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 />cause a change in overall recreation use. <br /> <br />Turquoise Reservoir and Twin Lakes <br /> <br />Turquoise Reservoir and Twin Lakes are similar in both their setting characteristics and the <br />recreation activities that they support. Both reservoirs are situated at the upper end of the <br />study area and both provide a relatively high, elevation mountain experience. Both <br />reservoirs are located entirely within the San Isabel National Forest and support developed <br />day use and overnight facilities managed by theD.S. Forest Service. Most of the recreation <br />use at the reservoirs is oriented towards camping, boating, fishing, and sightseeing. <br />Approximately 60 percent of the users surveyed at Turquoise and Twin Lakes were <br />camping, 70 percent were fishing, and 20 percent were boating. Almost all of the boating <br />activity was oriented towards fishing. <br /> <br />The vast majority of users at Turquoise Reservoir came from the Front Range area of <br />Colorado (70%). Approximately 8 percent of the users were from out-of-state. About a <br />third of the users were first-time visitors while approximately 25 percent were frequent <br />repeat users (had visited more than 10 times). Users at Twin Lakes were similar except that <br />only 58 percent of the users came from the Front Range. Almost 20 percent of the users <br />came from Southeastern Colorado (as opposed to 9 percent at TUrquoise), and 16 percent of <br />the users were from out-of-state. As with Turquoise, about a third of the users were first <br />time visitors and a quarter were frequent visitors. <br /> <br />With, regard to the affect of water level on recreation, survey results indicate that users prefer <br />higher water levels, but that they are willing to accept drawdowns. Overall, the quality of <br />the recreation experience was rated as high at both lakes regardless of water level. The type <br />and distribution of activities at the two reservoirs did not change with changing water levels. <br /> <br />Typically, reservoir water levels influence the overall appearance or aesthetics of the <br />landscape. However, survey results for Turquoise and Twin Lakes suggest that while the <br />appearance of the lakes is important, water levels (at least those sampled) do not playa <br />strong role. Users at both TUrquoise and Twin Lakes indicated that their recreation <br />experience was either some~hat or strongly affected by the appearance of the lakes. <br />However, when asked if water levels themselves affected the, quality of their, experience <br />most users said no (75% at Turquoise and 81 % at Twin). ' <br /> <br />Fjgures 5.14 and 5.15 show responses regarding the scenic beauty of the lakes verses water <br />level. These graphs indicate that the percentage of users that consider the scenic beauty of <br />the lake to be excellent increased as water levels increased. However, the percentage of <br />excellent responses is high (>60%) even at low water levels and little difference is observed <br />once the water reaches a certain level. <br /> <br />When asked if they would prefer water levels that were higher, lower, or the same; users <br />generally indicated a preference for higher levels when the lakes were at their lowest and the <br />same levels when the lake,S were at their highest. These results are displ~yed in Figures 5.16 <br />and 5.17 which show the percentage of respondents choosing either the same or higher/much <br /> <br />Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment <br />Recreation Report - Draft <br /> <br />Page 16 <br />September 20, 1996 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.