Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1528 <br /> <br />SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS AND ISSUES <br /> <br />. Except for Kiowa County, Anglos in the lower Arkansas are considerably better off <br />financially than are Hispanics; a pattern wherever labor-intensive row crops are grown <br />and significant number of farm laborers are employed. <br /> <br />SPECIFICITY OF SOCIAL IMPACTS <br /> <br />Ideally, specific socioeconomic impacts should be determined for each alternative in a planned <br />project. Normally this occurs when alternatives are mutually exclusive and can be analyzed <br />separately. In this case, not only are the alternatives (Le. reoperation, Pueblo Reservoir <br />enlargement, gravel lakes storage, etc.) not mutually exclusive but they can and must be <br />combined into a number of scenarios, each of which would meet the total storage need amount. <br /> <br />. Because the various alternatives are not mutually exclusive, many, if not most, of the same <br />socioeconomic impacts potentially will occur with more than one of the alternatives and <br />more than one of the scenarios. <br />. At this stage, the details of a reoperation plan are still under development, and the <br />fluctuations in lake levels and flow regime are yet to be established, preventing our ability to <br />be highly specific in assessing socioeconomic impacts. <br />. At this stage we have been able to look at several categories of general socioeconomic <br />issues and concerns associated with each alternative and those are provided here. Four <br />categories of impacts were initially explored through site visits and interviews with key <br />informants: impacts on recreation resources, on agricultural resources, visual impacts, and <br />impacts from construction. <br />. However, it is not too early in the process to identify the range of socioeconomic impacts <br />and issues that apply to the overall project and even to determine which impacts are likely to <br />be the most important to the stakeholders in this basin-wide effort. Those will be described <br />in some detail later. <br /> <br />ISSUES AND CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH ALTERNATIVE <br /> <br />. Recreation and the Recreation Economy <br />. Reoperation <br />There is considerable concern about how a reoperation plan will affect lake levels, <br />and therefore recreation activity and the recreation economy, at different times of the <br />year, especially at Turquoise, Twin Lakes, and Pueblo. However, recent studies <br />indicate the same numbers of people and the same activities occur regardless of <br />lake levels. As to be expected a major ccncern involves the potential for "dewatering" <br />the river between Otero and Pueblo. Concern about the socioeconomic impact of <br />lower flows is usually associated with the significant rafting, kayaking and floating <br />economy on the upper river. However, trout fishing is an increasingly significant <br />activity and, recently, float fishing is becoming increasingly significant on the upper <br />river. The important period for flows for fish growth is the last week of July through <br />Labor Day (see recent Water Needs Assessment Summary Report). There seems to <br />be some agreement that recreation would be enhanced at Pueblo Reservoir since <br />the lake is expected to stay at higher level during drought years. <br />. Pueblo Reservoir Enlargement <br />There is some concern about the razing and temporary loss of recreational facilities <br />at Pueblo Reservoir although it is understood that the cost of replacement is built into <br /> <br />Page 2 of 10 <br />