Laserfiche WebLink
<br />: \ . <br /> <br />, Ultimately, the "truth" regarding the "acceptability" of flows betWeen 500 and 800 cfs for <br />whitewater boating probably lies somewhere between the two data sources. While some <br />users would consider these flows acceptable, others would consider them unacceptable, <br />particularly relative to the opportunities provided for at higher flows. This conclusion is <br />supported by the results displayed in Table 5.1 which indicate a relatively even distribution <br />of preference between 500 and 800 cfs. <br /> <br />Figures 5.10 and 5.11 display results from the 1995 Mail Survey for different craft types and <br />skill levels. Figure 5.1 0 also displays results from float fishermen. Differences' between <br />kayaks and rafts are small with kayaks showing a slightly greater tolerance for lower flows <br />between 600 and 900 cfs. Float finishing preferences are similar to other boating activities, <br />but peak at flows betWeen 1,000 and 1,200 cfs. Unlike kayaking and rafting, float fishing <br />experiences decline as flows increase above 1,200 cfs. Figure 5.11 shows little differences <br />between different boating skill levels. However, beginning boaters appear to be more <br />, accepting of lower flows. Beginning boaters also apparently reach optimum flow conditions <br />sooner than other boaters (1,000 cfs as opposed to 1,500 cfs). <br /> <br />Results from the 1991 VPI survey comparing commercial and private boater needs are <br />displayed in Figures 5.12 and 5.13. These results suggest that there are no'significant <br />differences between these two user groups. However, as mentioned above, these data were <br />derived from an on-site survey which may be somewhat biased towards satified users. As a <br />general rule) private boaters tend to be somewhat more discriminating than commercial <br />boaters. <br /> <br />5.3. ReservoirRecreation <br /> <br />Survey, results indicate that while users clearly 'prefer higher lake levels, water surface <br />elevations play only a minor role in determining the overall quality of their recreation <br />experience. This was particularly true for Turquoise and Twin Lakes where the vast <br />majority of users (>75%) indicated that lake levels did not affect quality of their experience <br />and users consistently rated their overall experience as good to excellent, regardless of the <br />lake level. Recreation users at Pueblo Reservoir appear to be more strongly affected by lake <br />levels. At the lowest lake level surveyed (4839 - 60' drawdown) as many as 70 percent of <br />the users surveyed indicated that their experience was affected by water level. At a higher <br />water level (4865 - 34' drawdown), this percentage was reduced to slightly more than 10 <br />percent, with almost 90 percent of the users indicating that they were not. affected by wate~ <br />levels. <br /> <br />In all cases, at all "three reservoirs~ the vast majority of users surveyed (>87%) indicated that, <br />regardless of water levels, they would chose to return under identical conditions. This <br />suggests that while water levels have an influence on the recreation experience, water levels <br />themselves (at least not across the range surveyed for this study) do not generally influence <br />peoples behavior patterns. Users are most likely accustomed to fluctuating water levels, <br />particularly at Pueblo Reservoir, and have come to expect and accept low water levels. All <br />this is not to say that user experiences could not be' enhanced by consistently higher reservoir <br />water levels, but that changes in water levels (either increases or decreases) would not likely <br /> <br />Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment <br />Recreation Report ., Draft <br /> <br />Page 15 <br />September 20, 1996 <br />