Laserfiche WebLink
and their families and friends, most from out of town and for several days. In contrast, the Yampa <br />River Festival was permitted for 50 contestants and 100 spectators. Attached are five year lodging <br />census statistics maintained by the Steamboat Chamber for the years from 1998 through 2002 (the <br />2003 census report is not yet available). Also attached are graphs showing five year average <br />occupancy rates for the first three weekends of June. From these materials, it appears that during the <br />River Festival there is a significant drop in lodging occupancy. <br />d. It would seem very difficult for the City to actually establish that summertime <br />visitation is at least "partially attributable to the presence and use of the Boat Park." Steamboat <br />Springs visitors have their choice of a virtually unlimited number of sununertime activities incidental <br />to the principal reason for their visit. The brochure rack at the Steamboat Chamber demonstrates <br />this. On Apri120, 2004, there were 52 brochures available in the rack. Copies of the front page of <br />these brochures are attached. Of that total, 45 describe activities totally unrelated to the sports of <br />rafting, kayaking or tubing, 7 brochures describe rafting activities, but mostly on rivers other than the <br />Yampa River, such as the Colorado or Eagle River. One brochure advertises commercial tubing and <br />one multi-page brochure shows kayaks in one small picture. <br />e. The City's submittal contains an extensive discussion of commercial tubing, <br />including fees paid by commercial outfitters in 2003. Commercial tubing or "Floating" is allowed by <br />the City between the Sth Street bridge near the Rodeo grounds and the Stockbridge on the west side <br />of town. The tubing recreational experience is not dependent on the two structures which are the <br />subj ect of the City's RICD application. As set forth in Tom Sharp's Affidavit dated March 4, 2004, <br />the tubing experience involves the totality of the trip. down the River and the enjoyment of a variety <br />of stream conditions over a period of an hour of two of time, and no single boulder, riffle pool or <br />wave makes the experience. Although certain flows in the River are necessary for tubing (the City <br />prohibits commercial tubing over 200 c.f.s. for safety reasons and below 80 c.f.s. for environmental <br />reasons), the instantaneous "bump" provided by the structures for a few feet over several miles of <br />river are irrelevant to the tubing experience. Similarly, activities such as fishing, swimming or, as <br />stated in the City's submittal, "simply enjoying the core trail along the Boating Park," although <br />water-related, have nothing to do with the RICD structures and cannot support water rights for <br />minimum stream flows or consideration of the economic impact generated from such activities. <br />f. It must be noted that water sports including kayaking and inner tubing have developed <br />over a number of years in the Yampa River without the need for the RICD water rights. Given the <br />other points noted above, it would seem impossible to attribute some specific part of the local <br />economy to those attracted by the existence of the flows through the diversion features but not the <br />natural state of the river. <br />Witnesses <br />1. John D. Merrill, Routt County Attorney, will speak on behalf of the foregoing Factual <br />and Legal Issues and suininarize the contents and relevance of each of the exhibits listed below. He <br />will also respond, in rebuttal, to the testimony and exhibits on the issue of economic impact <br />introduced by other parties to this proceeding. He will also be available to attempt to answer <br />questions of the CWCB regarding this issue. <br />3