Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5.2. Whitewater Boating <br /> <br />Data regarding boating opportunities and experiences relative to river flows were obtained <br />from three sources, the 1991 VPI survey, the 1994 Focus Group Meeting, and the 1995 Mail <br />survey. The 1991 study entailed contacting users on-site and sampled primarily commercial <br />boaters, particularly commercial rafting customers. The Focus Group Meeting and 1995 <br />Mail SurVey focused primarily on experienced users and were weighted more towards <br />private users. However, a variety of both private and commercial boaters were sampled in <br />all three studies, as well as a variety of locations, craft types and skill levels. <br /> <br />In contrast to anglers on the river, data indicate that boaters prefer higher flpws, in excess of <br />1,000 cfs, and that flows below 500 cfs are generally considered unacceptable. However, <br />just as anglers can be found using the river at high flows, boaters can be found using the <br />river at relatively low flows (less than 500 cfs). <br /> <br />The 1995 Mail survey results for whitewater boating are summarized in Figure 5.8. As <br />described above, these results show a strong preference for higher flows with optimum <br />conditions occurring around 1,400 cfs. The steep slope between 500 and 900 cfs on the <br />graph implies that boating opportunities are higWy sensitive to ,flow changes in this range <br />(i.e. small flow changes have large effects on the experience). The relatively flat nature of <br />the curves above 1,000 cfs indicate that flow changes in this range have a much smaller <br />impact on boating opportunities. <br /> <br />Results from the 1991 VPI study, as shown in Figure 5.9; suggest a somewhat different <br />picture of water needs for whitewater boating, particularly with respect to flows between 500 <br />and 800 cfs. While the 1994/95 data indicates that flows between 500 and 800 cfs are <br />considered "Somewhat Unacceptable", the 1991 data suggests that these flows are <br />considered "Good". <br /> <br />Differences between the 1994/95 study results and 1991 study results can in part be <br />explained by the different boating users sampled. and the specific methodology used. The <br />1991 VPI study consisted of an on-site user survey that asked users to respond to specific, <br />, recently experienced flow conditions. While this type of information is good in that it does <br />not require users to recall different flows and evaluate conditions in a somewhat theoretical <br />context, on-site surveys can be somewhat misleading because there is an inherent' bias <br />towards the sampling of satisfied users. This is to say that on-site surveys will typically <br />capture users that consider conditions acceptable. Users ,that may be purposefully avoiding <br />the river at low flows would not be captured in a survey during low flow conditions. <br /> <br />In addition to the differences in methodology, the 1995 data represents primarily <br />experienced users, most of whom are private boaters. The 1991 study data represents <br />primarily commercial rafting customers, most of whom do not likely have much previous <br />experience on the Arkansas River and most of whom probably have not experienced the <br />river at any other flows. <br /> <br />Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment <br />Recreation Report - Draft <br /> <br />Page 14 <br />September 20. 1996 <br />