WSP01441 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RECREATION Recreation needs for the Missouri Basin were de. termined by application of Outdoor Recreation Re- sources Review Commission methodology to the popula- tion projections resulting from the economic study, with some deviation. The recreation study reported in the appendix, "Present and Future Needs," included an inventory of public recreation facilities, current use in terms of "recreation days," participation by activity, and delineation of use by basin residents and non- residents. Both the demand, defined as the anticipated impact on recreation resources, and the need, defined as the additional requirements for land, water, facilities, or management necessary to meet the demand, are reported for the basin and subbasins. The needs for outdoor recreation functions are presented for the most part in terms of acres of land or water, although some satisfaction of the demand can be realized through altered management practices or addi- tional facilities on existing land dedicated to recreation use. As with the fish and wildlife function, many of the recreation needs can be met by multiple use of lands serving other primary purposes. The study illustrates that the most critical present and near-future needs are associated with urban, sub- urban, and outlying metropolitan influence areas. Addi- tional lands and water developed for intensive recreational use will be required to meet needs as- sociated with the population centers. Thus, the foregoing discussion of the demand projections for the fish and wildlife function, especially pricing considerations, are generally applicable to the related general recreation function and further discussion on projected recreation demands is not repeated here. In general, water area deficits within the basin result from a wide geographic imbalance between supply and demand. Again, the deficits, in many instances, are associated with densely populated areas. Small water impoundments, 300 acres or less, are considered desir- able to meet both fish and wildlife and recreation needs of urban people. Table 22 summarizes projected recreation needs and requirements. In many instances, water surfaces and lands can be used for both general recreation and fish and wildlife purposes and this multi-use potential was recognized during plan formulation. Moreover, extensive indicated "need" for undeveloped land reflects a require- ment for a desirable quality recreation environment. During detailed planning, many factors will have to be recognized in establishing the need for the extensive land program of "undeveloped" lands for a high quality Table - 22 PROJECTED RECREATION NEEDS, MISSOURI BASIN Recreation Days Water Developed Land Undeveloped Land Subbasin ~o 2000 2020 1980 2000 2020 1980 2000 2020 1980 2000 2020 (Million) (Cumulative Above Current - Thousand Acres) Upper Missouri I 8 18 29 6 11 30 I 17 38 59 253 445 657 Yellowstone I 6 15 28 3 14 30 13 32 57 129 393 723 Western Dakota 3 8 14 4 12 41 13 48 71 116 428 605 Eastern Dakota I 7 16 27 19 37 66 I 14 32 55 220 377 584 Platte-Niobrara I 26 64 121 21 221 530 : 40 97 182 I 113 418 805 Middle Missouri , 13 26 43 96 220 355 14 30 50 159 250 359 ! I Kansas 8 18 31 18 61 114 I 12 26 44 138 230 344 Lower Missouri 19 41 72 60 144 370 29 65 83 64 266 356 - - - - Missouri Basin 90 206 365 227 720 1,536 152 368 601 1,192 2,807 4,433 -. - recreation environment. These factors include economic values, both tangible and intangible, and the institutional and legal arrangements required to carry out such a vast land program. WATER QUALITY CONTROL Water demands for quality control were determined from an inventory of projected municipal and industrial pollution sources; computation of the quantity of water in the receiving stream required to assimilate treated waste discharge; and comparison of theoretical indices of residual pollution with selected water quality criteria. Water quality criteria used in the methodology were 60 agreed to by study participants prior to the adoption of water quality standards by the States and their accept- ance by the Secretary of the Interior. Only selected water quality parameters were considered in this study. Others may be controlling for specific uses. Table 23 contains the general range of values adopted by the ten basin States and those values used in the framework study. A comparison of the criteria values indicates that the water quality criteria used in the framework study were equal to or compatible with the more recently established State standards. The study assumes, in estimating required stream- flows to meet water quality criteria, that all wastes will receive the equivalent of secondary treatment with