WSP12729 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\ I Figure 5.3 displays results from the 1995 mail survey which included 150 anglers. As with the creel census data, it shows relatively high overall angler acceptance of flows between 300 cfs and 500 cfs and relatively low acceptance of flows greater than 90Q cfs. Data from the 1994 Focus Group Meeting, which involved 10 experienced anglers, yielded very similar results to those shown in Figure 5.3. A closer look at the data, particularly the 1994 Mail Survey data, indicates that the relatively high acceptance of higher flows seen in Figures 5.1, 52, and 5.3 can in part be explained by different types of angling, different locations (river sections), and differences in skill level. Responses from spin cast anglers, for example, indicate, that these users have a much broader range of flow tolerance than other anglers, as shown in figure 5.4. Spin anglers appear to prefer flows between 700 cfs and 1,300 cfs. By contrast, data from fly anglers (as shown in Figure 5.5.), suggest a pattern more similar to the overall angler pattern described above with a strong preference for lower flows. Expert level anglers also display a much broader tolerance range with a relatively high acceptance of high flows. Intermediate anglers, by contrast, clearly prefer flows around 400 or 500 cfs and display a much lower tolerance for higher flows. This contrast can be seen in Figure 5.6. Data from the 1995, Mail Survey indicates that flow preferences are also influenced somewhat by location. However, as shown in figure 5.7, these differences are relatively small. Optimal conditions (highest point on the graph) occur in all river Secti<;>ns between 400 and 600 cfs. However, certain sections appear to be considered better than other sections as flows increase. For example, Section 3 (Salida to Vallie Bridge) which is a popular fishing section, received the highest average score at low flows, but quickly fell to the bottom of the list once flows increased above 700 cfs. This result is somewhat surprising given. the relatively low gradient of the river in this section, but could be explained by the predominance of shallow water habitat and the influence of higher flows on wadability. Section 4 (Vallie Bridge to Parkdale) on the other hand, received higher ratings than most other sections at flows above 900 cfs and generally appears less sensitive to changes in flow. Data from the 1992 DOW creel census suggest that angler water needs may also differ by season. The creel ce~sus was conducted in the Spring (April and May) and the Fall (September). Flows below 500 cfs occurred and were sampled in both cases. However, angler reactions to' these lower flows were somewhat different in the Spring than they were in the Fall. During the Spring, almost 90 percent of the anglers contacted at flows below 500 cfs indicated that the flows were "good" and very few (5%) indicated that they were "too low". By contrast, the percentage of anglers that indicted flows below 500 cfs were "good" during the Fall survey was smaller (approximately 70 percent) while the percentage that indicated flows below 500 cfs were "too low" was much larger (approximately 30 percent). These results suggest that either there is a very different user group fishing the river during these two seaso:Q.s or there are some other environmental conditions, such as water quality, that influenced user responses in the Fall. Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment Recreation Report - Draft Page 13 , September 20,1996