Rebuttal Report of Office Of Parks and Recreation, Steamboat Springs

Home Browse Search

? Rebuttal Report of the Office of Parks and Recreation Services, City of Steamboat Springs by Michael Neumann, Open Space Supervisor 1. Historv of Flow Claims During early meetings of the Citizen's Advisory Committee appointed to help develop the Yampa River Management Plan (YRMP) in Spring 2003, the participants agreed that the City should pursue the acquisition of a RICD and a minimum instream flow to protect both recreational uses and the biologic vitality of the Yampa River. They further agreed that the YRMP would be critically incomplete if it did not address the issue of stream flows. In response, staff of the Parks and Recreation Services ("POSR Staff') put together a table showing "minimum flows" to protect the biologic integrity of the Yampa River from various activities, and requested input from knowledgeable river users and commercial river companies as to their suggestions for "optimal flows" for each activity and the best time period for each activity. It should be emphasized that the "minimum flow" column in the table sent out for comment was never intended to represent the minimal flow needed for a reasonable recreation experience; rather, it was the absolute minimum at which an activity could even be considered to occur without damage to the biologic resources. It does not mean reasonable or enjoyable. When the table was given to the City's Trails & River (T&R) Committee and commercial river outfitters for comment, it was with the specific instruction that all flow recommendations should be "realistic, justifiable flow levels-not pie in the sky." 2. Table 2 Again, the "minimum flow" column of Table 2 was never intended to represent reasonab?e recreational flows or to be the bas:s for ±he City's RICD f ling. The fact that the table includes activities (fishing and swimming) that are not even recognized uses under the RICD rules clearly illustrates that the minimum flow numbers were never intended to form the basis for defining reasonable recreation flows. As explained above, the "minimum flow" column represents the absolute lowest water levels at which a specific recreational activity can occur without damaging the biological resource, creating user conflicts or presenting a safety hazard. Some of the flow numbers, such as the 50 cfs for fishing, represent a minimum in-stream flow suggestion and not a RICD and simply reflects the fact that no significant fish kills were observed at levels as low as 50 cfs in previous drought years. However, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) had earlier recommended closing the river to fishing at much higher levels so clearly the 50 cfs could not possibly be construed as representing a reasonable recreational experience. Further, as noted in the October 14, 2003 City Council communication form, Table 2 was intended only to provide a basis for further discussion of what might be appropriate flows to request in a RICD application. The "miniinum flow" column was provided only to show at what water level a Page 1 S_27 5/19/2004