|
FEASIBrL= OF DEVELOPING AND MAINTAINING A SPORT FISHERY IN THE SALT RIVER PROJECT CANALS
<br />Bur. of Reclam. 1990). Currently, public fishing
<br />is allowed in the CVP canals but is not actively
<br />promoted. Most fishing occurs at major road
<br />crossings and established fishing access sites, while
<br />some sections of the CVP are fenced and posted
<br />"No Trespassing" (R. Edwards, U.S. Bur. of
<br />Reclam., pers. commun.).
<br />The California Aqueduct, part of the CSWP,
<br />had 552 km of open canals for public fishing and
<br />18 designated fishing access sites (Calif. Dep. of
<br />Fish and Game 1984). Construction costs for
<br />fishing access sites were approximately $25,000
<br />each and included parking areas, sanitary facilities,
<br />trash containers, and fishing platforms (Calif. Dep.
<br />of Fish and Game 1984). In 1982, the California
<br />Department of Water Resources (CDWR)
<br />estimated that 99,000 anglers fished the California
<br />Aqueduct; 28,000 fished at designated access sites
<br />and 71,000 fished along other sections of the
<br />aqueduct (Calif. Dep. of Fish and Game 1984).
<br />For 1991 and 1992, the CDWR estimated that
<br />61,000 and 53,000 anglers, respectively, fished
<br />along the aqueduct (Calif. Dep. of Water
<br />Resources 1992, 1994). It is unclear why the
<br />number of anglers fishing along the California
<br />Aqueduct declined between 1991 and 1992.
<br />Other canal systems in California (e.g., All-
<br />American Canal, Coachella Canal, and Los
<br />Angeles Aqueduct) have potential fisheries, but are
<br />currently posted "No Trespassing" due to liability
<br />concerns. However, from November 1, 1985 to
<br />October 30, 1989, the Imperial Irrigation District
<br />estimated that 75,427 anglers fished a 38.6-km
<br />section of the All-American Canal and its 3
<br />supply canals (Stocker et al. 1990). Numerous
<br />studies on the Coachella Canal have revealed a
<br />large, diverse fishery and considerable aquatic
<br />resources (Minckley 1980, Marsh 1981, McCarthy
<br />and Marsh 1982, Marsh and Stinemetz 1983,
<br />Minckley et al. 1983, Mueller et al. 1989, Mueller
<br />and Liston 1991). The U.S. Bureau of
<br />Reclamation (BOR) reported that all canals within
<br />the lower Colorado Region supported some
<br />degree of public angling, whether access was legal
<br />or not (U.S. Bur. of Reclam. 1990).
<br />In 1989, the BOR and Arizona Game and
<br />Fish Department (AGFD) proposed a pilot project
<br />to examine the feasibility of establishing and
<br />maintaining a public fishing access facility on the
<br />Central Arizona Project (CAP; Mueller and Riley
<br />1989). Investigations of the CAP (Mueller 1990,
<br />Mueller and Liston 1991) have documented the
<br />biological resources of this canal, but currently,
<br />no legal or authorized fishing is allowed within
<br />the CAP (L. Riley, Ariz. Game and Fish Dep.,
<br />pers. commun.).
<br />Although some canals described above are
<br />closed to fishing at this time due to safety and
<br />liability issues, canals can and do provide
<br />substantial recreational fishing opportunities. Due
<br />to an increased demand for urban fishing,
<br />numerous proposals have been made to utilize the
<br />Phoenix metropolitan Salt River Project (SRP)
<br />canals as an urban fishery (Fig. 1). This demand is
<br />illustrated by growth in urban fishing license sales
<br />from 2,500 sold in 1983 to 25,679 sold in 1994 (E.
<br />Swanson, Ariz. Game and Fish Dep., pers.
<br />commun.). Another indicator of the popularity
<br />of the Urban Fishing Program is based on the
<br />increased number of angler-days spent fishing.
<br />From 1987 to 1988, an estimated 250,000 angler-
<br />days were spent at the 8 urban lakes in the
<br />Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona, metropolitan areas
<br />(Watt and Persons 1990). By 1994, the number of
<br />angler-days increased to approximately 400,000,
<br />with most of this growth attributed to the
<br />addition of 4 new urban lakes to the Urban
<br />Fishing Program (E. Swanson, Ariz. Game and
<br />Fish Dep., pers. commun.).
<br />The SRP canals could provide additional
<br />urban fishing opportunities, but more information
<br />was needed on the biology of this system.
<br />Limited studies have been conducted on fish
<br />species diversity and distribution in the canal
<br />system (Marsh and Minckley 1982). Primary
<br />productivity in the Arizona Canal and benthic
<br />fauna in a lateral canal were also studied (Marsh
<br />1983, Marsh and Fisher 1987). These studies
<br />demonstrated that the SRP canals are an
<br />important aquatic resource, but little information
<br />exists from a sport fishery perspective.
<br />Presently, the poor quality of the sport
<br />fishery and the public's lack of knowledge of the
<br />available angling opportunities limit the number
<br />of angler-days spent on the SRP canals.
<br />Maintenance operations by SRP also affect the
<br />quality of the fishery because many canal reaches
<br />are dewatered annually to remove vegetation,
<br />sediment, debris, and alum sludge, as well as for
<br />other maintenance purposes. Regardless, the SRP
<br />canal system, with 217 km of major canals,
<br />attracts substantial recreational interest from a
<br />population of over 2 million people within the
<br />Phoenix metropolitan area.
<br />In 1964, an agreement between SRP and the
<br />BOR allowed public access for recreational
<br />ARIZONA GAME & FISHDEPARTMENT, TECH. REP. 18 B. R. WRIGHTANDJ A. SORENSEN 1995
|