switzerland, USA and Chile. 3.1 Participant Trip Characteristics Almost all (97 %) of the respondents who were not local to the area ( local as defined in Section 3.0) indicated their primary destination for this trip to be either the Puntledge River, Courtenay, Comox or the campground. Respondents most frequently reported to be away from home on their trip for 3 days and 2 nights. Most of the respondents (88 %) camped while in the Comox Valley, for a combined total of 243 nights, presumably at the Maple Pool Campground. Thirteen respondents (10 %) reported staying in a B&B, hotel, motel or other paid lodging, and ten respondents (8 %) stayed in private homes or other unpaid lodging. Most (92 %) of the respondents made the trip by automobile. About half of the respondents (54.8 %) who were not local to the area indicated they would not have traveled to the Comox Valley were it not for this whitewater paddling event. 3.2 Participant Interest in the Puntledge River Most of the survey respondents (77 %) indicated they would paddle in the Puntledge River if dam flow releases occurred more frequently. A majority (63 %) of the respondents reported having paddled the river in the previous 12 months, an increase from 59 % in 2008 and 28 % in This year, 8 % of respondents reported having paddled the river 10 or more times in the past 12 months. Report No

10 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT UNDER THE PUNTLEDGE RIVER WATER USE PLAN 3.3 Participant Interest in the Puntledge River Paddle Festival Most survey respondents (79 %) first heard of the Puntledge River Paddle Festival by word of mouth and 75 % had visited the VIPWS website prior to attending. About half of respondents (54 %) reported having attended the event in previous years, down from 64 % in 2008, but up from 41 % in Most (79 %) respondents indicated that they definitely would return to the event next year, while others (16 %) indicated less emphatically that they probably would return. No respondents reported that they definitely would not return. 3.4 Participant Experience of the Event and Preferences Survey respondents most frequently reported making a total of 4 runs on the river(s), with most (82 %) making from 2 to 6 runs over the course of the weekend. The average number of runs made was 4, and the maximum reported was 10. Only 9 % of the respondents favoured the Saturday morning flows at 60 m3/s, and many respondents (37 %) responded affirmatively to the statement that all flows were good, for different reasons. Generalized survey results indicate strongest preference for the higher flows of 85 to 110 m3/s (47 % total), at which levels many respondents indicated they thought offered better play (hydraulic) features. On the subject of safety concerns, woody debris was identified as the river feature of most concern to more respondents (59 %) than any other feature. This result is similar to the safety concerns noted in 2008, whereas in 2007 most respondents were concerned with the hatchery weir. In 2009, 24 % of the respondents selected the hatchery weir as the river feature of most concern. A few paddlers also reported flow levels (2 %) and hydraulic features (9 %) as the main concern. 3.5 Participant Satisfaction and Suggestions for Improvement The survey respondents indicated high levels of satisfaction with all aspects of the Puntledge River Paddle Festival. Most of the respondents (94 %) gave the event an overall rating of 8 or higher on the 10-point scale of satisfaction, which suggests improvements over 2008 when 88 % of respondents rated the event at 8 or higher but lower than in 2007 when almost all (98 %) of the respondents rated the event at 8 or greater. While survey respondents indicated a generally high level of satisfaction with the event, given the opportunity to make suggestions for improvement they offered a variety of input as indicated in the summary list below. Many of the suggestions made were variations on one of the following themes: Cleanlier, improved and increased washroom facilities; Provide more water release events (there were several suggestions to commence water release on Friday afternoon); Suggestions on different water level preferences; and, Provide evening entertainment (e.g., bands). Report No

11 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT UNDER THE PUNTLEDGE RIVER WATER USE PLAN 4.0 SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS 4.1 Potential Benefits and Costs The WUP Consultative Committee had recommended a monitoring study that would allow future assessment of how well utilized the kayak pulse flows are (i.e. number of participants in the annual whitewater paddling events), the economic and social benefits to the community and recreational users respectively, and the associated cost of lost power revenue. The key monitoring indicator is the net cost of the kayak pulse flow release. The cost of the flow release varies greatly from year to year due to climatic conditions and the current market value of electricity. The cost of water release in 2009 was approximately $75,000 as calculated by BC Hydro. This accounts for approximately $50,000 in water flows during the Paddle Festival, and approximately $25,000 in ramping before, between days, and after the kayak event. In addition, the Browns River was running low during the weekend event the Browns River confluence is the location where BC Hydro targets the kayak flow levels and did not really off-set any power generation costs. The cost calculation was based on the volume and rate of water released above the minimum flow required at Reach C, multiplied by a water volume to energy conversion factor of 0.88 and a value of $40 per MWh the MWh cost is the value of water stored in BC Hydro system in June The cost of the flow is higher than the results of all previous Paddle Festival years when the cost of water for the kayak flows were zero (a positive performance measure) since no dam release and associated foregone revenue from power generation was required for the weekend event, owing to the climatic conditions and runoff from high elevation snowpack at the time. The primary reason for the power generation cost in 2009 was as of September, BC Hydro reported that the water inflows into the Comox Lake Reservoir, year to date, were the lowest in 46 years of inflow data. Additional economic and in kind costs for staffing, security, safety and organization were incurred by BC Hydro and by the local paddling club. Certain social and economic benefits (not quantified at this time) clearly were associated with the event. Survey results confirm that a significant proportion of the event participants traveled to the Comox Valley from other parts of the island, and from the mainland, specifically to paddle the Puntledge River during the kayak pulse flows and thereby generated some (albeit likely modest) measure of local economic impact. There is the potential spin-off economic benefit of the annual whitewater event adding to the word-of-mouth buzz around the Comox Valley and its market branding as a recreation destination. The economic impact analysis component of this study to be completed in year 5 will entail expanded surveys and evaluation to explore the types and magnitude of expenditures that are associated with participant travel to and stay in the Comox Valley, other potential indirect and induced economic impact, as well as costs associated with organizing and holding the annual paddling event (e.g. staffing, advertising, safety and other costs), in accordance with accepted research methods (e.g. per Research Resolutions and Consulting 2005). Results from the economic impact analysis will be analyzed in combination with less quantifiable social and community costs and benefits to weigh the total expected costs against the total expected benefits of the event. 4.2 Additional Observations Golder (2007) presents additional insight into the characteristics of the Puntledge River which make it a favourable location for whitewater paddling, and discussion of other locations in BC having comparable characteristics and associated opportunities. Those observations and discussion are not repeated or summarized in the present report. Report No

12 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT UNDER THE PUNTLEDGE RIVER WATER USE PLAN 4.3 Recommendations for Future Annual Monitoring Studies Recommendations for future monitoring studies made by Golder in the first year of the survey (2006) included the following: Explore alternate means of survey administration to increase survey sample size; Conduct surveys at focal locations where paddlers congregate; Improve coordination between survey administration and event organizers; and, Conduct post-event interviews with event organizers to help triangulate data obtained through the participant surveys. The first three of the recommendations listed above were addressed in conducting the survey in 2007, 2008, and 2009 to the extent possible within the available budget for this work. The main recommendation coming from the second year (2007) for future monitoring studies included the following: Increase the budget available specifically for survey administration effort in the field; and, Increase the budget either in future years or in year 5 of the monitoring study to address the fourth recommendation listed in Though budgets were not increased in 2008, the survey was administered in the field by BC Hydro personnel rather than by Golder for reasons of cost effectiveness. Also for reasons of cost effectiveness, in 2009 Golder hired temporary employees to conduct the survey. While there were not any specific recommendations coming from the 2008 or 2009 annual studies, the fifth year study is planned to be more in depth and will require a greater level of research effort, different research methodology, and increased budget allocation. Report No

13 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT UNDER THE PUNTLEDGE RIVER WATER USE PLAN 5.0 CLOSURE We trust that the information presented above is sufficient for your current needs. Please contact us should you have any questions or concerns. GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. Towagh Behr, M.A. Anthropologist / Traditional Studies Specialist Roxanne Scott, M.P.A, M.A. Senior Socioeconomist REVIEWED BY: David Munday, BSc, MBA, R.P. Bio. Associate, Senior Environmental Specialist TB/RS/SM/kar/smh \\vic1-s-filesrv1\data\final\2009\1478\ bc hydro kayak pulse flow puntledge river\ final report\rpt kayak fest - final.docx Report No

14 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT UNDER THE PUNTLEDGE RIVER WATER USE PLAN 6.0 REFERENCES Askey, Ethan Whitewater Stream Inventory (2002) of Sea to Sky Squamish Forest District, British Columbia. Report and GIS mapping product prepared by Confluence Environmental Consulting for BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. BC Hydro Consultative Committee Report Puntledge River Water Use Plan. Report prepared by BC Hydro Project Team and the Puntledge River Water Use Plan Consultative Committee. Golder Associates Ltd Puntledge River Kayak Pulse Flow Cost Benefit Assessment (2006). Annual monitoring report prepared for BC Hydro under the Puntledge River Water Use Plan. Golder Associates Ltd Puntledge River Kayak Pulse Flow Cost Benefit Assessment (2007). Annual monitoring report prepared for BC Hydro under the Puntledge River Water Use Plan. Research Resolutions and Consulting Guidelines for Measuring Tourism Economic Impact at Ungated or Open Access Events and Festivals. Report prepared for Canadian Tourism Commission, Tourism BC, and other provincial and territorial tourism authorities. 176 pp. plus appendices. Accessible at: Anonymous, On-line article in Canoe & Kayak Magazine under Industry News heading entitled Future of Whitewater Industry at: Report No

15 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT UNDER THE PUNTLEDGE RIVER WATER USE PLAN APPENDIX I Survey Instrument Report No

16 Puntledge River Paddle Festival - Paddler Survey 2009 Golder Associates Project No for BC Hydro Date and time: June, 2009 : ABOUT YOUR TRIP and DESTINATION 1) WHERE DO YOU LIVE? City/Town Province/State Country 2) DESTINATION OF TRIP (town, region) Primary destination Secondary (if applic.) 3) NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS ON TRIP Other Total (including yourself) Other Number under 18 years 4) LODGING NIGHTS (in each location during trip) Other parts of Lodging Type Comox Valley Vancouver Island # of nights # of nights Hotel, resort, lodge, etc. Motel B&B Campground/RV Park Other paid lodging Private home or cottage (unpaid) Other unpaid lodging 7) IMPORTANCE OF EVENT IN CHOICE OF DESTINATION Circle the number below that best indicates how important this event was in your decision to visit Comox Valley on this trip, where 0 indicates no influence and 5 indicates that the event is the main single reason for making this trip at this time. No Influence Main Reason X Don t Know 4) TRIP DURATION Number of days in COMOX VALLEY on THIS trip days Number of nights you plan to be away from home on entire trip nights 5) TYPE OF TRANSPORTATION USED (check one) Car / truck / motorhome Ferry Plane Other (specify) 6) TRIP REPLACEMENT Would you have come to Comox Valley in the next three months if you had not come for this paddling event? (circle one) Y / N / Don t Know 8) SIMILAR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES If you had not attended the Puntledge River Paddling Festival on this trip, where would you have been instead? (circle one) A Paddling in Comox Valley B Paddling elsewhere in BC C Paddling outside of BC D - Doing something else E Don t know 9) PADDLER INTEREST IN PUNTLEDGE RIVER Would you paddle this river more often each year if planned releases were more frequent? (circle one) A Yes, at any opportunity B - Possibly C - Not likely D - No, once per year is enough 10) OTHER RECENT VISITS TO PUNTLEDGE RIVER Not counting this paddle festival weekend event, how many times have you paddled the Puntledge River in the past 12 months? 11) UNPLANNED FLOW RELEASE Did you paddle Puntledge River during the additional flow releases prior to this event? (circle one) Y / N Page 1 of 2

17 Puntledge River Paddle Festival - Paddler Survey 2009 Golder Associates Project No for BC Hydro ABOUT THE PADDLE FESTIVAL EVENT 12) HOW DID YOU FIRST HEAR ABOUT THIS EVENT? A. Friends B. Internet C. Magazine D. Newspaper E. Other (specify) 14) SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR THE EVENT Did you access the Vancouver Island Whitewater Paddling Society webpage before attending this event? (circle one) Y / N 16) UTILIZATION OF THE FLOW DURING THE EVENT How many times did you paddle or will you paddle Puntledge River this weekend, including any repeat runs down the same sections of the river? Times 18) PREFERENCE FOR DIFFERENT FLOW LEVELS When were water levels best for you? (circle one) A - Saturday morning (60 m3/s) B - Saturday afternoon (85 m3/s) C - Sunday (110 m3/s) D All flows were good, for different reasons E not applicable I paddled only at one water level 20) RATING OF EVENT FOR VARIOUS CHARACTERISTICS Very Very No Unsatisfied Satisfied Opinion Water levels x Organization x Accommodation x Washrooms x Parking/Access x 13) DID YOU ATTEND THIS EVENT IN PREVIOUS YEARS? (circle one) Y / N 15) INTEREST IN RETURNING FOR THE EVENT NEXT YEAR (circle one) A - Definitely would return B - Probably would return C - Might or might not return D - Probably would not return E - Definitely would not return F - Don t Know 17) CONCERNS Of all the dangers on the river, which if any were of most concern? (circle one) A - Hydraulic features B - Hatchery weir C - Flow levels D - Woody debris 19) EXPLANATION OF FLOW LEVEL PREFERENCE Why were the flows better? (circle one or more if applicable) A - safer on the river B - better play features C - I was only there once D - I just like that time of day more E not applicable (responded D or E to Question 18) 21) OVERALL RATING OF EVENT Very Unsatisfied Very Satisfied Don t Know X 22) SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE EVENT If there was one thing that you could change to improve your experience at the Puntledge River Paddle Festival, what would it be? 23) COMMENTS Use this space to comment on the event or on this survey. ABOUT THIS SURVEY The Puntledge River Project Water Use Plan (WUP) project was initiated by BC Hydro in June 2001 and concluded in June 2003, with the provincial Comptroller of Water Rights having issued a Flow Order in January 2005 according to the recommendations of the WUP Consultative Committee. As a result, certain changes were made in how the Puntledge River hydroelectric facility is operated, including the annual release of two 8-hour kayak pulse flows to achieve specified flow targets during the paddling festival weekend organized by the Vancouver Island Whitewater Paddling Society (VIWPS). As part of the WUP, a 5-year monitoring program was established to investigate the results and implications of changes in the operation of the dam on Comox Lake. This survey is part of a five-year study to assess the benefits and costs associated with the annual kayak pulse flows. More specifically, the objective of this monitoring program is to allow future assessment of how well utilised the kayak pulse flow is (i.e. number of event participants), what are the associated economic and social benefits to the paddlers and to the community respectively, and what is the associated cost of lost power revenue. Economic impact will be calculated from data collected during events, while social benefits will be characterized from survey responses. After 5 years, the monitoring results will be reviewed by BC Hydro in consultation with VIWPS, federal and provincial agency representatives, and other interested parties. Page 2 of 2

18 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT UNDER THE PUNTLEDGE RIVER WATER USE PLAN APPENDIX II Detailed Survey Data Summary Report No

19 APPENDIX II DETAILED SURVEY DATA SUMMARY The following data are summarized below in the order corresponding to the survey form. (Appendix I). The reader is referred to that form for specific survey questions answered by the respondents, since only the title of the field is presented below. Survey Question 1: Where do you live? Twenty three survey respondents (14 %) were local (i.e. residing within 25 km of the Puntledge River, as defined for the purpose of future economic impact analysis). Besides these Comox Valley residents, a majority of respondents reported either Vancouver Island (48 %) or other parts of B.C. (31 %) as their place of residence. Six survey respondents were from other provinces in Canada, and 6 were international visitors from New Zealand, Great Britain, Switzerland, USA and Chile. The following table summarizes the survey responses. Place of Residence Number of Respondents Abbotsford 1 Black Creek 1 Burnaby 1 Calgary, Alberta 1 Campbell River 14 Chilliwack 2 Comox 6 Coombs 4 Coquitlam 1 Courtenay 10 Crofton 1 Cumberland 6 Duncan 6 Fredericton, New Brunswick 1 Genelle 1 Gold River 1 Kawerau, New Zealand 1 Ladysmith 1 Lake Cowichan 2 Langley 2 London, UK 1 Mill Bay 3 Mt. Washington 1 Muelligen, Switzerland 1 Nanaimo 8 Nanoose Bay 1 North Vancouver 12 Ottawa, Ontario 1 Parksville 3 September 16, 2009 No /10

20 APPENDIX II DETAILED SURVEY DATA SUMMARY Pemberton 3 Port Alberni 1 Portland, USA 1 Pucon, Chile 1 Salt Spring Island 2 Shawnigan Lake 2 Squamish 4 Strathcona Park 1 Surrey 3 Toronto 1 Ucluelet 2 Vancouver 14 Victoria 24 Waterloo, Ontario 2 Whistler 1 White Rock 1 Youbou 2 Switzerland 1 Survey Question 2: Destination of trip The survey answers to this question are summarized in the following tables. Primary Destination of Party Number of Respondents BC 1 Campbell River 1 Comox 3 Comox Valley 32 Courtenay 109 Nanaimo 1 Surrey 1 Secondary Destination of Party Number of Respondents Courtenay, Nanaimo 1 Courtenay, Victoria, Vancouver 1 Gold River 1 Victoria 1 Courtenay, Nanaimo 1 Courtenay, Victoria, Vancouver 1 September 16, 2009 No /10

21 APPENDIX II DETAILED SURVEY DATA SUMMARY Survey Question 3: Number of household members on trip Of 160 persons surveyed, 5 did not answer this question. Of the remaining surveys, 89 of the respondents were traveling with other household members of which 22 reported having 1 or more person under the age of 18 in the group. Of the 16 respondents who reported having someone under the age of 18 in their group, three reported 1, seven reported having 2, three reported 3 and nine reported having more than three household members under 18 accompanying them on the trip. Survey Question 4: Trip duration Of 160 surveys, 20 did not complete this question. Of the remaining 140, a mean trip duration of 2.8 days was calculated with a mode of 3 days (67 of 140 people surveyed). Thirty four (34) of 160 people surveyed did not complete the field for the number of nights spent away from home for the duration of their entire trips. Of the 124 respondents who did complete this question, a mean of 3.0 nights and a mode of 2 nights away were calculated. The second portion of this question asked respondents to specify the number of nights spent at different types of accommodation, and specified inside and outside of the Comox Valley. There were 7 options to choose from. Twenty seven (27) respondents of 160 did not complete this field. For nights spent within the Comox Valley, of the remaining 133 respondents, eight indicated that they stayed at a hotel, resort or lodge for a combined total of 12 nights; no respondents reported staying at a motel, one stayed at a B&B for one night; 117 respondents stayed in a campground or RV park for a combined total of 243 nights; 4 respondents indicated other paid lodging for a combined total of 10 nights; 8 indicated staying at a private home or cottage (unpaid) for a combined total of 133 nights; and two people indicated other unpaid lodging. For nights spent outside the Comox Valley, of the 13 respondents who answered this question, three indicated that they stayed at a hotel, resort or lodge for a combined total of 15 nights; one indicated staying at a bed and breakfast for 2 nights; 6 indicated camping outside the Comox Valley for a combined total of 17 nights and 3 indicated private home or cottage (unpaid) for a combined total of 15 nights. Survey Question 5: Type(s) of transportation used Respondents selected applicable modes of transport from a list of four transportation possibilities. Of 160 respondents, 4 did not complete this field. Of the remaining 156 respondents, 143 indicated the use of an automobile, 36 the use of a ferry, 4 indicated the use of a plane, and 9 respondents indicated other. Other responses included five indicating bus or transit. Although respondents were asked to check one mode of transportation, thirty two (32) checked one or more type of transportation; this is apparent in the fact that the numbers above for each type of transportation used sum to greater than the total of 156 respondents to this question. Survey Question 6: Trip replacement Of 160 surveys, 14 people who were identified as local residents answered this question; these answers are not included in the numbers below as the question is not applicable to local residents. Of the remaining 126 respondents who completed this question indicating whether they would have come to the Comox Valley in the ensuing three months if it was not for this paddling event, 21 indicated that they didn t know, 69 indicated no and 36 yes. September 16, 2009 No /10

22 APPENDIX II DETAILED SURVEY DATA SUMMARY Survey Question 7: Importance of this event Of 160 surveys, 16 people who were identified as local residents answered this question; these answers are not included in the numbers below as the question is not applicable to local residents. Of the remaining 137 respondents that completed this question, 123 (90 %) indicated that the Puntledge Fest was the main reason for their visit to the Comox Valley. Survey Question 8: Similar recreational activities Of 155 people who answered this question, 5 circled more than one answer and have not been included in the results. Of the remaining 150, about half of the people (82 people or 54.7 %) chose Paddling elsewhere in BC, many (44 people or 29 %) chose Doing something else, 14 people didn t know what they would be doing instead, 7 people (5 %) indicated they would be paddling elsewhere in the Comox Valley, and three (3) people indicated they would be paddling outside of BC had they not been attending the Puntledge River Festival. Survey Question 9: Respondent interest in Puntledge River Of the 158 persons who completed this field, most (123 people or 78 %) answered A (yes, at any opportunity), 30 (19 %) answered B (possibly), 4 people (3%) answered C (not likely), and 1 person answered D (no, once per year is enough) to the question: Would you paddle this river more often each year if planned releases were more frequent? Survey Question 10: Other recent visits to Puntledge River (not counting the Festival) Of 160 persons surveyed, 115 responded to this question. The mean number of times respondents indicated having paddled this river in the last 12 months was 2.3. Forty three respondents (37 %) specified 0. The maximum number of times recorded by a single respondent was 30, and some (9 people or 8 %) of the respondents indicated having paddled the Puntledge River 10 or more times over the past 12 months. Survey Question 11: Paddling use of unplanned flow releases Of the 157 persons surveyed who completed this question, most (105 people or 67 %) answered no indicating that they had not paddled the Puntledge River during additional flow releases prior to this event. Fifty two people (33 %) indicated they had done so. Survey Question 12: How did you first hear about the Puntledge Fest? Of 160 people surveyed, 1 person did not complete this field. Of the 159 respondents, eight people indicated more than one answer; the numbers presented below include all respondents who indicated an answer including the choice specified. Most (121 people or 76 %) indicated A, that they heard of the festival from friends, twenty two (14 %) indicated B (internet), one person indicated C (magazine), one indicated D (newspaper) and 23 (14 %) recorded E and/or included some other description with their answer. Of the other responses, 7 (4 %) people indicated VIWPS (Vancouver Island Whitewater Paddling Society). September 16, 2009 No /10

23 APPENDIX II DETAILED SURVEY DATA SUMMARY Survey Question 13: Did you attend this event last year? All of the 160 persons surveyed responded to this question. Eighty seven (54 %) respondents answered yes and 73 (46 %) answered no. Survey Question 14: Sources of information for the Puntledge Paddle Fest Of 160 persons surveyed, 1 did not respond. Of the remaining 159 respondents, 119 (75 %) answered yes and 40 respondents (25 %) answered no. Survey Question 15: Interest in returning for event next year Of 160 persons surveyed, 1 did not respond. Of the remaining 159 respondents, 125 answered A (definitely would return), 25 indicated B (probably would return), 8 answered C (might or might not return), and one answered D (probably would not return), and none answered E (definitely would not return). Survey Question 16: Paddler utilization of the flow during the event Of 160 persons surveyed, 11 did not respond and 6 responded with more than one number. Of the remaining 143 respondents, the minimum number of runs was 0 (3 people) and the maximum was 10 (one person). The mean number of runs was 4.2 and the mode was 4 (40 people). One hundred and twenty two respondents (85 %) paddled the river 2 6 times during their visit to the festival. Survey Question 17: Concerns Of 160 persons surveyed, 10 did not respond and 9 circled more than one answer (their answers have been excluded in the numbers presented here). Of the 141 respondents, 89 (63 %) answered D (woody debris), 36 (26 %) answered B (hatchery weir), 13 (9 %) answered A (hydraulic features), and 3 (2 %) answered C (flow levels). Survey Question 18: Preferences for different flow levels Of 160 persons surveyed, 2 did not respond and 16 selected more than one answer. Of the remaining 142 respondents, 32 (23 %) selected option C (Sunday). Flow levels for Sunday differed in the morning and the afternoon, however, the survey only provided one option for selecting Sunday. Three of the 32 respondents who selected Sunday indicated a preference for the morning flow levels, 18 respondents indicated afternoon flow levels, and 11 of the respondents did not indicate morning or afternoon. Fifty three respondents selected D (All flows were good, for different reasons), 36 selected B, (Saturday afternoon 85m3/s), ten respondents selected option A (60m3/s) and eleven chose response E (not applicable I paddled only at one water level). Of the 16 people who chose two answers, all 16 included B in their answer, 7 included C, 6 included D, and 4 included A. September 16, 2009 No /10

24 APPENDIX II DETAILED SURVEY DATA SUMMARY Survey Question 19: Explanation of flow level preferences Of 160 persons surveyed, 5 did not respond and 10 selected more than one answer. Of 145 respondents, a majority (83 individuals or 57 %) selected B (better play features), many (37 individuals or 26 %) selected E (not applicable), some (18 individuals or 12 %) selected A (safer on the river), one person selected C (I was only there once) and six people chose D (I just like that time of day more). Survey Question 20: Rating of event for various characteristics a. Water levels Of 160 people surveyed, one person did not respond to this question, one person selected two choices and 7 chose X (no opinion). The mean rating for the remaining respondents to this field was 9.0 out of 10 with a mode of 10; the range of responses was from 3 to 10. b. Organization Of 160 people surveyed, one person did not respond to this question and 5 chose X (no opinion). The mean rating for the remaining 154 respondents who answered this question was 8.9 out of 10 with a mode of 10; the range of responses was from 3 to 10. c. Accommodation Of 160 people surveyed, 6 did not respond to this question and 16 chose X (no opinion). The mean rating for this field of 138 respondents was 8.6 out of 10 with a mode of 10; the range of responses was from 3 to 10. d. Washrooms Of 160 people surveyed, 1 did not respond to this question and 8 chose X (no opinion). The mean rating for this field of 151 respondents was 6.3 out of 10 with a mode of 10; the range of responses was from 1 to 10. e. Parking Of 160 people surveyed, two people did not respond to this question, one person selected two choices and 5 chose X (no opinion). The mean rating for this field of 152 respondents was 8.9 out of 10 with a mode of 10; the range of responses was from 3 to 10. Survey Question 21: Overall rating of the event Respondents indicated a high level of satisfaction with the event. Every person surveyed responded to this question; one respondent selected two answers, and one respondent answered x (don t know). Of the remaining 158 respondents, 71 (45 %) answered 10 (very satisfied), 40 (25 %) answered 9, 38 (24 %) answered 8, 7 (4 %) answered 7, one respondent answered 6 and one respondent answered 4. No one responded less than 4. September 16, 2009 No /10

25 APPENDIX II DETAILED SURVEY DATA SUMMARY Survey Question 22: Suggestions for improvement of the event While survey respondents indicated a generally high level of satisfaction with the event, given the opportunity to make suggestions for improvement they offered a variety of input as indicated in the list below. MORE TIMES A YEAR LIST OF SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT BEER TENT, WASHROOMS ON CAMPSITE NEED RENO MORE ENTERTAINMENT BETTER WASHROOMS MORE DEMOS LONGER WATER TIME BETTER ACCESS TO PUT-IN IMPROVE THE CHANNEL ON RIVERS RIGHT BESIDE THE WEIR AT THE HATCHERY SO THAT IT CAN BE PADDLED HIGHER WATER LEVELS FOR LONGER PERIODS ADDRESS WEIR CONCERNS MORE FREQUENT FEWER PEOPLE MORE BEAUTIFUL WOMEN BETTER MAPS OF RIVER ACCESS NOTHING IT WAS LOVELY. A FANTASTIC COMING TOGETHER OF THE COMMUNITIES TO CELEBRATE THE WONDERFUL RESOURCES MORE RELEASES MORE OFTEN LONG WAITS FOR THE SHUTTLE. THROW AND GO TRAILERS BETTER TOILETS TOILET ACCESIBILITY TOILET AT THE OTHER END OF CAMPSITE BEING ABLE TO HAVE A CAMPFIRE BAND ON SATURDAY NIGHT MAKE IT LAST LONGER FREE ICECREAM MORE FREE BEER MORE DAYS LONGER RUNS FREE BEER MORE BATHROOMS PLEASE LIVE MUSIC CLEAN THE OUTHOUSES AFTER SATURDAY NIGHT A RACE AWESOME ALREADY CONTINUE IT FOOD AND DRINK AT EVENT BARBEQUE,?, PRINTS September 16, 2009 No /10

26 APPENDIX II DETAILED SURVEY DATA SUMMARY MORE PORTA POTTIES AT CAMPSITE WOULD BE NICE MORE SHUTTLE CAPACITY DURING RUSH HOUR, SPREAD OUT PORTA POTTY, PUT ONE AT OTHER END OF CAMP MORE TOILETS IN MORE LOCATIONS, MORE LARGER SHUTTLES MORE RELEASE FRIDAY AFTERNOON AND EVENING BETTER ORGANIZATION FOR RIDES GET RID OF IPP'S GIVE THEM TO BC HYDRO. OPEN BAR 85CMS MORE SUNDAY MORNING? BETTER WASHROOMS GROUP SUPPER SAT MAKE IT BIANNUAL ALCOHOL SPONSORS, BEER GARDENS NOTHING BC HYDRO SHOULD LET THEIR STAFF GO ON A RAFTING TRIP. BETTER WEBSITE FREE T-SHIRTS BETTER/UPDATE WEBSITE FIRES! OR BETTER ENTERTAINMENT AT EVENT MORE FREE BEERS MORE ORGANIZED REGISTRATION PROCESS MORE DRAW PRIZES LOWER WATER LEVEL SECOND DAY MORE ADVERTISING. I WOULD HAVE COME IN THE PAST IF I KNEW ABOUT IT BIG EVENING PARTY MORE TOILETS SOCIAL NIGHT MORE PADDLING! REMOVE LOG JAMS FROM THE RIVER GATE ACCESS RAMP UP FLOW ON FRIDAY TO ALLOW FOR AFTERNOON RUNS MAPS W/ PUT. INS MORE RELEASE TIMES WASHROOMS OPEN, EVERYTHING ELSE IS SPLENDID OUTHOUSES. BIGGER WAVES RUNNING WATER + IMPROVED TOILETS MORE TOILET PAPER START THE RELEASES EARLIER IN THE MORNING TO FLUSH OUT SOME MORE OF THE DEBRIS WASHROOMS OUTHOUSES. BIGGER WAVES LIGHTS IN SHOWERS AND LESS SMELLY WASHROOMS MAKE IT SO YOU DON'T NEED TO PORTAGE AROUND THE WEIR September 16, 2009 No /10

27 APPENDIX II DETAILED SURVEY DATA SUMMARY TP IN THE BATHROOM, BETTER ROAD ACCESS AT POWER LINES MAYBE A RANGE OF EQUIPMENT SUCH AS BAGS, HELMETS FOR DEMO AND BUY LONGER WATER RELEASE PER DAY MORE HELPERS! LESS NASTY ROCK IN THE BYPASS OF THE WIER. NEED A HIGHER LEVEL FLOW TO FLUSH OUT WOOD BEFORE FRIDAY NIGHT RELEASE Survey Question 23: Comments Overall the comments on the event offered by survey respondents were very positive, as indicated in the following list. COMMENTS ORGANIZATION GREAT, VERY SMOOTH GREAT FESTIVAL WONDERFUL ORGANIZATION AND SURVEY ARE EXCELLENT WELL ORGANIZED, INFORMATIVE A OK THE EVENT IS WELL RUN AND A WONDERFUL SHOWCASE FOR THE VALLEY AND VANCOUVER ISLAND VERY GOOD GREAT EVENT THANK YOU THANKS SO MUCH FOR RELEASING WATER FOR US EXCELLENT KEEP DOING IT ALL THE YEARS SAVE THE RIVER PLEASE PARADISE HYDRO RULES GREAT I ENJOY THIS EVENT AND LOOKING FORWARD TO IT EVERY YEAR THANKS TO VIWPS AND ALL SPONSORS/SUPPORTERS AMAZING RIVER FUN A SUPER KAYAK RIVER AT CMSRANGE IT WAS GREAT TO LEARN FROM OTHER PEOPLE GREAT EVENT, KEEP DOING IT THANKS HYDRO!! KEEP THE WATER COMING THE WEATHER WAS AWESOME IT'S FINE, NO COMPLAINTS THANKS BC HYDRO TO RELEASE WATER THANKS BC HYDRO GREAT EVENT September 16, 2009 No /10

28 APPENDIX II DETAILED SURVEY DATA SUMMARY GREAT THAT BC HYDRO RELEASE WATER FOR THE EVENT THANKS A LOT THIS WAS AN AWESOME EVENT GREAT FESTIVAL FOR PADDLERS AWESOME THANKS BC HYDRO WELL WORTH IT KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! GOOD! GREAT EVENT, MY FAVOURITE PADDLING FESTIVAL OF THE YEAR LOVED IT :) IT'S A GREAT POSITIVE EVENT I REALLY HOPE IT CONTINUES, THANKS! GREAT ORGANIZATION, DAVID WAS A GOOD CHOICE OF MC. FUN WEEKEND I LIKE A VARIED RIVER, IT FEELS MORE NATURAL THANKS TO ALL THAT MADE THE EVENT POSSIBLE BIG THANKS TO THE SHUTTLE BUNNIES n:\final\2009\1478\ bc hydro kayak pulse flow puntledge river\ draft report\appendix ii.docx September 16, 2009 No /10

29 Golder Associates Ltd Douglas Street Victoria, British Columbia, V8T 4M1 Canada T: +1 (250)