My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP12729
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
WSP12729
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:17:54 PM
Creation date
10/11/2007 12:21:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8155.915.B.2
Description
Chaffee County RICD- Water Court Filing, Discovery - Expert Reports
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
9/20/1996
Author
EDAW
Title
Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment Recreation Report (Draft)
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />) r -; <br /> <br />5. RESULTS <br /> <br />Results from the Water Needs' Assessment indicate that recreationists have fairly well <br />defined preferences for specific river flows and reservoir water levels. However, the needs' <br />for particular activities are considerably different. Whitewater boating opportunities require <br />higher river flow levels, with preferences for flows greater than 700 cfs. In ,contrast, ri,ver <br />anglers prefer lower flows on the order of 400-600 cfs. Figure 5.1 displays flow preference <br />curves derived from the 1995 Mail survey for boating, angling, and float fishing activities on <br />the Arkansas River. These curves represent average responses for all types of boating and <br />angling on the river and show how the quality of the recreation experience changes with <br />changing river flow. <br /> <br />Results regarding acceptable flows for river fishing, boating, and float fishing are further <br />displayed in Table 5.1. These data, derived from the 1995 survey, represent the percentage <br />of respondents that consider certian flows to be the low end of the acceptable range. <br /> <br />Table 5.1 . User Opinions Regarding the low end of the Acceptable Flows <br /> <br /> <br /> 3% <br /> 9% <br />500 3% <br />600 2% <br />700 1% <br />800' 3% <br />900 2% 0% <br />1000 0% 11% <br /> <br /> <br />The data displayed in Table 5.1 indicates that angler needs are fairly well defined with <br />almost 80,percent of the respondents choosing 200 or 300 cfs as the low end of acceptablity. <br />Boater needs are somewhat less well defined with choices for the low end of acceptablity <br />spread between from 400-1000 cfs. <br /> <br />Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment <br />Recreation Report - Draft <br /> <br />Page J 1 <br />September 20, 1996 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.