Hattie Johnson Southern Rockies Stewardship Director 970.456.8533 hattie@americanwhitewater.org Request to Pitkin County Healthy Rivers and Streams Board for grant support to Identify Stream Flows that Support Recreational Use on the Roaring Fork and Crystal Rivers Image Credit: Chris Menges March 31, 2020 Hattie Johnson Southern Rockies Stewardship Director 970.456.8533 hattie@americanwhitewater.org Identifying Stream Flow to Support Recreation on the Crystal and Roaring Fork A. Project Motivation and Background – Goals of Healthy Rivers Board American Whitewater (AW) seeks to identify and fill data gaps in recreational needs assessments and provide a tool for planning processes in the Roaring Fork and Crystal River watersheds that can illustrate how changes in water management, new storage or diversion projects, and climate change will impact recreational resources. American Whitewater is proposing to implement our Boatable Days assessment methodology which has been recognized as a best practice for defining recreation flow needs and opportunities. 1 This needs assessment approach is identified in the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s (CWCB) Non-Consumptive Toolbox. Appendices C and D of the toolbox identify the flow-evaluation methodology developed and used by American Whitewater as an example of a recreation tool that can produce measurable outcomes. Our purposes for preparing a flow preference and boatable days is to protect existing river conditions and provide rationale for enhancing river flows to meet recreational demands. American Whitewater proposes the following tasks to complete this study. (Please see budget breakdown by task at the end of this document): • • • • • Task 1: Coordinate with the Pitkin County Healthy Rivers Board and other local stakeholders to review river reaches to identified in the Basin Non-Consumptive Needs assessment as priorities for assessing whitewater boating needs and opportunities. Task 2: Determine optimal and acceptable flow range criteria on prioritized river reaches using American Whitewater’s Flow Survey approach. Please also see Task 1 and 2 in Lotic Hydrological’s attached Boatable Days Proposal. American Whitewater has worked with the Lotic team on similar studies in the Rio Grande, St. Vrain, and Eagle River watersheds and is proposing to contract with them again to complete the flow preference and boatable days analysis for the Roaring Fork and Crystal Rivers. Task 3: Conduct a Boatable Days Analysis on priority river reaches to determine existing boating opportunities under four hydrologic year-types. Please see Tasks 3 and 4 in Lotic’s attached proposal. A report combining flow preference and boatable days findings for each respective river would be delivered at the culmination of this task. Task 4: Coordinate with the Pitkin County Healthy Rivers Board and other stakeholders to model impacts (+/-) to recreational opportunities (boatable days) attributable to future water supply projects, hydrological changes, and climate scenarios being contemplated in the basin. Task 5: Identify and pursue opportunities to report and distribute the results of the study with the Healthy Rivers Board, local stakeholders, and the general public. Stafford, E., Fey, N., and Vaske, J. J. (2016) Quantifying Whitewater Recreation Opportunities in Cataract Canyon of the Colorado River, Utah: Aggregating Acceptable Flows and Hydrologic Data to Identify Boatable Days. River Res. Applic., doi: 10.1002/rra.3049. 1 Hattie Johnson Southern Rockies Stewardship Director 970.456.8533 hattie@americanwhitewater.org There are two attachments submitted along with this request. The Boatable Days Proposal from Lotic provides further detail on how the flow preference and boatable days study will be conducted. Also included is a recently completely recreational needs assessment study from Lotic and AW for the Upper Rio Grande Basin Stream Management Plan. This study provides an example of what the finished product would look like for both the Roaring Fork and the Crystal. B. Viability of the Project Outdoor recreation – and especially river recreation – is central to the lives of residents and visitors of the Roaring Fork and Crystal valleys. On-going planning on the Upper Roaring Fork and a complete Stream Management Plan on the Crystal River are lacking baseline recreation needs assessments. AW has completed similar studies on the Colorado, Yampa, San Miguel, Rio Grande, St. Vrain, Dolores and Gunnison Basins. AW is proposing to extend our research efforts to assist the Roaring Fork Valley in defining a baseline of recreational nonconsumptive flow needs, from which the BRT can model the effects of Projects and processes affecting the basin. Water quantity continues to be at risk within the watershed, either from proposed storage and diversion or climate change. This study will allow for the Healthy River Board to quantifiably express how such changes would affect recreational opportunities. C. Public Need, Accessibility and Appreciation To characterize the timing, location, frequency, type, and acceptability of river recreation, we propose to develop a river use survey through an online platform. Surveys will include a series of questions that gather river user information and experience details. American Whitewater has extensive knowledge constructing and deploying river use surveys for other reaches across the state. Engaging river users as a part of this data collection allows for engagement of the public and the results show their collective responses to the recreational resource. The survey asks four types of questions. The first type of question captures demographic information about each participant’s skill level, frequency of participation in river related recreation, craft type, etc. The second type of question allowed users to assign use-acceptability rankings to various streamflows. The third question type asked users to identify flows associated with different trip types (technical low-water, standard, challenging high-flow, etc.). The fourth type of question focused on participant perspectives on water management planning activities. Researchers collecting and organizing survey-based evaluative information often employ a normative approach for analyzing results. The normative approach considers each individual’s evaluation (personal norms) of a range of potential conditions. Aggregation of many individuals’ personal norms describe a group’s collective evaluation (social norms) of resource condition. This approach will be applied to this analysis and used to determine the ranges of flows that present acceptable recreational opportunities. These ranges will provide flow ranges defined as “lower acceptable”, “optimal”, and “upper acceptable”. Hattie Johnson Southern Rockies Stewardship Director 970.456.8533 hattie@americanwhitewater.org The format of the survey is written to be open to all types of river users from kayakers, rafters, anglers, and others. In addition to sharing the survey with our followers, we will partner with local commercial rafting and fishing outfitters, angling groups, as well as with the Healthy River Board. While the final results will be displayed across all craft types, we have the opportunity to assess the data with more detail on a reach by reach basin if necessary. The final report including flow preference and boatable days will be shared with the Roaring Fork Conservancy and City of Aspen. We will have developed is a working tool that can analyze proposed impacts to water quantity in the Crystal and Roaring Fork going forward. The report will contain baseline data that will be an invaluable tool to determine recreation impacts, which currently could only be described anecdotally. The tool allows for long-term assessment of changes to water supply on the river. AW is currently developing a method for incorporating an economic impact analysis in conjunction that would take this approach a step further and allow communities to comprehend the actual impacts to the recreational economy. The result of which would provide a quantitative foundation for continued advocacy for the protection of instream flows in an easily communicable package for dissemination to the public. As this methodology progresses we can explore opportunities to incorporate it into the Roaring Fork watershed. D. History of the Requesting Party American Whitewater is a national non-profit 501(c)(3) river conservation organization founded in 1954 with approximately 6,000 dues-paying members, 100 local-based affiliate clubs, and 50,000 supporters representing whitewater enthusiasts across the nation. American Whitewater’s mission is to protect and restore America’s whitewater rivers and to enhance opportunities to enjoy them safely. The organization is the primary advocate for the preservation and protection of whitewater rivers throughout the United States and connects the interests of human-powered recreational river users with ecological and science-based data to achieve the goals within its mission. Our vision is that our nation’s remaining wild and free-flowing rivers stay that way, our developed rivers are restored to function and flourish, that the public has access to rivers for recreation, and that river enthusiasts are active and effective river advocates. We have executed boatable days studies across the state of Colorado. Many of these studies have been incorporated into Stream Management Plans, reservoir operations plans, or management directed to protect identified outstandingly remarkable values. A large part of our success with these studies is the engagement with river users. Many of our members are dedicated stewards of their local rivers and are eager to participate in their protection. Hattie Johnson Southern Rockies Stewardship Director 970.456.8533 hattie@americanwhitewater.org Including them in our survey outreach for the flow preference studies is a great way to keep river users up to date on how things are being managed on rivers they love. In addition to implementing this study approach, AW has been the leading recreation voice around the state and region. We are currently actively involved in state level water policy decisions, federal land management planning, and protecting public access to rivers. E. Budget, Measurements, and Accountability AW currently has $2000 of funding from the Walton Family Foundation to develop boatable days studies in Colorado. We have plans to seek matching funds through the Colorado Water Plan grants for environmental and recreation projects. We have been successful in receiving funding for our boatable days analysis on the Rio Grande from those water plan grants. AW would be in close contact with the Board throughout the project development and survey implementation. As data is collected and analyzed we would provide regular updates on progress and work with the board to hold public engagement meetings to discuss preliminary and then final flow preference results. The final studies and access to the boatable days tool would be provided to the Healthy Rivers Board. AW will provide quarterly progress reports to the River Board including expenses to date. The main goals of this effort are to provide recreational data that can be utilized to advocate for the protection of flows in the Roaring Fork and Crystal Rivers. The objectives to be evaluated for project success are the following: 1. Robust survey engagement – we aim to collect upwards of 150 surveys on each river to be utilized in the flow preference analysis. 2. Successful stakeholder engagement to review flow preference results. 3. A complete flow preference and boatable days report that captures recreational needs. 4. Sustainable stakeholder access to the boatable days tool to assess for future projects, changes in management scenarios, or climatic changes could affect recreation. 5. Buy in from management plan proponents on this needs assessment approach and utilization of the tool in management plan implementation. American Whitewater will provide a final summary at the end of the grant period to report on the success of each of the above defined objectives. Task 1 2 3 4 5 Grantee: Address: Phone No.: Description Coordination with stakeholders Conduct Flow Evaluation Study Conduct Boatable Days Analysis Assessment of IPPs impact on Recreation Opportunities Project outreach and distribution TOTALS AmericanWhitewater P.O. Box 1540, Cullowhee, NC 28723 970-456-8533 AW Salary $1,225 $1,750 $1,400 $2,800 $525 $ 7,700.00 AW Overhead $183.75 $262.50 $210.00 $420.00 $78.75 $ 1,155.00 Lotic $0.00 $4,500.00 $6,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ 10,500.00 Total $1,408.75 $6,512.50 $7,610.00 $3,220.00 $603.75 $ 19,355.00 Crystal and Roaring Fork River Recreational Non-Consumptive Needs Assessment Project Proposal Roaring Fork and Crystal River Boatable Days Assessments SUBMITTED: 3/30/20 Prepared For: Prepared By: Hattie Johnson American Whitewater PO Box 1540, Cullowhee, NC 28723 Lotic Hydrological, LLC P.O. Box 1524 Carbondale, CO 81623 970-903-7561 1. Summary American Whitewater (AW) recently requested that Lotic Hydrological (Lotic) produce a scope of work and cost proposal for completing a pair of Boatable Days analyses on the Roaring Fork River and the Crystal River. Boatable Days information will be generated for reaches on both rivers according to the segment delineations presented on the AW website (Table 1). Table 1. User-defined flow preferences for reaches included in the Boatable Days assessment. River Roaring Fork Roaring Fork Roaring Fork Roaring Fork Roaring Fork Roaring Fork Roaring Fork Roaring Fork Roaring Fork Crystal River Crystal River Crystal River Crystal River Crystal River Crystal River Crystal River Reach Description Weller Lake to Difficult Campground Difficult Campground to Stillwater Lane Stillwater Lane to Cemetery Lane Cemetery Lane to Jaffee Park (Slaughterhouse) Jaffee Park to Lower Woody Creek Bridge Lower Woody Creek Bridge to Basalt Basalt to Carbondale Carbondale to Black Bridge Black Bridge to Veltus Park (Cemetery) Crystal Mill Falls to Crystal Gorge Road to Crystal to Beaver Lake (Crystal Gorge) Marble to Redstone (Bogan Flats and Placita Narrows) Redstone to Penny Hot Springs (Meatgrinder) Penny Hot Springs to Avalanche Creek (the Narrows) Avalanche Creek to B.R.B. Campground B.R.B. Campground to Roaring Fork River 2. Basis of Need Ongoing strategic water planning efforts in the upper Roaring Fork watershed and a completed effort in the Crystal River watershed do not consider impacts of water management and/or climate change on recreational use opportunities on either river. The absence of recreational use consideration in both cases largely resulted from a lack of available data. This effort will fill and important data gap and provide critical recreational use preference data and information for ongoing and future planning efforts in Pitkin, Eagle, Gunnison, and Garfield counties. 3. Approach Lotic will complete the Boatable Days analyses for all study reaches with a reusable code-base developed by Lotic in R statistical computing language (https://www.r-project.org) for recent similar efforts in the Rio Grande and St. Vrain/Lefthand. This code base can be easily extended to process web survey and hydrological information the reaches proposed for inclusion in this project. Our specific approach to flow preference threshold identification and Boatable Days computation will follow the methodologies recently developed jointly by AW and Lotic for the Rio Grande. Project Proposal 2 of 7 Task 1: Distribute User Survey Lotic will develop and distribute a web-based survey to collect recreational user feedback regarding flow preferences. Four types of questions will be included in the survey. The first type of question will capture demographic information about each participant’s skill level, frequency of participation in river-related recreation, etc. The second type of question will ask users to assign use-acceptability rankings to various streamflows. The third question type will ask users to identify flows associated with different trip types (technical low-water, standard, challenging high-flow, etc.). The fourth type of question will focus on participant perspectives on water management planning activities. These questions will be organized around each assessment reach and supported with general mapping and narrative information about that reach from American Whitewater’s website. The survey will also clearly define which streamflow measurement gauge to reference when assigning acceptability rankings for conditions on a given reach. A link to the live survey will be provided to AW for distribution to members, posting on the AW website, distribution via AW’s online newsletter, and distribution via other means that AW finds appropriate. The flow acceptability questions included in the user-survey will be the principal focus of this assessment. Respondents will evaluate recreational use acceptability for a range of measured flows on each study segment using a five-point scale that includes the following rankings: Unacceptable, Moderately Unacceptable, Marginal, Moderately Acceptable, and Acceptable. Each ranking in the scale will be mapped to an integer value between -2 and 2 where an ‘Unacceptable’ ranking is mapped to a value of -2, a ‘Marginal’ ranking is mapped to a value of 0, and an ‘Acceptable’ ranking is mapped to a value of 2. The flow levels provided in the flow acceptability questions will be directly informed by statistical characterization of historical hydrology data from each individual stream gauge in the assessment area. To further explore and characterize the relationship between flows and recreational use opportunities, the survey will pose a series of open-ended questions about streamflows associated with distinct niche experiences. These niche experiences include: lowest navigable flow (minFlow), minimum acceptable flow (lowAcceptable), technical but navigable flows (technicalTrip), flows experienced during a standard trip (standardTrip), challenging high-water (highChallenge), and highest safe flow (highSafe). Task 2. Identify Flow Preference Thresholds Flow-acceptability rankings provided through the survey will be used to describe preferences among recreational users for various ranges of streamflow. Researchers collecting and organizing survey-based evaluative information often employ a normative approach for analyzing results. The normative approach considers each individual’s evaluation (personal norms) of a range of potential conditions. Aggregation of many individuals’ personal norms describe a group’s collective evaluation (social norms) of resource condition. This approach has been applied extensively in natural resource management settings, often with respect to instream flows for recreation (Shelby and Whittaker, 1995; Shelby et al., 1992a; Vandas et al., 1990; Whittaker and Shelby, 2002b) and is particularly useful for developing thresholds that define low, acceptable, and/or optimal resource conditions (Shelby et al. 1992). Other applications have extended this approach to different indicators and impacts, including: evaluation of how many people are considered too many in a given setting (refer to Donnelly et al., 2000; Manning, 2011; Shelby et al., 1996; Vaske & Donnelly, 2002; Vaske et al., 1986, for reviews), campsite impacts or site sharing (Heberlein and Dunwiddie, 1979; Shelby, 1981), fishing site competition (Martinson and Shelby, 1992; Whittaker and Shelby, Project Proposal 3 of 7 1993), discourteous behavior (Whittaker and Shelby, 1988, 1993; Whittaker et al., 2000), and resource indicators such as litter and campsite impacts (Shelby et al., 1988; Vaske et al., 2002). Notably, the normative approach was employed to understand user preferences for various streamflows on the Grand Canyon (Shelby et al. 1992) and on several other rivers in Colorado (Vandas et al. 1990, Shelby & Whittaker 1995, Fey & Stafford 2009, Fey & Stafford 2010). Defining management standards is often more efficient if there is a high degree of consensus (or “norm crystallization”) among users regarding acceptable and unacceptable resource conditions. Traditional measures of norm crystallization have included the standard deviation, coefficient of variation, and interquartile range of survey responses (Krymkowski et al., 2009; Manning, 2011; Shelby and Vaske, 1991). The Potential for Conflict Index-2 (PCI2) was developed to help address some of the shortcomings associated with traditional measures of norm crystallization when applied to ordinal data. A detailed description of the PCI2 metric is provided by Vaske et al. (2010). Briefly, computed PCI2 values range from 0 to 1.0 where the least amount of consensus (PCI2 = 1.0) occurs when responses are equally divided between two extreme values on a Likert response scale (e.g. 50% Highly Unacceptable and 50% Highly Acceptable). A set of responses with unanimous consensus among respondents yields a PCI2 value of zero. The normative approach will be the basis for describing use acceptability ranges for streamflows on different reaches within the assessment area. The percentage of responses falling within each acceptability ranking will be computed for each streamflow on each reach. The numerical representations of flow acceptability preference rankings will then be used to compute PCI2 scores for each flow included in the survey. Computed PCI2 values will be paired with the percentage of respondents that ranked a given flow as ‘Moderately Acceptable’ or ‘Acceptable’ and plotted to create use acceptability curves for each of the study reaches. Use acceptability curves, tabular data summaries, and responses to open-ended questions about niche conditions will be used to delineate various normative streamflow characteristics. These characteristics will include a minimum acceptable streamflow, a range of acceptable streamflow conditions, and a range of optimum streamflow conditions. Task 3. Boatable Days Computation The upper and lower thresholds delineated for acceptable and optimal streamflow conditions will be compared to wet-year, average-year, and dry-year hydrological conditions in order to complete a Boatable Days analysis. The computation of Boatable Days is the dominant quantitative approach used by American Whitewater to characterize recreational use opportunities on rivers (Fey and Stafford, 2009; Shelby and Whittaker, 1995; Whittaker et al., 1993). The metric itself reflects the number of days in a given year that fall within certain defined flow ranges (i.e. lower acceptable flows, optimal flows, upper acceptable flows). The Boatable Days analysis performed on reaches within the assessment area will reflect the inter-annual natural and management-induced variability in streamflows by computing the number of Boatable Days that occur in each of three hydrological year types: wet, average and dry. Streamflow time series data for the three hydrological year types defined here will require synthesis of historical streamflow data. Daily streamflow data collected from stream gauges throughout the assessment area will be subset for the most recent 30-year period of record. Streamflow time series data from each gauge will be ordered by annual peak flow. Average daily streamflows across all years in the lower 25th percentile of the ordered list will be computed to Project Proposal 4 of 7 produce a representative dry year streamflow time series. The same approach will be used to create representative streamflow series for average and wet years where average year types will fall between the 25th and 75th percentiles of annual peak flows and average wet year types will be those years that fall within the upper 75th percentile of the ordered list. Task 4. Synthesize Findings All findings will be synthesized and presented in a pair of technical reports. The reports will discuss the methodologies employed and will include graphical and tabular summaries of survey response data, flow preference threshold delineations, and Boatable Days analysis results for each segment on each river. 4. Expected Results and Deliverables This effort will produce the following deliverables: • Web survey response data sheet delivered as an Excel file or as CSV files. • Final report for the Roaring Fork River. • Final report for the Crystal River. AW staff will have the opportunity to provide two rounds of edits on draft versions of the final report for each river. 5. Budget This project will be completed for a fixed fee of $10,500.00. A breakdown of the expected costs is presented below (Table 2, Table 3). Costs for the Roaring Fork River are modestly higher than the Crystal River due to the extra data processing required for the greater number of stream gauges that require mapping to segment survey questions on the Roaring Fork. Table 2. Budget breakdown for the Roaring Fork River. River Roaring Fork Task Task Description Estimated Cost 1 Distribute User Survey $ 1,500.00 2 3 4 Identify Flow Preference Thresholds Boatable Days Computation Synthesize Findings $ $ $ 1,000.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 $ 5,500.00 Total Table 3. Budget breakdown for the Crystal River. River Task Task Description Estimated Cost Crystal River 1 2 Distribute User Survey Identify Flow Preference Thresholds $ $ 1,000.00 1,000.00 3 4 Boatable Days Computation Synthesize Findings $ $ 1,000.00 2,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Total Project Proposal 5 of 7 6. Timeline This project will begin in May of 2020 with development and distribution of a web-based user survey. The survey will remain open until the end of August 2020. Data analysis will begin in September of 2020 and final deliverables are expected by December 2020. 7. References Bovee, K.D. (editor). (1996) The Complete IFIM: A Coursebook for IF250. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Geological Survey. Brown, T.C., Taylor, J.G., & Shelby, B. (1991). Assessing the direct effects of Stream flow on recreation: A literature review. Water Resources Bulletin, 27(6), 979-989. Colorado Water Conservation Board, 2013. Nonconsumptive Needs Toolbox, Retrieved from: http://cwcbweblink.state.co.us/weblink/0/doc/172701/Electronic.aspx?searchid=b764b2051125-4f18-b3e8-998e5e025e10 Fey, N. & Stafford, E. (2009) Flow-Recreation Evaluations for the Upper Colorado River basin. Report prepared for Upper Colorado River Wild and Scenic Stakeholders Group & U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Greiner, J. and Warner. (2012) Commercial River Use in the State of Colorado 2008- 2011. Colorado River Outfitters Association. Hill, M.T., Platts, W.S., and Beschta, R.L. (1991) Ecological and geomorphological concepts for instream and out-of-channel flow requirements. Rivers 2(3):198-210 Loomis, J. 2008. The economic contribution of instream flows in Colorado: how angling and rafting use increase with instream flows. January 2008 Economic Development Report, No. 2 (EDR: 08-02). Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics. Jackson, W.L. & Beschta, R.L. (1992) Instream flows for rivers: Maintaining stream form and function as a basis for protecting dependant uses. In M.E. Jones and A. Laenen (editors), Interdisciplinary Approaches in Hydrology and Hydrogeology. St. Paul, MN: American Institute of Hydrology. Kennedy, J.J. & Thomas, J.W. (1995) Managing natural resources as social value. Pages 311-322 in R.L. Knight and S.F. Bates (editors), A New Century for Natural Resources Management. Island Press, Washington D.C. Richter, B.D., Baumgartner, J.V., Wigington, R., and Braun, D.P. (1997) How much water does a river need? Freshwater Biology 37:231-249 Sanderson, J.S., B.P. Bledsoe, N. L. Poff, T. Wilding, and N. Fey (2012). Yampa-White Basin Roundtable Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool (WFET) Study. Prepared by CDM Smith for The Nature Conservancy, June 2012 Project Proposal 6 of 7 Shelby, B., Brown, T. C., & Taylor, J. G. (1992). Streamflow and Recreation. Ft. Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station (General Technical Report RM-209). Shelby, B., Brown, T.C., and Baumgartner, R. (1992) Effects of streamflows on river trips on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Rivers 3(3): 191-201 Shelby, B., Stankey, G., and Schindler, B. (1992) Introduction: the role of standards in wilderness management. Pages 1-4 in B. Shelby, G. Stankey, and B. Shindler (editors). Defining wilderness quality: The role of standards in wilderness management. Portland, OR: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station (General Technical Report PNW-GTR-305). Shelby, B., Vaske, J.J., & Donnely, M.P. (1996). Norms, standards and natural resources. Leisure Sciences, 18, 103-123 Shelby, B., Whittaker, D. & Hansen, W. (1997). Streamflow effects on hiking in Zion National Park, Utah. Rivers, 6(2), 80-93 Southwick Associates, 2012. Economic Contributions of Outdoor Recreation on the Colorado River & Its Tributaries. Retrieved from: http://protectflows.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/05/Colorado-River-Recreational-Economic-Impacts- SouthwickAssociates-5-3-12_2.pdf Stafford, E., Fey, N., and Vaske, J. J. (2016) Quantifying Whitewater Recreation Opportunities in Cataract Canyon of the Colorado River, Utah: Aggregating Acceptable Flows and Hydrologic Data to Identify Boatable Days. River Res. Applic., doi: 10.1002/rra.3049. Vandas, S., Whittaker, D., Murphy, D., Prichard, D., and others. (1990) Dolores River Instream Flow Assessment. Denver, Co: U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM/YA/PR-90-003). Whittaker, D., Shelby, B., Jackson, W., & Beschta, R. (1993). Instream Flows for recreation: A handbook on concepts and research methods. Anchorage, AK: Us National Park Service, Rivers, Trails. Whittaker, D. and B. Shelby. (2002) Evaluating instream flows for recreation: a handbook on concepts and research methods. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Anchorage, AK Project Proposal 7 of 7 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment ASSESSMENT OF STREAMFLOW NEEDS FOR SUPPORTING RECREATIONAL WATER USES ON THE RIO GRANDE AND CONEJOS RIVER. March 2020 Prepared for: Rio Grande, Conejos River, and Saguache Creek Stream Management Plan Rio Grande Headwaters Restoration Project 623 Fourth Street, Alamosa, CO 81101 Prepared by: Seth Mason Lotic Hydrological PO Box 1524, Carbondale, CO 81623 And Evan Stafford and Kestrel Kunz American Whitewater PO Box 1540, Cullowhee, NC 28723 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Summary The recreational use assessment presented in this report provides important baseline information relating streamflows and recreational use. This body of work directly supports the Rio Grande Headwater Restoration Project’s Stream Management Planning efforts. This report discusses study locations, and methods used to collect and analyze streamflow preference information from recreational users. User survey responses provided by 136 respondents were used to delineate acceptable and optimal streamflow thresholds for supporting recreational use activities on 11 segments on the Rio Grande and Conejos River (Table ES.1). Threshold identification supported quantification of the Boatable Days metric for each assessment reach under typical wet, average, and dry hydrological year types. The assessment followed recommendations the State of Colorado’s Basin Implementation Plan guidance documents for quantifying non-consumptive recreational needs. Respondent numbers for the flow preference study conducted in 2019 are robust for a remote or sparsely populated region of southern Colorado. The large number of responses to flow related questions for most reaches made delineation of flow acceptability thresholds fairly straightforward. However, low response rates among survey participants for reaches 6, 8, 9, and 10 may introduce some uncertainty into flow preference threshold delineated for those sections of river. Low response rates may indicate there is little to no use on these sections during most times of the year. Alternatively, it may indicate that the survey distribution did not reach the typical users of these reaches. Future recreational use assessment activities may benefit from targeted outreach to those users known to recreate on these reaches and inquiries into whether or not they have companions or are aware of additional users/groups that recreate at those locations. It may also be useful to ascertain why these reaches may be receiving so little use and whether or not there is opportunity to increase recreational activity through awareness campaigns, development of river access points, or through some other means. Table ES.1. User-defined flow preferences for reaches included in the Boatable Days assessment. Reach 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 River Reach Description Rio Grande Rio Grande Reservoir to Mouth of Box Canyon Rio Grande Box Canyon to Deep Creek/Creede Rio Grande Creede to Wagon Wheel Gap Rio Grande Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork Rio Grande South Fork to Del Norte (Hwy 112) Rio Grande Alamosa to Lasauses Rio Grande Lasauses to Lobatos Bridge Rio Grande Lobatos Bridge to Lee Trail, NM Conejos Platoro Reservoir to South Fork Conejos Conejos S. Fork Conejos to Hwy 17 Bridge Conejos Hwy 17 to Mogote Campground Min. Acceptable 350 Min. Optimal 800 Max. Optimal 1400 Max. Acceptable 2250* 350 400 300 350 200 300 300 150 550 600 600 500 500 600 600 300 1400 2100 1800 2000 1000 2000 2000 600 2000 2750 2800 3000 3000 3500 3250 1200 150 300 300 550 550 2100 800 2700** *The maximum safe release from Rio Grande Reservoir was 1200 cfs throughout the 1998 to 2017 period. ** Flows never reached this max acceptable threshold during the study period, in part due to mandatory flood mitigation measures triggered by a flow of 2300 cfs or greater at the Mogote stream gauge. Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 2 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Variable streamflow conditions were found to impact use opportunities on all reaches. The total number of Boatable Days generally increase throughout the assessment area as hydrological conditions transition from dry to average to wet. On most reaches, typical daily streamflows rarely exceed the upper flow acceptability threshold. On Reaches 3, 4, and 5, however, that upper limit is exceeded in wet year types. Reach 4 and Reach 5 are the only two reaches where wet years are characterized by pronounced decrease in total annual Boatable Days. Additional work may be required to understand how alternative water management or climate change impacts diminish or increase the number of Boatable Days available to recreational users on each reach, and whether those changes occur in times of the year when recreation is most likely to occur. Rio Grande: Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork (Reach 4) A B 111 101 3000 90 Elk Creek Bridge Hazard Streamflow (cfs) Boatable Days 82 67 60 54 48 35 30 2 Dry Year Wagon Wheel Gap Trestle Hazard Average Year Dry Year Wet Year 1000 30 0 Year Type 2000 0 Average Year Wet Year 0 100 Year Type C 200 300 Julian Day Dry Year Average Year Wet Year 30 Boatable Days Flow Preferences 20 Lower Acceptable Optimal Upper Acceptable Winter Months 10 Nov−Mar Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun Apr May Mar Oct Aug Sep Jul Jun May Apr Mar Oct Sep Jul Aug Jun May Apr Mar 0 Figure ES.1. Boatable Days totals for the Rio Grande: Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork. (A) Annual Boatable Days totals summarized by hydrological year type. (B) Flow preference ranges mapped to representative streamflow time series for wet, average, and dry years. (C) Monthly Boatable Days totals summarized by hydrological year type. Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 3 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Table of Contents Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 2 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 6 2. Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 10 3. Methods ............................................................................................................................ 10 4. Results .............................................................................................................................. 13 5. Discussion and Conclusions ............................................................................................ 21 6. References ........................................................................................................................ 23 APPENDIX A: Analysis Results by Reach APPENDIX B: Web Survey List of Tables TABLE 1. RIVER SEGMENTS AND CORRESPONDING STREAMFLOW MEASUREMENT GAUGES CONSIDERED IN THIS STUDY. _______ 10 TABLE 4. FLOW PREFERENCE THRESHOLDS DELINEATED FOR EACH REACH IN THE ASSESSMENT AREA. ALL VALUES ARE REPORTED IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND (CFS). _____________________________________________________________________ 16 TABLE 6. BOATABLE DAYS FALLING WITHIN EACH ACCEPTABILITY CATEGORY CALCULATED FOR REACHES WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT AREA FOR TYPICAL DRY, AVERAGE AND WET HYDROLOGICAL YEAR TYPES. ______________________________ 17 TABLE 7. BOATABLE DAYS ANALYSIS RESULTS BROKEN OUT BY MONTH FOR THE RIO GRANDE: WAGON WHEEL GAP TO SOUTH FORK. WHERE AN ACCEPTABILITY CATEGORY (E.G. ‘OPTIMAL’) IS MISSING FOR A GIVEN MONTH, ZERO DAYS WERE OBSERVED TO FALL WITHIN THAT CATEGORY AND THE ROW WAS LEFT OUT OF THE TABLE FOR BREVITY. ______________ 18 TABLE 5. KNOWN RECREATIONAL USE CONSTRAINTS OR NAVIGATION HAZARDS ON SEGMENTS OF THE RIO GRANDE. _________ 20 Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 4 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment List of Figures FIGURE 1. UPPER RIO GRANDE RECREATIONAL ASSESSMENT AREA. IMAGE PROVIDED BY RIO GRANDE HEADWATERS RESTORATION PROJECT. ................................................................................................................................................................. 7 FIGURE 2. LOWER RIO GRANDE RECREATIONAL ASSESSMENT AREA. IMAGE PROVIDED BY RIO GRANDE HEADWATERS RESTORATION PROJECT. ................................................................................................................................................................. 8 FIGURE 3. CONEJOS RIVER RECREATIONAL ASSESSMENT AREA. IMAGE PROVIDED BY RIO GRANDE HEADWATERS RESTORATION PROJECT. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 6. SURVEY RESPONSES FROM 136 USERS INDICATING (A) EXPERIENCE LEVEL AND MAXIMUM COMFORTABLE WHITEWATER CLASS; (B) PARTICIPANT CONFIDENCE IN PROVIDING FLOW ACCEPTABILITY RANKINGS FOR ONE OR MORE REACHES IN THE ASSESSMENT AREA. ...........................................................................................................................................13 FIGURE 7. SURVEY RESPONSES FOR THE WAGON WHEEL GAP TO SOUTH FORK SECTION OF THE RIO GRANDE. (A) COUNTS OF THE VARIOUS FLOW ACCEPTABILITY RANKINGS PROVIDED BY RESPONDENTS WHERE SURVEY RESPONSES REFLECT STREAMFLOW VARIABILITY AS MEASURED AT THE RIO GRANDE RIVER AT WAGON WHEEL GAP (RIOWAGCO). (B) USER IDENTIFIED CRAFT TYPES AND RECREATIONAL USE OBJECTIVES FOR THE REACH. (C) THE SELF-IDENTIFIED EXPERIENCE AND WHITEWATER SKILL LEVELS PROVIDED BY SURVEY RESPONDENTS. .................................................................................14 FIGURE 8. FLOW PREFERENCES REPORTED BY USERS FOR THE RIO GRANDE: WAGON WHEEL GAP TO SOUTH FORK. DELINEATED FLOW PREFERENCE CATEGORIES MAPPED ONTO BOXPLOT OF RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS ABOUT DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF FLOW (TOP) AND PCI2 ANALYSIS RESULTS (BOTTOM)...................................................................................15 FIGURE 9. BOATABLE DAYS TOTALS FOR THE RIO GRANDE: WAGON WHEEL GAP TO SOUTH FORK. (A) ANNUAL BOATABLE DAYS TOTALS SUMMARIZED BY HYDROLOGICAL YEAR TYPE. (B) FLOW PREFERENCE RANGES MAPPED TO REPRESENTATIVE STREAMFLOW TIME SERIES FOR WET, AVERAGE, AND DRY YEARS. FLOWS ASSOCIATED WITH SPECIFIC NAVIGATIONAL HAZARDS ARE LABELED. (C) MONTHLY BOATABLE DAYS TOTALS SUMMARIZED BY HYDROLOGICAL YEAR TYPE. ...............19 FIGURE 10. DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEY RESPONSES INDICATING REACHES THAT ARE THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR RECREATIONAL PADDLING IMPROVEMENTS. A MEDIAN SCORE EQUAL TO 1 INDICATES A VERY HIGH PRIORITY WHILE A SCORE OF 8 INDICATES A VERY LOW PRIORITY. A WIDER BOX INDICATES A GREATER SPREAD IN THE SURVEY RESPONSES. A NARROW BOX INDICATES A HIGH DEGREE OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN SURVEY RESPONDENTS. ...............................................................22 Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 5 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 1. Introduction Considerable work evaluating relationships between streamflow and recreational use opportunities occurred over the last several decades (Brown et al., 1991; Shelby, Brown, & Taylor, 1992; Whittaker and Shelby, 2002). Many flow-recreation studies focus on whitewater boating, such as rafting, kayaking, and canoeing, as flow often determines whether people have opportunity to successfully complete a trip. On many river segments, flow level contributes to the risk, challenge, and/or aesthetic attributes of on-water activities (Whittaker & Shelby, 2000). Natural and man-made changes in streamflow can have direct and indirect impacts on recreational boating experiences. Direct effects include navigation, safety/difficulty, travel times, quality of whitewater stretches, and beach and camp access (Brown, Taylor, & Shelby, 1991; Whittaker et al., 1993; Whittaker & Shelby, 2002). Indirectly, variability in streamflow affects wildlife viewing, scenery, fish habitat, and riparian vegetation over the long term as a result of changes in flow regime (Bovey, 1996; Richter et al., 1997; Jackson & Beschta, 1992; Hill et al., 1991). Streamflow is often manipulated through releases from dams and reservoirs, pipelines, and diversions. Additional scenarios, such as climate change, drought, and new water rights development can all impact flows and recreation quality. Decision-makers within land and resource management and regulatory agencies, and state and local governments are increasingly interested in the extent that flow regimes can be managed to provide desirable recreational resource conditions. The various recreational use opportunities provided by different flow ranges can be delineated into “niches” (Shelby et al., 1997). These flow niches may include: unacceptably low flow; minimum flow acceptable; technical, but enjoyable flows; optimal flows; challenging high flows; and unacceptably high flows. Methodologies developed by American Whitewater are regularly used to delineate user-defined streamflow niches and subsequently quantify recreational user opportunities under different hydrological conditions. Implementation of these assessment methodologies aims to support water management decision-making. Specific evaluative information on how flow affects recreation quality is often critical, particularly where social values are central to decision-making (Kennedy and Thomas 1995). American Whitewater’s Boatable Days assessment methodology is recognized as a best practice for defining recreation flow needs and opportunities (Stafford et al., 2016). The Rio Grande Basin Roundtable (RGBRT) and the Rio Grande Headwaters Restoration Project (the Restoration Project) are undertaking a river recreation assessment as part of a Stream Management Planning effort. In May of 2018, the Restoration Project officially initiated the Stream Management Plan process for the Rio Grande, Conejos River, and Saguache Creek. American Whitewater was invited to join the Technical Advisory Team (TAT) tasked with guiding the SMP process, identifying and prioritizing ecological, recreational, and community values, development of goals for flows and physical conditions to protect and enhance streams, and establishing methods and associated opportunities and constraints to make progress toward goals. As part of this effort, AW was tasked with completing a Boatable Days assessment. The characterization of Boatable Days provides an objective, science-based measure of existing whitewater recreation opportunities related to variability in streamflow on reaches throughout the assessment area (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3). This information aims to support conversations about how whitewater recreation opportunities might change under future hydrological conditions and water management scenarios. Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 6 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment American Whitewater’s assessment aims to achieve multiple SMP objectives. The assessment helps meet SMP Objective 31 by identifying optimal and acceptable recreational flow preferences on 11 different river segments in the Basin. The Boatable Days Analysis provides the TAT with the necessary quantitative information needed to develop goals to protect and enhance flows for recreation values2 . The Boatable Days model—as developed for the Rio Grande and Conejos River—can be used to identify opportunities and constraints for implementation of future projects3. Figure 1. Upper Rio Grande recreational assessment area. Image provided by Rio Grande Headwaters Restoration Project. 1 Objective 3: Define and prioritize environmental, recreational, and community values. Objective 4: Develop goals to improve flows and physical conditions needed to support values. 3 Objective 6: Identify opportunities and constraints for implementation of projects, and additional data needed to inform project development. 2 Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 7 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Figure 2. Lower Rio Grande recreational assessment area. Image provided by Rio Grande Headwaters Restoration Project. Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 8 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Figure 3. Conejos River recreational assessment area. Image provided by Rio Grande Headwaters Restoration Project. In addition to meeting objectives of the SMP, the results of this assessment advance implementation of the Colorado Water Plan4. The State’s draft Basin Implementation Plan Guidance document recommends quantification of recreational values (e.g., boating and fishing). Section 2.1 of the Guidance5 calls for the evaluation of non-consumptive needs in terms of ‘measurable outcomes’, data, and assessment using methods described in CWCB’s Non-consumptive Toolbox (CWCB, 2013). Appendices C and D of the toolbox identify the flow-evaluation methodology developed and used by American Whitewater as an example of a recreation tool that can produce measurable outcomes. This assessment aims to 1) address gaps in data and understanding regarding flow conditions necessary to sustain recreational values on the Rio Grande and Conejos River and 2) improve stakeholders’ collective understanding of existing recreational use opportunities and how these opportunities may be impacted by climate change and consumptive water projects. 4 5 https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cowaterplan/plan http://cwcbweblink.state.co.us/WebLink/0/doc/172522/Electronic.aspx?searchid=da8f2c6c-3efa-48d6-a43e-892b5c2bd750 Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 9 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 2. Study Area River reaches considered in this assessment were identified collaboratively between American Whitewater, the Rio Grande Basin Roundtable’s SMP Committee, and the SMP project coordinator. Eight segments on the Rio Grande and three segments on the Conejos River were determined to have significant recreational values and were, therefore, included in the assessment (Table 1). Saguache Creek was not identified as a recreational planning priority. Each segment was mapped to an existing streamflow gauging station and/or a hydrological simulation modeling node. Mapping streamflow gauge/node locations to each assessment reach considered: 1) the historical period of record (POR) for streamflow observations, 2) the distance between the gauge/node and river segment, and 3) the gauge/node most commonly used by recreationalists to inform their use of the segment. A single stream gauge or simulation node was used to represent flows for adjoining river segments in two locations on the Rio Grande and one location on the Conejos. Table 1. River segments and corresponding streamflow measurement gauges considered in this study. Reach River Segment Description Corresponding Stream Gauge/Simulation Node 1 Rio Grande Rio Grande Reservoir to Mouth of Box Canyon Rio Grande River at Thirty Mile Bridge Near Creede (RIOMILCO) 2 Rio Grande Box Canyon to Deep Creek/Creede Rio Grande River at Thirty Mile Bridge Near Creede (RIOMILCO) 3 Rio Grande Creede to Wagon Wheel Gap Rio Grande River at Wagon Wheel Gap (RIOWAGCO) 4 Rio Grande Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork Rio Grande River at Wagon Wheel Gap (RIOWAGCO) 5 Rio Grande South Fork to Del Norte (Hwy 112) Rio Grande River Near Del Norte, Co (RIODELCO) 6 Rio Grande Alamosa to Lasauses Rio Grande River at Alamosa (RIOALACO) 7 Rio Grande Lasauses to Lobatos Bridge Rio Grande River Above Trinchera Creek Near Las Sauses (RIOTRICO) 8 Rio Grande Lobatos Bridge to Lee Trail, NM Rio Grande River Near Lobatos (RIOLOBCO) 9 Conejos Platoro Reservoir to South Fork Conejos Conejos River Below Platoro Reservoir (CONPLACO) 10 Conejos S. Fork Conejos to Hwy 17 Bridge Conejos River Below Platoro Reservoir (CONPLACO) 11 Conejos Hwy 17 to Mogote Campground Conejos River Near Mogote (CONMOGCO) 3. Methods American Whitewater collected recreational user feedback through a web-based survey (Appendix C). Four types of questions were included in the survey. The first type of question captured demographic information about each participant’s skill level, frequency of participation in riverrelated recreation, etc. The second type of question allowed users to assign use-acceptability rankings to various streamflows. The third question type asked users to identify flows associated with different trip types (technical low-water, standard, challenging high-flow, etc.). The fourth type of question focused on participant perspectives on water management planning activities. Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 10 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment These questions were organized around each assessment reach and were supported with general mapping and narrative information about that reach from American Whitewater’s website. The Rio Grande Headwaters Restoration Project has the responses from these questions and will utilize them in the larger SMP report. The survey also clearly defined which streamflow measurement gauge to reference when assigning acceptability rankings for conditions on the reach. An announcement of the survey was emailed to American Whitewater’s members, posted on the website, distributed via American Whitewater’s online newsletter, and shared through the Stream Management Plan email list. The flow acceptability questions included in the user-survey are the principal focus of this assessment. These questions asked respondents to evaluate recreational use acceptability for a range of measured flows on each study segment using a five-point scale that included the following rankings: Unacceptable, Moderately Unacceptable, Marginal, Moderately Acceptable, and Acceptable. Each ranking in the scale was mapped to an integer value between -2 and 2 where an ‘Unacceptable’ ranking mapped to a value of -2, a ‘Marginal’ ranking mapped to a value of 0, and an ‘Acceptable’ ranking mapped to a value of 2. To further explore and characterize the relationship between flows and recreational use opportunities, the survey posed a series of open-ended questions about streamflows associated with distinct niche experiences. These niche experiences included: lowest navigable flow (minFlow), minimum acceptable flow (lowAcceptable), technical but navigable flows (technicalTrip), flows experienced during a standard trip (standardTrip), challenging high-water (highChallenge), and highest safe flow (highSafe). The flow options provided in the flow acceptability questions were directly informed by historical hydrology data from each individual stream gauge. The minimum flow option provided for each reach was 100 cfs and the maximum flow option varied depending on historical maximums. The questions that reference the RIOMILCO stream gauge (corresponding gauge for Reach 1 and 2) are an exception. The maximum observed flow at this location is 2,520 cfs. Users on the survey were asked to evaluate flows up to 3,000 cfs. Any survey responses provided for flow values above 2,500 cfs on these reaches were, therefore, considered erroneous. Flow-acceptability rankings provided through the survey were used to describe preferences among recreational users for various ranges of streamflow. Researchers collecting and organizing surveybased evaluative information often employ a normative approach for analyzing results. The normative approach considers each individual’s evaluation (personal norms) of a range of potential conditions. Aggregation of many individuals’ personal norms describe a group’s collective evaluation (social norms) of resource condition. This approach has been applied extensively in natural resource management settings, often with respect to instream flows for recreation (Shelby and Whittaker, 1995; Shelby et al., 1992a; Vandas et al., 1990; Whittaker and Shelby, 2002b) and is particularly useful for developing thresholds that define low, acceptable, and/or optimal resource conditions (Shelby et al. 1992). Other applications have extended this approach to different indicators and impacts, including: evaluation of how many people are considered too many in a given setting (refer to Donnelly et al., 2000; Manning, 2011; Shelby et al., 1996; Vaske & Donnelly, 2002; Vaske et al., 1986, for reviews), campsite impacts or site sharing (Heberlein and Dunwiddie, 1979; Shelby, 1981), fishing site competition (Martinson and Shelby, 1992; Whittaker and Shelby, 1993), discourteous behavior (Whittaker and Shelby, 1988, 1993; Whittaker et al., 2000), and resource indicators such as litter and campsite impacts (Shelby et al., 1988; Vaske et al., 2002). Notably, the normative approach was employed to understand user preferences for various streamflows on the Grand Canyon (Shelby et al. 1992) and on several other rivers in Colorado (Vandas et al. 1990, Shelby & Whittaker 1995, Fey & Stafford 2009, Fey & Stafford 2010). Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 11 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Defining management standards is often more efficient if there is a high degree of consensus (or “norm crystallization”) among users regarding acceptable and unacceptable resource conditions. Traditional measures of norm crystallization have included the standard deviation, coefficient of variation, and interquartile range of survey responses (Krymkowski et al., 2009; Manning, 2011; Shelby and Vaske, 1991). The Potential for Conflict Index-2 (PCI2) was developed to help address some of the shortcomings associated with traditional measures of norm crystallization when applied to ordinal data. A detailed description of the PCI2 metric is provided by Vaske et al. (2010). Briefly, computed PCI2 values range from 0 to 1.0 where the least amount of consensus (PCI2 = 1.0) occurs when responses are equally divided between two extreme values on a Likert response scale (e.g. 50% Highly Unacceptable and 50% Highly Acceptable). A set of responses with unanimous consensus among respondents yields a PCI2 value of zero. The normative approach was the basis for describing use acceptability ranges for streamflows on different reaches within the assessment area. The percentage of responses falling within each acceptability ranking were computed for each streamflow on each reach. The numerical representations of flow acceptability preference rankings were used to compute PCI2 scores for each flow included in the survey. Computed PCI2 values were paired on the percentage of respondents that ranked a given flow as ‘Moderately Acceptable’ or ‘Acceptable’ and plotted to create use acceptability curves for each of the study reaches. Use acceptability curves, tabular data summaries, and responses to open-ended questions about niche conditions were used to delineate various normative streamflow characteristics. These characteristics included a minimum acceptable streamflow, a range of acceptable streamflow conditions, and a range of optimum streamflow conditions. The upper and lower thresholds delineated for acceptable and optimal streamflow conditions were then compared to wet-year, average-year, and dry-year hydrological conditions in order to complete a Boatable Days analysis. The computation of Boatable Days is the dominant quantitative approach used by American Whitewater to characterize recreational use opportunities on rivers (Fey and Stafford, 2009; Shelby and Whittaker, 1995; Whittaker et al., 1993). The metric itself reflects the number of days in a given year that fall within certain defined flow ranges (i.e. lower acceptable flows, optimal flows, upper acceptable flows). The Boatable Days analysis performed on reaches within the assessment area responded to the inter-annual natural and management-induced variability in streamflows by computing the number of Boatable Days that occur in each of three hydrological year types: wet, average and dry. Wilson Water Group, LLC. provided streamflow time series data for the three hydrological year types defined here. Representative streamflow time series for each year type on each reach required synthesis of historical data. Daily streamflow data was collected from stream gauges throughout the assessment area for a 20-year period of record. Streamflow time series data from each gauge were then ordered by annual peak flow. Average daily streamflows across all years in the lower 25th percentile of the ordered list were computed to produce a representative dry year streamflow time series. The same approach was used to create representative streamflow series for average and wet years where average year types fell between the 25th and 75th percentiles of annual peak flows and average wet year types were those years that fell within the upper 75th percentile of the ordered list. Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 12 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 4. Results The web-survey captured responses from 136 recreational users. 63% of respondents indicated they were somewhat comfortable or very comfortable reporting flows, 52% of respondents identified themselves as advanced or expert paddlers, 84% identified as Class III or greater paddlers, and 44% recreate on streams and rivers at least 20 days per season (Figure 4). A wide range of preferred craft types were indicated, including oar frame rafts, kayaks, catarafts, canoes, dories, inner tubes, paddle rafts, skiffs, and stand-up paddle boards. A 30.0% Max. Whitewater Class V IV/V IV III/IV III II 20.0% 10.0% A N rt pe Ex ce va n ia Ad rm ed ov i N In te d te 0.0% ce Percentage of Respondents Survey responses were aggregated by reach, reviewed for quality, and displayed graphically to aid in interpretation (Appendix A). An example summary graphic is included for survey responses for the Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork section of the Rio Grande (Figure 5). B 30.0% User Participation Days 1 time a season 2−5 times a season 5−20 times a season 20+ times a season 50+ times a season 20.0% 10.0% fo rta bl un a co somt al e m e l fo w rta ha bl t ne e ut ra l co som m e fo w rta ha bl t co e m fo v rta er bl y e 0.0% N ot c om Percentage of Respondents Experience Level Reporting Confidence Figure 4. Survey responses from 136 users indicating (A) experience level and maximum comfortable whitewater class; (B) participant confidence in providing flow acceptability rankings for one or more reaches in the assessment area. Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 13 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Streamflow (cfs) A Rio Grande: Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork (Reach 4) 5500 5250 5000 4750 4500 4250 4000 3750 3500 3000 2750 2500 2250 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 Count of Unfavorable (−) and Favorable (+) Reponses B C 60% Use Objective Cooling Off Fishing 40% Fishing/Scenery Floating/Scenery Not Indicated 20% Percentage of Respondents Class IV/V Class IV Class III/IV Class III 10% Class II A N rt Ex pe d ce va n ed rm te In Ad ia te ce ov i r de oe ed hr t/S af R Pa c kr af t/I nf la ta bl e ka ya k n pe O /c ca ca di In ot N an no d te −1 t /C oa tB rif Ka ya k D y/ or D Class V 20% 0% e 0% Whitewater Skill N Percent of Respondents 30% Figure 5. Survey responses for the Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork section of the Rio Grande. (A) Counts of the various flow acceptability rankings provided by respondents where survey responses reflect streamflow variability as measured at the Rio Grande River at Wagon Wheel Gap (RIOWAGCO). (B) User identified craft types and recreational use objectives for the reach. (C) The self-identified experience and whitewater skill levels provided by survey respondents. Use acceptability curves, tabular data summaries, and responses to open-ended questions about niche conditions were used to delineate various normative streamflow characteristics, including the ‘Minimum Acceptable’, ‘Minimum Optimal’, ‘Maximum Optimal’, and ‘Maximum Acceptable’ streamflow on each reach (Table 2). Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 14 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork (Reach 4) highSafe highChallenge standardTrip technicalTrip lowAcceptable minFlow 100 90 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 00 50 55 00 52 50 50 00 47 50 45 00 42 50 40 00 37 35 00 50 30 00 27 25 50 ● 10 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 90 1000 00 12 00 14 00 16 00 18 00 20 00 0 22 Percentage of Respondents 80 Streamflow (cfs) PCI2 Scores 'Moderately Acceptable' or 'Acceptable' Ranking Loess Fit (95% Confidence Interval) User Acceptability Ranges 0.25 Lower Accptable (300−600 cfs) 0.50 Optimal (600−1800 cfs) 0.75 Upper Acceptable (1800−2800 cfs) Figure 6. Flow preferences reported by users for the Rio Grande: Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork. (Top) Boxplot of responses to open-ended questions about different categories of flow. (Bottom) PCI2 analysis results overlaid on the percentage of respondents that ranked a given flow as “Moderately Acceptable” or “Acceptable”. The percentage of respondents in those categories across the full range of flows was fit with a Loess curve to support visualization of flow acceptability ranges. Responses provided for Reach 6 and Reach 8 of the Rio Grande along with Reach 9 and Reach 10 of the Conejos made delineation of the upper bound for the maximum acceptable flow difficult. Responses to open ended questions suggest that the difficulty or risk for navigation on the Rio Grande reaches in question do not change appreciably as flows increase. These reaches are relatively low-gradient and do not include many navigation hazards. Results for Reach 6 may be affected by a small number of respondents providing flow acceptability rankings. It appears that the lack of a discernable upper bound on acceptable flows for reaches 9 and 10 on the Conejos River may also be due to a limited number of survey respondents for these reaches. Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 15 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Table 2. Flow preference thresholds delineated for each reach in the assessment area. All values are reported in cubic feet per second (cfs). Reach 1 2 River Reach Description Min. Acceptable Min. Optimal Max. Optimal Max. Acceptable 350 800 1400 2250* 350 550 1400 2000 Rio Grande Reservoir to Mouth of Box Canyon Box Canyon to Deep Rio Grande Creek/Creede Rio Grande 3 Rio Grande Creede to Wagon Wheel Gap 400 600 2100 2750 4 Rio Grande Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork 300 600 1800 2800 5 Rio Grande 350 500 2000 3000 6 Rio Grande Alamosa to Lasauses 200 500 1000 3000 7 Rio Grande Lasauses to Lobatos Bridge 300 600 2000 3500 8 Rio Grande Lobatos Bridge to Lee Trail, NM 300 600 2000 3250 9 Conejos Platoro Reservoir to South Fork Conejos 150 300 600 1200 10 Conejos S. Fork Conejos to Hwy 17 Bridge 150 300 550 800 11 Conejos Hwy 17 to Mogote Campground 300 550 2100 2700 South Fork to Del Norte (Hwy 112) *The maximum safe release from Rio Grande Reservoir was 1200 cfs throughout the 1998 to 2017 period. ** Flows never reached this max acceptable threshold during the study period, in part due to mandatory flood mitigation measures triggered by a flow of 2300 cfs or greater at the Mogote stream gauge. Minimum acceptable flows on the Rio Grande generally range between approximately 350-400 cfs, optimal flows range between approximately 600-2000 cfs, and the upper acceptable flows range between ~2000-3000 cfs. A maximum acceptable flow of 2250 cfs was delineated for Reach 1. However, due to infrastructure constraints, the maximum safe release from Rio Grande Reservoir was 1200 cfs between 1998 and 2017. Therefore, this maximum acceptable flow did not occur during the study period. Improvements to the reservoir’s outlet works, progressing under the Rio Grande Reservoir Phase II Rehabilitation Project, will substantially increase the maximum permissible release from the reservoir. No clear flow preference patterns exist for the Conejos River reaches. Variability in flow thresholds between reaches can be attributed to different user groups recreating in different locations, the unique geomorphic or hydraulic characteristics of each reach, and/or variability in the sample size of respondents providing flow rankings on each reach and for each listed streamflow. A maximum acceptable flow of 2700 cfs was delineated for Reach 11 on Conejos River. It is important to note that flood mitigation requirements are triggered if streamflow at the Mogote stream gauge (CONMOGCO) reaches or exceeds 2300 cfs. Under this scenario, the operator of Platoro Reservoir and other partners take actions (e.g. utilize Platoro Reservoir flood control storage) to reduce flows and mitigate flooding risk in downstream communities. Stream flows on Reach 11, therefore, never reached the maximum acceptable flow preference threshold during the study period and are unlikely to do so in the future. Flow preference thresholds were used to compute the number of Boatable Days associated with different hydrological conditions on each reach in the assessment area (Table 3). Results were summarized graphically and in tabular form (Appendix A). Boatable Days totals falling within the range of “Upper Acceptable” flows never exceed zero on several reaches of the Rio Grande. This is Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 16 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment due, in some locations, to the lack of a discernible upper bound on the range of “Optimal” flows identified by recreational users. In other locations, the streamflow time series supplied by Wilson Water Group, LLC to characterize dry, average, and wet year types never exceeded the upper bound of user-defined “Optimal” flows. A different representation of hydrological year types will result in different Boatable Days totals. Table 3. Boatable Days falling within each acceptability category calculated for reaches within the assessment area for typical dry, average and wet hydrological year types. Reach River Description 1 Rio Grande Rio Grande Reservoir to Mouth of Box Canyon 2 Rio Grande Box Canyon to Deep Creek/Creede 3 Rio Grande Creede to Wagon Wheel Gap 4 Rio Grande Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork 5 Rio Grande South Fork to Del Norte (Hwy 112) 6 Rio Grande Alamosa to Lasauses 7 Rio Grande Lasauses to Lobatos Bridge 8 Rio Grande Lobatos Bridge to Lee Trail, NM 9 Conejos Platoro Reservoir to South Fork Conejos Acceptability Category Lower Acceptable Optimal Upper Acceptable Total Days Lower Acceptable Optimal Upper Acceptable Total Days Lower Acceptable Optimal Upper Acceptable Total Days Lower Acceptable Optimal Upper Acceptable Total Days Lower Acceptable Optimal Upper Acceptable Total Days Lower Acceptable Optimal Upper Acceptable Total Days Lower Acceptable Optimal Upper Acceptable Total Days Lower Acceptable Optimal Upper Acceptable Total Days Lower Acceptable Optimal Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment Dry Year 38 0 0 38 17 21 0 38 43 56 0 99 101 54 2 157 54 119 12 185 47 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 53 0 Avg. Year 38 25 0 63 11 52 0 63 62 80 17 159 111 67 30 208 56 127 26 209 146 1 0 147 39 0 0 39 137 46 0 183 56 17 Wet Year 40 43 0 83 24 59 0 83 31 59 21 111 82 48 35 165 74 87 19 180 204 45 0 249 74 47 0 121 141 95 2 238 44 31 17 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Reach River Description 10 Conejos S. Fork Conejos to Hwy 17 Bridge 11 Conejos Hwy 17 to Mogote Campground Acceptability Category Upper Acceptable Total Days Lower Acceptable Optimal Upper Acceptable Total Days Lower Acceptable Dry Year 0 53 53 0 0 53 29 Avg. Year 0 73 56 17 0 73 30 Wet Year 0 75 44 31 0 75 40 Optimal Upper Acceptable Total Days 29 0 58 59 0 89 64 0 104 Table 4. Boatable Days analysis results broken out by month for the Rio Grande: Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork. Where an Acceptability Category (e.g. ‘Optimal’) is missing for a given month, zero days were observed to fall within that category and the row was left out of the table for brevity. Month Acceptability Category Dry Year Avg. Year Wet Year Mar Lower Acceptable 2 0 0 Apr Lower Acceptable 22 12 14 Optimal 8 13 16 Optimal 29 15 13 Upper Acceptable 2 16 13 Lower Acceptable 12 0 0 Optimal 11 16 0 Upper Acceptable 0 14 20 Lower Acceptable 4 11 10 Optimal 0 20 19 Upper Acceptable 0 0 2 Lower Acceptable 18 28 31 Optimal 0 3 0 Lower Acceptable 21 30 9 Optimal 1 0 0 Lower Acceptable 22 30 18 Optimal 5 0 0 May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 18 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork (Reach 4) A B 111 101 3000 90 Elk Creek Bridge Hazard Streamflow (cfs) Boatable Days 82 67 60 54 48 35 30 2 Dry Year Wagon Wheel Gap Trestle Hazard Average Year Dry Year Wet Year 1000 30 0 Year Type 2000 0 Average Year Wet Year 0 100 Year Type C 200 300 Julian Day Dry Year Average Year Wet Year 30 Boatable Days Flow Preferences 20 Lower Acceptable Optimal Upper Acceptable Winter Months 10 Nov−Mar Oct Aug Sep Jul Jun May Apr Mar Oct Aug Sep Jul Jun May Apr Mar Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar 0 Figure 7. Boatable Days totals for the Rio Grande: Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork. (A) Annual Boatable Days totals summarized by hydrological year type. (B) Flow preference ranges mapped to representative streamflow time series for wet, average, and dry years. Flows associated with specific navigational hazards are labeled. (C) Monthly Boatable Days totals summarized by hydrological year type. It is important to note the difference between a Boatable Day and a user-day. A Boatable Day describes when acceptable flows are met to provide an opportunity for recreation. User-days indicate the actual numbers of recreational users present on a reach over a period of time. Userdays are affected by numerous factors including weather, hazards, river access, etc. while Boatable Days are solely affected by flow conditions. Boatable Days totals for two reaches include days in fall, winter and spring months when current recreational use is known to be light. Totals for the Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 19 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Alamosa to Lasauses section includes days in November, December, January, and February. Totals for the Lobatos Bridge to Lee Trail, NM section includes days in November and February. It is unlikely that there is much use on these segments during the fall and winter months due to weather conditions, ice hazards on the river, and limited river access due to snow and road closures. When using the Boatable Days analysis results to inform management decisions it will be particularly useful to consider the monthly Boatable Days totals during the typical user-season rather than the annual totals. While ice coverage varies depending on the year and the location, ice has potential to impact user days on most reaches between November 1 and March 31. Additional constraints or hazards limit recreational use on several segments of the Rio Grande (Table 5). Low bridges are the most common type of navigational hazard. These bridges can make passage for rafts and dories extremely dangerous at high flows. Other craft types like kayaks may be able navigate these hazards at the full range of flows identified by users as falling within optimal or acceptable bounds for recreational use. Navigational hazards and other limitations were not used to modify Boatable Days calculations because they are expected to apply differently to various craft types. However, it is likely that knowledge of these hazards impacted survey respondents’ flow preferences and identification of high safe flow levels. On multiple reaches, the highest safe flow corresponds with hazard-related thresholds. On other reaches the high acceptable flow exceeds the flow thresholds identified for hazards in that reach; this is likely due to variations in craft type and skill level among survey respondents. Table 5. Known recreational use constraints or navigation hazards on segments of the Rio Grande. Reach Hazard Name 1 Box Canyon Bridge 2 Rio Oxbow Ranch Private Bridge 2 Kansas Club Bridge 2 Antlers Resort Bridge 2 Broadacres Bridge 3 Wason Railroad Bridge 4 Wagon Wheel Gap Railroad trestle 4 4 5 4UR Bridge (Goose Creek Rd) Elk Creek Bridge Independent D "W-shaped" diversion dam 5 Hanna Lane/County Rd 17 5 Flying W Bridge Notes Low bridge at Mouth of Box Canyon (Forest Rd 520.21). No discrete flow threshold is available, but this is never passable by any craft type. The bridge is always passable with drift boats. However, flows > 1,000 cfs (at RIOMILCO gauge) presents issues for rafts with fishing frames. Walking bridge for a private fishing club. At high flows, boats must stay river left and be aware of hanging rope and cables. No discrete flow threshold is available. This is a walking bridge that presents an extreme navigation hazard at high flows. Dories and rafts/frames cannot pass at flows > 770 cfs. This bridge is passable on river left at all flows and river right at most flows. No discrete flow threshold is available. This bridge is hazardous at high flows due to the accumulation of debris on the pilings. No discrete flow threshold is available Due to the bridge's angle across the river and the debris accumulation on pilings, this bridge presents an extreme navigation hazard and most flows. Local outfitters do not attempt passage of this bridge if flows are > 2,000 cfs (at RIOWAGCO gauge). This private bridge is a minor obstacle at high flows. Passage is not suggested if the flow is at or above 2,500 cfs here. A "W-shaped" diversion dam presents a serious navigation hazard to boaters. Dories can safely pass under this bridge up to 5,000, raft frames up to 4,000 cfs (at RIODELCO gauge). Dories can safely pass under this bridge up to 3,500 cfs, and Rafts up to 2,500 cfs (at RIODELCO gauge). Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 20 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 5 6 6 6 6 6 8 This river-wide diversion dam creates a 10+ foot drop. This is a mandatory portage (on the south bank of the river). This diversion dam is not passable, regardless of flow. Boaters must portage Westside Ditch diversion dam around this structure. This diversion dam is not passable, especially at low flows. Boaters must Chicago Ditch diversion dam portage around this structure. Meadow Overflow Ditch This diversion dam is not passable, regardless of flow. Boaters must portage diversion dam around this structure. This diversion dam is not passable, regardless of flow. Boaters must portage New Ditch diversion dam around this structure. County Rd Z This bridge is hazardous at high flows. No discrete flow threshold is available. This section is closed to recreational uses between April 1 and May 31 due to Lobatos Bridge to Lee Trail, NM nesting raptors. Rio Grande Canal diversion dam 5. Discussion and Conclusions This report discusses study locations, and methods used to collect and analyze streamflow preference information from recreational users. User survey responses provided by 136 respondents were used to delineate acceptable and optimal streamflow thresholds for supporting recreational use activities on 11 segments on the Rio Grande and Conejos River. Threshold identification supported quantification of the Boatable Days metric for each assessment reach under typical wet, average, and dry hydrological year types. The assessment followed recommendations the State of Colorado’s Basin Implementation Plan guidance documents for quantifying non-consumptive recreational needs. Respondent numbers for the flow preference study conducted in 2019 are robust for a remote or sparsely populated region of southern Colorado. The large number of responses to flow related questions for most reaches made delineation of flow acceptability thresholds fairly straightforward. However, low response rates among survey participants for reaches 6, 8, 9, and 10 may introduce some uncertainty into flow preference threshold delineated for those sections of river. Low response rates may indicate there is little to no use on these sections during most times of the year. Alternatively, it may indicate that the survey distribution did not reach the typical users of these reaches. Future recreational use assessment activities may benefit from targeted outreach to those users known to recreate on these reaches and inquiries into whether or not they have companions or are aware of additional users/groups that recreate at those locations. It may also be useful to ascertain why these reaches may be receiving so little use and whether or not there is opportunity to increase recreational activity through awareness campaigns, development of river access points, or through some other means. Variable streamflow conditions were found to impact use opportunities on all reaches. The total number of Boatable Days generally increase throughout the assessment area as hydrological conditions transition from dry to average to wet. On most reaches, typical daily streamflows rarely exceed the upper flow acceptability threshold. On Reach 4 and Reach 5, however, that upper limit is exceeded in wet year types and on Reach 3, optimal flows are exceeded in wet year types leading to a significant decrease in the number of Boatable Days with optimal flows. These are the only three reaches where wet years are either characterized by pronounced decrease in total annual Boatable Days or significant decrease in days with optimal flows. Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 21 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment The assessment followed recommendations in the State of Colorado’s Basin Implementation Plan guidance documents for quantifying non-consumptive recreational needs. In addition to completing a quantitative Boatable Days analysis, results from open-ended recreational user survey questions were evaluated. Responses to these questions provide insights into the recreational community’s views on environmental, regulatory, and infrastructure management issues affecting reaches within the planning area (Appendix B). High priority issues identified by multiple users included the following: • Coordinated reservoir releases and consistent flows for fishing and boating on the Rio Grande • Removal or mitigation of boating hazards (fencing, diversions, bridges, etc.) • River access improvements Survey respondents also indicated which reaches they considered priorities for recreational paddling improvements (Figure 10). The sections of the Rio Grande between Texas Creek and South Fork ranked highest. The section between Lasauses and Lobatos Bridge ranked lowest. Rankings for the Conejos River segments were not requested in the survey. The desire for improvements on high-priority reaches may or may not be flow-based. Figure 8. Distribution of survey responses indicating reaches that are the highest priority for recreational paddling improvements. A median score equal to 1 indicates a very high priority while a score of 8 indicates a very low priority. A wider box indicates a greater spread in the survey responses. A narrow box indicates a high degree of agreement between survey respondents. Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 22 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment The results presented in this report represent important baseline information characterizing the relationships between flows and recreational use. As such, this body of work directly supports the Rio Grande Headwater Restoration Project’s Stream Management Planning efforts. Future efforts may choose to build upon this assessment by calculating the number of Boatable Days available in a greater diversity of hydrological year types, under various water management scenarios, or in anticipation of altered future hydrology due to climate change. 6. References Bovee, K.D. (editor). (1996) The Complete IFIM: A Coursebook for IF250. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Geological Survey. Brown, T.C., Taylor, J.G., & Shelby, B. (1991). Assessing the direct effects of Stream flow on recreation: A literature review. Water Resources Bulletin, 27(6), 979-989. Colorado Water Conservation Board, 2013. Nonconsumptive Needs Toolbox, Retrieved from: http://cwcbweblink.state.co.us/weblink/0/doc/172701/Electronic.aspx?searchid=b764b205-11254f18-b3e8-998e5e025e10 Fey, N. & Stafford, E. (2009) Flow-Recreation Evaluations for the Upper Colorado River basin. Report prepared for Upper Colorado River Wild and Scenic Stakeholders Group & U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Greiner, J. and Warner. (2012) Commercial River Use in the State of Colorado 2008- 2011. Colorado River Outfitters Association. Hill, M.T., Platts, W.S., and Beschta, R.L. (1991) Ecological and geomorphological concepts for instream and out-of-channel flow requirements. Rivers 2(3):198-210 Loomis, J. 2008. The economic contribution of instream flows in Colorado: how angling and rafting use increase with instream flows. January 2008 Economic Development Report, No. 2 (EDR: 08-02). Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics. Jackson, W.L. & Beschta, R.L. (1992) Instream flows for rivers: Maintaining stream form and function as a basis for protecting dependant uses. In M.E. Jones and A. Laenen (editors), Interdisciplinary Approaches in Hydrology and Hydrogeology. St. Paul, MN: American Institute of Hydrology. Kennedy, J.J. & Thomas, J.W. (1995) Managing natural resources as social value. Pages 311-322 in R.L. Knight and S.F. Bates (editors), A New Century for Natural Resources Management. Island Press, Washington D.C. Richter, B.D., Baumgartner, J.V., Wigington, R., and Braun, D.P. (1997) How much water does a river need? Freshwater Biology 37:231-249 Sanderson, J.S., B.P. Bledsoe, N. L. Poff, T. Wilding, and N. Fey (2012). Yampa-White Basin Roundtable Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool (WFET) Study. Prepared by CDM Smith for The Nature Conservancy, June 2012 Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 23 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Shelby, B., Brown, T. C., & Taylor, J. G. (1992). Streamflow and Recreation. Ft. Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station (General Technical Report RM-209). Shelby, B., Brown, T.C., and Baumgartner, R. (1992) Effects of streamflows on river trips on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Rivers 3(3): 191-201 Shelby, B., Stankey, G., and Schindler, B. (1992) Introduction: the role of standards in wilderness management. Pages 1-4 in B. Shelby, G. Stankey, and B. Shindler (editors). Defining wilderness quality: The role of standards in wilderness management. Portland, OR: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station (General Technical Report PNW-GTR-305). Shelby, B., Vaske, J.J., & Donnely, M.P. (1996). Norms, standards and natural resources. Leisure Sciences, 18, 103-123 Shelby, B., Whittaker, D. & Hansen, W. (1997). Streamflow effects on hiking in Zion National Park, Utah. Rivers, 6(2), 80-93 Southwick Associates, 2012. Economic Contributions of Outdoor Recreation on the Colorado River & Its Tributaries. Retrieved from: http://protectflows.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/05/Colorado-River-Recreational-Economic-Impacts- Southwick-Associates5-3-12_2.pdf Stafford, E., Fey, N., and Vaske, J. J. (2016) Quantifying Whitewater Recreation Opportunities in Cataract Canyon of the Colorado River, Utah: Aggregating Acceptable Flows and Hydrologic Data to Identify Boatable Days. River Res. Applic., doi: 10.1002/rra.3049. Vandas, S., Whittaker, D., Murphy, D., Prichard, D., and others. (1990) Dolores River Instream Flow Assessment. Denver, Co: U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM/YA/PR-90-003). Whittaker, D., Shelby, B., Jackson, W., & Beschta, R. (1993). Instream Flows for recreation: A handbook on concepts and research methods. Anchorage, AK: Us National Park Service, Rivers, Trails. Whittaker, D. and B. Shelby. (2002) Evaluating instream flows for recreation: a handbook on concepts and research methods. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Anchorage, AK Rio Grande and Conejos River Recreational Use Assessment 24 APPENDIX A: Analysis Results by Reach Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Rio Grande Reservoir to Mouth of Box Canyon A Rio Grande: Rio Grande Reservoir to Mouth of Box Canyon (Reach 1) 3000 2750 2500 2250 2000 1800 Streamflow (cfs) 1600 1400 Unacceptable 1200 Moderately Unacceptable 1000 Marginal 900 Moderately Acceptable 800 Acceptable 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 Count of Unfavorable (−) and Favorable (+) Reponses B C Use Objective All of the Above 40% Fishing Floating/Scenery Fun & Adventure Not Indicated 20% Class III/IV Class III 10% Class II A N t d er Ex p m te r ce te ia ed ov i In Ad va n ce ff Sk i de r e R af t/S hr ed no d ca n di In ot N O pe ca te ra ft ck an /p a /c oe ay ak an /c ka ya k lk el sh d Class IV bl e ar Class IV/V In fla ta H Class V 20% 0% oe 0% Whitewater Skill N Percent of Respondents 60% Percentage of Respondents 30% Figure 1: Survey responses for the Rio Grande, Rio Grande Reservoir to Mouth of Box Canyon. (A) Flow acceptability rankings. (B) User identified preferred craft types and recreational use objectives. (C) User identified whitewater navigation expertise. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Rio Grande Reservoir to Mouth of Box Canyon (Reach 1) highSafe highChallenge standardTrip technicalTrip lowAcceptable minFlow 100 90 Percentage of Respondents 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 ● 00 30 50 27 00 25 50 22 00 20 00 18 00 16 00 14 00 12 0 00 10 0 90 0 80 0 70 0 60 0 50 0 40 0 30 20 10 0 0 Streamflow (cfs) PCI2 Scores 0.4 'Moderately Acceptable' or 'Acceptable' Ranking Loess Fit (95% Confidence Interval) 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 User Acceptability Ranges Lower Accptable (350−800 cfs) Optimal (800−1400 cfs) Upper Acceptable (1400−2250 cfs) 0.9 Figure 2: Flow preferences reported by users for the Rio Grande: Rio Grande Reservoir to Mouth of Box Canyon. (Top) Boxplot of responses to open-ended questions about different categories of flow. (Bottom) PCI2 analysis results overlaid on the percentage of respondents that ranked a given flow as “Moderately Acceptable” or “Acceptable”. The percentage of respondents in those categories across the full range of flows was fit with a Loess curve to support visualization of flow acceptability ranges. Note: the maximum safe release from Rio Grande Reservoir was 1200 cfs throughout the 1998 to 2017 period. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Table 1: Summarized open-format flow-preference question responses for Reach 1, Rio Grande: Rio Grande Reservoir to Mouth of Box Canyon. Note: the maximum safe release from Rio Grande Reservoir was 1200 cfs throughout the 1998 to 2017 period. Survey Question 25th Percentile Median Response 75th Percentile Response Count Minimum Flow (cfs) 300 400 600 35 Low Acceptable Flow (cfs) 375 500 750 35 Technical Flow (cfs) 300 400 662 32 Standard Trip Flow (cfs) 600 800 1000 35 Challenging High Flow (cfs) 900 1200 1800 29 Highest Safe Flow (cfs) 1150 1500 2100 27 Table 2: PCI2 analysis results for Reach 1, Rio Grande: Rio Grande Reservoir to Mouth of Box Canyon. Flow (cfs) PCI2 Median Likert Response n Max. Distance Total Distance 100 0.3216912 -2.0 33 2176 700 200 0.5698529 -2.0 33 2176 1240 300 0.7924837 -1.0 35 2448 1940 400 0.8366013 0.0 35 2448 2048 500 0.8169935 0.0 35 2448 2000 600 0.7140523 0.0 35 2448 1748 700 0.6851211 1.0 34 2312 1584 800 0.6185121 1.5 34 2312 1430 900 0.6777344 2.0 32 2048 1388 1000 0.6435547 2.0 32 2048 1318 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Flow (cfs) PCI2 Median Likert Response n Max. Distance Total Distance 1200 0.6601562 2.0 32 2048 1352 1400 0.7357143 2.0 29 1680 1236 1600 0.7485207 1.5 26 1352 1012 1800 0.8846154 2.0 25 1248 1104 2000 0.8863636 1.0 22 968 858 2250 0.8946281 0.0 22 968 866 2500 0.9136364 0.0 21 880 804 2750 0.9070248 0.0 22 968 878 3000 0.9297521 -0.5 22 968 900 Table 3: Boatable Days analysis results broken out by month for the Rio Grande: Rio Grande Reservoir to Mouth of Box Canyon. Where an Acceptability Category (e.g. ‘Optimal’) is missing for a given month, zero days were observed to fall within that category and the row was left out of the table for brevity. Month Acceptability Category Dry Year Avg. Year Wet Year Apr Lower Acceptable 0 0 2 Lower Acceptable 27 19 21 Optimal 0 8 10 Lower Acceptable 11 13 0 Optimal 0 17 30 Lower Acceptable 0 6 17 Optimal 0 0 3 May Jun Jul Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Rio Grande Reservoir to Mouth of Box Canyon (Reach 1) A B 43 40 40 38 38 900 Streamflow (cfs) Boatable Days 30 25 20 Year Type Average Year 600 Dry Year Wet Year 300 10 0 0 Dry Year Average Year Wet Year 0 100 Year Type C 200 300 Julian Day Dry Year Average Year Wet Year Boatable Days 30 20 Flow Preferences Lower Acceptable Optimal 10 Jul Jun May Apr Jul Jun May Apr Jul Jun May Apr 0 Figure 3: Boatable Days analysis results for the Rio Grande: Rio Grande Reservoir to Mouth of Box Canyon. (A) Total Boatable Days by year type and acceptability category; (B) flow acceptability ranges compared to typical wet, average, and dry year streamflow time series; and (C) monthly Boatable Days totals summarized by year type and acceptability category. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Box Canyon to Deep Creek/Creede A Rio Grande: Box Canyon to Deep Creek/Creede (Reach 2) 3000 2750 2500 2250 2000 1800 Streamflow (cfs) 1600 1400 Unacceptable 1200 Moderately Unacceptable 1000 Marginal 900 Moderately Acceptable 800 Acceptable 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 −20 −10 0 10 20 Count of Unfavorable (−) and Favorable (+) Reponses B C 60% Use Objective All of the above Drinking 40% Fishing Floating/Scenery Not Indicated 20% Class V 20% Class IV/V Class IV Class III/IV Class III 10% Class II A N rt Ex pe d te Ad va nc e ed ia ov i ce m In te r N r if tB y/ D or D Whitewater Skill 0% oa t In ne rt ub Ka e ya k/ C N − Pa ot 1 ck In di ra ca ft/ te In O d fla pe ta n bl ca e no ka e ya k/ ca R n af oe t/S hr ed de r 0% Percentage of Respondents Percent of Respondents 30% Figure 4: Survey responses for the Rio Grande, Box Canyon to Deep Creek/Creede. (A) Flow acceptability rankings. (B) User identified preferred craft types and recreational use objectives. (C) User identified whitewater navigation expertise. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Box Canyon to Deep Creek/Creede (Reach 2) highSafe highChallenge standardTrip technicalTrip lowAcceptable minFlow 100 90 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 00 30 50 27 00 25 50 22 00 20 00 18 00 16 00 14 00 12 0 00 10 0 90 0 80 0 70 0 60 0 50 0 40 30 10 0 ● 0 0 20 Percentage of Respondents 80 Streamflow (cfs) PCI2 Scores 'Moderately Acceptable' or 'Acceptable' Ranking Loess Fit (95% Confidence Interval) User Acceptability Ranges 0.25 Lower Accptable (350−550 cfs) 0.50 Optimal (550−1400 cfs) 0.75 Upper Acceptable (1400−2000 cfs) Figure 5: Flow preferences reported by users for the Rio Grande: Box Canyon to Deep Creek/Creede. (Top) Boxplot of responses to open-ended questions about different categories of flow. (Bottom) PCI2 analysis results overlaid on the percentage of respondents that ranked a given flow as “Moderately Acceptable” or “Acceptable”. The percentage of respondents in those categories across the full range of flows was fit with a Loess curve to support visualization of flow acceptability ranges. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Table 4: Summarized open-format flow-preference question responses for Reach 2, Rio Grande: Box Canyon to Deep Creek/Creede. Survey Question 25th Percentile Median Response 75th Percentile Response Count Minimum Flow (cfs) 300 350 400 28 Low Acceptable Flow (cfs) 300 400 500 28 Technical Flow (cfs) 300 400 500 24 Standard Trip Flow (cfs) 575 700 900 28 Challenging High Flow (cfs) 1000 1200 1675 22 Highest Safe Flow (cfs) 1250 1800 2500 22 Table 5: PCI2 analysis results for Reach 2, Rio Grande: Box Canyon to Deep Creek/Creede. Flow (cfs) PCI2 Median Likert Response n Max. Distance Total Distance 100 0.0739645 -2.0 26 1352 100 200 0.1390533 -2.0 26 1352 188 300 0.6257396 -1.0 26 1352 846 400 0.7678571 0.5 28 1568 1204 500 0.6760204 2.0 28 1568 1060 600 0.6109694 2.0 28 1568 958 700 0.4528061 2.0 28 1568 710 800 0.3545918 2.0 28 1568 556 900 0.3214286 2.0 27 1456 468 1000 0.2115385 2.0 25 1248 264 1200 0.5103550 2.0 26 1352 690 1400 0.5659722 2.0 24 1152 652 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Flow (cfs) PCI2 Median Likert Response n Max. Distance Total Distance 1600 0.8560606 1.0 23 1056 904 1800 0.9090909 1.0 23 1056 960 2000 0.9242424 0.0 23 1056 976 2250 0.8636364 -1.0 22 968 836 2500 0.8367769 -2.0 22 968 810 2750 0.8099174 -2.0 22 968 784 3000 0.7871901 -2.0 22 968 762 Table 6: Boatable Days analysis results broken out by month for the Rio Grande: Box Canyon to Deep Creek/Creede. Where an Acceptability Category (e.g. ‘Optimal’) is missing for a given month, zero days were observed to fall within that category and the row was left out of the table for brevity. Month Acceptability Category Dry Year Avg. Year Wet Year Apr Lower Acceptable 0 0 2 Lower Acceptable 9 6 11 Optimal 18 21 20 Lower Acceptable 8 0 0 Optimal 3 30 30 Lower Acceptable 0 5 11 Optimal 0 1 9 May Jun Jul Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Box Canyon to Deep Creek/Creede (Reach 2) A B 60 59 Rio Oxbow Ranch Bridge Hazard 52 900 40 Streamflow (cfs) Boatable Days Antlers Bridge Hazard 24 20 Year Type Average Year 600 Dry Year Wet Year 21 300 17 11 0 0 Dry Year Average Year Wet Year 0 100 Year Type C 200 300 Julian Day Dry Year Average Year Wet Year Boatable Days 30 20 Flow Preferences Lower Acceptable Optimal 10 Jul Jun May Apr Jul Jun May Apr Jul Jun May Apr 0 Figure 6: Boatable Days analysis results for the Rio Grande: Box Canyon to Deep Creek/Creede. (A) Total Boatable Days by year type and acceptability category; (B) flow acceptability ranges compared to typical wet, average, and dry year streamflow time series; and (C) monthly Boatable Days totals summarized by year type and acceptability category. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Creede to Wagon Wheel Gap Streamflow (cfs) A Rio Grande: Creede to Wagon Wheel Gap (Reach 3) 5500 5250 5000 4750 4500 4250 4000 3750 3500 3000 2750 2500 2250 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable −20 −10 0 10 20 Count of Unfavorable (−) and Favorable (+) Reponses B C 80% 60% Use Objective all of the above Fishing 40% Floating/Scenery Fun Not Indicated 20% Class V 20% Class IV/V Class IV Class III/IV Class III 10% Class II A N rt Ex pe d te Ad va nc e ed ia ov i ce m In te r N Ka ya k/ C ot −1 kr In af di t/I c nf a O te la pe d ta n bl ca e ka no ya e k/ ca R af no t/S e hr ed de r Pa c N oa t Tu be tB rR ive R ex In t un rif de D y/ or D C −1 Whitewater Skill 0% ck ed 0% Percentage of Respondents Percent of Respondents 30% Figure 7: Survey responses for the Rio Grande, Creede to Wagon Wheel Gap. (A) Flow acceptability rankings. (B) User identified preferred craft types and recreational use objectives. (C) User identified whitewater navigation expertise. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Creede to Wagon Wheel Gap (Reach 3) highSafe highChallenge standardTrip technicalTrip lowAcceptable minFlow 100 90 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 00 50 50 47 00 50 45 00 42 40 50 37 00 35 00 30 50 27 00 25 50 ● 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 70 0 80 0 90 10 0 00 12 00 14 00 16 00 18 00 20 00 0 22 Percentage of Respondents 80 Streamflow (cfs) PCI2 Scores 'Moderately Acceptable' or 'Acceptable' Ranking Loess Fit (95% Confidence Interval) User Acceptability Ranges 0.25 Lower Accptable (400−600 cfs) 0.50 Optimal (600−2100 cfs) 0.75 Upper Acceptable (2100−2750 cfs) Figure 8: Flow preferences reported by users for the Rio Grande: Creede to Wagon Wheel Gap. (Top) Boxplot of responses to open-ended questions about different categories of flow. (Bottom) PCI2 analysis results overlaid on the percentage of respondents that ranked a given flow as “Moderately Acceptable” or “Acceptable”. The percentage of respondents in those categories across the full range of flows was fit with a Loess curve to support visualization of flow acceptability ranges. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Table 7: Summarized open-format flow-preference question responses for Reach 3, Rio Grande: Creede to Wagon Wheel Gap. Survey Question 25th Percentile Median Response 75th Percentile Response Count Minimum Flow (cfs) 300 400 538 23 Low Acceptable Flow (cfs) 400 450 600 23 Technical Flow (cfs) 350 500 600 21 Standard Trip Flow (cfs) 650 800 1150 22 Challenging High Flow (cfs) 1432 2000 2125 20 Highest Safe Flow (cfs) 1975 2500 3500 19 Table 8: PCI2 analysis results for Reach 3, Rio Grande: Creede to Wagon Wheel Gap. Flow (cfs) PCI2 Median Likert Response n Max. Distance Total Distance 100 0.0867769 -2.0 22 968 84 200 0.1611570 -2.0 22 968 156 300 0.7159091 -2.0 23 1056 756 400 0.8489583 0.0 24 1152 978 500 0.8697917 1.0 24 1152 1002 600 0.6857639 2.0 24 1152 790 700 0.4878472 2.0 24 1152 562 800 0.3142361 2.0 24 1152 362 900 0.2500000 2.0 23 1056 264 1000 0.2314050 2.0 22 968 224 1200 0.1681818 2.0 21 880 148 1400 0.2227273 2.0 21 880 196 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Flow (cfs) PCI2 Median Likert Response n Max. Distance Total Distance 1600 0.4300000 2.0 20 800 344 1800 0.5166667 2.0 19 720 372 2000 0.5666667 2.0 19 720 408 2250 0.7469136 1.0 18 648 484 2500 0.8580247 1.0 18 648 556 2750 0.9475309 0.5 18 648 614 3000 0.9444444 0.0 18 648 612 3500 0.9375000 0.0 17 576 540 3750 0.9335938 -0.5 16 512 478 4000 0.9464286 -1.0 15 448 424 4250 0.9285714 -0.5 14 392 364 4500 0.9285714 -0.5 14 392 364 4750 0.9285714 -1.5 14 392 364 5000 0.8928571 -1.5 14 392 350 5250 0.9166667 -1.0 13 336 308 5500 0.8877551 -1.0 14 392 348 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Table 9: Boatable Days analysis results broken out by month for the Rio Grande: Creede to Wagon Wheel Gap. Where an Acceptability Category (e.g. ‘Optimal’) is missing for a given month, zero days were observed to fall within that category and the row was left out of the table for brevity. Month Acceptability Category Dry Year Avg. Year Wet Year Mar Lower Acceptable 1 0 0 Lower Acceptable 10 7 2 Optimal 8 13 16 Optimal 31 23 16 Upper Acceptable 0 8 10 Lower Acceptable 5 0 0 Optimal 11 21 6 Upper Acceptable 0 9 11 Lower Acceptable 0 11 10 Optimal 0 20 21 Lower Acceptable 2 26 18 Optimal 0 3 0 Lower Acceptable 18 15 0 Optimal 1 0 0 Lower Acceptable 7 3 1 Optimal 5 0 0 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Creede to Wagon Wheel Gap (Reach 3) A B 80 80 3000 62 59 Boatable Days 56 40 Streamflow (cfs) 60 43 31 Year Type 2000 Average Year Dry Year Wet Year 1000 20 21 17 0 0 Dry Year Average Year Wet Year 0 100 Year Type C 200 300 Julian Day Dry Year Average Year Wet Year 30 Boatable Days Flow Preferences 20 Lower Acceptable Optimal Upper Acceptable Winter Months 10 Nov−Mar Oct Aug Sep Jul Jun May Apr Mar Oct Aug Sep Jul Jun May Apr Mar Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar 0 Figure 9: Boatable Days analysis results for the Rio Grande: Creede to Wagon Wheel Gap. (A) Total Boatable Days by year type and acceptability category; (B) flow acceptability ranges compared to typical wet, average, and dry year streamflow time series; and (C) monthly Boatable Days totals summarized by year type and acceptability category. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork Streamflow (cfs) A Rio Grande: Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork (Reach 4) 5500 5250 5000 4750 4500 4250 4000 3750 3500 3000 2750 2500 2250 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 Count of Unfavorable (−) and Favorable (+) Reponses B C 60% Use Objective Cooling Off Fishing 40% Fishing/Scenery Floating/Scenery Not Indicated 20% Class V 20% Class IV/V Class IV Class III/IV Class III 10% Class II A N rt Ex pe d te Ad va nc e ed ia ce ov i N m In te r r de ed no R af t/S hr /c a ca Pa c kr af t/I n fla ta bl e ka ya k n pe O e no e ed at −1 /C In di c ot N r if tB Ka ya k y/ D or D Whitewater Skill 0% oa t 0% Percentage of Respondents Percent of Respondents 30% Figure 10: Survey responses for the Rio Grande, Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork. (A) Flow acceptability rankings. (B) User identified preferred craft types and recreational use objectives. (C) User identified whitewater navigation expertise. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork (Reach 4) highSafe highChallenge standardTrip technicalTrip lowAcceptable minFlow 100 90 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 00 50 55 00 52 50 50 00 47 50 45 00 42 50 40 00 37 35 00 50 30 00 27 25 50 ● 10 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 90 1000 00 12 00 14 00 16 00 18 00 20 00 0 22 Percentage of Respondents 80 Streamflow (cfs) PCI2 Scores 'Moderately Acceptable' or 'Acceptable' Ranking Loess Fit (95% Confidence Interval) User Acceptability Ranges 0.25 Lower Accptable (300−600 cfs) 0.50 Optimal (600−1800 cfs) 0.75 Upper Acceptable (1800−2800 cfs) Figure 11: Flow preferences reported by users for the Rio Grande: Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork. (Top) Boxplot of responses to open-ended questions about different categories of flow. (Bottom) PCI2 analysis results overlaid on the percentage of respondents that ranked a given flow as “Moderately Acceptable” or “Acceptable”. The percentage of respondents in those categories across the full range of flows was fit with a Loess curve to support visualization of flow acceptability ranges. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Table 10: Summarized open-format flow-preference question responses for Reach 4, Rio Grande: Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork. Survey Question 25th Percentile Median Response 75th Percentile Response Count Minimum Flow (cfs) 300 300 400 28 Low Acceptable Flow (cfs) 300 400 500 28 Technical Flow (cfs) 300 350 425 27 Standard Trip Flow (cfs) 575 700 1000 28 Challenging High Flow (cfs) 1425 2000 2925 26 Highest Safe Flow (cfs) 1600 2500 3250 27 Table 11: PCI2 analysis results for Reach 4, Rio Grande: Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork. Flow (cfs) PCI2 Median Likert Response n Max. Distance Total Distance 100 0.1222222 -2.0 30 1800 220 200 0.2738095 -2.0 29 1680 460 300 0.6833333 -1.0 30 1800 1230 400 0.7900391 0.0 32 2048 1618 500 0.7562500 1.0 31 1920 1452 600 0.5770833 2.0 31 1920 1108 700 0.4729167 2.0 31 1920 908 800 0.4611111 2.0 30 1800 830 900 0.3523810 2.0 29 1680 592 1000 0.3428571 2.0 29 1680 576 1200 0.3596939 2.0 28 1568 564 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Flow (cfs) PCI2 Median Likert Response n Max. Distance Total Distance 1400 0.4862637 2.0 27 1456 708 1600 0.5872781 2.0 26 1352 794 1800 0.8237179 2.0 25 1248 1028 2000 0.9131944 1.5 24 1152 1052 2250 0.9392361 1.5 24 1152 1082 2500 0.9496528 1.0 24 1152 1094 2750 0.9752066 0.0 22 968 944 3000 0.9607438 -0.5 22 968 930 3500 0.9049587 -2.0 22 968 876 3750 0.8363636 -2.0 21 880 736 4000 0.8363636 -2.0 21 880 736 4250 0.8363636 -2.0 21 880 736 4500 0.8227273 -2.0 21 880 724 4750 0.8227273 -2.0 21 880 724 5000 0.8227273 -2.0 21 880 724 5250 0.7250000 -2.0 20 800 580 5500 0.7250000 -2.0 20 800 580 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Table 12: Boatable Days analysis results broken out by month for the Rio Grande: Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork. Where an Acceptability Category (e.g. ‘Optimal’) is missing for a given month, zero days were observed to fall within that category and the row was left out of the table for brevity. Month Acceptability Category Dry Year Avg. Year Wet Year Mar Lower Acceptable 2 0 0 Lower Acceptable 22 12 14 Optimal 8 13 16 Optimal 29 15 13 Upper Acceptable 2 16 13 Lower Acceptable 12 0 0 Optimal 11 16 0 Upper Acceptable 0 14 20 Lower Acceptable 4 11 10 Optimal 0 20 19 Upper Acceptable 0 0 2 Lower Acceptable 18 28 31 Optimal 0 3 0 Lower Acceptable 21 30 9 Optimal 1 0 0 Lower Acceptable 22 30 18 Optimal 5 0 0 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork (Reach 4) A B 111 101 3000 90 Elk Creek Bridge Hazard Streamflow (cfs) Boatable Days 82 67 60 54 48 35 30 2 Dry Year Wagon Wheel Gap Trestle Hazard Average Year Dry Year Wet Year 1000 30 0 Year Type 2000 0 Average Year Wet Year 0 100 Year Type C 200 300 Julian Day Dry Year Average Year Wet Year 30 Boatable Days Flow Preferences 20 Lower Acceptable Optimal Upper Acceptable Winter Months 10 Nov−Mar Oct Aug Sep Jul Jun May Apr Mar Oct Aug Sep Jul Jun May Apr Mar Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar 0 Figure 12: Boatable Days analysis results for the Rio Grande: Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork. (A) Total Boatable Days by year type and acceptability category; (B) flow acceptability ranges compared to typical wet, average, and dry year streamflow time series; and (C) monthly Boatable Days totals summarized by year type and acceptability category. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: South Fork to Del Norte (Hwy 112) Streamflow (cfs) A Rio Grande: South Fork to Del Norte (Hwy 112) (Reach 5) 9500 9000 8500 8000 7500 7000 6750 6500 6250 6000 5750 5500 5250 5000 4750 4500 4250 4000 3750 3500 3000 2750 2500 2250 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable −20 −10 0 10 20 Count of Unfavorable (−) and Favorable (+) Reponses C 80% 30% 60% Use Objective Fishing 40% Floating/Scenery Not Indicated 20% Class V 20% Class IV/V Class IV Class III/IV Class III 10% Class II A N rt Ex pe d te Ad va nc e ed ia ov i ce m In te r N dd er af t/S R Pa c kr af t/I n fla ta bl e hr e /c a ca ka ya k n no e no e d ca te O pe N ot In di r if tB y/ D or D Whitewater Skill 0% oa t 0% Percentage of Respondents Percent of Respondents B Figure 13: Survey responses for the Rio Grande, South Fork to Del Norte (Hwy 112). (A) Flow acceptability rankings. (B) User identified preferred craft types and recreational use objectives. (C) User identified whitewater navigation expertise. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: South Fork to Del Norte (Hwy 112) (Reach 5) highSafe highChallenge standardTrip technicalTrip lowAcceptable minFlow 100 90 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 00 50 70 00 67 50 65 00 62 50 60 00 57 50 55 00 52 50 50 00 47 50 45 00 42 50 40 00 ● 37 ● 10 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 90 1000 00 12 00 14 00 16 00 18 00 20 00 22 50 25 00 27 50 30 00 0 35 Percentage of Respondents 80 Streamflow (cfs) PCI2 Scores ● 'Moderately Acceptable' or 'Acceptable' Ranking Loess Fit (95% Confidence Interval) 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 User Acceptability Ranges Lower Accptable (350−500 cfs) Optimal (500−2000 cfs) Upper Acceptable (2000−3000 cfs) Figure 14: Flow preferences reported by users for the Rio Grande: South Fork to Del Norte (Hwy 112). (Top) Boxplot of responses to open-ended questions about different categories of flow. (Bottom) PCI2 analysis results overlaid on the percentage of respondents that ranked a given flow as “Moderately Acceptable” or “Acceptable”. The percentage of respondents in those categories across the full range of flows was fit with a Loess curve to support visualization of flow acceptability ranges. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Table 13: Summarized open-format flow-preference question responses for Reach 5, Rio Grande: South Fork to Del Norte (Hwy 112). Survey Question 25th Percentile Median Response 75th Percentile Response Count Minimum Flow (cfs) 300 350 400 20 Low Acceptable Flow (cfs) 312 400 500 18 Technical Flow (cfs) 300 350 500 15 Standard Trip Flow (cfs) 600 800 1000 17 Challenging High Flow (cfs) 1450 2000 2800 15 Highest Safe Flow (cfs) 2200 3000 5000 13 Table 14: PCI2 analysis results for Reach 5, Rio Grande: South Fork to Del Norte (Hwy 112). Flow (cfs) PCI2 Median Likert Response n Max. Distance Total Distance 100 0.0000000 -2.0 20 800 0 200 0.0000000 -2.0 19 720 0 300 0.6125000 -1.5 20 800 490 400 0.6322314 0.0 22 968 612 500 0.5818182 1.0 21 880 512 600 0.3677686 2.0 22 968 356 700 0.1611570 2.0 22 968 156 800 0.1681818 2.0 21 880 148 900 0.1750000 2.0 20 800 140 1000 0.2650000 2.0 20 800 212 1200 0.3500000 2.0 20 800 280 1400 0.3777778 2.0 19 720 272 1600 0.4500000 2.0 19 720 324 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Flow (cfs) PCI2 Median Likert Response n Max. Distance Total Distance 1800 0.5222222 2.0 19 720 376 2000 0.8179012 2.0 18 648 530 2250 0.8819444 1.0 17 576 508 2500 0.9166667 1.0 17 576 528 2750 0.9791667 1.0 17 576 564 3000 0.9726562 0.0 16 512 498 3500 0.8928571 -2.0 13 336 300 3750 0.8452381 -2.0 13 336 284 4000 0.7857143 -2.0 13 336 264 4250 0.7738095 -2.0 13 336 260 4500 0.7500000 -2.0 13 336 252 4750 0.7142857 -2.0 13 336 240 5000 0.7142857 -2.0 13 336 240 5250 0.5555556 -2.0 12 288 160 5500 0.5555556 -2.0 12 288 160 5750 0.5555556 -2.0 12 288 160 6000 0.5555556 -2.0 12 288 160 6250 0.6000000 -2.0 11 240 144 6500 0.6000000 -2.0 11 240 144 6750 0.6000000 -2.0 11 240 144 7000 0.3600000 -2.0 10 200 72 7500 0.3600000 -2.0 10 200 72 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Table 15: Boatable Days analysis results broken out by month for the Rio Grande: South Fork to Del Norte (Hwy 112). Where an Acceptability Category (e.g. ‘Optimal’) is missing for a given month, zero days were observed to fall within that category and the row was left out of the table for brevity. Month Acceptability Category Dry Year Avg. Year Wet Year Lower Acceptable 3 16 13 Optimal 2 0 3 Lower Acceptable 0 5 0 Optimal 30 25 30 Optimal 19 5 5 Upper Acceptable 12 12 8 Lower Acceptable 10 0 0 Optimal 19 7 0 Upper Acceptable 0 14 8 Lower Acceptable 8 0 0 Optimal 1 31 28 Upper Acceptable 0 0 3 Lower Acceptable 21 0 12 Optimal 7 31 19 Lower Acceptable 3 11 20 Optimal 19 19 0 Lower Acceptable 9 22 29 Optimal 22 9 2 Lower Acceptable 0 2 0 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: South Fork to Del Norte (Hwy 112) (Reach 5) A B 127 5000 119 4000 87 Streamflow (cfs) Boatable Days 100 74 50 56 54 26 Hanna Lane Bridge Hazard Year Type 3000 Average Year Dry Year Flying W Bridge Hazard Wet Year 2000 1000 19 12 0 0 Dry Year Average Year Wet Year 0 100 Year Type C 200 300 Julian Day Dry Year Average Year Wet Year 30 Boatable Days Flow Preferences 20 Lower Acceptable Optimal Upper Acceptable Winter Months 10 Nov−Mar Oct Nov Sep Jul Aug Jun May Apr Mar Oct Nov Aug Sep Jul Jun May Apr Mar Oct Nov Aug Sep Jul Jun Apr May Mar 0 Figure 15: Boatable Days analysis results for the Rio Grande: South Fork to Del Norte (Hwy 112). (A) Total Boatable Days by year type and acceptability category; (B) flow acceptability ranges compared to typical wet, average, and dry year streamflow time series; and (C) monthly Boatable Days totals summarized by year type and acceptability category. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Alamosa to Lasauses A Rio Grande: Alamosa to Lasauses (Reach 6) 1600 1400 1200 1000 Streamflow (cfs) 900 Unacceptable 800 Moderately Unacceptable 700 Marginal Moderately Acceptable 600 Acceptable 500 400 300 200 100 −2 0 2 Count of Unfavorable (−) and Favorable (+) Reponses B C 100% Use Objective All of the above 50% Floating/Scenery Not Indicated 25% Class V Class IV/V Class IV Class III/IV Class III 10% Class II A N rt Ex pe d va n ce te Ad ia m ed ov i er n pe O In t ca no at ed ic In d ot N ce 0% e 0% Whitewater Skill 20% N Percent of Respondents 75% Percentage of Respondents 30% Figure 16: Survey responses for the Rio Grande, Alamosa to Lasauses. (A) Flow acceptability rankings. (B) User identified preferred craft types and recreational use objectives. (C) User identified whitewater navigation expertise. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Alamosa to Lasauses (Reach 6) highSafe highChallenge standardTrip technicalTrip lowAcceptable minFlow Percentage of Respondents 100 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 00 16 00 14 00 10 12 00 0 90 0 80 0 70 0 60 0 50 0 40 0 30 0 20 10 0 0 Streamflow (cfs) PCI2 Scores ● 'Moderately Acceptable' or 'Acceptable' Ranking Loess Fit (95% Confidence Interval) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 User Acceptability Ranges Lower Accptable (200−500 cfs) Optimal (500−1000 cfs) Upper Acceptable (1000−1600 cfs) Figure 17: Flow preferences reported by users for the Rio Grande: Alamosa to Lasauses. (Top) Boxplot of responses to open-ended questions about different categories of flow. (Bottom) PCI2 analysis results overlaid on the percentage of respondents that ranked a given flow as “Moderately Acceptable” or “Acceptable”. The percentage of respondents in those categories across the full range of flows was fit with a Loess curve to support visualization of flow acceptability ranges. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Table 16: Summarized open-format flow-preference question responses for Reach 6, Rio Grande: Alamosa to Lasauses. Survey Question 25th Percentile Median Response 75th Percentile Response Count Minimum Flow (cfs) 140 180 190 3 Low Acceptable Flow (cfs) 200 200 300 3 Technical Flow (cfs) 185 190 195 2 Standard Trip Flow (cfs) 625 750 875 2 Challenging High Flow (cfs) 1000 1000 1000 1 Highest Safe Flow (cfs) 5000 5000 5000 1 Table 17: PCI2 analysis results for Reach 6, Rio Grande: Alamosa to Lasauses. Flow (cfs) PCI2 Median Likert Response n Max. Distance Total Distance 100 0.50 -2 3 16 8 200 0.75 1 3 16 12 300 0.50 2 3 16 8 400 0.25 2 3 16 4 500 0.00 2 3 16 0 600 0.00 2 3 16 0 700 0.00 2 3 16 0 800 0.00 2 3 16 0 900 0.00 2 3 16 0 1000 0.00 2 3 16 0 1200 0.00 2 2 8 0 1400 0.00 2 2 8 0 1600 NaN 2 1 0 0 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Table 18: Boatable Days analysis results broken out by month for the Rio Grande: Alamosa to Lasauses. Where an Acceptability Category (e.g. ‘Optimal’) is missing for a given month, zero days were observed to fall within that category and the row was left out of the table for brevity. Month Acceptability Category Dry Year Avg. Year Wet Year Jan Lower Acceptable 0 0 10 Feb Lower Acceptable 13 21 22 Lower Acceptable 17 30 31 Optimal 0 1 0 Lower Acceptable 0 4 22 Lower Acceptable 0 28 15 Optimal 0 0 16 Lower Acceptable 10 21 1 Optimal 0 0 29 Jul Lower Acceptable 0 1 31 Aug Lower Acceptable 0 0 31 Sep Lower Acceptable 0 0 24 Nov Lower Acceptable 7 27 15 Dec Lower Acceptable 0 14 2 Mar Apr May Jun Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Alamosa to Lasauses (Reach 6) A B 1000 200 204 750 150 Streamflow (cfs) Boatable Days 146 100 50 Year Type Average Year 500 Dry Year Wet Year 250 47 45 0 1 Dry Year 0 Average Year Wet Year 0 100 200 Year Type C 300 Julian Day Dry Year Average Year Wet Year 30 Boatable Days Flow Preferences 20 Lower Acceptable Optimal Winter Months Nov−Mar 10 Nov Dec Sep Jul Aug Jun Apr May Mar Jan Feb Nov Dec Sep Jul Aug Jun Apr May Mar Jan Feb Nov Dec Sep Jul Aug Jun Apr May Mar Jan Feb 0 Figure 18: Boatable Days analysis results for the Rio Grande: Alamosa to Lasauses. (A) Total Boatable Days by year type and acceptability category; (B) flow acceptability ranges compared to typical wet, average, and dry year streamflow time series; and (C) monthly Boatable Days totals summarized by year type and acceptability category. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Lasauses to Lobatos Bridge Streamflow (cfs) A Rio Grande: Lasauses to Lobatos Bridge (Reach 7) 6500 6250 6000 5750 5500 5250 5000 4750 4500 4250 4000 3750 3500 3000 2750 2500 2250 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable −8 −4 0 4 Count of Unfavorable (−) and Favorable (+) Reponses B C 75% Use Objective 50% Floating/Scenery Not Indicated 25% Whitewater Skill Class V 20% Class IV/V Class IV Class III/IV Class III 10% Class II A N t er Ex p d ce te ia ed Ad va n ce In te r m N ed hr af t/S R ov i r de oe /c ka ya k Pa c kr af t/I n fla ta bl e O pe In n di ca an no te d ca /C ot N Ka ya k e 0% −1 0% Percentage of Respondents Percent of Respondents 30% Figure 19: Survey responses for the Rio Grande, Lasauses to Lobatos Bridge. (A) Flow acceptability rankings. (B) User identified preferred craft types and recreational use objectives. (C) User identified whitewater navigation expertise. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Lasauses to Lobatos Bridge (Reach 7) highSafe highChallenge standardTrip technicalTrip lowAcceptable minFlow 100 ● ● ● ● Percentage of Respondents 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 00 50 50 47 00 50 45 00 42 40 50 37 00 35 00 30 50 27 00 25 50 22 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 70 0 80 0 90 10 0 00 12 00 14 00 16 00 18 00 20 00 0 Streamflow (cfs) PCI2 Scores ● 'Moderately Acceptable' or 'Acceptable' Ranking Loess Fit (95% Confidence Interval) 0.00 User Acceptability Ranges 0.25 Lower Accptable (300−600 cfs) 0.50 Optimal (600−2000 cfs) 0.75 Upper Acceptable (2000−3500 cfs) 1.00 Figure 20: Flow preferences reported by users for the Rio Grande: Lasauses to Lobatos Bridge. (Top) Boxplot of responses to open-ended questions about different categories of flow. (Bottom) PCI2 analysis results overlaid on the percentage of respondents that ranked a given flow as “Moderately Acceptable” or “Acceptable”. The percentage of respondents in those categories across the full range of flows was fit with a Loess curve to support visualization of flow acceptability ranges. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Table 19: Summarized open-format flow-preference question responses for Reach 7, Rio Grande: Lasauses to Lobatos Bridge. Survey Question 25th Percentile Median Response 75th Percentile Response Count Minimum Flow (cfs) 200 300 388 8 Low Acceptable Flow (cfs) 275 350 425 8 Technical Flow (cfs) 300 300 350 5 Standard Trip Flow (cfs) 575 850 1275 8 Challenging High Flow (cfs) 1225 1400 1625 4 Highest Safe Flow (cfs) 1700 2000 3500 3 Table 20: PCI2 analysis results for Reach 7, Rio Grande: Lasauses to Lobatos Bridge. Flow (cfs) PCI2 Median Likert Response n Max. Distance Total Distance 100 0.2187500 -2.0 8 128 28 200 0.6250000 -1.0 9 160 100 300 0.7750000 0.0 9 160 124 400 0.6000000 1.0 9 160 96 500 0.5312500 2.0 8 128 68 600 0.3333333 2.0 7 96 32 700 0.0000000 2.0 7 96 0 800 0.0000000 2.0 7 96 0 900 0.0000000 2.0 7 96 0 1000 0.0000000 2.0 7 96 0 1200 0.1388889 2.0 6 72 10 1400 0.2777778 2.0 6 72 20 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Flow (cfs) PCI2 Median Likert Response n Max. Distance Total Distance 1600 0.5833333 2.0 5 48 28 1800 0.7500000 2.0 5 48 36 2000 0.8333333 2.0 5 48 40 2250 0.8333333 2.0 5 48 40 2500 0.9166667 2.0 5 48 44 2750 0.9166667 2.0 5 48 44 3000 0.9375000 0.5 4 32 30 3500 1.0000000 0.0 4 32 32 3750 1.0000000 0.0 4 32 32 4000 1.0000000 0.0 4 32 32 4250 1.0000000 -2.0 3 16 16 4500 1.0000000 -2.0 3 16 16 4750 1.0000000 -2.0 3 16 16 5000 1.0000000 -2.0 3 16 16 5250 1.0000000 -2.0 3 16 16 5500 1.0000000 -2.0 3 16 16 5750 1.0000000 -2.0 3 16 16 6000 1.0000000 -2.0 3 16 16 6250 1.0000000 0.0 2 8 8 6500 1.0000000 -2.0 3 16 16 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Table 21: Boatable Days analysis results broken out by month for the Rio Grande: Lasauses to Lobatos Bridge. Where an Acceptability Category (e.g. ‘Optimal’) is missing for a given month, zero days were observed to fall within that category and the row was left out of the table for brevity. Month Acceptability Category Dry Year Avg. Year Wet Year Feb Lower Acceptable 0 0 1 Mar Lower Acceptable 0 24 30 Apr Lower Acceptable 0 4 10 Lower Acceptable 0 3 14 Optimal 0 0 17 Lower Acceptable 0 8 0 Optimal 0 0 30 Jul Lower Acceptable 0 0 12 Aug Lower Acceptable 0 0 7 May Jun Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Lasauses to Lobatos Bridge (Reach 7) A B 74 900 Streamflow (cfs) Boatable Days 60 47 40 39 20 Year Type Average Year 600 Dry Year Wet Year 300 0 0 Average Year Wet Year 0 100 Year Type C 200 300 Julian Day Dry Year Average Year Wet Year 30 Boatable Days Flow Preferences 20 Lower Acceptable Optimal Winter Months Nov−Mar 10 Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb 0 Figure 21: Boatable Days analysis results for the Rio Grande: Lasauses to Lobatos Bridge. (A) Total Boatable Days by year type and acceptability category; (B) flow acceptability ranges compared to typical wet, average, and dry year streamflow time series; and (C) monthly Boatable Days totals summarized by year type and acceptability category. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Lobatos Bridge to Lee Trail, NM Streamflow (cfs) A Rio Grande: Lobatos Bridge to Lee Trail, NM (Reach 8) 6500 6250 6000 5750 5500 5250 5000 4750 4500 4250 4000 3750 3500 3000 2750 2500 2250 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable −10 0 10 Count of Unfavorable (−) and Favorable (+) Reponses B C 30% 60% Use Objective Floating/Scenery 40% Not Indicated 20% Whitewater Skill Class V 20% Class IV/V Class IV Class III/IV Class III 10% Class II A N rt Ex pe d te Ad va nc e ed ia ce ov i N m In te r r ed af t/S R Pa c kr af t/I nf la ta bl e hr /c a ca ka ya k n pe O de no e no ed at In di c /C ot N Ka ya k e 0% −1 0% Percentage of Respondents Percent of Respondents 80% Figure 22: Survey responses for the Rio Grande, Lobatos Bridge to Lee Trail, NM. (A) Flow acceptability rankings. (B) User identified preferred craft types and recreational use objectives. (C) User identified whitewater navigation expertise. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Lobatos Bridge to Lee Trail, NM (Reach 8) highSafe highChallenge standardTrip technicalTrip lowAcceptable minFlow 100 ● 90 Percentage of Respondents 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 00 50 50 47 00 50 45 00 42 40 50 37 00 35 00 30 50 27 00 25 22 50 ● 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 70 0 80 0 90 10 0 00 12 00 14 00 16 00 18 00 20 00 0 Streamflow (cfs) PCI2 Scores 'Moderately Acceptable' or 'Acceptable' Ranking Loess Fit (95% Confidence Interval) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 User Acceptability Ranges Lower Accptable (300−600 cfs) Optimal (600−2000 cfs) Upper Acceptable (2000−3250 cfs) Figure 23: Flow preferences reported by users for the Rio Grande: Lobatos Bridge to Lee Trail, NM. (Top) Boxplot of responses to open-ended questions about different categories of flow. (Bottom) PCI2 analysis results overlaid on the percentage of respondents that ranked a given flow as “Moderately Acceptable” or “Acceptable”. The percentage of respondents in those categories across the full range of flows was fit with a Loess curve to support visualization of flow acceptability ranges. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Table 22: Summarized open-format flow-preference question responses for Reach 8, Rio Grande: Lobatos Bridge to Lee Trail, NM. Survey Question 25th Percentile Median Response 75th Percentile Response Count Minimum Flow (cfs) 200 200 400 17 Low Acceptable Flow (cfs) 250 350 600 17 Technical Flow (cfs) 200 300 400 15 Standard Trip Flow (cfs) 500 600 1000 15 Challenging High Flow (cfs) 1300 1500 2000 9 Highest Safe Flow (cfs) 2000 2250 4000 8 Table 23: PCI2 analysis results for Reach 8, Rio Grande: Lobatos Bridge to Lee Trail, NM. Flow (cfs) PCI2 Median Likert Response n Max. Distance Total Distance 100 0.1171875 -2.0 16 512 60 200 0.6736111 -1.0 17 576 388 300 0.7839506 0.5 18 648 508 400 0.8364198 1.0 18 648 542 500 0.7222222 2.0 17 576 416 600 0.5976562 2.0 16 512 306 700 0.5117188 2.0 16 512 262 800 0.3392857 2.0 15 448 152 900 0.2589286 2.0 15 448 116 1000 0.1160714 2.0 15 448 52 1200 0.1224490 2.0 14 392 48 1400 0.2152778 2.0 12 288 62 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Flow (cfs) PCI2 Median Likert Response n Max. Distance Total Distance 1600 0.2700000 2.0 10 200 54 1800 0.3333333 2.0 11 240 80 2000 0.3333333 2.0 11 240 80 2250 0.5000000 2.0 10 200 100 2500 0.5000000 2.0 10 200 100 2750 0.5500000 2.0 9 160 88 3000 0.5500000 2.0 9 160 88 3500 0.7000000 2.0 9 160 112 3750 0.7000000 2.0 9 160 112 4000 0.7000000 2.0 9 160 112 4250 0.7000000 2.0 9 160 112 4500 0.7000000 2.0 9 160 112 4750 0.7000000 2.0 9 160 112 5000 0.7000000 2.0 9 160 112 5250 0.7000000 2.0 9 160 112 5500 0.7000000 2.0 9 160 112 5750 0.7000000 2.0 9 160 112 6000 0.7500000 2.0 9 160 120 6250 0.6900000 2.0 10 200 138 6500 0.8700000 2.0 10 200 174 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Table 24: Boatable Days analysis results broken out by month for the Rio Grande: Lobatos Bridge to Lee Trail, NM. Where an Acceptability Category (e.g. ‘Optimal’) is missing for a given month, zero days were observed to fall within that category and the row was left out of the table for brevity. Month Acceptability Category Dry Year Avg. Year Wet Year Jan Lower Acceptable 0 0 28 Feb Lower Acceptable 0 19 29 Lower Acceptable 7 16 19 Optimal 0 15 12 Lower Acceptable 0 20 12 Optimal 0 1 18 Lower Acceptable 0 17 0 Optimal 0 14 29 Upper Acceptable 0 0 2 Lower Acceptable 0 14 0 Optimal 0 16 30 Lower Acceptable 0 11 25 Optimal 0 0 6 Aug Lower Acceptable 0 0 21 Sep Lower Acceptable 0 0 1 Nov Lower Acceptable 0 26 6 Dec Lower Acceptable 0 14 0 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Rio Grande: Lobatos Bridge to Lee Trail, NM (Reach 8) A B 2000 141 137 1500 95 Streamflow (cfs) Boatable Days 100 50 Year Type Average Year 1000 Dry Year Wet Year 46 500 7 0 0 2 Dry Year Average Year Wet Year 0 100 200 Year Type C 300 Julian Day Dry Year Average Year Wet Year 30 Boatable Days Flow Preferences 20 Lower Acceptable Optimal Upper Acceptable Winter Months 10 Nov−Mar Nov Dec Sep Jul Aug Jun Apr May Mar Jan Feb Nov Dec Sep Jul Aug Jun Apr May Mar Jan Feb Nov Dec Sep Jul Aug Jun Apr May Mar Jan Feb 0 Figure 24: Boatable Days analysis results for the Rio Grande: Lobatos Bridge to Lee Trail, NM. (A) Total Boatable Days by year type and acceptability category; (B) flow acceptability ranges compared to typical wet, average, and dry year streamflow time series; and (C) monthly Boatable Days totals summarized by year type and acceptability category. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Conejos River: Platoro Reservoir to South Fork Conejos A Conejos: Platoro Reservoir To South Fork Conejos (Reach 9) 1200 1000 900 Streamflow (cfs) 800 700 Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable 600 Marginal Moderately Acceptable 500 Acceptable 400 300 200 100 −5.0 −2.5 0.0 2.5 Count of Unfavorable (−) and Favorable (+) Reponses B C Use Objective All of the above Fishing 50% Floating/Scenery Not Indicated Rapids 25% Class IV/V Class IV Class III/IV Class III 10% Class II A N t er Ex p d ce te ia ed m te r In Ad va n ce ov i r de oe ed af t/S hr an Pa c kr af In t t/I nf la R ta bl e ka ya k n pe O ot N /c ca ca di In no te d −1 e /C Tu b un Ka ya k rR ex R ive Class V 20% 0% e 0% Whitewater Skill N Percent of Respondents 75% Percentage of Respondents 30% Figure 25: Survey responses for the Conejos, Platoro Reservoir to South Fork Conejos. (A) Flow acceptability rankings. (B) User identified preferred craft types and recreational use objectives. (C) User identified whitewater navigation expertise. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Conejos: Platoro Reservoir To South Fork Conejos (Reach 9) highSafe highChallenge standardTrip technicalTrip lowAcceptable minFlow Percentage of Respondents 100 ● ● ● ● 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 00 12 00 10 0 90 0 80 0 70 0 60 0 50 0 40 0 30 0 20 10 0 0 Streamflow (cfs) PCI2 Scores ● 'Moderately Acceptable' or 'Acceptable' Ranking Loess Fit (95% Confidence Interval) 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 User Acceptability Ranges Lower Accptable (150−300 cfs) Optimal (300−600 cfs) Upper Acceptable (600−1200 cfs) Figure 26: Flow preferences reported by users for the Conejos: Platoro Reservoir to South Fork Conejos. (Top) Boxplot of responses to open-ended questions about different categories of flow. (Bottom) PCI2 analysis results overlaid on the percentage of respondents that ranked a given flow as “Moderately Acceptable” or “Acceptable”. The percentage of respondents in those categories across the full range of flows was fit with a Loess curve to support visualization of flow acceptability ranges. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Table 25: Summarized open-format flow-preference question responses for Reach 9, Conejos: Platoro Reservoir to South Fork Conejos. Survey Question 25th Percentile Median Response 75th Percentile Response Count Minimum Flow (cfs) 138 250 362 6 Low Acceptable Flow (cfs) 138 275 375 6 Technical Flow (cfs) 100 250 300 5 Standard Trip Flow (cfs) 262 350 700 6 Challenging High Flow (cfs) 500 500 500 5 Highest Safe Flow (cfs) 450 600 825 4 Table 26: PCI2 analysis results for Reach 9, Conejos: Platoro Reservoir to South Fork Conejos. Flow (cfs) PCI2 Median Likert Response n Max. Distance Total Distance 100 0.8333333 -1.0 7 96 80 200 0.9444444 1.0 6 72 68 300 0.8055556 2.0 6 72 58 400 0.6875000 1.0 4 32 22 500 0.4375000 1.5 4 32 14 600 0.6250000 1.5 4 32 20 700 0.5625000 2.0 4 32 18 800 0.0000000 2.0 3 16 0 900 0.0000000 2.0 3 16 0 1000 0.0000000 2.0 3 16 0 1200 0.0000000 2.0 3 16 0 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Table 27: Boatable Days analysis results broken out by month for the Conejos: Platoro Reservoir to South Fork Conejos. Where an Acceptability Category (e.g. ‘Optimal’) is missing for a given month, zero days were observed to fall within that category and the row was left out of the table for brevity. Month Acceptability Category Dry Year Avg. Year Wet Year Lower Acceptable 22 17 11 Optimal 0 10 1 Lower Acceptable 28 23 1 Optimal 0 7 29 Lower Acceptable 3 16 30 Optimal 0 0 1 Lower Acceptable 0 0 2 May Jun Jul Aug Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Conejos: Platoro Reservoir To South Fork Conejos (Reach 9) A B 500 56 53 400 44 31 20 Streamflow (cfs) Boatable Days 40 Year Type 300 Average Year Dry Year Wet Year 200 17 100 0 0 Dry Year Average Year Wet Year 0 100 Year Type C 200 300 Julian Day Dry Year Average Year Wet Year Boatable Days 30 20 Flow Preferences Lower Acceptable Optimal 10 Aug Jul Jun May Aug Jul Jun May Aug Jul Jun May 0 Figure 27: Boatable Days analysis results for the Conejos: Platoro Reservoir to South Fork Conejos. (A) Total Boatable Days by year type and acceptability category; (B) flow acceptability ranges compared to typical wet, average, and dry year streamflow time series; and (C) monthly Boatable Days totals summarized by year type and acceptability category. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Conejos River: South Fork Conejos to Hwy 17 Bridge A Conejos: S. Fork Conejos to Hwy 17 Bridge (Reach 10) 1200 1000 900 Streamflow (cfs) 800 700 Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable 600 Marginal Moderately Acceptable 500 Acceptable 400 300 200 100 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 Count of Unfavorable (−) and Favorable (+) Reponses B 100% C 75% Use Objective All of the above 50% Fishing Floating/Scenery Not Indicated 25% Whitewater Skill Class V 20% Class IV/V Class IV Class III/IV Class III 10% Class II bl e A N rt Ex pe d te Ad va nc e ed ia ov i N m In te r r hr ed de an oe af t/S O pe ka ya k n /c ca In di Pa c kr af t/I n fla ta R te d −1 /C ot N Ka ya k ce 0% ca no e 0% Percentage of Respondents Percent of Respondents 30% Figure 28: Survey responses for the Conejos, S. Fork Conejos to Hwy 17 Bridge. (A) Flow acceptability rankings. (B) User identified preferred craft types and recreational use objectives. (C) User identified whitewater navigation expertise. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Conejos: S. Fork Conejos to Hwy 17 Bridge (Reach 10) highSafe highChallenge standardTrip technicalTrip lowAcceptable minFlow 100 ● ● 90 Percentage of Respondents 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 80 0 70 0 60 0 50 0 40 0 30 0 20 10 0 0 Streamflow (cfs) PCI2 Scores ● 'Moderately Acceptable' or 'Acceptable' Ranking Loess Fit (95% Confidence Interval) 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 User Acceptability Ranges Lower Accptable (150−300 cfs) Optimal (300−550 cfs) Upper Acceptable (550−800 cfs) Figure 29: Flow preferences reported by users for the Conejos: S. Fork Conejos to Hwy 17 Bridge. (Top) Boxplot of responses to open-ended questions about different categories of flow. (Bottom) PCI2 analysis results overlaid on the percentage of respondents that ranked a given flow as “Moderately Acceptable” or “Acceptable”. The percentage of respondents in those categories across the full range of flows was fit with a Loess curve to support visualization of flow acceptability ranges. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Table 28: Summarized open-format flow-preference question responses for Reach 10, Conejos: S. Fork Conejos to Hwy 17 Bridge. Survey Question 25th Percentile Median Response 75th Percentile Response Count Minimum Flow (cfs) 100 100 300 3 Low Acceptable Flow (cfs) 125 150 525 3 Technical Flow (cfs) 100 100 100 2 Standard Trip Flow (cfs) 250 300 650 3 Challenging High Flow (cfs) 500 600 700 2 Highest Safe Flow (cfs) 425 550 675 2 Table 29: PCI2 analysis results for Reach 10, Conejos: S. Fork Conejos to Hwy 17 Bridge. Flow (cfs) PCI2 Median Likert Response n Max. Distance Total Distance 100 0.8125 -0.5 4 32 26 200 0.8750 0.0 4 32 28 300 0.9375 0.5 4 32 30 400 0.7500 0.5 4 32 24 500 0.5000 1.0 2 8 4 600 0.2500 1.5 2 8 2 700 0.0000 2.0 2 8 0 800 0.0000 2.0 2 8 0 900 0.0000 2.0 2 8 0 1000 0.0000 2.0 2 8 0 1200 0.0000 2.0 2 8 0 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Table 30: Boatable Days analysis results broken out by month for the Conejos: S. Fork Conejos to Hwy 17 Bridge. Where an Acceptability Category (e.g. ‘Optimal’) is missing for a given month, zero days were observed to fall within that category and the row was left out of the table for brevity. Month Acceptability Category Dry Year Avg. Year Wet Year Lower Acceptable 22 17 11 Optimal 0 10 1 Lower Acceptable 28 23 1 Optimal 0 7 29 Lower Acceptable 3 16 30 Optimal 0 0 1 Lower Acceptable 0 0 2 May Jun Jul Aug Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Conejos: S. Fork Conejos to Hwy 17 Bridge (Reach 10) A B 500 56 53 400 44 31 20 Streamflow (cfs) Boatable Days 40 Year Type 300 Average Year Dry Year Wet Year 200 17 100 0 0 Dry Year Average Year Wet Year 0 100 Year Type C 200 300 Julian Day Dry Year Average Year Wet Year Boatable Days 30 20 Flow Preferences Lower Acceptable Optimal 10 Aug Jul Jun May Aug Jul Jun May Aug Jul Jun May 0 Figure 30: Boatable Days analysis results for the Conejos: S. Fork Conejos to Hwy 17 Bridge. (A) Total Boatable Days by year type and acceptability category; (B) flow acceptability ranges compared to typical wet, average, and dry year streamflow time series; and (C) monthly Boatable Days totals summarized by year type and acceptability category. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Conejos River: Hwy 17 to Mogote Campground A Conejos: Hwy 17 to Mogote Campground (Reach 11) 3000 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 Streamflow (cfs) 1800 1600 1400 Unacceptable 1200 Moderately Unacceptable 1000 Marginal 900 Moderately Acceptable 800 Acceptable 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 −4 −2 0 2 4 Count of Unfavorable (−) and Favorable (+) Reponses B C 75% Use Objective All of the above 50% Floating/Scenery Not Indicated 25% Whitewater Skill Class V 20% Class IV/V Class IV Class III/IV Class III 10% Class II A N rt Ex pe d te Ad va nc e ed ia ce ov i N m In te r r ed af t/S R Pa c kr af t/I nf la ta bl e hr /c a ca ka ya k n pe O de no e no ed at In di c /C ot N Ka ya k e 0% −1 0% Percentage of Respondents Percent of Respondents 30% Figure 31: Survey responses for the Conejos, Hwy 17 to Mogote Campground. (A) Flow acceptability rankings. (B) User identified preferred craft types and recreational use objectives. (C) User identified whitewater navigation expertise. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Conejos: Hwy 17 to Mogote Campground (Reach 11) highSafe highChallenge standardTrip technicalTrip lowAcceptable minFlow 100 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Percentage of Respondents 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 00 28 00 26 00 24 00 22 00 20 00 18 00 16 00 14 00 12 0 00 10 0 90 0 80 0 70 0 60 0 50 0 40 0 30 20 10 0 0 Streamflow (cfs) PCI2 Scores ● 'Moderately Acceptable' or 'Acceptable' Ranking Loess Fit (95% Confidence Interval) 0.0 User Acceptability Ranges 0.2 Lower Accptable (300−550 cfs) 0.4 Optimal (550−2100 cfs) 0.6 Upper Acceptable (2100−2700 cfs) 0.8 Figure 32: Flow preferences reported by users for the Conejos: Hwy 17 to Mogote Campground. (Top) Boxplot of responses to open-ended questions about different categories of flow. (Bottom) PCI2 analysis results overlaid on the percentage of respondents that ranked a given flow as “Moderately Acceptable” or “Acceptable”. The percentage of respondents in those categories across the full range of flows was fit with a Loess curve to support visualization of flow acceptability ranges. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Table 31: Summarized open-format flow-preference question responses for Reach 11, Conejos: Hwy 17 to Mogote Campground. Survey Question 25th Percentile Median Response 75th Percentile Response Count Minimum Flow (cfs) 175 300 450 4 Low Acceptable Flow (cfs) 300 400 500 3 Technical Flow (cfs) 250 300 300 3 Standard Trip Flow (cfs) 575 800 1000 4 Challenging High Flow (cfs) 1350 2000 2250 3 Highest Safe Flow (cfs) 1625 2250 2500 4 Table 32: PCI2 analysis results for Reach 11, Conejos: Hwy 17 to Mogote Campground. Flow (cfs) PCI2 Median Likert Response n Max. Distance Total Distance 100 0.3750 -2.0 4 32 12 200 0.8125 -1.5 4 32 26 300 0.8750 -1.0 4 32 28 400 0.7500 0.5 4 32 24 500 0.5000 1.0 4 32 16 600 0.2500 1.5 4 32 8 700 0.0000 2.0 3 16 0 800 0.0000 2.0 3 16 0 900 0.0000 2.0 3 16 0 1000 0.0000 2.0 3 16 0 1200 0.0000 2.0 3 16 0 1400 0.0000 2.0 3 16 0 Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Flow (cfs) PCI2 Median Likert Response n Max. Distance Total Distance 1600 0.0000 2.0 4 32 0 1800 0.1875 2.0 4 32 6 2000 0.1875 2.0 4 32 6 2200 0.4375 1.5 4 32 14 2400 0.5000 2.0 3 16 8 2600 0.7500 2.0 3 16 12 2800 0.7500 -1.0 3 16 12 3000 0.7500 -1.0 3 16 12 Table 33: Boatable Days analysis results broken out by month for the Conejos: Hwy 17 to Mogote Campground. Where an Acceptability Category (e.g. ‘Optimal’) is missing for a given month, zero days were observed to fall within that category and the row was left out of the table for brevity. Month Acceptability Category Dry Year Avg. Year Wet Year Lower Acceptable 8 11 13 Optimal 0 0 4 Lower Acceptable 7 3 4 Optimal 24 28 27 Lower Acceptable 14 0 0 Optimal 5 30 30 Lower Acceptable 0 16 23 Optimal 0 1 3 Apr May Jun Jul Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Conejos: Hwy 17 to Mogote Campground (Reach 11) A B 64 60 40 1500 40 29 30 29 Streamflow (cfs) Boatable Days 59 20 Year Type 1000 Average Year Dry Year Wet Year 500 0 0 Dry Year Average Year Wet Year 0 100 Year Type C 200 300 Julian Day Dry Year Average Year Wet Year Boatable Days 30 20 Flow Preferences Lower Acceptable Optimal 10 Jul Jun May Apr Jul Jun May Apr Jul Jun May Apr 0 Figure 33: Boatable Days analysis results for the Conejos: Hwy 17 to Mogote Campground. (A) Total Boatable Days by year type and acceptability category; (B) flow acceptability ranges compared to typical wet, average, and dry year streamflow time series; and (C) monthly Boatable Days totals summarized by year type and acceptability category. APPENDIX B: Web Survey Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 1. PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE COMPLETING THE SURVEY American Whitewater and the Rio Grande Headwaters Restoration Project needs your help to define streamflows that support the full range of recreational boating opportunities on the Rio Grande and Conejos Rivers in Southern Colorado. Information collected by this study will be used to assess river-dependent recreation as part of a joint stream management planning effort between American Whitewater and the Rio Grande Headwaters Restoration Project. We have developed this survey so individuals and outfitters can report how changes in stream flows affect recreation quality on each of our targeted river segments. Your input will help American Whitewater identify the full range of flows necessary to support recreation experiences, from technical low water to challenging high water opportunities. The information you provide will support development of multipurpose projects in the Basin and can help protect and enhance economies that rely on environmental and recreational water uses. The river segments targeted by this study include: 1) Rio Grande Box Canyon (CO, this not the Taos Box) 2) Rio Grande from Box Canyon to Creede (CO, not the Taos Box) 3) Rio Grande from Creede to Wagon Wheel Gap 4) Rio Grande from Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork 5) Rio Grande from South Fork to Del Norte 6) Conejos River from Platoro Reservoir to South Fork Campground 7) Conejos River from South Fork to Hwy 17 Bridge 8) Conejos River From Highway 17 Bridge, to Mogote Camp Ground 9) Rio Grande River From Alamosa to Lasauses 10) Rio Grande from Lasauses to Lobatos Bridge 11) Rio Grande from Lobatos Bridge to Lee Trail, New Mexico You will only be asked to respond to survey questions for the segments you have personally experienced. Please encourage your fellow paddlers to participate in this study. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 2. Survey Overview American Whitewater is conducting the study because decades of research confirms that changes in stream flow, or the amount of water in a river, fundamentally affects recreation quality in most river settings. In the short term, flows determine whether a river provides opportunities for boating and angling, and they affect attributes such as the challenge of whitewater or trip aesthetics. Longer-term flow regimes may also have effects on ecological resources, riparian environments, or channel features such as beaches, pools, rapids, and riffles. American Whitewater is presenting two series of questions for each study segment in this web-based survey. The first series will ask participants to evaluate flows and overall recreation quality using a five-point “acceptability” scale (unacceptable -2 and acceptable 2) for flows measured at specific data nodes or stream gages. These individual evaluations of flows will be aggregated into social norms to describe overall flow-recreation quality, and allow AW to create Flow-Agreement Acceptability curves (FAAI) that graphically represent this important relationship. In most cases, FAAI curves show inverted U-shapes where low flows and high flows provide less acceptable recreation conditions, while medium flows provide more acceptable (greater value) conditions. To further refine and validate results from the flow-evaluation curves, a set of single-flow judgments will be requested of survey respondents. For each study segment, respondents will be asked to report a single flow value that provides a distinct paddling experience or “niche” along a spectrum: low, technical, standard, high challenge, and maximum or “highest acceptable” flow. Overlaying these specific flow evaluations on overall flowevaluation curves provides greater detail for understanding the effect that changes in streamflow can have on recreation quality. Please take your time responding to the questions in this study. Your thoughtful participation is important to advancing good water policy and river management in the State. For more information on the Rio Grande Basin Stream Management Plan, please visit American Whitewater's Project Page. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 3. Participant Information Please describe yourself. American Whitewater uses your personal information only to ensure accuracy and avoid duplication in our web-based survey methods. We do not sell or distribute your information. * 1. Your name * 2. How would you describe your skill level on the river? Novice Intermediate Advanced Expert * 3. What is the highest class of rapid you confidently paddle? Class II Class III Class III/IV Class IV Class IV/V Class V 4. Would you characterize yourself as a private or commercial boater? Private Commercial (customer) 5. Your Email 6. Your Phone 7. Your Street Address * 8. Your City * 9. Your State Commercial (guide) Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment * 10. Your Zip Code * 11. How often do you participate in river-recreation activities? (check only one) 1 time a season 2-5 times a season 5-20 times a season 20+ times a season 50+ times a season * 12. How confident are you in reporting flows that you have experienced on the river? Not comfortable at all somewhat uncomfortable neutral somewhat comfortable very comfortable Next, we will ask you about specific study segments. Both sets of study questions will be presented for each segment. Lets get to it! Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 4. Rio Grande River - Box Canyon * 13. Have you floated or paddled the Box Canyon section of the Rio Grande in Colorado? (This is not the Taos Box section in NM) For more information and a map of this stretch of river, visit theAmerican Whitewater River Page. Yes No Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 5. Box Canyon Flow Survey For the questions on this page, please rate the quality of the run at each specified flowfor your preferred craft-type. Please pay particular attention to the gage and report acceptable flows for that gage only. * 14. What is your preferred craft for paddling the Box Canyon section of the Rio Grande River? (Choose one) Hard shell kayak/canoe Raft/Shredder Inflatable kayak/canoe/packraft Open canoe Other (please specify) * 15. What is your primary recreational objective on the Box Canyon section of the Rio Grande River? (Choose one) Floating/Scenery Exercise Other (please specify) Fishing Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 16. With your preferred craft-type in mind, please consider all the flow-dependent characteristics that contribute to a high quality experience (e.g., depth, challenge, safety, availability of surfing or other play areas, aesthetics, and length of run). For comparative purposes, please rate the acceptability of each flow level. Flows represented are measured by the CO DWR Gage Rio Grande at Thirty Mile Bridge near Creede. Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 17. What is the minimum flow required to float your preferred craft on this stretch? (please specify in cfs) 18. With your particular craft in mind, what is the lowest acceptable flow that provides a reasonable experience on this run? The lowest acceptable is the lowest flow you would return to boat in your preferred craft, not the minimum flow that allows you to navigate. (please specify in cfs) Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 19. Some people are interested in taking trips at lower flows for a technical experience. Think of this “technical trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a technical trip? (please specify in cfs) 20. Many people are interested in a “standard” river trip at average flows. Think of this “standard trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a standard trip? (please specify in cfs) 21. Some people are interested in taking trips at higher flows for increased challenge. Think of this “high challenge trip” in your craft. What is the best flow for a high challenge trip? (please specify in cfs) 22. What is the highest safe flow for your craft and skill level? (please specify in cfs) 23. Do you have any general comments on flows that you feel have not been addressed in the questions we've asked? Specifically if you do not have a good record of flows or dates from when you have run the river please include any qualitative observations on flows needs. 24. Are there other concerns or opportunities on this stretch of river that you would like to report? These could be related to safety, aesthetics, crowding, access facilities, or other factors. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 6. Rio Grande River - Box Canyon to Creede * 25. Have you floated or paddled the Rio Grande from the Mouth of Box Canyon to Creede (Airport Rd)? For more information on this stretch of river visit the American Whitewater River Page. Yes No Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 7. Box Canyon to Creede - Flow Survey For the questions on this page, please rate the quality of the run at each specified flowfor your preferred craft-type. Please pay particular attention to the gage and report acceptable flows for that gage only. * 26. What is your preferred craft for paddling Rio Grande from Box Canyon to Creede? (Choose one) Dory/Drift Boat Packraft/Inflatable kayak/canoe Kayak/C-1 Open canoe Raft/Shredder Other (please specify) * 27. What is your primary recreational objective on this section of the Rio Grande River? (Choose one) Floating/Scenery Exercise Other (please specify) Fishing Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 28. With your preferred craft in mind, please consider all the flow-dependent characteristics that contribute to a high quality experience (e.g., depth, challenge, safety, availability of surfing or other play areas, aesthetics, and length of run). For comparative purposes, please rate the acceptability of each flow level. Flows represented are measured by the CO DWR Gage Rio Grande at Thirty Mile Bridge near Creede. Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 29. What is the minimum flow required to float your preferred craft on this stretch? (please specify in cfs) 30. With your particular craft in mind, what is the lowest acceptable flow that provides a reasonable experience on this run? The lowest acceptable is the lowest flow you would return to boat in your preferred craft, not the minimum flow that allows you to navigate. (please specify in cfs) Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 31. Some people are interested in taking trips at lower flows for a technical experience. Think of this “technical trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a technical trip? (please specify in cfs) 32. Many people are interested in a “standard” river trip at average flows. Think of this “standard trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a standard trip? (please specify in cfs) 33. Some people are interested in taking trips at higher flows for increased challenge. Think of this “high challenge trip” in your craft. What is the best flow for a high challenge trip? (please specify in cfs) 34. What is the highest safe flow for your craft and skill level? (please specify in cfs) 35. Do you have any general comments on flows that you feel have not been addressed in the questions we've asked? Specifically if you do not have a good record of flows or dates from when you have run the river please include any qualitative observations on flows needs. 36. Are there other concerns or opportunities on this reach of river that you would like to report? These could be related to safety, aesthetics, crowding, access facilities, or other factors. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 8. Rio Grande River - Creede to Wagon Wheel Gap * 37. Have you floated or paddled the Rio Grande from Creede to Wagon Wheel Gap in Colorado? For more information and a map of this stretch of river, visit theAmerican Whitewater River Page. Yes No Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 9. Creede to Wagon Wheel Gap - Flow Survey For the questions on this page, please rate the quality of the run at each specified flowfor your preferred craft-type. Please pay particular attention to the gage and report acceptable flows for that gage only. * 38. What is your preferred craft for the Rio Grande River from Creede to Wagon Wheel Gap? (Choose one) Dory/Drift Boat Packraft/Inflatable kayak/canoe Kayak/C-1 Open canoe Raft/Shredder Other (please specify) * 39. What is your primary recreational objective on this section of the Rio Grande River? (Choose one) Floating/Scenery Fishing Exercise Other (please specify) 40. With your preferred craft-type in mind, please consider all the flow-dependent characteristics that contribute to a high quality experience (e.g., depth, challenge, safety, availability of surfing or other play areas, aesthetics, and length of run). For comparative purposes, please rate the acceptability of each flow level. Flows represented are measured by the CO DWR Gage Rio Grande at Wagon Wheel Gap. Unacceptable 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500 4750 5000 5250 5500 41. What is the minimum flow required to float your preferred craft on this stretch? (please specify in cfs) 42. With your particular craft in mind, what is the lowest acceptable flow that provides a reasonable experience on this run? The lowest acceptable is the lowest flow you would return to boat in your preferred craft, not the minimum flow that allows you to navigate. (please specify in cfs) 43. Some people are interested in taking trips at lower flows for a technical experience. Think of this “technical trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a technical trip? (please specify in cfs) Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 44. Many people are interested in a “standard” river trip at average flows. Think of this “standard trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a standard trip? (please specify in cfs) 45. Some people are interested in taking trips at higher flows for increased challenge. Think of this “high challenge trip” in your craft. What is the best flow for a high challenge trip? (please specify in cfs) 46. What is the highest safe flow for your craft and skill level? (please specify in cfs) 47. Do you have any general comments on flows that you feel have not been addressed in the questions we've asked? Specifically if you do not have a good record of flows or dates from when you have run the river please include any qualitative observations on flows needs. 48. Are there other concerns or opportunities on this reach of river that you would like to report? These could be related to safety, aesthetics, crowding, access facilities, or other factors. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 10. Rio Grande River - Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork * 49. Have you floated or paddled the Rio Grande from Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork Colorado? For more information and a map of this stretch of river, visit theAmerican Whitewater River Page. Yes No Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 11. Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork - Flow Survey For the questions on this page, please rate the quality of the run at each specified flowfor your preferred craft-type. Please pay particular attention to the gage and report acceptable flows for that gage only. * 50. What is your preferred craft for the Rio Grande River from Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork, Colorado? (Choose one) Dory/Drift Boat Packraft/Inflatable kayak/canoe Kayak/C-1 Open canoe Raft/Shredder Other (please specify) * 51. What is your primary recreational objective on this section of the Rio Grande River? (Choose one) Floating/Scenery Fishing Exercise Other (please specify) 52. With your preferred craft-type in mind, please consider all the flow-dependent characteristics that contribute to a high quality experience (e.g., depth, challenge, safety, availability of surfing or other play areas, aesthetics, and length of run). For comparative purposes, please rate the acceptability of each flow level. Flows represented are measured by the CO DWR Gage Rio Grande at Wagon Wheel Gap. Unacceptable 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable 900 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500 4750 5000 5250 5500 53. What is the minimum flow required to float your preferred craft on this stretch? (please specify in cfs) 54. With your particular craft in mind, what is the lowest acceptable flow that provides a reasonable experience on this run? The lowest acceptable is the lowest flow you would return to boat in your preferred craft, not the minimum flow that allows you to navigate. (please specify in cfs) 55. Some people are interested in taking trips at lower flows for a technical experience. Think of this “technical trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a technical trip? (please specify in cfs) Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 56. Many people are interested in a “standard” river trip at average flows. Think of this “standard trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a standard trip? (please specify in cfs) 57. Some people are interested in taking trips at higher flows for increased challenge. Think of this “high challenge trip” in your craft. What is the best flow for a high challenge trip? (please specify in cfs) 58. What is the highest safe flow for your craft and skill level? (please specify in cfs) 59. Do you have any general comments on flows that you feel have not been addressed in the questions we've asked? Specifically if you do not have a good record of flows or dates from when you have run the river please include any qualitative observations on flows needs. 60. Are there other concerns or opportunities on this reach of river that you would like to report? These could be related to safety, aesthetics, crowding, access facilities, or other factors. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 12. Rio Grande River - South Fork to Del Norte * 61. Have you floated or paddled the Rio Grande from South Fork to Del Norte, Colorado? For more information and a map of this stretch of river, visit theAmerican Whitewater River Page. Yes No Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 13. South Fork to Del Norte - Flow Survey For the questions on this page, please rate the quality of the run at each specified flowfor your preferred craft-type. Please pay particular attention to the gage and report acceptable flows for that gage only. * 62. What is your preferred craft for the Rio Grande River from South Fork to Del Norte? (Choose one) Dory/Drift Boat Packraft/Inflatable kayak/canoe Kayak/C-1 Open canoe Raft/Shredder Other (please specify) * 63. What is your primary recreational objective on this section of the Rio Grande River? (Choose one) Floating/Scenery Fishing Exercise Other (please specify) 64. With your preferred craft-type in mind, please consider all the flow-dependent characteristics that contribute to a high quality experience (e.g., depth, challenge, safety, availability of surfing or other play areas, aesthetics, and length of run). For comparative purposes, please rate the acceptability of each flow level. Flows represented are measured by the CO DWR Gage Rio Grande River near Del Norte Unacceptable 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Unacceptable 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500 4750 5000 5250 5500 5750 6000 6250 6500 6750 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 65. What is the minimum flow required to float your preferred craft on this stretch? (please specify in cfs) 66. With your particular craft in mind, what is the lowest acceptable flow that provides a reasonable experience on this run? The lowest acceptable is the lowest flow you would return to boat in your preferred craft, not the minimum flow that allows you to navigate. (please specify in cfs) 67. Some people are interested in taking trips at lower flows for a technical experience. Think of this “technical trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a technical trip? (please specify in cfs) 68. Many people are interested in a “standard” river trip at average flows. Think of this “standard trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a standard trip? (please specify in cfs) 69. Some people are interested in taking trips at higher flows for increased challenge. Think of this “high challenge trip” in your craft. What is the best flow for a high challenge trip? (please specify in cfs) 70. What is the highest safe flow for your craft and skill level? (please specify in cfs) 71. Do you have any general comments on flows that you feel have not been addressed in the questions we've asked? Specifically if you do not have a good record of flows or dates from when you have run the river please include any qualitative observations on flows needs. 72. Are there other concerns or opportunities on this reach of river that you would like to report? These could be related to safety, aesthetics, crowding, access facilities, or other factors. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 14. Conejos River - Platoro to South Fork Campground * 73. Have you floated or paddled the Conejos River from Platoro to the South Fork Campground? For more information and a map of this stretch of river, visit theAmerican Whitewater River Page. Yes No Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 15. Platoro to South Fork Confluence - Flow Survey For the questions on this page, please rate the quality of the run at each specified flowfor your preferred craft-type. Please pay particular attention to the gage and report acceptable flows for that gage only. * 74. What is your preferred craft for the Conejos River from Platoro to South Fork Campground? (Choose one) Packraft/Inflatable kayak/canoe Kayak/C-1 Open canoe Raft/Shredder Other (please specify) * 75. What is your primary recreational objective on this section of the Conejos River? (Choose one) Floating/Scenery Exercise Other (please specify) Fishing Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 76. With your preferred craft-type in mind, please consider all the flow-dependent characteristics that contribute to a high quality experience (e.g., depth, challenge, safety, availability of surfing or other play areas, aesthetics, and length of run). For comparative purposes, please rate the acceptability of each flow level. Flows represented are measured by the CO DWR Gage Conejos River below Platoro Reservoir. Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1200 77. What is the minimum flow required to float your preferred craft on this stretch? (please specify in cfs) 78. With your particular craft in mind, what is the lowest acceptable flow that provides a reasonable experience on this run? The lowest acceptable is the lowest flow you would return to boat in your preferred craft, not the minimum flow that allows you to navigate. (please specify in cfs) 79. Some people are interested in taking trips at lower flows for a technical experience. Think of this “technical trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a technical trip? (please specify in cfs) 80. Many people are interested in a “standard” river trip at average flows. Think of this “standard trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a standard trip? (please specify in cfs) Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 81. Some people are interested in taking trips at higher flows for increased challenge. Think of this “high challenge trip” in your craft. What is the best flow for a high challenge trip? (please specify in cfs) 82. What is the highest safe flow for your craft and skill level? (please specify in cfs) 83. Do you have any general comments on flows that you feel have not been addressed in the questions we've asked? Specifically if you do not have a good record of flows or dates from when you have run the river please include any qualitative observations on flows needs. 84. Are there other concerns or opportunities on this reach of river that you would like to report? These could be related to safety, aesthetics, crowding, access facilities, or other factors. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 16. Conejos River - South Fork to Hwy 17 Bridge * 85. Have you floated or paddled the Conejos River from South Fork Campground to Highway 17 Bridge? For more information and a map of this stretch of river, visit theAmerican Whitewater River Page. Yes No Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 17. South Fork Confluence to Highway 17 Bridge - Flow Survey For the questions on this page, please rate the quality of the run at each specified flowfor your preferred craft-type. Please pay particular attention to the gage and report acceptable flows for that gage only. * 86. What is your preferred craft for the Conejos River from South Fork Campground to Highway 17? (Choose one) Packraft/Inflatable kayak/canoe Kayak/C-1 Open canoe Raft/Shredder Other (please specify) * 87. What is your primary recreational objective on this section of the Conejos River? (Choose one) Floating/Scenery Exercise Other (please specify) Fishing Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 88. With your preferred craft-type in mind, please consider all the flow-dependent characteristics that contribute to a high quality experience (e.g., depth, challenge, safety, availability of surfing or other play areas, aesthetics, and length of run). For comparative purposes, please rate the acceptability of each flow level. Flows represented are measured by the CO DWR Gage Conejos River below Platoro Reservoir. Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1200 89. What is the minimum flow required to float your preferred craft on this stretch? (please specify in cfs) 90. With your particular craft in mind, what is the lowest acceptable flow that provides a reasonable experience on this run? The lowest acceptable is the lowest flow you would return to boat in your preferred craft, not the minimum flow that allows you to navigate. (please specify in cfs) 91. Some people are interested in taking trips at lower flows for a technical experience. Think of this “technical trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a technical trip? (please specify in cfs) 92. Many people are interested in a “standard” river trip at average flows. Think of this “standard trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a standard trip? (please specify in cfs) Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 93. Some people are interested in taking trips at higher flows for increased challenge. Think of this “high challenge trip” in your craft. What is the best flow for a high challenge trip? (please specify in cfs) 94. What is the highest safe flow for your craft and skill level? (please specify in cfs) 95. Do you have any general comments on flows that you feel have not been addressed in the questions we've asked? Specifically if you do not have a good record of flows or dates from when you have run the river please include any qualitative observations on flows needs. 96. Are there other concerns or opportunities on this reach of river that you would like to report? These could be related to safety, aesthetics, crowding, access facilities, or other factors. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 18. Conejos River - Hwy 17 Bridge to Mogote Campground * 97. Have you floated or paddled the Conejos River from Highway 17 Bridge to Mogote Campground? For more information and a map of this stretch of river, visit theAmerican Whitewater River Page. Yes No Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 19. Highway 17 Bridge to Mogote Campground - Flow Survey For the questions on this page, please rate the quality of the run at each specified flowfor your preferred craft-type. Please pay particular attention to the gage and report acceptable flows for that gage only. * 98. What is your preferred craft for the Conejos River from Highway 17 Bridge to Mogote Campground? (Choose one) Packraft/Inflatable kayak/canoe Kayak/C-1 Open canoe Raft/Shredder Other (please specify) * 99. What is your primary recreational objective on this section of the Conejos River? (Choose one) Floating/Scenery Exercise Other (please specify) Fishing Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 100. With your preferred craft-type in mind, please consider all the flow-dependent characteristics that contribute to a high quality experience (e.g., depth, challenge, safety, availability of surfing or other play areas, aesthetics, and length of run). For comparative purposes, please rate the acceptability of each flow level. Flows represented are measured by the CO DWR Gage Conejos River near Mogote. Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 101. What is the minimum flow required to float your preferred craft on this stretch? (please specify in cfs) Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 102. With your particular craft in mind, what is the lowest acceptable flow that provides a reasonable experience on this run? The lowest acceptable is the lowest flow you would return to boat in your preferred craft, not the minimum flow that allows you to navigate. (please specify in cfs) 103. Some people are interested in taking trips at lower flows for a technical experience. Think of this “technical trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a technical trip? (please specify in cfs) 104. Many people are interested in a “standard” river trip at average flows. Think of this “standard trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a standard trip? (please specify in cfs) 105. Some people are interested in taking trips at higher flows for increased challenge. Think of this “high challenge trip” in your craft. What is the best flow for a high challenge trip? (please specify in cfs) 106. What is the highest safe flow for your craft and skill level? (please specify in cfs) 107. Do you have any general comments on flows that you feel have not been addressed in the questions we've asked? Specifically if you do not have a good record of flows or dates from when you have run the river please include any qualitative observations on flows needs. 108. Are there other concerns or opportunities on this reach of river that you would like to report? These could be related to safety, aesthetics, crowding, access facilities, or other factors. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 20. Rio Grande River - Alamosa to Lasauses * 109. Have you floated or paddled the Rio Grande from Alamosa to Lasauses, through the Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge? For more information and a map of this stretch of river, visit theAmerican Whitewater River Page. Yes No Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 21. Alamosa to Lasauses - Flow Survey For the questions on this page, please rate the quality of the run at each specified flowfor your preferred craft-type. Please pay particular attention to the gage and report acceptable flows for that gage only. * 110. What is your preferred craft for the Rio Grande River from Alamosa to Lasauses, through the Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge? (Choose one) Dory/Drift Boat Packraft/Inflatable kayak/canoe Kayak/C-1 Open canoe Raft/Shredder Other (please specify) * 111. What is your primary recreational objective on this section of the Rio Grande River? (Choose one) Floating/Scenery Exercise Other (please specify) Fishing Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 112. With your preferred craft-type in mind, please consider all the flow-dependent characteristics that contribute to a high quality experience (e.g., depth, challenge, safety, availability of surfing or other play areas, aesthetics, and length of run). For comparative purposes, please rate the acceptability of each flow level. Flows represented are measured by the CO DWR Gage Rio Grande River at Alamosa Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500 113. What is the minimum flow required to float your preferred craft on this stretch? (please specify in cfs) Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 114. With your particular craft in mind, what is the lowest acceptable flow that provides a reasonable experience on this run? The lowest acceptable is the lowest flow you would return to boat in your preferred craft, not the minimum flow that allows you to navigate. (please specify in cfs) 115. Some people are interested in taking trips at lower flows for a technical experience. Think of this “technical trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a technical trip? (please specify in cfs) 116. Many people are interested in a “standard” river trip at average flows. Think of this “standard trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a standard trip? (please specify in cfs) 117. Some people are interested in taking trips at higher flows for increased challenge. Think of this “high challenge trip” in your craft. What is the best flow for a high challenge trip? (please specify in cfs) 118. What is the highest safe flow for your craft and skill level? (please specify in cfs) 119. Do you have any general comments on flows that you feel have not been addressed in the questions we've asked? Specifically if you do not have a good record of flows or dates from when you have run the river please include any qualitative observations on flows needs. 120. Are there other concerns or opportunities on this reach of river that you would like to report? These could be related to safety, aesthetics, crowding, access facilities, or other factors. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 22. Rio Grande River - Lasauses to Lobatos Bridge * 121. Have you floated or paddled the Rio Grande from Lasauses to Lobatos Bridge, Colorado? For more information and a map of this stretch of river, visit theAmerican Whitewater River Page. Yes No Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 23. Lasauses to Lobatos Bridge - Flow Survey For the questions on this page, please rate the quality of the run at each specified flowfor your preferred craft-type. Please pay particular attention to the gage and report acceptable flows for that gage only. * 122. What is your preferred craft for the Rio Grande River from Lasauses to Lobato Bridge? (Choose one) Dory/Drift Boat Packraft/Inflatable kayak/canoe Kayak/C-1 Open canoe Raft/Shredder Other (please specify) * 123. What is your primary recreational objective on this section of the Rio Grande River? (Choose one) Floating/Scenery Fishing Exercise Other (please specify) 124. With your preferred craft-type in mind, please consider all the flow-dependent characteristics that contribute to a high quality experience (e.g., depth, challenge, safety, availability of surfing or other play areas, aesthetics, and length of run). For comparative purposes, please rate the acceptability of each flow level. Flows represented are measured by the CO DWR Gage Rio Grande River near Lobatos Unacceptable 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500 4750 5000 5250 5500 5750 6000 6250 6500 125. What is the minimum flow required to float your preferred craft on this stretch? (please specify in cfs) 126. With your particular craft in mind, what is the lowest acceptable flow that provides a reasonable experience on this run? The lowest acceptable is the lowest flow you would return to boat in your preferred craft, not the minimum flow that allows you to navigate. (please specify in cfs) Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 127. Some people are interested in taking trips at lower flows for a technical experience. Think of this “technical trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a technical trip? (please specify in cfs) 128. Many people are interested in a “standard” river trip at average flows. Think of this “standard trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a standard trip? (please specify in cfs) 129. Some people are interested in taking trips at higher flows for increased challenge. Think of this “high challenge trip” in your craft. What is the best flow for a high challenge trip? (please specify in cfs) 130. What is the highest safe flow for your craft and skill level? (please specify in cfs) 131. Do you have any general comments on flows that you feel have not been addressed in the questions we've asked? Specifically if you do not have a good record of flows or dates from when you have run the river please include any qualitative observations on flows needs. 132. Are there other concerns or opportunities on this reach of river that you would like to report? These could be related to safety, aesthetics, crowding, access facilities, or other factors. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 24. Rio Grande River - Lobatos Bridge, Colorado to Lee Trail, New Mexico * 133. Have you floated or paddled the Rio Grande from Lobatos Bridge, Colorado to Lee Trail, New Mexico? For more information and a map of this stretch of river, visit theAmerican Whitewater River Page. Yes No Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 25. Lobatos Bridge to Lee Trail - Flow Survey For the questions on this page, please rate the quality of the run at each specified flowfor your preferred craft-type. Please pay particular attention to the gage and report acceptable flows for that gage only. * 134. What is your preferred craft for the Rio Grande River from Lobatos Bridge to Lee Trail, New Mexico? (Choose one) Packraft/Inflatable kayak/canoe Kayak/C-1 Open canoe Raft/Shredder Other (please specify) * 135. What is your primary recreational objective on this section of the Rio Grande River? (Choose one) Floating/Scenery Fishing Exercise Other (please specify) 136. With your preferred craft-type in mind, please consider all the flow-dependent characteristics that contribute to a high quality experience (e.g., depth, challenge, safety, availability of surfing or other play areas, aesthetics, and length of run). For comparative purposes, please rate the acceptability of each flow level. Flows represented are measured by the CO DWR Gage Rio Grande River near Lobatos Unacceptable 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Marginal Moderately Acceptable Acceptable 900 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500 4750 5000 5250 5500 5750 6000 6250 6500 137. What is the minimum flow required to float your preferred craft on this stretch? (please specify in cfs) 138. With your particular craft in mind, what is the lowest acceptable flow that provides a reasonable experience on this run? The lowest acceptable is the lowest flow you would return to boat in your preferred craft, not the minimum flow that allows you to navigate. (please specify in cfs) Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 139. Some people are interested in taking trips at lower flows for a technical experience. Think of this “technical trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a technical trip? (please specify in cfs) 140. Many people are interested in a “standard” river trip at average flows. Think of this “standard trip” in your craft and for your primary objective. What is the best flow for a standard trip? (please specify in cfs) 141. Some people are interested in taking trips at higher flows for increased challenge. Think of this “high challenge trip” in your craft. What is the best flow for a high challenge trip? (please specify in cfs) 142. What is the highest safe flow for your craft and skill level? (please specify in cfs) 143. Do you have any general comments on flows that you feel have not been addressed in the questions we've asked? Specifically if you do not have a good record of flows or dates from when you have run the river please include any qualitative observations on flows needs. 144. Are there other concerns or opportunities on this reach of river that you would like to report? These could be related to safety, aesthetics, crowding, access facilities, or other factors. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 26. Stream Management Planning 145. Assuming challenges could be addressed, what is your hope/vision for the Rio Grande and Conejos Rivers in 25 Years? 146. What are your top 3 infrastructure goals or needs that the Stream Management Plan should focus on? These can be related to diversion structures, storage, gage data, boat ramps, or other factors. First Priority Second Priority Third Priority 147. What are your top 3 regulatory goals that the Stream Management Plan should focus on? These can be related to water quality, species of concern, future flow retiming, or other needs. First Priority Second Priority Third Priority 148. What are your top 3 environmental goals or needs that the Stream Management Plan should focus on? These can be related to habitat, channel form and function, flows, or other factors. First Priority Second Priority Third Priority 149. Please describe any opportunities you think exist for improving recreational use and access on the Rio Grande or Conejos Rivers. Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 150. Which of the following Rio Grande River reaches do you consider to be priorities for boating improvements? Please rank in order of importance with #1 being the most important. A. Rio Grande - Box Canyon B. Rio Grande - Texas Creek Ramp to Creede C. Rio Grande - Creede to Wagon Wheel Gap D. Rio Grande - Wagon Wheel Gap to South Fork E. Rio Grande - South Fork to Del Norte F. Rio Grande - Alamosa to Lasauses G. Rio Grande - Lasauses to Lobatos Bridge H. Rio Grande - Lobatos Bridge to Lee Trail, NM 151. Please explain your ranking. 152. Do you have any final comments to add, that may not have been captured by the survey? Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 27. This Completes the Survey. Thank you for your participation in this survey! Your responses will help American Whitewater and Rio Grande Headwaters Restoration Project create Stream Management Plans (SMPs) in the Rio Grande Basin that include robust community engagement. Your feedback allows us to characterize and prioritize environmental and recreational values, and create SMPs that will be used to inform multi-objective projects to restore and protect the natural and cultural resources within the basin. 153. Would you like more information about American Whitewater and our work to Protect, Restore, and Enjoy our nations rivers? Yes No Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 28. Sign-Up 154. American Whitewater's BETA Newsletter is a monthly summary of AW's Stewardship Work across the Country. Please sign-up using the fields below. Name Address Address 2 City/Town State/Province ZIP/Postal Code Country Email Address Phone Number -- select state -- Attachment B Rio Grande Recreation Assessment 29. Thank You! From all of us at American Whitewater and the Rio Grande Headwaters Restoration Project, thank you for your participation. We appreciate your time and hope you continue to enjoy and explore the basin's river resources. GRANT CRITERIA SCORE CARD Board Member Application Review Criteria - American Whitewater - $19,355 Goals of the Healthy Rivers and Streams Board Points Possible 0-100 The extent to which the proposed grant request/project meets the stated goals, objectives and on-going projects/priorities of the River Board. 1. Must be complete, clear and concise, with specific dollar amounts in total and for each element of the project; 2. Must fulfill the intent of the ballot language. Viability of the Project 0-100 The extent to which the proposed grant request/project is practical, will be completed as proposed and/or may require other resources to be fully completed, and the extent to which the project can be repeated in other locations such that it will not be limited to a single event. 1. Must address an essential need; 2. Demonstrates collaboration and/or partners with other agencies. Public Need Accessibility and Appreciation 0-100 The extent to which the proposed grant request/project will be seen, appreciated and/or used by the public. 1. Does not duplicate existing services or programs; 2. Must serve and be appreciated people who live and/or work in Pitkin County & the Roaring Fork Watershed; 3. Includes a specific Public Relations strategy; 4. Demonstrates an appropriate need for public funding. History of the Requesting Party 0-100 The extent that the requesting individual/entity has been successful in other projects or efforts and is known in the community. Budget, Measurements and Accountability The extent to which the proposed grant amount is appropriate to the project scope and includes other appropriate sources of funding. The extent that the project includes specific measures for success and reporting of progress and results to the Healthy Rivers Board. 1. Demonstrates financial stability and presents accurate budgets and financial reports, measurements and accountability; 2. Specific measures of progress and success; 3. Reporting plan to Healthy Rivers Board/others. 0-100 GRANT CRITERIA SCORE CARD Board Member NOTES- COMMENTS