Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. , <br /> <br />, ' <br /> <br />6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> <br />Recreation opportunities exist on the Arkansas River at virtually almost any flow. However~ <br />certain flows are better for certain activities and experiences. Data clearly indicate that <br />different recreation activities have, different need1?/desires for water. In some cases~ these <br />needs are in direct conflict. This is particularly true between fly angling and whitewater <br />boating. <br /> <br />The highest quality angling experiences occur at low flows (< 500 cfs), while the highest <br />quality whitewater boating experiences occur at high flows (> 1,000 cfs). At flows between. <br />500 and 1,000 cfs~ conditions are okay for both anglers and boaters, but not great for either. <br />As flows increase from 500 to 1,000 cfs, conditions for whitewater boating improve and <br />conditions for angling decline. As flows decrease from 1,000 cfs to 500 cfs, the opposite is <br />true - conditions for whitewater boating decline as conditions fot angling improve. At 600 <br />or 700 cfs, conditions are roughly equal (i.e. marginally acceptable) for both groups of users. <br />While such flows are acceptable, they do not represent a preferred condition for either group. <br /> <br />Unfortunately, because of the inherent differences between angling and boating needs, when <br />conditions are highly acceptable for one group of users, they are highly unacceptable for <br />another. Given this situation, management options regarding flow manipulation become <br />primarily a function of timing and what users are ultimately willing to live with in terms of <br />trade-offs. Other factors such as biological considerations (particularly, as they relate to <br />potential impacts to the river's fishery - which in turn supports recreation) are also <br />important, but are not discussed in this report. <br /> <br />Management, Options <br /> <br />Conceptually, there are two potential approaches to managing flows for recreation. One <br />approach is to recognize the inherent differences between anglers and boaters and to focus <br />on maximizing opportunities for each at different 'times of the year, or potentially different <br />times of the day. This approach would involve ensuring flows in excess of 1~000 cfs for <br />certain time periods and flows less than 500 cfs for other time periods. The specific times <br />and durations for such events would depend on water availability and user preferences. <br /> <br />A second approach would be to provide flow conditions that roughly satisfy both user <br />groups at the same time. This approach is similar to the current water augmentation <br />program in which a minimum flow of 700 cfs is maintained in the river during the swnmer <br />rafting season to the extent feasible. This approach represents a compromise position where <br />users agree to accept marginal conditions the majority of the time rather than optimal <br />conditions a minority of the time. The distinct disadvantage to this approach is that one <br />sacrifices high quality experiences for marginal experiences. The advantage is that <br />acceptable conditions, while not ideal, occur more frequently. <br /> <br />Trade-offs between quality and opportunity exist not only between user groups, but within <br />user groups. For example, while rafters may prefer flows greater than 1,000 cfs, they may <br />place a higher priority on maintaining a longer season and therefore be willing to accept 700 <br />cfs as a way of preserving water for later use. The concept of accepting lower flows so as to <br /> <br /> <br />Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment <br />Recreation Report - Draft <br /> <br />Page 19 <br />September 20, 1996 <br />