community indicators project 2005-2006

Yampa Valley Partners

The Community Indicators

Project was initiated by Yampa

Valley Partners in 1996 to docu-

ment regional quality of life in

the Yampa Valley through social, economic,

environmental, and civic measurements.

The Community Indicators Project is a col-

laboration between the communities and

counties in the Yampa Valley, Yampa Valley

organizations, and national and state

organizations such as National Civic

League, and the Women’s Foundation of

Colorado.

The Community Indicators Project belongs

to the Yampa Valley community and must

be well used to serve its purpose. We aim

for this report to be a resource for non-

profits, school and education administra-

tors, business owners, local officials, and

other concerned citizens across the valley.

The interconnections among the social,

economic, environmental, and civic indica-

tors presented here are the basis for a

wealth of community discussions on our

changing Valley. In order to foster this

communication, Yampa Valley Partners will

host public forums – ‘Regional Leadership

Series’ - to address the changes and chal-

lenges raised in this report.

New this year is a series of “Issue Profiles”

that focus on topics of interest and signifi-

cance to the Yampa Valley. These Issue

Profiles analyze data from across the social,

economic and environmental categories to

reach conclusions about trends and impacts

to our residents and environment. Issue

Profiles this year include Affordable

Housing, Economic Interdependence in the

Yampa Valley, Rural Poverty, and Gender

Differences.

Key Findingsof the 2005 CommunityIndicators Report and Future Trends

■ The Yampa Valley has seen an increase inthe percentage of people of early retireeand retiree age. This change is due toaging of the Baby Boomer generation, aninflux of persons retiring to the Valley, anda number of former second homeownerswho are now living here full-time.

■ The Yampa Valley is becoming more ethni-cally diverse. Hispanics are expected tocomprise 10.5% of the population ofMoffat County by 2005. This growth indiversity is reflected in our public schoolenrollments and workforce.

■ The number of persons at or below thefederal poverty level is between 6% to10%.This reflects only a portion of thepopulation struggling economically. Costof living/living wage figures versus actualwages paid point to a percentage ofbetween one-quarter to one-third of thepopulation in the Yampa Valley who maybe “working poor”and/or struggling eco-nomically.

■ Moffat County and Routt County arebecoming more economically interde-pendent as 21% of Moffat County work-force commutes to jobs in Routt County.

■ Because of improvements in telecommu-nications and air transportation there arean increasing number of businesses thatare located in the Yampa Valley. However,their customers are located around theworld.These are known as “location neu-tral businesses.” In addition, approximately5% of the Routt County workforce couldbe classified as “telecommuters.”

■ The Yampa River is unique in Colorado andthe west because as a river system it is notover appropriated, meaning that in mostyears, not all of the water in the river islegally “spoken for.”

■ The upland grasslands, sagebrush and oakshrublands in the Yampa Valley supportthe only remaining population ofColumbian sharptailed grouse and someof the few remaining populations ofgreater sage grouse in Colorado.

■ Data on farms by size shows an increase insmall or part-time operations. It also indi-cates a consolidation of commercial opera-tions, i.e. commercial agriculture must getbigger to survive as a sole source ofincome for a family.This trend is consistentwith farms and ranches nationwide.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

2005 / 2006 REPORT

CommunityIndicatorsProject

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:46 PM Page 3

4 Community Indicators Project 2005/2006 Yampa Valley Partners

Paul Hughes, ChairCity of Steamboat Springs

Michael Larson,Vice ChairMountain Valley Bank

Jim Ferree,TreasurerCity of Craig

Bryna Larsen, SecretarySteamboat Pilot & Today,Craig Daily Press

Maury BunnConsultant, Rancher

Mike ForneySCORE consultant

Dean HollenbeckColorado Northwestern Community College

Doug MongerRoutt County Commissioner

Barbara PugheColorado Northwestern Community College

Marianna RaftopoulosMoffat County Commissioner

Stephanie ReinekeSpringSips

Beka WarrenThe Memorial Hospital

Audrey DannerExecutive Director,Yampa Valley Partners

Board of Directors

Yampa Valley Partners is a Northwest Coloradononprofit organization serving Routt andMoffat Counties. Since 1996, Yampa ValleyPartners has taken the lead in tracking regionalquality of life through the CommunityIndicators Project (CIP).

Our MissionYampa Valley Partners will support the devel-opment of healthy communities in Routt andMoffat counties by fostering communication,cooperation and collaboration.

Our focus■ Approach issues such as economic diversifi-cation, workforce development, civic healthand transportation through regional coopera-tion and collaboration.■ Build alliances that transcend traditionalboundaries to create ‘connected leadership’within the Yampa Valley.■ Recognize the unique sense of place andbuild on that to keep our community strongand healthy.■ Capitalize on the civic entrepreneurial spiritof Yampa Valley residents to address thosechallenges that threaten our quality of life andseize new opportunities to enhance it.

Our projects include:■ The Community Indicators Report■ The Regional Leadership Series – a collabo-ration between local governments that focuseson economic diversification, enhancedtelecommunications planning, and applicationof civic indicators in local government plan-ning and decision making■ Administration of the Yampa River BasinPartnership, a project that focuses on environ-mental issues in the Yampa River Basin■ The Community Resource Directory, apartnership between agencies to provideFirstCall 211 Information and Referral toRoutt and Moffat County residents.

For a presentation on the CommunityIndicators Project, please contact:Yampa Valley Partners 745 Russell Street, Craig, CO 81625phone: 970-824-8233 x 241 email: [email protected]

Visit our web site at www.yampavalleypartners.com to download copies of our CIP reports in pdf format.

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

Yampa Valley Partners isgrateful for the assistance of thecommunity in developing indi-cators, collecting data, andreviewing text.

We also appreciate the timeand efforts of those who partici-pated in the workshops andfocus groups relating to specificindicator topics of interest.Without your dedication andexpertise, the indicators wouldnot be ‘community’ indicators.

Thank you to the Town ofHayden, Colorado State ParkHeadquarters, Moffat Countyand City of Steamboat Springsfor use of their meeting space tohost our regional meetings.

This report is made possible with the financial supportof our sponsors:

■ Mountain Valley Bank

■ 20 Mile Coal

■ Ferrell Gas

■ Prudential Realty

We value our contributors:

■ Routt County

■ Moffat County

■ City of Craig

■ City of Steamboat Springs

■ Town of Hayden

■ The Memorial Hospital in Craig

■ Northwest Colorado Visiting Nurse Association

■ Gay and Lesbian Fund of Colorado

■ Anschutz Family Foundation

■ Small Business Resource Center of Colorado Mountain College

■ The Nature Conservancy

■ Colorado Northwestern Community College

■ Steamboat Pilot & Today

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:46 PM Page 4


C O N T E N T S

Introduction 3

Acknowledgements 4

Yampa Valley Partners 4

Issue Profiles 8Economic Interdependence . . . . . . . .40

Gender Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Social Indicators 8Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Economic Indicators 30Vitality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32Industry Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48Tax Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Environmental Indicators 54Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56Atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60Water Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64Resource Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

Civic Indicators 78Community Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . .79Citizen Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79Philanthropy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80Local Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

Appendix 82

Data Sources 83

Community Indicators Project

Please Note: Yampa Valley Partners is solely responsible for any errors or omissions in thisreport. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data included inthis report are accurate. We ask that you contact us if you know of necessary changes.

“The Community Indicators Report provides important information on our community in that it shows us where

we have been and where we are headed in key demographic,economic and social areas. From an economic development

standpoint, this information is critical in charting and implementing an economic strategy that is on-target.

The Community Indicators Report is an important tool for the EDP.”

THOMAS FLAVIN

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

CRAIG/MOFFAT COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP

“The Community Indicators Report helps us to evaluatecommunity needs and where our grants might serve todo the most good for the people of the Yampa Valley”

LINDA HALTOM

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

OF THE YAMPA VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION.

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:46 PM Page 6

CivicI N D I C A T O R S I N T H E Y A M P A V A L L E Y

The vitality of Yampa Valley communitiesdepends on our ability to come together tomake decisions, solve problems, and shareaccomplishments. Civic indicators measurethe systems, networks, a cooperative planningwe rely on to address issues of importanceand emerging needs.

Civic health is a difficult concept to quan-tify, but it is important for our future actions.

The indicators published in this report shouldideally help us understand our community’sprogress towards our social, economic, envi-ronmental and civic goals.

The process of using and revising our civicindicators is one way to establish relationshipsand partnerships within our valley to improveour efforts when addressing regional issues.

IntroductionOur Vision

Key Findings and Trends

■ Community or master planning is a favoredapproach to addressing key communityissue such as growth and development andpreservation of structures and land.

■ The Yampa Valley has an unusually highnumber of philanthropic funding organiza-tions for a community of its size. These

philanthropic organizations provide signif-icant funding to area non-profit organiza-tions.

■ Electronic correspondence between govern-ment and residents is becoming a key com-ponent of communication including theexpansion and use of www.YampaValley.info.

The vitality of the Yampa Valley

community depends on our capacity

to engage effectively in mutual

learning and decision making in

order to maintain and improve our

quality of life.

We call this capacity our “civic

health.”


CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 5:03 PM Page 78

Civic

Community Planning

Citizen Participation

Existence of adopted Community Plans Yampa Valley Plans Currently adopted for use Year adopted Update scheduled?

1. Routt County Master Plan 1980, updated 2003 20082. Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan 1995, updated 2004 20093. South of Steamboat Area Plan #1 1990 No4. Oak Creek Town Plan 1996 No5. Yampa Town Plan 1997 20066. Hayden Town Plan 2000 20057. West of Steamboat Springs Area Plan 1999 To be completed 20058. Stagecoach Community Plan 1999 2005-20069. Upper Elk River Valley Community Plan 1999 To be completed 2005

10. Sarvis Creek Plan 1996 No 11. Emerald Mtn. Area Plan Under review No12. Moffat County and Craig Master Plan 1982, revised 2003 No 13. Craig Area/Moffat County Parks, Recreation,Trails & Open Space Master Plan 2002 No14. Moffat County Fairgrounds Master Plan 2003 No15. Moffat County Land Use Plan (public land plans) 2001 No16. Moffat County Wildland Fire & Fuel Mitigation Plan 2001, 2002 2004 (phase 3)

Sources: Routt County Planning, Moffat County Planning, City of Steamboat Planning, Town of Hayden, Town of Yampa, Town of Oak Creek

Master planning is a communityplanning process that engagescitizens in the process of set-

ting community development goals forthe future. Master plans provide direc-tion to government and policy makers,institutions, organizations, and privateentities on such issues as facility expan-sion, preservation of historic structures,land preservation, housing development,and roads and infrastructure.Communities in Routt and MoffatCounty have been actively engaged incommunity planning.

MOFFAT

64.5%

57.2%

48.2%

56.8%

67.0%

85.0%

ROUTT

72.2%

58.7%

48.2%

82.0%

61.0%

91.0%

Colorado

60.8%

52.8%

44.8%

56.8%

NATIONAL

55.1%

49.1%

36.4%

51.3%

MOFFAT

68%

71%

ROUTT

71%

79%

1992

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

1992

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

1992

1996

1998

2000

1992

1996

1998

2000

Sources:Moffat County Clerk and Recorder; Routt County Clerk and Recorder; Federal Election Commission;Colorado Department of Local Affairs (population estimates)

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Voting Age Population Who Vote

Percent of Voting Age PopulationRegistered to Vote and Classifiedas “Active,” August 2002

Male

Female

Male

Female

The percent of the voting age population who vote is an indica-tor of participation in a democratic society. This is best meas-ured through voter turnout at elections, although the percent

of the voting age population that is registered and “active” can alsohelp define voter participation in a community. An “active” registeredvoter is a person who has voted in the last General Election and hasnot moved or made other changes that resulted in mail to that voterbeing returned by the post office as “undeliverable.” This latter indi-cator has the advantage of being available by gender at the countylevel.

In general, voter turnout in presidential election years (1992, 1996,2000 and 2004) is higher than in non-presidential years. The percent-age of people who cast their votes in the 2004 election in RouttCounty, 91%, was the highest of any county in Colorado.

Yampa Valley Partners Community Indicators Project 2005/2006 79

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 5:03 PM Page 79

Civic Philanthropy


The Yampa Valley has fivelarge and active philan-thropic funders for non-profit activities, the YampaValley CommunityFoundation, United Way ofRoutt County, United Wayof Moffat County and theHuman Resource Coalitionsof Routt and MoffatCounties. The CommunityFoundation of NorthwestColorado, located in MoffatCounty, is building itsendowment and did notprovide grants in 2002 to2004.

Service clubs of bothcounties also provide fund-ing for community needs.

Major Philanthropic Grants Distributed by Service Category

Arts Education Environment Health & Recreation Totaland Culture (including Human

scholarships) Services

C O M P I L E D A L L O C A T I O N D A T A 2 0 0 1

Yampa Valley Community Foundation 13,885 171,119 80,294 65,850 25,610 356,758United Way

Routt County 210,295 210,295Moffat County 500 144,838 8,000 153,338

Human Resources CoalitionRoutt County 270,000 270,000Moffat County

Community Foundation Northwest Colorado 2,500 2,500




Human Resources CoalitionRoutt County 296,000 296,000Moffat County 56,000 2,000 57,000

Community Foundation Northwest Colorado




Human Resources CoalitionRoutt County 297,700 297,700Moffat County 78,500 1500 80,000

Community Foundation NW Colorado


Yampa Valley Community Foundation 1

United WayRoutt County 2 327,689 327,689Moffat County 10,577 246,981 29,376 286,934

Human Resources CoalitionRoutt County 298,300 298,300Moffat County 3 56,000 2,000 58,000

Community Foundation NW Colorado

1 Yampa Valley Community Foundation had not completed 2004 grantmaking at press time2 Figures as of 11-1-04

Source: Yampa Valley Partners

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 5:03 PM Page 80

Local GovernmentCommunication by local government promotes an informed public and

helps citizens understand current events, define issues, become involved, andmeasure civic progress. By sharing information, cities and counties encouragea more collaborative, inclusive approach to governance.

Sources: City of Steamboat, Routt County, City of Craig, Moffat County, Town of Hayden.

Types of Communication Utilized by Government to Reach Citizens

Newspaper, Official Scheduledradio, Posting Media Public

cable TV Place Website Briefings Meetings Other

City of Steamboat Springs · The City Page Yes www.steamboat-springs.net Weekly City Council, City Survey· legal notices www.yampavalley.info Planning Commission,· advertisements special hearings,· Cable TV notices open houses

Town of Hayden · legal notices Yes www.townofhayden.org No Board of Trustees, Flyers· PSA’s Planning Commission· meeting agendas• Cable TV notices

Routt County · meeting agendas Yes www.co.routt.co.us Weekly Commissioners, Posters· advertisements Planning Commission, and adjacent

Board of Adjustment, property ownerspecial hearings notices

City of Craig · meeting notices Yes www.ci.craig.co.us No City Council and City Survey· legal notices City Committees· agendas Planning Commission,· press releases special hearings

Moffat County • legal notices Yes www.co.moffat.co.us As needed Commissioners, Annual• meeting agendas Planning Commission, Report 2002• advertisements Committees, (premier report)

special hearings


Civic

“Yampa Valley Partners have produced community – based indicator reports for our

valley which contain information and data ontopics pertinent to our region. This information

is crucial to review as the basis for a comprehensive approach to review an issue

and set an action plan in place.”

MARIANNA RAFTOPOULOS

MOFFAT COUNTY COMMISSIONER

“We are pleased to join with Yampa Valley Partnersin producing the CIP Indicators Project.

This important information is only as good as thenumber of citizens who read it and act upon it.By distributing this year’s report to nearly every

resident and second home owner in Routt and Moffat Counties, we hope our contribution

helps the project have greater impact on improving lives of our citizens.”

SUZANNE SCHLICHT

PUBLISHER/REGIONAL MANAGER

STEAMBOAT PILOT & TODAY, CRAIG DAILY PRESS,HAYDEN VALLEY PRESS

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 5:03 PM Page 81

EconomicI N D I C A T O R S I N T H E Y A M P A V A L L E Y

Economies are dynamic entities influencedby a multitude of forces including populationchanges, international and national markets,and the weather.

This year’s Community Indicator Projectpresents the economy of the Yampa Valley as awhole system, a system interrelated with envi-ronmental, social and civic issues. This

approach emphasizes trends and the impactof particular events in the economy on peopleand places.

Some components of our economy changerapidly and others change slowly. Data in thisreport is often shown from 1970 to present inorder to better capture the magnitude anddynamics of these changes.



■ Moffat County and Routt County arebecoming more economically interdepend-ent as approximately 21% of MoffatCounty workforce commutes to jobs inRoutt County. A growing portion of oursmall businesses have locations in bothcounties.

■ Agriculture is a shrinking component ofthe area job market. Changes in land useassociated with the loss of agriculture haveimplications for affordable housing, theenvironment, and growth and develop-ment.

■ The gap between service industry wages,the fastest growing industry sector, and thecost of living is growing.

■ The Routt County business and industrybase is diversifying.

■ Because of improvements in telecommuni-cations and air transportation there are anincreasing number of businesses that arelocated in the Yampa Valley. However, theircustomers are located around the world.These are known as “location neutral busi-nesses.” In addition, approximately 5% ofthe Routt County workforce could be clas-sified as “telecommuters.”

■ The cost of housing, both rental and own-ership, particularly in Routt County, con-tinues to climb and price out many lowand moderate income people from owner-ship opportunities.

Yampa Valley citizens, businesses,

organizations and local government

agencies nurture a diverse local

economy that supports the basic

needs of our community. The people

of the Yampa Valley work toward a

healthy year-round economic base

that thrives through planned business

development, technological innova-

tions and infrastructure and ensures

an affordable cost of living to people

with a variety of income levels.


Small Business Resource Center

Yampa Valley Partners appreciates the assistance of the Colorado Mountain College Small Business Resource Center in developing this section.

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:50 PM Page 30

Economic Vitality


Understanding employment, industry, and living wages in the Yampa Valley: An Introduction

Employment by Job & Industry

Employment and industries in theYampa Valley have changed in thepast 30 years as a product of mar-

ket pressures in the agriculture and min-ing industries, new technology, and pop-ulation growth and decline in differentmunicipalities. Nowhere has the changebeen more dramatic than in the agricul-tural sector. In 1970, farm and ranchand agriculture support services jobscomprised about 34% of the total jobbase across the Valley; in 2002 that per-centage dropped to 8.8% with the high-est concentration of those jobs being inMoffat County. These changes are tied

to market and production shifts withinthe agricultural industry, fewer familyranches, and the increased value of landfor development instead of ranching.

Statistics show the service industry inthe Yampa Valley, like the rest of thecountry, is the largest growing sectorand accounts for over 50% of the totalnew jobs created since 1970.Construction is another growing indus-try, a reflection of increased population,the tourism industry, and second homeowners.

Unemployment statistics are onemeasure of economic stability. Since

1994, the unemployment rate in MoffatCounty has consistently been 2% higherthan Routt County. While unemploy-ment rates in the Yampa Valley havegenerally remained between 2% to 6%(with a spike to 7% in Moffat County in2003), analysis of a number of statisticsin this report shows 36% of the popula-tion in Routt County and approximately25% of the population in MoffatCounty struggle to meet basic needs.That figure sheds light on persons whomay be underemployed or living on afixed income insufficient to meet basicneeds.

M O F F A T C O U N T Y

1970 % of Total 2000 % of Total 2001 % of Total 2002 % of Total

FULL & PART-TIME JOBS 2,916 7,365 7, 524 7,533Wage & Salary 2,050 70.3% 5,185 70.4% 5,317 70.7% 5,250 69.4%Proprietor / Partnerships 866 29.7% 2,180 29.6% 2,207 29.3% 2,283 30.6%

Farm/Ranch 353 423 427 427All Other 513 1,757 1,780 1,856

Transformative 1,148 39.4% 1,799 24.4% 1,778 24.0% 1,796 24.1%Agriculture and Ag Services 678 790 712 690Construction 151 355 419 414Mining 216 550 549 589Manufacturing 103 104 98 103

Distributive 248 8.5% 801 10.9% 788 10.6% 767 10.3%

Retail Trade 477 16.4% 1,345 18.3% 964 13.0% 915 12.3%

Services 504 17.3% 2,153 29.2% 2,740 37.0% 2,778 37.3%Consumer 252 1,076 1,356 1,476Professional 126 646 698 780Social 126 431 686 522

Government Services 539 18.5% 1,267 17.2% 1,254 16.9% 1,277 17.2%

R O U T T C O U N T Y

1970 % of Total 2000 % of Total 2001 % of Total 2002 % of Total

FULL & PART-TIME JOBS 3,135 18,735 19,451 19,867Wage & Salary 2,032 64.8% 13,925 74.2% 14,498 74.5% 14,596 73.5%Proprietor / Partnerships 1,103 35.2% 4,810 25.6% 4,953 25.5% 5,271 26.5%

Farm/Ranch 383 509 513 514All Other 720 4,301 4,440 4,757

Transformative 1,021 32.6% 4,833 25.8% 4,865 25.0% 4,853 24.4%Agriculture and Ag Services 660 912 793 776Construction 185 3,133 3,271 3,253Mining 123 543 577 597Manufacturing 53 245 224 227

Distributive 190 6.1% 799 4.3% 782 4.0% 791 4.0%

Retail Trade 548 17.5% 3,471 18.5% 2,001 10.3% 2,006 10.1%

Services 870 27.8% 7,959 42.4% 10,071 51.8% 10,472 52.7%Consumer 301 3,461 4,806 4,834Professional 488 3,491 3,921 4,233Social 81 1,007 1,344 1,405

Government Services 550 17.5% 1,683 9.0% 1,732 8.9% 1,745 8.8%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:50 PM Page 32

Economic Vitality


Industry composition of a regioncan affect economic development,labor force training and education

and land use planning (among manyother community factors.) In theYampa Valley, 80% of the businessesemploy less than 10 employees.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY NOTES:The U.S. Census Bureau releases data

on the type and size of businesses in aparticular area and economy. The statis-tics include area businesses that providewage and salary employment andincludes the self-employed or generalpartnerships.

Census Bureau data for the YampaValley will not show information onemployees who work for businesses head-quartered outside the Yampa Valley, loca-tion neutral employees or persons whocommute or telecommute. The numbersshown in the graphs, therefore, under-state total employment.

MOFFAT COUNTY as of 2001 ROUTT COUNTY as of 2001

Non-Employee Businesses Employment Size Class Non-Employee Businesses Employment Size ClassBusinesses w/Employees 1 -19 20-99 100-499 > 499 Businesses w/Employees 1 -19 20-99 100-499 > 499

Transformative 246 66 754 392Agriculture and Ag Services 54 2 2 59 5 5Construction 160 40 40 626 337 325 11 1Mining 14 10 8 2 32 10 8 1 1Manufacturing 18 14 13 1 37 40 39 1

Distributive 73 41 44 1 1 116 68 58 8 2

Retail Trade 114 71 62 7 2 180 195 178 15 2

Services 502 209 1,831 703Consumer 236 98 96 7 1 630 320 263 50 6 1Professional 174 69 68 1 1,016 290 274 14 2Social 92 42 28 4 1 147 93 83 9 1

Businesses Not Classified by Category 15 11 38 13

TOTAL 950 398 2,881 1,358

MOFFAT COUNTY TRENDS ROUTT COUNTY TRENDS

Total Business Establishments 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001Without Employees 862 905 979 977 950 2,524 2,598 2,652 2,829 2,881With Employees 358 355 364 390 398 1,130 1,204 1,287 1,337 1,358

Total 1,220 1,260 1,343 1,367 1,348 3,654 3,802 3,939 4,166 4,239

Minority Owned Businesses 1997Women 19.8% 25.2%Hispanic & Other (D) 3.9%

*A non-employee Business is typically a Sole Properitor or single member LLC with no employees. (D) Data suppressed due to small numbers.

Number of Businesses by Industry

Source: U.S. Census

Source: U.S. Census

Art and Culture Economic Information – Routt CountyRESEARCH METHODOLOGY NOTES: The Steamboat Springs Arts

Council surveyed arts and culture organizations and business inJune 2004. The information in this table was compiled from 14responders.

Non-profit art and culture organizations in Routt County . . . . . . .25

Art and culture programs with written, long range plans . . . . . . . . 8

Organizations with full time or part time, paid professional staff with a Volunteer board of directors . . . . . . . . 7

Revenue Budget size:$3,000 to $10,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4$21,000 to $50,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3$100,000 + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Source: Steamboat Springs Arts Council and affiliates in Routt County

In order to determine the actions necessary to preserveour quality of life, we must understand the

interconnectedness of the health of our people,environment, economy and civic participation.

The Community Indicators, when watched over time,shed light on that interconnectedness, making them key

to conscientious community decision-making.

SANDY EVANS HALL

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,STEAMBOAT SPRINGS CHAMBER RESORT ASSOCIATION, INC.

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:50 PM Page 34


Economic VitalityAverage Annual Wage by Industry

M O F F A T C O U N T Y R O U T T C O U N T Y

Adjusted to 2003 Dollars Adjusted to 2003 Dollars

2001 2002 2003 2001 2002 2003

TRANSFORMATIVEAgriculture and Ag Services $16,368 $16,035 $16,085 $26,412 $25,676 $24,961 Construction 29,735 27,798 25,812 36,896 43,163 44,644 Mining 54,154 54,581 54,324 61,569 65,035 61,021 Manufacturing 31,441 30,090 30,855 28,971 28,365 27,736

DISTRIBUTIVEUtilities 61,389 59,205 65,697 65,248 66,484 65,805Transportation & Warehousing 33,636 37,754 37,510 26,264 27,590 27,470Wholesale Trade 31,220 33,283 34,480 47,503 39,714 42,915

RETAIL TRADEMotor Vehicle & Part Dealers 38,040 32,407 38,835 38,380 38,078 34,500Building Material & Garden Supply 19,916 19,803 24,906 30,205 28,953 28,301Food & Beverage 24,622 25,595 26,274 20,930 22,045 21,768All Other Retail 17,285 17,747 17,806 18,658 19,161 19,024

SERVICESConsumer

Other Services 21,103 21,255 21,468 25,373 25,467 23,981Arts,Entertainment & Recreation 15,015 14,623 12,935 18,871 21,274 17,587Accomodations & Food Services 9,491 9,560 10,198 14,844 15,095 15,121Personal Services 15,274 14,519 13,829 25,445 27,434 28,858

ProfessionalInformation 29,677 29,730 31,621 33,116 32,336 33,164Finance & Insurance 30,548 31,260 31,351 42,775 46,365 49,208Real Estate 31,658 27,560 31,151 27,586 31,691 30,514Professional & Technical 17,756 18,835 20,058 39,315 38,235 39,790

SocialHealth 22,480 25,072 26,391 35,453 36,889 36,941Education 14,369 14,667 14,667 23,884 22,482 22,136

GOVERNMENT 31,347 31,567 31,845 30,820 32,024 32,419

County Average for All Industries $30,659 $31,295 $31,919 $29,230 $31,182 $31,157

Statewide Average for All Industries $39,433 $38,878 $38,942 $39,433 $38,878 $38,942

Average wage data documentschanges within industries, changesinfluenced by technology, national

and international market forces, and work-force advances. Average wage is a compos-ite of all wages for jobs in an industryincluding part-time, full-time and over-time wages. Because it reflects a wide spanof employers and jobs across an industry,average wage is not an index number todetermine what a particular individualshould earn in a particular industry.

In both Routt and Moffat Counties, thesteepest drop in wages since 1970 is in theagriculture sector. This change is alsoreflected in the significant decline in thepercentage of farm/ranch jobs since 1970.(see Employment/Jobs by Industry table inthe Economy section of this report.)

Increased average wage by industry canbe due to market forces (increased demandfor products and services and populationchanges) and educational requirements forspecialized jobs. Moffat County has a mixof higher paying jobs in the mining andpublic utilities areas while Routt Countyhas a larger concentration of jobs in thefinancial, insurance, real estate and con-struction sectors. The aggregate averagewages in both counties are about $10,000below those for the state due to high num-ber of consumer service jobs. Marketforces are a primary influence in changesin the average wage since 1970 in Routtand Moffat Counties.


Unemployment Rates

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Moffat 6.0% 6.0% 6.2% 5.2% 6.1% 5.5% 4.9% 4.9% 5.8% 7.0%

Colorado 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 3.3% 3.8% 2.9% 2.8% 3.7% 5.7% 6.0%

Routt 3.9% 4.3% 4.0% 3.5% 3.6% 2.7% 2.3% 2.2% 3.1% 3.8%

Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:50 PM Page 36

Economic VitalityLiving Wage Study, 2003

Aliving wage is the level of income needed tosupport a given size and type of householdwith typical expenditures in an economical-

ly sustainable manner. Consistently, the living wagestudy has shown child care and housing costs com-prise the majority of individual and family expen-ditures in Routt and Moffat Counties, between 55– 60% of family budgets. Child care and housingexpenditures also mark the major difference in costof living between Routt and Moffat Counties withRoutt County costs exceeding those in MoffatCounty.

This living wage study is a method to measurecommunity needs and the economic security ofindividuals and families. National and local studiesindicate when individuals and families earn lessthan a living wage, they tend to depend more ongovernment and non-profit social service pro-grams such as energy assistance, food and clothingbanks and subsidized health care to meet basicneeds.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY NOTES:In order to calculate livable wages in the Yampa

Valley, we prepared model budgets with essentialexpenditures for different family unit types in Craigand Steamboat Springs. Wages are expressed at anhourly rate based on 2,080 hours per year. For afamily of four, the living wage indicates the requiredtotal wages to support all family members. Housingcosts are for rental, not home-ownership.

Source: Colorado Mountain College Small Business Resource Center


ISS

UE

PR

OFI

LE Across the country, according to theInstitute for Women’s Policy Research,women are underrepresented in publicoffice and managerial and executive posi-tions in industries and lag behind meneconomically and in access to healthcare.

In order to understand the impact ofthese differences between men andwomen in the Yampa Valley, we lookedmore closely at a few economic indica-tors: Median female earnings as a per-centage of male earnings, percentage of

the service industry workforce that ismale vs. female, and the cost of living inRoutt and Moffat Counties.

Women earn 59.2% of what a manearns for similar work in Moffat Countyand 71.8% of what a man earns in RouttCounty according to analysis of 2000Census data by RRC Associates ofBoulder, CO. This figure is greater thanin either the state of Colorado or the U.S.

The service sector industry is thefastest growing in the Yampa Valley andwages in this industry range in the

neighborhood of $9-15 an hour. Womencomprise the majority of the service sec-tor workforce in both Routt and MoffatCounties according to Census figures.

The effect of wage disparity, employ-ment concentration, and the gapbetween earned income and living wageis multifaceted. In the Yampa Valley, wesee an increase in the number of singlefemale parents working more than onejob, increased demand for subsidizedchildcare and healthcare, shared housingarrangements, and poverty.

Gender Issues

Single Person Single Person Single Person FamilyNo Children with one Child with two children with Two Children

(1 Bedroom unit) (2 bedroom unit) (2 bedroom unit) (3 Bedrooms)


Food $3,659 $4,745 $4,745 $7,785 Utilities 1,745 2,181 2,181 2,923 Clothing 1,172 1,185 1,185 2,643 Transportation 3,319 3,849 3,849 6,773 Health Care 1,629 1,252 1,252 2,716 Entertainment 1,391 1,362 1,362 3,213 Child Care 7,110 14,220 14,220 Personal Care 379 428 428 711 Financial 2,448 2,006 2,006 6,144 Taxes 1,686 483 483 3,706 Miscellaneous 675 569 569 949 Housing (Rent Only) 7,020 8,100 8,100 10,260

Annual Total $25,123 $33,270 $40,380 $62,043

Hourly Wage Needed $12.08 $16.00 $19.41 $29.83


Food $3,659 $4,745 $4,745 $7,785 Utilities 1,745 2,181 2,181 2,923 Clothing 1,172 1,185 1,185 2,643 Transportation 3,319 3,849 3,849 6,773 Health Care 1,629 1,252 1,252 2,716 Entertainment 1,391 1,362 1,362 3,213 Child Care 10,902 21,804 21,804 Personal Care 379 428 428 711 Financial 2,448 2,006 2,006 6,144 Taxes 1,686 483 483 3,706 Miscellaneous 675 569 569 949 Housing (Rent Only) 9,300 12,600 12,600 15,600

Annual Total $27,403 $41,562 $52,464 $74,967

Hourly Wage Needed $13.17 $19.98 $25.22 $36.04

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:50 PM Page 38


Vitality Economic

Changes in personal income are linked to population andindustry market changes. Both Moffat and Routt Countiesexperienced increases in personal income between 1970

and 1980. Significant increases in personal income in RouttCounty since 1980 are related to population growth and anincrease in location neutral businesses and employees. In general,these new location neutral employees earn higher salaries. Thesehigher salaries, in turn, become a greater percentage of total per-sonal income in the County and, combined with populationgrowth, increase the overall figure for total personal income.

Moffat County personal income, in contrast, has remained rela-tively flat since 1980. This status is related to a smaller populationgrowth (see Census Data in the Social section of this report),unemployment rate (see the Economy: Vitality section of thisreport), and a growth in the percentage of persons commuting toRoutt County for employment.

Personal Income by Labor and Non-Labor Sources All income in thousands of dollars / All figures in 2002 dollars

R E S I D E N T S O F M O F F A T C O U N T Y1970 % of Total 1980 %of Total 1990 % of Total 2000 % of Total 2001 % of Total 2002 % of Total

LABOR SOURCES 74,350 72.0% 205,553 77.7% 190,630 75.2% 218,986 71.1% 223,575 71.4% 232,275 71.7%Wage & Salary 49,723 66.9% 177,493 86.3% 145,457 76.3% 151,373 69.1% 152,467 68.2% 155,768 67.1%Other Labor Income 5,221 7.0% 34,168 16.6% 31,570 16.6% 31,899 14.6% 32,446 14.5% 34,272 14.8%Proprietor's Income 22,012 29.6% 19,066 9.3% 16,541 8.7% 20,213 9.2% 21,233 9.5% 21,321 9.2%

Farm/Ranch 4,581 (1,718) (2,063) (7,996) (8,632) (7,627)Non Farm/Ranch 17,430 20,784 18,604 28,210 29,865 28,948

Adjustments to Income (2,606) -3.5% (25,174) -12.2% (2,938) -1.5% 15,500 7.1% 17,428 7.8% 20,914 9.0%Gov Social Insurance Programs -3,802 (19,496) (20,092) (20,378) (20,692) (21,376)Imported/(Exported) Income 1,196 (5,678) 17,155 35,878 38,120 42,290

NON-LABOR SOURCES 28,981 28.0% 58,851 22.3% 62,824 24.8% 88,935 28.9% 89,500 28.6% 91,609 28.3%Dividends, Interest, Rent 17,333 59.8% 40,163 68.2% 38,503 61.3% 50,550 56.8% 48,829 54.6% 48,239 52.7%Transfer Payments 11,648 40.2% 18,689 31.8% 24,321 38.7% 38,385 43.2% 40,671 45.4% 43,370 47.3%

TOTAL ALL SOURCES $103,331 100.0% $264,405 100.0% $253,454 100.0% $307,921 100.0% $313,075 100.0% $323,884 100.0%

% Increase over % Increase over % Increase over % Increase over % Increase over Prior Period Prior Period Prior Period Prior Period Prior Period

PER CAPITA INCOME $15,843 $20,044 26.5% $22,317 11.3% $23,356 4.7% $23,736 1.6% $24,374 2.7%Population Est. 6,522 13,191 102.3% 11,357 -13.9% 13,184 16.1% 13,190 0.0% 13,288 0.7%(2001,2002 Based on DOLA Estimates)

R E S I D E N T S O F R O U T T C O U N T Y1970 % of Total 1980 %of Total 1990 % of Total 2000 % of Total 2001 % of Total 2002 % of Total

LABOR SOURCES 83,447 67.8% 298,792 79.6% 292,645 71.3% 466,108 68.7% 496,505 69.3% 529,845 70.3%Wage & Salary 49,231 59.0% 238,198 79.7% 231,486 79.1% 396,147 85.0% 413,167 83.2% 443,804 83.8%Other Labor Income 5,305 6.4% 44,544 14.9% 45,795 15.6% 74,057 15.9% 77,255 15.6% 85,803 16.2%Proprietor's Income 34,337 41.1% 45,483 15.2% 64,119 21.9% 79,444 17.0% 96,701 19.5% 100,822 19.0%

Farm/Ranch 3,807 (5,204) 3,287 (10,451) (12,361) (9,572)Non Farm/Ranch 30,530 50,687 60,832 89,895 109,062 110,394

Adjustments to Income (5,425) -6.5% (29,433) -9.9% (48,754) -16.7% (83,540) -17.9% (90,617) -18.3% (100,584) -19.0%Gov Social Insurance Programs (4,122) (1,825) (35,045) (54,579) (57,663) (62,728)Imported/(Exported) Income (1,303) (27,608) (13,709) (28,961) (32,954) (37,856)

NON-LABOR SOURCES 39,697 32.2% 76,802 20.4% 117,729 28.7% 212,499 31.3% 219,477 30.7% 223,383 29.7%Dividends, Interest, Rent 29,969 75.5% 60,233 78.4% 96,284 81.8% 181,693 85.5% 186,594 85.0% 186,874 83.7%Transfer Payments 9,728 24.5% 16,569 21.6% 21,445 18.2% 30,806 14.5% 32,883 15.0% 36,509 16.3%

TOTAL ALL SOURCES 123,145 100.0% 375,594 100.0% 410,374 100.0% 678,606 100.0% 715,982 100.0% 753,228 100.0%

% Increase over % Increase over % Increase over % Increase over % Increase over Prior Period Prior Period Prior Period Prior Period Prior Period

PER CAPITA INCOME $18,282 $27,929 52.8% $28,820 3.2% $34,228 18.8% $34,839 1.8% $35,969 3.2%Population Est. 6,736 13,448 99.6% 14,239 5.9% 19,826 39.2% 20,551 3.7% 20,941 1.9%(2001,2002 Based on DOLA Estimates)

Per capita income is a measure of economic health that takestotal personal income from all sources for a region and dis-tributes it evenly across the region’s population. The per capita

income calculation asks the question, “Overall, how much is ourregion making per person?”

Per capita income is not intended to be an indexing numberagainst which one can evaluate individual personal income. Adeclining per capita income figure means that the economy is con-tracting, while a growing number means the economy is expanding.

The per capita income figure is best viewed over time in order tohelp smooth the volatility that occurs in the indicator from one yearto the next. Adjusting historic data for inflation also helps us under-stand trends that are taking place.

(A complete description of the components is located in theappendix, page 82.)


CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:50 PM Page 39

Economic Industry DiversityLabor Income by Industry Dollars in Thousands & Adjusted to 2002 Dollars

MOFFAT COUNTY

2001 % of Total 2002 % of Total

Total Personal Income All Sources 302,907 302,970

From Non Labor Source 92,094 30.4% 91,609 30.2%Dividends-Interest-Rents 50,502 54.8% 48,239 52.7%Transfer Payments 41,592 45.2% 43,370 47.3%

Earnings From Labor Sources 210,813 69.6% 211,361 69.8%Wage & Salary 155,919 74.0% 155,768 73.7%Supplements to Wages & Salaries 33,180 15.7% 34,272 16.2%Proprietor's Income 21,714 10.3% 21,321 10.1%

EARNINGS BY PLACE OF WORKTransformative 50,442 23.9% 54,094 25.6%

Agriculture & Ag Services (5,207) -10.3% (1,967) -3.6%Mining 42,530 84.3% 43,738 80.9%Construction 10,868 21.5% 9,969 18.4%Manufacturing 2,252 4.5% 2,354 4.4%

Distributive 10,800 5.1% 10,768 5.1%Utilities (D) N/A (D) N/ATransportation & Warehousing 3,440 31.9% 3,864 35.9%Wholesale Trade 7,360 68.1% 6,904 64.1%

Retail Trade 21,221 10.1% 19,717 9.3%Motor Vehicle & Parts 6,681 31.5% 5,643 28.6%Building Materials & Garden Supplies 2,357 11.1% 2,243 11.4%Food & Beverage 5,668 26.7% 5,233 26.5%All Other Retail 6,515 30.7% 6,598 33.5%

Services 44,363 21.0% 47,063 22.3%Consumer 17,864 40.3% 17,763 37.7%

Other Services 2,084 11.7% 1,602 9.0%Arts,Entertainment & Recreation 650 3.6% 595 3.3%Accomodations & Food Services 6,326 35.4% 6,277 35.3%Personal Services 8,802 49.3% 9,289 52.3%

Professional Services 9,891 22.3% 11,358 24.1%Information 1,935 19.6% 1,842 16.2%Finance & Insurance 4,079 41.2% 4,686 41.3%Real Estate 3,878 39.2% 3,615 31.8%Professional & Technical (D) N/A 1,215 10.7%

Social Services 16,608 37.4% 17,942 38.1%Health 16,498 99.3% 17,942 100.0%Education 110 0.7% (D) N/A

Government Services 48,419 23.0% 46,602 22.0%

Detail Data Surpressed and/or Unclassified 35,567 16.9% 33,117 15.7%

TOTAL ALL LABOR SOURCE INCOME 210,813 100.0% 211,361 100.0%

ROUTT COUNTY

2001 % of Total 2002 % of Total

824,859 853,812

224,446 27.2% 223,383 26.2%190,819 85.0% 186,874 83.7%

33,627 15.0% 36,509 16.3%

600,413 72.8% 630,429 73.8%422,520 70.4% 443,804 70.4%

79,003 13.2% 85,803 13.6%98,890 16.5% 100,822 16.0%

160,915 26.8% 178,227 28.3%(9,069) -5.6% (8,375) -4.7%44,838 27.9% 47,214 26.5%

119,236 74.1% 133,550 74.9%5,911 3.7% 5,838 3.3%

14,163 2.4% 12,812 2.0%(D) N/A (D) N/A

14,163 *** 12,812 ***(D) N/A (D) N/A

62,730 10.4% 62,710 9.9%8,451 13.5% 8,792 14.0%7,555 12.0% 7,210 11.5%9,668 15.4% 10,122 16.1%

37,056 59.1% 36,586 58.3%275,258 45.8% 273,854 43.4%119,713 43.5% 120,337 43.9%

13,109 11.0% 12,960 10.8%44,301 37.0% 43,638 36.3%42,248 35.3% 42,261 35.1%20,055 16.8% 21,478 17.8%

106,146 38.6% 101,915 37.2%8,833 8.3% 7,435 7.3%

15,428 14.5% 15,758 15.5%43,112 40.6% 39,361 38.6%38,773 36.5% 39,361 38.6%

49,399 17.9% 51,602 18.8%45,722 92.6% 47,559 92.2%

3,677 7.4% 4,043 7.8%60,239 10.0% 64,663 10.3%

27,109 4.5% 38,163 6.1%

600,413 100.0% 630,429 100.0%


(D) Data suppressed due to small numbers. N/A Not available. Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

ISS

UE

PR

OFI

LE

Changes in the type and location ofindustries and businesses since 1970 hascaused the once independent counties ofMoffat and Routt to operate more as oneeconomic system. Decreases in farm andranch jobs and the increase in the servicesector are two main examples.

This interdependence is illustrated inseveral different parts of this report.Between 1990 and 2000, 17.2 % of Moffat

County residents began commuting towork in Routt County, most likely in theservice industry. These Moffat Countyresidents had, for the most part, previouslyworked in Moffat County. While RouttCounty businesses are diversifying beyondtourism and are less dependent on a goodtourist season, Moffat County residentsemployed in Routt County are more vul-nerable to changes in that market.

Unemployment figures illustrate this fac-tor. Slight increases in unemployment inRoutt County since 1990 cause large spikesin unemployment in Moffat County.

Housing costs are less in Moffat Countythan in Routt County. Since the serviceindustry pays a lower wage, residence inMoffat County is also influenced by thecost of living and affordability of housingin relationship to wages.

Economic Interdependence

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:50 PM Page 40


EconomicHousing

Housing in the Yampa Valley includes avariety of types and costs. In order todraw a meaningful comparison of the cost

of housing across the Valley, Yampa Valley Partnersworking with Colorado Mountain College SmallBusiness Resource Center, developed a compositemeasure of the cost of housing based Moffat andRoutt County Assessor’s data. This informationincluded market value of the properties as well assquare footage. This composite index allows us tocompare the average price of housing in each geo-graphic area.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY NOTES:The selection criteria used is noted in the table.Condo and town home cost per square foot numbersin Steamboat Springs are skewed upwards due to anumber of higher end units. If the selection criteriawas changed to show town homes and condos unitsunder $250,000, the cost would be as follows:

■ Town Homes – 524 units / $138.71 per sq/ft ■ Condos – 2,333 units / $174.42 per sq/ft

Indexed cost of housingSingle Family Homes

(Between 1,200 to 3,000 sq/ft and

on half-acre or less)

Duplexes (Between 1,200 to

3,000 sq/ft andon half-acre or less)

Townhomes(Less than 3,000 sq/ft)

Condos(Less than 3,000 sq/ft) Mobile Homes

Number Avg Cost Number Avg Cost Number Avg Cost Number Avg Cost Number Avg Cost of Units Per sq/ft of Units Per sq/ft of Units Per sq/ft of Units Per sq/ft of Units Per sq/ft

MOFFAT COUNTY Moffat County Schools Tax District. 1,815 $61.05 41 $50.76 97 $55.60 7 $33.37 35 $16.86

ROUTT COUNTYSchool Dist. RE-1 (West Routt) 98 $81.95 8 $77.72 34 $70.61 16 $65.11 243 $28.23 School Dist. RE-2 (Steamboat Springs/North Routt) 852 $166.85 147 $154.89 1,160 $170.40 3,499 $218.53 515 $38.99 School Dist. RE-3 (South Routt) 140 $90.20 7 $82.79 121 $94.34 42 $89.64 171 $23.30

Based on 2003 County Assessor's Market Value Assessment . Source: Colorado Mountain College Small Business Resource Center

ISS

UE P

RO

FILE

Land use is rapidly changing in theYampa Valley as family ranches areconverted to developments of

large homes on large lots. National andinternational market changes mean theeconomic value of agricultural productsis less than the economic value of theranch land. Development on otherlands is limited because of geographicfeatures and public and private preser-vation of land including federal andstate Parks, Forest and BLM land. (seethe Environmental and Economy sec-tions)

Supply and demand theory dictatesthat as resources diminish, the demand

and cost for the remaining resourceswill increase. Hence, as the amount ofbuildable land decreases, the costincreases. The demand on our land foropen space, residential developmentwhich is often second-homes and com-mercial development is resulting inhigher prices for available land. Thistrend is expected to continue.

The “affordability” of housing isdirectly related to income. The federalgovernment considers “affordable”housing to be that which comprises nomore than 30% of household income.25% of renters and 17.6% of homeown-ers in Moffat County and 36% of

renters and 31% of homeowners inRoutt County pay more than 30% oftheir income on housing. Analysis ofemployment statistics and the livingwage (see the Economy section) reveal agap between wages and cost of livingand therefore a gap between wages andhousing costs.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY NOTES:Gross rent is the total rent plus estimat-

ed monthly utilities. Monthly OwnershipCost is the total mortgage, taxes, insurancecosts and estimated monthly utilities. TheMedian Household Income in 2000 was$41,528 for Moffat County and $53,612for Routt County.

Sources: Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Census, Bureau of Ecomonic Analysis

This table is an estimate of howmany people moved into the countiesin a given year and how many movedout.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY NOTES:The data prepared by the IRS mas-

ter file on state-to-state migration flowsat the county level. Migration flow datawas developed by matching the socialsecurity number of the primary taxpay-er in one year, e.g., 1999, with that ofthe previous year, e.g., 1998. The num-bers shown here are the exemptionsclaimed on a tax return which representactual numbers of people and do notinclude the extra exemptions claimedfor those who are blind or over 65.

Population Net Migration Year Inmigration Outmigration Net Migration


1994 893 791 1021995 822 738 841996 836 813 231997 949 775 1741998 890 766 1241999 947 902 452000 781 906 -1252001 916 1,025 -109


1994 1,525 1,157 3681995 1,532 1,244 2881996 1,496 1,295 2011997 1,447 1,354 931998 1,402 1,376 261999 1,667 1,402 2652000 1,605 1,380 2252001 1,779 1,541 238

Housing

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:50 PM Page 45

Economic Housing


Monthly Rent as a Percentage of Household Income, Year 2004

Less than$10,000

$10,000 to$19,999

$20,000 to$34,999

$35,000 to$49,999

$50,000 to$74,999

$75,000 to$99,999

$100,000or more

MOFFAT COUNTY – Estimated Number of Households that Rent — 1,339

Less than 20% 0 45 219 170 103 34 1320% to 24% 0 35 109 21 0 0 025 to 29% 18 45 39 6 0 0 030% to 34% 0 86 25 0 0 0 035% or more 146 65 15 0 0 0 0Not computed 33 36 25 27 7 17 0

ROUTT COUNTY – Estimated Number of Households that Rent — 2,396

Less than 20% 4 17 60 134 240 199 21420% to 24% 2 6 44 119 46 11 725% to 29% 3 28 26 88 51 10 030% to 34% 15 30 74 66 12 12 035% or more 89 317 152 33 24 13 21Not computed 31 60 29 34 41 27 7

COLORADO – Estimated Number of Households that Rent — 552,471

Less than 20% 2,037 5,900 17,044 34,281 55,454 33,183 45,02720% to 24% 1,996 3,906 22,514 23,607 16,162 4,232 1,28025% to 29% 4,900 6,730 25,874 14,833 7,175 1,213 16930% to 34% 2,501 9,045 20,367 7,082 2,256 369 13235% or more 45,423 64,958 36,329 6,510 1,626 262 65Not computed 10,826 4,071 4,601 2,860 2,507 1,106 1,788

Monthly Ownership Cost as a Percentage of Household Income, 1999

MOFFAT COUNTY ROUTT COUNTY# of # of

Households % Households %

Less than 15 percent 867 39.6 1,074 32.715 to 19 percent 485 22.2 396 1220 to 24 percent 190 8.7 527 1625 to 29 percent 263 12 273 8.330 to 34 percent 146 6.7 302 9.235 percent or more 220 10.1 714 21.7Not computed 18 0.8 2 0.1

Total 2,189 3,288

Source: Department of Local Affairs

Source: U.S. Census

Senior housing options, particularly those with supportive services, are a criticalcomponent of the Yampa Valley housing stock. Census data shows the populationof persons over the 65 is growing.(see Social: Census data in this report)

Senior Housing in the Yampa Valley, 2004

Routt Moffat

Nursing Home and Assisted Living beds/units 79 72

Senior Apartments 73 88Total: 152 160

Source: Yampa Valley Partners

“Many of our customers that are considering moving here

have no idea about the demographics of the town

and the area. The CommunityIndicators Report is useful

for them so that they can get amore accurate feel for what

they can expect and can look forward to in our area.”

CAMERON BOYD

PRUDENTIAL STEAMBOAT REALTY

“The Community Indicators Project is an excellent resource for the staff and students of Moffat County School District. The report is accessed many times to provide critical

information such as demographic data for grant applications. The community indicatorsare useful in such tasks as setting long-term district goals or analyzing trends to gather

information for making enrollment projections. The economic and employment statisticscan assist staff in counseling students regarding postsecondary and career choices.

Many thanks for the effort that goes into producing this valuable report.”

JOEL D SHERIDAN

ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT

MOFFAT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:50 PM Page 46

Recreation Economic


Routt and Moffat Counties have a wealth of public lands that offer a variety of outdoor recreational opportuni-ties. In addition to Steamboat Lake, Pearl Lake and Stagecoach State Park, we now have Yampa River State Park,which opened in 1998 and offers facilities at Elkhead Reservoir and at the Yampa River near Hayden.

State Parks / National Monument Visitors1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Dinosaur Nat’l Monument 534,300 480,600 496,500 464,133 446,624 421,427 411,474 397,801 327,105

State Parks 557,014 689,628 689,264 685,675 597,795 488,270 595,094 700,008 638,540

TOTAL 1,091,314 1,170,228 1,185,764 1,149,808 1,044,419 909,697 1,006,568 1,097,809 965,645

Sources: Colorado State Parks, National Parks Service

Outdoor winter recreation isa key component of theYampa Valley economy,

drawing visitors to our regionfrom all over the world. In recentyears, skier visits to SteamboatSprings Ski Area have hoveredright above one million a season.As a percentage of total ski visits toColorado, Steamboat Ski Area hasmaintained around 9% each yearfor the last decade.

Annual Skier/Boarder Days(in millions)

STEAMBOAT COLORADO NATIONALLY

1993-1994 1.02 11.20 55.00

1994-1995 1.01 11.10 53.00

1995-1996 1.02 11.40 54.00

1996-1997 1.10 11.80 53.00

1997-1998 1.10 12.00 54.00

1998-1999 1.01 11.40 52.00

1999-2000 1.02 10.90 52.00

2000-2001 1.00 11.70 57.00

2001-2002 1.00 11.10 54.00

2002-2003 1.00 11.60 57.00

2003-2004 1.00 11.50 57.00

Sources:Local - Steamboat Ski & Resort CorporationState - Colorado Ski Country USANational - National Ski Areas Association

“The cover of my copy of Yampa Valley Partners ‘Community Indicators Project 2002-2003 Report’

is showing wear and tear after being used as a quick referencethe past two years. A wide range of information presented

is useful for the college as we strive to meet the unique needs of the Yampa Valley community.

From population to industry diversity information,the indicators tie into our planning processes.”

MARY KAY MORRIS-SHEARER

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION/PUBLIC INFORMATION

COLORADO NORTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE - CRAIG CAMPUS

“The indicators help understand hownew or enhanced services might

improve our quality of life and thenatural environment in the valley.

The process used to develop thereport creates partnerships that

transcend arbitrary political boundaries and combine the human

and capital resources across to thevalley to address regional issues.

This collaboration will improve ourvalley as one of the best places in the

world to live and raise a family.”

JIM FERREE

CITY MANAGER, CRAIG, CO“The Community Indicators Project Reports is such a valuable

tool. It provides important insights into our communities - how and where we work, play and live. Our efforts at the

Steamboat Springs Economic Development Council dependand rely upon these Indicators as they give us a quantified

snapshot of vital information for our region.”

STEPHANIE REINEKE

CHAIR, STEAMBOAT SPRINGS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:50 PM Page 47

Economic Transportation


Between 1990 and 2000, anincreasing number of MoffatCounty workforce began work-

ing in Routt County. This change isreflected in daily traffic counts, busridership, and unemployment ratesthat remained consistently lower inRoutt County. (see the Economy sec-tion of this report)

Average daily traffic counts in the YampaValley have increased over 30% since1990. Traffic increases are greatest in

Steamboat Springs. In 2000, 7,400 more vehiclesper day passed through downtown than in 1990.

Approximately 2% of these workers usepublic transportation, 80% travel alone in private vehicles and 20% travel in carpools.

In 2000, approximately 8% of the MoffatCounty workforce and 16% of the RouttCounty workforce worked from home.Increases in location neutral businesses andemployees (telecommuters) will continue toinfluence this percentage. In Colorado, 12.6%of the workforce worked from home in 2000.

6,950 9,100 9,953

5,6505,9506,662

18,500 23,500 25,951

2,1502,6503,013

1,100 1,400 1,695

Average Daily Traffic Count

Source: U.S. Census


Source: Colorado Department of Transportation

1990 1995 2000

N U M B E R O F V E H I C L E S5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Work Commute Between Counties

County of Work 1970 %of Workforce 1980 %of Workforce 1990 %of Workforce 2000 %of Workforce

M O F F A T C O U N T Y R E S I D E N T S

Moffat, CO 2,275 96.2% 5,727 89.6% 4,418 94.0% 4,599 73.6%Routt, CO 36 1.5% 374 5.9% 142 3.0% 1,323 21.2%Rio Blanco, CO 20 0.8% 82 1.3% 54 1.1% 204 3.3%Carbon,WY 5 0.2% 32 0.5% 16 0.3% 79 1.3%Mesa, CO 6 0.3% 36 0.6% 14 0.3% 25 0.4%Other 23 1.0% 138 2.2% 56 1.2% 20 0.3%

Total 2,365 100.0% 6,389 100.0% 4,700 100.0% 6,250 100.0%

R O U T T C O U N T Y R E S I D E N T S

Routt, CO 2,233 96.9% 6,511 95.4% 7,796 94.7% 11,440 96.7%Moffat, CO 62 2.7% 158 2.3% 381 4.6% 152 1.3%Eagle, CO 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 94 0.8%Denver, CO 0 0.0% 51 0.7% 23 0.3% 54 0.5%Grand, CO 10 0.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 50 0.4%Others 0 0.0% 105 1.5% 33 0.4% 46 0.4%

Total 2,305 100.0% 6,825 100.0% 8,233 100.0% 11,836 100.0%

County of Work 2000 %of Workforce

MOFFAT COUNTY

Moffat 4,599 73.6%Routt 1,323 21.2%Other Colo 229 3.7%Other WY/UT 99 1.6%

Total 6,250 100.0%

ROUTT COUNTY

Routt 11,440 96.7%Moffat 152 1.3%Other Colo 244 2.1%

Total 11,836 100.0%

Apositive number in agiven year means work-force of the county

earned more in salaries/wagesthan the total amount employ-ers in that county paid insalaries/wages. The workforcein the county, therefore, were“net importers” of salaries/

wages from sources outsidetheir county of residence.

A negative number in agiven year means that theworkforce of the county earnedless in salaries/wages than thetotal amount employers locatedin the county paid insalaries/wages. This indicates

workforce from outside thecounty worked in that county.County businesses are “netexporters” of wages/salaries.

This indicator directly corre-lates to commuter data thatshows approximately 21% ofMoffat County workforce areemployed in Routt County.

Net Import/Export of Salaries/WagesAdjusted to 2002 Dollars in Thousands of Dollars

Moffat County Routt County

2002 (+) $42,290 (-) $37,8562001 (+) 38,120 (-) 32,954 2000 (+) 35,878 (-) 28,961 1995 (+) 18,533 (-) 18,1181990 (+) 17,155 (-) 13,7091985 (+) 3,259 (-) 5,146 1980 (-) 5,678 (-) 1,8251975 **** (L) (-) 2,120 1970 (+) 1,196 (-) 1,303

Location

Hwy 40 , W. Craig

Hwy 40, Hayden

Hwy 40,Steamboat Springs

Hwy 131, Oak Creek

Hwy 131, Yampa

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:50 PM Page 48

Economic Transportation


Yampa Valley Air Service

The remote location of the YampaValley has historically posed chal-lenges to air transportation to the

region. Air service impacts the health ofthe regional economy and the vitality ofthe tourism and ski industries. Multiple

airlines provide regularly scheduled airservice to the Yampa Valley RegionalAirport between mid-November to mid-April. Local private and government sub-sidies guarantee this airline service. Twoairlines provide more limited service in

the summer and fall.The number of deplanements meas-

ures the number of commercial air pas-sengers that arrive in the Yampa Valley.The number of deplanements droppedalmost 15% between 2000 and 2001.

Total Number of Commercial Deplanements Annually1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Steamboat Springs 55,093 38,272 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Yampa Valley Regional Airport 63,536 69,264 91,744 96,821 109,691 110,184 108,275 116,285 99,209 108,414 103,482

TOTAL 118,629 107,536 91,744 96,821 109,691 110,184 108,275 116,285 99,209 108,414 103,482

Sources: City of Steamboat Springs, Yampa Valley Regional Airport

Regional Bus Service, Monthly Ridership

Steamboat Springs Transit offers adaily bus service between the townsof Steamboat, Hayden and Craig. The

City of Steamboat Springs provides thisregional bus service outside of SteamboatSprings by securing regional funding in an

effort to provide public transit in our val-ley. Because this service is made possiblewith public funds, it is important to trackwhether or not it is seeing sufficient use.The numbers reflected in the chart areone-way trip totals.

1994-1997

1998-2002

A V E R A G E M O N T H L Y R I D E R S H I P

December November October September August July June May April March February January

1091 696 637 625 678 778 712 635 800 1197 1252 1378

2490 1610 1713 1769 1856 2080 1769 1447 1592 2428 2436 2734

Source: City of Steamboat Springs

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:50 PM Page 50

Tax RevenueEconomicTop Ten Property Tax Payers and Prior Year Comparison

Property tax savingssince 2001 is directlyrelated to the

TABOR (Tax Payer Bill ofRights) Amendment.TABOR specifies that taxrevenues can grow nofaster than the rate ofinflation and populationgrowth. In Routt Countyin particular, property val-ues have increased sub-stantially and much fasterthan the rate of inflationand population. As aresult, all property taxpayers are paying less.

2001 Assessed Annual Tax Dollar 2003 Assessed Annual Tax Dollar Annual ChangeValuation Collected 2001/02 Valuation Collected 2003/04 from Prior Tax Period

M O F F A T C O U N T Y Tri-State Electric Assoc 72,577,700 $4,659,824 $77,148,400 $4,996,109 336,285 PacifiCorp 28,758,400 1,847,296 26,555,900 1,720,610 (126,686)Colowyo/Kennecott 23,771,229 1,442,417 26,948,255 1,649,029 206,612 Salt River Project 25,167,200 1,616,615 16,303,800 1,056,356 (560,259)Public Service Company 13,715,000 879,202 14,116,900 912,823 33,621 Chevron USA Inc (Texaco) 12,294,864 742,896 13,706,155 803,113 60,217 Wexpro 21,744,427 1,313,755 12,375,230 754,580 (559,175)Trapper/Williams Fork 8,749,575 561,956 8,797,796 569,987 8,031 Yampa Valley Electric 4,876,900 337,072 4,872,200 339,036 1,964 Colorado Interstate Gas 2,976,300 179,855 3,070,700 187,266 7,411

Total 214,631,595 $13,580,888 $203,895,336 $12,988,909 (591,979)

R O U T T C O U N T YPublic Service Co of Colorado 30,302,200 1,540,213 $31,523,300 $1,671,970 131,757 Twentymile Coal Company 27,680,940 1,699,181 27,728,800 1,650,986 (48,195)Steamboat Ski & Resort Corp. 11,813,460 597,895 12,733,700 669,973 72,078 Ski Time Square Enterprises 15,135,150 717,202 12,198,450 598,695 (118,507)Pacificorp-Elec Operations 12,271,200 612,075 11,482,800 602,663 (9,412)Union Pacific Corp 7,207,500 387,788 9,899,700 541,058 153,270 Yampa Valley Electric Assn Inc 8,814,900 485,486 8,893,300 499,597 14,111 Salt River Project 11,788,700 587,877 7,649,400 401,453 (186,424)Steamboat Grand Resort Hotel 4,144,380 207,298 6,910,750 255,589 48,291 Qwest 6,349,100 359,576 6,364,400 367,734 8,158

Total 135,507,530 7,194,591 $135,384,600 $7,259,718 65,127

Assessed valuationof propertyRoutt and Moffat Counties

2002 Moffat $321,878,3182003 Moffat $296,490,980

(7.89% decrease)

2002 Routt $667,619,0002003 Routt $687,473,320

County and City Governments rely upon a variety of taxes to provide rev-enue for the services provided to citizens. Those revenue sources are cho-sen based upon population characteristics and government needs and dif-

fer from City to County across the Yampa Valley. County governments are man-dated by state and federal law to fund and administer specific services to citizens.Cities and counties also provide a range of other services from revenue.

Local Government Revenue Sources (as % of total revenue)

Total Capital and Sales,Revenue Sales Property Operating Services, All

2003 Tax Tax Grants Fines Other

Moffat County Government $19,853,516 14.0% 30.0% 35.0% 19.0% 2.0%City of Craig $10,238,184 31.2% 8.1% 10.1% 33.7% 16.9%Town of Dinosaur N/A

Routt County Government $32,100,000 9.0% 34.0% 44.0% 9.0% 4.0%Town of Hayden $1,511,353 45.0% 17.0% 24.0% 0.3% 13.7%Town of Oak Creek $3,272,606 14.0% 0.4% 9.0% 26.0% 50.6%City of Steamboat Springs $24,655,384 57.2% 0.0% 14.9% 7.0% 20.9%Town of Yampa $298,150 38.0% 31.0% 0.0% 8.0% 23.0%

MOFFATCounty Government

Public WorksPublic SafetyGeneral Government

City of CraigPublic SafetyPublic WorksCapital Improvements -

Water

Town of DinosaurN/A

ROUTTCounty Government

Public WorksPublic SafetyGeneral Government

Town of HaydenPublic WorksGeneral GovernmentPublic Safety

Town of Oak CreekGeneral GovernmentCapital Improvements - WaterCapital Improvements - Wastewater

City of Steamboat SpringsPublic SafetyParks & Rec.Capital Projects -Various

Town of YampaGeneral GovernmentWater/Sewer Conservation Trust Fund –

Parks & Recreation

Top Three Areas of Expenditures

Sources: Moffat County Assessor’s Office, Routt County Assessor’s Office

Sources: Finance offices of local government entities


CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:50 PM Page 52

Social


Community indicators about our regionalsocial system address a broad category ofissues – physical and mental health, socialservices, arts and culture, education for allages, and public safety.

Social indicators help us measure our com-

munity’s ability to provide citizens with thebasic human needs of shelter, food, health-care, and safety. Education and culture indi-cators reflect the ability of a communitymember to achieve personal growth in theregion.



I N D I C A T O R S I N T H E Y A M P A V A L L E Y

■ The Yampa Valley has seen an increase in

the percentage of people of early retire andretiree age. This change is due to aging ofthe Baby Boomer generation, an influx ofpersons retiring to the Valley, and a num-ber of former second homeowners who arenow living here full-time.

■ The Yampa Valley is becoming more ethni-

cally diverse. Hispanics are expected tocomprise 10.5% of the population ofMoffat County by 2005.

■ The percentage of persons in Routt County

who hold a bachelor’s degree or more isone of the highest in the state, nearly 10%greater than the state average.

■ While the number of persons at or below

the federal poverty level is between 6% to10%, this reflects only a portion of the

population struggling economically. Costof living/living wage figures versus actualwages paid point to a percentage ofbetween one-quarter to one-third of thepopulation in the Yampa Valley who maybe “working poor” and/or struggling eco-nomically.

■ A higher percentage of persons living at orbelow the poverty line in Moffat Countyhas implications for social service pro-grams and is directly related to unemploy-ment.

■ Figures on the numbers of persons servedby domestic violence organizations indi-cate a rising incidence of domestic violencein the Yampa Valley.

■ Historic site designation tracks our heritageand is an important measure throughoutthe Yampa Valley.

The health and happiness of each

Yampa Valley Community member is

a reflection of the overall social health

of this community. We will promote

the physical, mental and social well

being of our region.

Arts and culture will make a

valuable contribution to a diverse

culture and economy.

Education will be lifelong, high

quality and accessible to everyone

living and working in our valley.

We will work to plan proactive,

preventative health programs and

social services for citizens in a

continuous cycle from birth to death.

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:49 PM Page 8


Social Census Data

The Yampa Valley population hasgrown 152% in the last 30 years witha 196% increase in Routt County

and 102% increase in Moffat County. In2000, 60% of the population resided inRoutt County. This represents a decliningshare for Moffat County which had 50% ofthe population in 1980.

Increases in the working age population(age 25 to 64), particularly in Routt County,are due in large part to in-migration of newworkers and correspond to the expansion of

the tourism and service industry as well as agrowth in ‘location neutral’ businesses andemployees. (see the Economy section ofthis report)

Decreases in the population between1990 and 2000 of children under the age of14 and adults between 25-34 in MoffatCounty could correlate to economicchanges and higher unemployment ratesthat may have forced residents to seekemployment and residence outside theCounty. (see the Economy section of this

report)The median age of residents in both

counties changed significantly between1990 and 2000 and is projected to continueto grow older in 2005. Natural aging of thepopulation is part of the explanation as is agrowth in the number of persons retiring tothe Yampa Valley. Many of these peoplemay have been second homeowners whoare now residing full-time in the Valley, par-ticularly Routt County. (See the Economy:Housing section of this report)

Population by Age and GenderM O F F A T C O U N T Y R O U T T C O U N T Y

1990 % of Total 2000 % of Total 2005 (est.) % of Total 1990 % of Total 2000 % of Total 2005 (est.) % of Total

Population 11,357 13,184 13,750 14,088 19,690 21,521

Males 5,747 50.6% 6,836 51.9% 7,150 52.0% 7,535 53.5% 10,599 53.8% 11,643 54.1%Females 5,610 49.4% 6,348 48.1% 6,600 48.0% 6,553 46.5% 9,091 46.2% 9,878 45.9%

Under 25 4,462 39.3% 4,882 37.0% 5,129 37.3% 4,969 35.3% 6,449 32.8% 6,564 30.5%Age 25 to 64 5,976 52.6% 7,069 53.6% 7,370 53.6% 8,331 59.0% 12,249 62.2% 13,838 64.3%65 Years and Older 919 8.1% 1,233 9.4% 1,251 9.2% 808 5.7% 992 5.0% 1,119 5.2%

Median Age 31.8 35.4 36.4 32.4 35 36.5

Under 5 975897 -8.0%952 6.1%

5 to 14 2,1992,141 -2.6%1,947 -9.1%

15 to 24 1,2881,844 43.2%2,098 13.8%

25 to 34 1,9621,632 -16.8%1,648 1.0%

35 to 44 1,9832,304 16.2%1,956 -15.1%

45 to 54 1,1892,006 68.7%2,447 22.0%

55 to 64 8421,127 33.8%1,474 30.8%

65 to 74 528689 30.5%682 -1.0%

75 to 84 309389 25.9%388 -0.3%

85+ 82155 89.0%158 1.9%

1990 11,357

2000 13,184 16.1%

2005 (est) 13,750 4.3%

1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 % change

KEY / TOTALS

Population Age Breakout — Moffat County

Under 5 9991,075 7.6%1,226 14.0%

5 to 14 2,0942,541 21.3%2,592 2.0%

15 to 24 1,8762,833 51.0%2,775 -2.0%

25 to 34 2,9473,401 15.4%3,626 6.6%

35 to 44 3,3223,781 13.8%3,690 -2.4%

45 to 54 1,3303,675 176.3%4,190 14.0%

55 to 64 7121,392 95.5%2,253 61.9%

65 to 74 510584 14.5%760 30.1%

75 to 84 230301 30.9%302 0.3%

85+ 68107 57.4%107 0.0%

1990 14,088

2000 19,690 39.8%

2005 (est) 21,521 9.3%

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 % change

KEY / TOTALS

Population Age Breakout — Routt County

Source: U.S. Census

Source: U.S. Census

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:49 PM Page 10


Social Census Data

U.S. Census data shows the Yampa Valley is becoming more ethnically diverse.Moffat County will see a 4% growth in the Hispanic population (projected to2005). Hispanics are expected to comprise 10.5% of the population in Moffat

County in 2005 and 3.5% of the population in Routt County in 2005. The increase in theHispanic population and other communities of color is also reflected in the increase inEnglish Language Learners (ELL) in the Moffat County and Steamboat Springs Schoolsand in the number of students who speak a language other than English at home. (seethe Social: Education section of this report)

Population by Race, Ethnicity

1970 1980 1990 2000 2002

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

TOTAL 12,572 21,411 25,445 32,874 34,229

ROUTT

MOFFAT

6,289

6,283

10,328

11,083

14,088

11,357

19,690

13,184

20,941

13,288

Yampa Valley Population

According to the ColoradoDepartment of Local Affairs, thepopulation of the Yampa Valley isprojected to increase by 48% inthe next 25 years. This increase inpopulation will mean 15,867 morepeople will reside in the region,approaching a total of 49,000 val-ley wide. During the same timeperiod, Colorado’s population isexpected to grow 50%.

Population Projections, 2000 to 2030Year Moffat Routt Yampa Valley Colorado

2000 13,184 19,690 32,874 4,335,540

2005 13,750 21,521 35,271 4,691,258

2010 14,526 24,390 38,916 5,137,928

2015 15,378 27,151 42,529 5,632,645

2020 16,324 30,039 46,363 6,133,491

2025 17,268 32,560 49,828 6,652,082

2030 18,186 34,842 53,028 7,156,422

Source: U.S. Census

Source: U.S. Census

Source: Department of Local Affairs

Population Age 5+ Who Speak a Language other than English at HomeM O F F A T C O U N T Y

Population 5 years and over 12,318 100%

English only 11,287 91.6%

Language other than English 1,031 8.4%Speak English less than “very well” 473 3.8%

Spanish 876 7.1%Speak English less than "very well" 439 3.6%

Other Indo-European languages 131 1.1%Speak English less than "very well" 34 0.3%

Asian and Pacific Island languages 24 0.2%Speak English less than "very well" 0 0%


Population 5 years and over 18,605 100%

English only 17,471 93.9%

Language other than English 1,134 6.1%Speak English less than “very well” 393 2.1%

Spanish 523 2.8%Speak English less than "very well" 233 1.3%

Other Indo-European languages 496 2.7%Speak English less than "very well" 110 0.6%

Asian and Pacific Island languages 115 0.6%Speak English less than "very well" 50 0.3%

Source: U.S. Census

M O F F A T C O U N T Y R O U T T C O U N T Y

1990 % of Total 2000 % of Total 2005 est. % of Total 1990 % of Total 2000 % of Total 2005 est. % of Total

White 10,923 96.2% 12,341 93.6% 13,365 97.2% 13,913 98.8% 19,079 96.9% 21,096 97.9%Non-Hispanic 11,989 20,397Hispanic 1,386 699

Black/Africian American 11 0.1% 28 0.2% 31 0.2% 8 0.1% 25 0.1% 50 0.2%Non-Hispanic 18 47Hispanic 13 3

American Indian 87 0.8% 116 0.9% 131 1.0% 64 0.5% 96 0.5% 103 0.5%Non-Hispanic 106 76Hispanic 25 27

Asian 37 0.3% 44 0.3% 59 0.4% 41 0.3% 94 0.5% 91 0.4%Non-Hispanic 54 90Hispanic 5 1

Pacific Islander 3 0.0% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12 0.1%Non-Hispanic 0 11Hispanic 0 1

Two or More Races(Other) 296 2.6% 652 4.9% 152 1.1% 62 0.4% 396 2.0% 169 0.8%Non-Hispanic 139 158Hispanic 13 11

Total Population 11,357 100.0% 13,184 100.0% 13,750 100.0% 14,088 100.0% 19,690 100.0% 21,521 100.0%

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:49 PM Page 12


Social Census DataHousing Occupany

Over the past ten years, the number ofhousing units available in both countiessaw an increase. Moffat County has 7.6%

more housing units than it did in 1990, andRoutt County has 21.2% more. Both countiesalso have experienced growth in owner occupiedhousing, while the percentage of homes classifiedas “occasional use” has declined. This drop in sea-sonal and/or recreational housing has been par-ticularly dramatic in Routt County, where “occa-sional use” homes dropped from 31% in 1990 to18% in 2000. This means that housing in RouttCounty is being more fully utilized.

Highest Education Attainment Population Age 25 and OverMOFFAT COUNTY ROUTT COUNTY COLORADO NATIONAL

Population 25 years and over 8,404 100% 13,267 100% 2,776,632 100% 182,211,639Less than 9th grade 567 6.7% 175 1.3% 134,348 4.8% 7.5%9th to 12th grade, no diploma 1,146 13.6% 452 3.4% 228,691 8.2% 12.1%High school graduate (includes equivalency) 2,812 33.5% 2,347 17.7% 644,360 23.2% 28.6%Some college, no degree 2,348 27.9% 3,563 26.95 667,610 24% 21.0%Associate degree 484 5.8% 1,090 8.2% 193,868 7% 6.3%Bachelor's degree 708 8.4% 4,121 31.1% 599,028 21.6% 15.5%Graduate or professional degree 339 4% 1,519 11.4% 308,727 11.1% 8.9%

Percent high school graduate or higher 79.6% 95.3% 86.9% 80.4%Percent bachelor's degree or higher 12.5% 42.5% 32.7% 24.4%

1990 % of Total 2000 % of Total Jul-02 % of Total

MOFFAT COUNTYTotal Housing Units 5,235 100.0% 5,635 100.0% 5,720 100.0%

Occupied 4,178 79.8% 4,983 88.4% 5,021 87.8%Owner Occupied 2,785 66.7% 3,593 72.1% N/A N/ARental Occupied 1,393 33.3% 1,390 27.9% N/A N/A

Vacant 1,057 20.2% 614 10.9% 699 12.2%Occasional Use 228 21.6% 225 36.6% N/A N/AOther 829 78.4% 389 63.4% N/A N/A

Avg. Household Size 2.6Owner Occupied 2.84 2.68 N/ARenter Occupied 2.38 2.34 N/AVacancy Rate 20.2% 10.9% 12.2%

ROUTT COUNTYTotal Housing Units 9,252 100.0% 11,217 100.0% 12,855 100.0%

Occupied 5,483 59.3% 7,953 70.9% 8,469 65.9%Owner Occupied 3,353 61.2% 5,505 69.2% N/A N/ARental Occupied 2,130 38.8% 2,448 30.8% N/A N/A

Vacant 3,769 10.1% 3,264 29.1% 4,386 34.1%Occasional Use 2,839 75.3% 1,977 60.6% N/A N/AOther 930 24.7% 1,287 39.4% N/A N/A


STATE OF COLORADOTotal Housing Units 1,477,349 100.0% 1,808,037 100.0% 1,935,630 100.0%

Occupied 1,282,489 86.8% 1,658,238 91.7% 1,737,966 89.8%Owner Occupied 798,277 62.2% 1,116,137 67.3% N/A N/ARental Occupied 484,212 37.8% 542,101 32.7% N/A N/A

Vacant 194,860 8.9% 149,799 8.3% 197,644 10.2%Occasional Use 63,814 32.7% 72,263 48.2% N/A N/AOther 131,046 67.3% 77,536 51.8% N/A N/A


Source: U.S. Census

Source: U.S. Census

Household TypeMOFFAT ROUTT

Total Households 5,003 7,9801 Person 1,184 1,9452 Person 1,689 2,8533 Person 829 1,4814 Person 788 1,1895 Person 399 3796 Person 129 1187 or more Person 45 15

Average Household Size 2.57 2.44OFFAT ROUTT

Total Household Types 5,003 7,980Family Households 3,614 4,878

Male 2,989 3,884Female 625 994

Non-Family Households 1,389 3,102Male 871 1,874Female 518 1,228

Average Family Size 3.05 2.89

Living Alone 1,184 1,945Male 731 1,135Female 453 810

Source: U.S. Census

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:49 PM Page 14


Social Poverty Data

Data on the numbers of people living in poverty isan important indicator of the economic well-being and needs of people in our region.

Qualification for federal and state assistance programssuch as Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for NeedyFamilies (TANF), Colorado’s Child Health Plan Plus pro-gram, Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) and sub-

sidized housing programs are based upon income and thefederal poverty line. The federal poverty line is adjustedannually and applied across the contiguous U.S. andDistrict of Columbia regardless of municipal and stateeconomies to establish one measurement of poverty. In2004, the federal poverty line for an individual was$9,310 and for a family of four, $18,850.

Federal Programs Targeted to Low Income Individuals & Families

Poverty Data - Based on Income 12/31/2000

FEDERAL PROGRAMS MOFFAT COUNTY ROUTT COUNTY

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Food Stamps $451,067 $394,876 $408,283 $516,087 $634,221 $188,707 $165,199 $170,807 $215,908 $265,330Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 436,582 447,088 457,856 518,512 518,512 111,286 113,963 116,708 132,169 132,169Low Income Home Energy Assistance 115,518 166,209 194,931 162,000 198,823 57,190 82,286 96,506 80,000 98,432Special Supplemental Food Program

for Women, Infants and Children 256,560 239,660 241,676 268,750 286,963 145,401 135,824 136,966 152,310 162,632State Children’s Insurance Program (CHIP) N/A 89,758 107,531 91,417 100,523 N/A 71,808 86,027 73,135 80,420Medical Assistance Program 1,817,337 2,122,572 2,217,814 2,366,544 2,718,155 1,453,908 1,698,102 1,774,298 1,893,285 2,174,581Total: $3,077,064 $3,460,163 $3,628,091 $3,923,310 $4,457,197 $1,956,492 $2,267,182 $2,381,312 $2,546,807 $2,913,564

Population 13,025 13,184 13,190 13,288 13,450 19,224 19,690 20,941 20,683 20,767Per Capita Assistance Program Spending Index $236.24 $262.45 $275.06 $295.25 $331.39 $101.77 $115.14 $113.72 $123.14 $140.30

INCOME YEAR ENDING 12/31/95 INCOME YEAR ENDING 12/31/00

Moffat Routt Colorado US Moffat Routt Colorado US

Total Population Est. 12,187 17,254 3,811,074 263,946,442 13,184 19,690 4,301,261 281,421,906

Percent @ or Below Poverty 10.6% 6.6% 10.3% 13.8% 9.8% 6.3% 8.9% 11.2%

Population at Poverty Level or Below 1,297 1,137 392,938 36,424,609 1,293 1,250 384,830 31,581,086

Children Under 17 at Poverty Level 508 349 143,390 14,665,019 438 345 136,826 11,587,118

Medium Family Income $40,331 $38,825 $37,235 $34,076 $43,186 $53,966 $47,505 $41,990

Source: U.S. Census

Source: U.S. Census

Poverty is inextricably linked toemployment, income and areaeconomy. Consequently, if the job

market changes through a decreasednumber of jobs and/or full-time jobswith benefits, poverty increases.Similarly, if income does not keep pacewith the cost of living, the amount ofincome needed to cover basic needs, peo-ple strain to pay for food, shelter, cloth-ing and health care.

Unemployment statistics and the per-centage of people living at or below thefederal poverty line provide only a partialpicture of economic hardship in theYampa Valley. In order to capture broader

figures on “working poor” people in theYampa Valley, persons who work butfight economically to meet basic needs,and persons who live on fixed incomesand struggle economically, we comparedthree different sections in this report.

In the Economy: Housing section, wefind 25% of renters in Moffat Countyand 36% of renters in Routt Co. paymore than 30% of their income on rent.The federal government defines “afford-able” housing as that which comprises nomore than 30% of individual or familyincome. Cost of living in the YampaValley is described in this report as the“living wage.” The living wage for an

individual in Moffat County is $12.08 anhour and $13.17 an hour in RouttCounty and, for a family of four, $29.83an hour in Moffat County and $36.04 anhour in Routt County. Most service sec-tor jobs, the largest growing industry sec-tor in the Yampa Valley and nationally,pay less than the living wage.

Conservatively, based upon employ-ment, industry and housing statistics,between one quarter to one third of thehouseholds in the Yampa Valley (basedupon the county) struggle to meet basicneeds, a figure 18% to 26% greater thanjust the percentage of those living at orbelow the poverty line.

ISS

UE

PR

OFI

LE Poverty

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:49 PM Page 16


Health

Low birth-weight babies (less than 5pounds, 8 ounces) are more likely todevelop neurological, respiratory, and

behavioral problems. Low birth-weight isattributed to the age of the mother, smoking,and inadequate or delayed prenatal care.Because of the relationship to inadequateprenatal care, low-birth weight is also linkedto whether the family or individual hashealth insurance (see health insurance datain this section) and the availability of healthcare.

Birth Statistics1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Number of BirthsMoffat County 144 159 178 167 178 217 182Routt County 192 175 196 206 215 223 201

Birth Rate Per 1,000 WomenMoffat County 11.7 12.6 13.9 12.8 13.4 16.5 13.7Routt County 10.8 9.7 10.5 10.7 10.9 10.8 9.7Colorado 14.3 14.1 14.5 14.7 15.1 15.1 15.2

Percent Prenatal Care Later than 1st TrimsterMoffat County 21.4% 18.2% 19.2% 19.9% 13.0% 16.3% 18.7%Routt County 11.2% 4.7% 9.7% 6.8% 4.2% 5.9% 6.0%Colorado 18.6% 17.1% 17.8% 18.3% 19.3% 20.2% 20.9%

Percent of Low Birth-Weight BabiesMoffat County 8.3% 13.2% 6.2% 10.2% 10.7% 7.8% 7.7%Routt County 9.9% 10.9% 7.1% 11.2% 7.4% 8.1% 7.0%Colorado 8.8% 8.9% 8.7% 8.4% 8.5% 8.6% 8.9%

Percent of Mothers Less than 18 Years of AgeMoffat County 5.6% 5.7% 3.4% 4.8% 3.4% 2.3% 3.3%Routt County 1.6% ***** 2.0% ***** 4.2% ***** *****Colorado 4.6% 4.6% 4.5% 4.3% 4.2% 3.7% 3.7%

Incidence of Vaccine Preventable DiseaseMoffat and Routt Counties 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Hepatitis B 0 1 0 3 1 3 3 2 5 1 3Hepatitis A NA NA NA NA 0 2 2 0 0 2 1Meningococcal disease NA NA NA NA 0 1 0 1 2 1 1

Immunization against diptheria, tetanusand pertussis (DTP), measles, mumps,rubella (MMR), haemophilus B influenza

(Hib), oral polio vaccine (OPV), hepatitus A(Hep A) and meningococcal have effectivelyreduced health risks. Moffat and Routt

Counties had no cases of diptheria, tetanus,pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, orhaemophilus influenza between 1998 and2001. By age five, the majority of children areimmunized as a requirement for admission topublic schools.

Health Immunizations by Age Two

Kids Count 2002, a project ofthe Annie E. Casey Foundation,showed an immunization cover-age rate for two year old chil-dren in Colorado of 65%.Nationally, that figure is 79%. Acentral data registry does notexist in Colorado to collect localstatistics.

Body Mass Index (BMI) isa ratio between your heightand weight. A BMI of over 25is overweight and a BMI ofover 30 is obese. Nationaldata shows that 34% of U.S.adults are considered over-weight and an additional 31%are obese.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

NOTES: The Memorial Hospitalin Craig surveyed 580 peoplebetween September 2002 andDecember 2003 to arrive at theabove statistics. Specific RouttCounty data is not available.

Body Mass Index SurveyMoffat County Healthy People 2010

Age Female Male

70+ 26 2660-69 27 3250-59 29 3240-49 28 3030-39 29 3220-29 27 3210-19 22 23

1-9 22 24

Social

The numbers of people without health insurance is an importantindicator of community health, the economy and also poverty.Health insurance costs are often sacrificed in favor of other basic

needs such as housing and food for low and moderate income familieswhen health insurance is not included as a part of employment. Thenumbers of uninsured people in rural areas exceeds that in urban areasbecause of a smaller number of providers who may be more selective.

Colorado children under the age of 18 must be living at 185% of thepoverty line or lower to qualify for the Child Health Plan Plus (CHP+),Colorado’s health insurance program for children. CHP+ is adminis-tered by the state on a regional basis. Routt County is in Region 2 alongwith Summit, Eagle, Grand, Jackson and Pitkin Counties and MoffatCounty is in Region 1 with Garfield and Rio Blanco Counties. Region 2estimates indicate 34% of those children eligible for CHP+ are enrolledin the program; in Region 1, an estimated 51% of eligible children areenrolled in CHP+.

Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

Source: Moffat County Healthy People 2010

Source; Northwest Colorado Visiting Nurse Association

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:49 PM Page 17

Social HealthLeading Causes of Death

All Colorado Moffat Routt Rural Counties Colorado

Tobacco SmokersAdults 2001 15.30% 11.20% na 20.50%High School Students 2001 na na 26.40% 24.70%High School Students 2003 na na na 26.70%

Smokeless Tobacco UsersAdults 2001 16.70% 9.70% na 8.00%High School Males 2001 na na 17.20% 12%

Source: 2001 Tobacco Attitudes and Behaviors Survey (TABS)% Colo. Tobacco Research Program at Colo. Health Sciences Center.

Adults and high school students smoke less than the stateaverage and use smokeless tobacco at a rate higher thanthe state average. Correlating data for 7th and 8th Grade

students in Routt and Moffat Counties shows a 7 % decrease incigarette use between 1999 and 2002.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY NOTES:Adults: over age 18 who smoke at least 100 cigarettes in their

lives and at least one in last 30 days.High School Students: English and spanish speaking students in

grades 9-12 who report they smoked at least one cigarette in theirlives and also within the last 30 days. The data show adults inMoffat and Routt are less than State average and high school stu-dents in all Colorado rural counties are higher than state average.

Smoking and smokeless tobacco users

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

PopulationMoffat 11,357 11,449 11,692 11,797 11,996 12,187 12,291 12,572 12,812 13,025 13,184 13,190 13,288 13,450Routt 14,088 14,731 15,149 15,924 16,617 17,254 17,718 18,117 18,606 19,224 19,690 20,551 20,941 20,767

Death RateMoffat 4.9 7.2 6.1 5.3 5.7 7.4 6.7 6.7 4.8 6.8 8.0 6.9 7.3 8.1Routt 3.5 3.5 4.4 3.6 4.0 3.1 4.2 3.3 3.4 3.1 3.3 3.8 3.2 3.0

All Causes 106 134 137 119 135 143 157 144 125 149 170 169 164 171Moffat 56 82 71 62 68 90 82 84 62 89 105 91 97 109Routt 50 52 66 57 67 53 75 60 63 60 65 78 67 62

Cancer 26 24 32 25 31 38 36 33 29 28 40 31 37 34Moffat 11 17 16 14 16 25 15 15 13 15 21 19 17 23Routt 15 7 16 11 15 13 21 18 16 13 19 12 20 11

Cardiovascular Disease 41 46 44 50 47 52 61 45 39 54 41 50 52 50Moffat 28 29 20 25 27 34 34 29 19 37 28 30 33 33Routt 13 17 24 25 20 18 27 16 20 17 13 20 19 17

Unintentional Injuries 7 17 10 6 8 6 13 16 10 20 14 17 15 14Moffat 3 10 5 3 5 3 7 9 7 10 9 5 8 10

Motor Vehicle 0 5 3 0 0 3 4 3 3 5 4 3 5 5Other 3 5 2 3 5 0 3 6 4 5 5 2 3 5

Routt 4 7 5 3 3 3 6 7 3 10 5 12 7 4Motor Vehicle 3 4 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 5 0 5 3 0Other 1 3 5 3 0 3 6 4 3 5 5 7 4 4

Suicide* 0 4 0 0 3 0 7 4 5 7 7 10 8 5Moffat 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 2 4 5 4 3Routt 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 4 5 5 3 5 4 2

Other Causes 32 43 51 38 46 47 40 46 42 44 71 67 51 70Moffat 14 26 30 20 17 28 22 31 23 27 43 33 34 40Routt 18 17 21 18 29 19 18 15 19 17 28 34 17 30

Time One 1999 DATA - 7 and 8th grades surveyedEarly Initiation of Drug Use 37.82%Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 29.62%Low Perceived Risk of Drug Use 37.98%Cigarette Use within past 30 days 12.00%Alcohol Use within past 30 days 26.75%Marijuana Use within past 30 days 2.76%

Time One 2002 DATA - 7th and 8th grades surveyedEarly Initiation of Drug Use 32.59%Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 25.28%Low Perceived Risk of Drug Use 39.67%Cigarette Use within past 30 days 4.78%Alcohol Use within past 30 days 18.06%Marijuana Use within past 30 days 5.83%

Alcohol and Drug Use 7th and 8th Grade Students

Grand Futures Prevention Coalition of Routt andMoffat Counties helps prepare and uses this data todirect their collaborative prevention efforts in the tri-county region. The data shows decreases between 5-8%in early initiation of drug use, favorable attitudestowards drug use and cigarette and alcohol usage in thethree years between 1999 and 2002. Schools surveyedwere Craig Middle School (7/8 grade), South Routt 7/8grades and Grand County 7/8 grades.


Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment*Note: Suicide data year 1999 forward collected from Routt and Moffat county coroners.

Source: Grand Futures Prevention Coalition

T

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:49 PM Page 20

Social Education

As of 2003, approxi-mately 93% of K-12students were enrolled

in public schools. About 5%were enrolled in privateschools and 2% were in homeschooling programs.Although the population inthe Yampa Valley is growing,enrollment in Yampa ValleySchools has shown a declineof 4% over the past 5 years.One of the factors likely influ-encing this trend is an aginglocal population that nolonger has children living athome.

Five Year Trends in Yampa Valley Student Enrollment K-12

Yampa Valley School District Suspensions, Grades K-12

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Pupil % Pupil % Pupil % Pupil % Pupil % Count of Total Count of Total Count of Total Count of Total Count of Total

Public SchoolsMoffat County 2,632 43.9% 2,575 44.1% 2,548 44.3% 2,585 44.4% 2,512 43.7%Hayden RE-1 553 9.2% 511 8.8% 498 8.7% 503 8.6% 499 8.7%Steamboat Springs RE-2 1,944 32.4% 1,947 33.4% 1,911 33.2% 1,933 33.2% 1,912 33.2%South Rout RE-3 457 7.6% 432 7.4% 430 7.5% 452 7.8% 435 7.6%

Sub Total 5,586 93.2% 5,465 93.6% 5,387 93.7% 5,473 93.9% 5,358 93.2%

Non-Public SchoolMoffat CountyHayden RE-1Steamboat Springs RE-2 244 4.1% 261 4.5% 270 4.7% 282 4.8% 290 5.0%South Rout RE-3

Sub Total 244 4.1% 261 4.5% 270 4.7% 282 4.8% 290 5.0%

Home SchoolMoffat County 95 1.6% 87 1.5% 69 1.2% 50 0.9% 56 1.0%Hayden RE-1 65 1.1% 4 0.1% 5 0.1% 9 0.2% 10 0.2%Steamboat Springs RE-2 6 0.1% 21 0.4% 20 0.3% 14 0.2% 20 0.3%South Rout RE-3 17 0.3%

Sub Total 166 2.8% 112 1.9% 94 1.6% 73 1.3% 103 1.8%

TOTAL 5,996 100.0% 5,838 100.0% 5,751 100.0% 5,828 100.0% 5,751 100.0%

2001-2002 2002-2003Pupil Students Rate as a % Pupil Students Rate as a % Count Suspended of pupil count Count Suspended of pupil count

Moffat Co 2496 314 12.58% Moffat Co 2517 261 10.37%Drugs / Alcohol/ Tobacco 39 1.56% Drugs / Alcohol/ Tobacco 21 0.83%Behavior 26 1.04% Behavior 2 0.08%Weapons 2 0.08% Weapons 5 0.20%Conduct Code Violations 244 9.78% Conduct Code Violations 232 9.22%

Hayden -RE1 487 30 6.16% Hayden -RE1 493 29 5.88%Drugs / Alcohol/ Tobacco 4 0.82% Drugs / Alcohol/ Tobacco 1 0.20%Behavior 4 0.82% Behavior 9 1.83%Weapons 0 0.00% Weapons 0 0.00%Conduct Code Violations 22 4.52% Conduct Code Violations 19 3.85%

Steamboat Springs -RE2 1894 167 8.82% Steamboat Springs -RE2 1946 115 5.91%Drugs / Alcohol/ Tobacco 31 1.64% Drugs / Alcohol/ Tobacco 7 0.36%Behavior 12 0.63% Behavior 10 0.51%Weapons 2 0.11% Weapons 0 0.00%Conduct Code Violations 109 5.76% Conduct Code Violations 57 2.93%

South Routt -RE3 411 84 20.44% South Routt -RE3 434 69 15.90%Drugs / Alcohol/ Tobacco 4 0.97% Drugs / Alcohol/ Tobacco 2 0.46%Behavior 22 5.35% Behavior 19 4.38%Weapons 0 0.00% Weapons 0 0.00%Conduct Code Violations 58 14.11% Conduct Code Violations 48 11.06%

State of Colorado 717,894 120,831 16.83% State of Colorado 726,452 113,270 15.59%Drugs / Alcohol/ Tobacco 6,718 0.94% Drugs / Alcohol/ Tobacco 6,519 0.90%Behavior 9,557 1.33% Behavior 4,137 0.57%Weapons 966 0.13% Weapons 785 0.11%Conduct Code Violations 95,185 13.26% Conduct Code Violations 93,697 12.90%

English LanguageLearners

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04

Moffat County

106 74 129

Routt RE-1 Hayden

5 4 3

Routt RE-2 Steamboat Springs

20 12 26

Routt RE-3 South Routt

3 5 3

TOTAL

134 95 161


Source: Colorado Department of Education


Source: Moffat and Routt School Districts

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:49 PM Page 22

Social Education

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Moffat CountyMale 76 102 83 92 79Female 84 75 70 73 90

Hayden-RE1Male 24 11 22 21 11Female 13 22 12 9 17

Steamboat Springs- RE2Male 55 48 69 71 81Female 64 54 76 61 66

South Routt- RE3Male 16 13 11 4 11Female 16 13 20 17 14

High School Graduation by Gender

The high school graduation rate is the numberof students in grades 9-12 who graduate fromhigh school as a percentage of those who were

enrolled. The dropout rate is the percentage ofstudents who did not complete high school. Bothgraduation and dropout rates are standard measuresof success of the educational system.

School Dropout Rate

CSAP (Colorado Student Assessment Program) Results for 2004 Proficient and Advanced

The American College TestingExam (ACT) tests high school students in English, math, readingand scientific reasoning. Collegesand universities use ACT scores togauge a student’s potential to suc-ceed in post-secondary education.The highest score possible on theACT is 36.

Since 2001, Colorado hasrequired all 11th grade studentstake the ACT test.

ACT Test Results2003 2004

Moffat Co -RE1 17.6 16Hayden- RE-1 19 18.5Steamboat Springs -RE2 20.9 21South Routt -RE3 18.9 18.5Colorado 19 18.8

3rd Grade 4th Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 7th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade 8th GradeReading Reading Writing Math Reading Writing Math Science

Moffat County 79% 72% 58% 56% 57% 36% 37% 54%Hayden - RE1 91% 69% 35% 63% 63% 53% 53% 63%Steamboat Springs - RE2 92% 85% 78% 75% 82% 76% 57% 70%South Routt - RE3 100% 77% 73% 67% 62% 62% 14% 28%

Source:Colorado Department of Education

High School Graduation Rates

Moffat County 85.6%79.7%78.1%81.7%82.0%

Hayden-RE1 84.1%68.8%72.3%81.1%64.4%

Steamboat Springs- RE2 92.2%92.0%94.2%94.3%97.4%

South Routt- RE3 91.4%92.9%79.5%84.0v

92.6%

19992000200120022003

19992000200120022003

19992000200120022003

19992000200120022003

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2001-2002 2002-2003pupil No. students Rate as a % pupil No. students Rate as a %

Grades 9-12 count that dropout of pupil count Grades 9-12 count that dropout of pupil count

Moffat County 910 59 6.50% Moffat County 888 31 3.50%Males 494 42 8.50% Males 447 18 4.00%Females 416 17 4.10% Females 441 13 2.90%

Hayden -RE1 148 10 6.80% Hayden -RE1 157 10 6.40%Males 79 5 6.30% Males 78 5 6.40%Females 69 5 7.20% Females 79 5 6.30%

Steamboat Springs -RE2 710 5 0.70% Steamboat Springs -RE2 736 2 3.00%Males 396 3 0.80% Males 410 2 5.00%Females 314 2 0.60% Females 326 0 0.00%

Sout Routt -RE3 138 0 0.00% Sout Routt -RE3 132 0 0.00%Males 60 0 0.00% Males 66 0 0.00%Females 78 0 0% Females 66 0 0%

State of Colorado 373,210 9,722 2.60% State of Colorado 382,670 9,068 2.40%Males 191,169 5,573 2.90% Males 196,153 5,156 2.60%Females 182,041 4,149 2.30% Females 186,517 3,912 2.10%


Source: U.S. Census

Population of 16- to 19-Year-Olds Not Enrolled in School orHigh School Graduates - 2000

Moffat County 8.4%Routt County 6.1%Colorado 15.1%



Source: Colorado Department of Education Source: Colorado Department of Education

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:49 PM Page 24

Public Safety

Tracking the number ofarrests provides a profile ofa community’s challenges

with crime. Arrest rates do notcorrelate directly to criminaloffenses, however. One individualmay be arrested on multiplecharges and an arrest may not bemade even though a crime hasbeen committed.

Domestic ViolenceDomestic violence data from

Advocates Crisis Support Servicesin Moffat County and AdvocatesAgainst Battering and Abuse inRoutt County show a high inci-dence of domestic violence in ourarea.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

NOTES: New victims are countedone time each year only as either aprimary recipient of abuse, thedirect recipient of abuse or a sec-ondary recipient of abuse, thoseimpacted by abuse (e.g. children.)Continuing victims of abuse mayreceive services multiple times.

Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Victims Served - 2003

ROUTT MOFFAT

New victims served 268 492Domestic Violence 237 439Sexual Assault 31 53

Continuing victims served 100 164

Reported to: Domestic Abuse Assistance Program

*New victims are counted one time each year only.as either primary: direct recipient of abuse orsecondary: those impacted by abuse-parents, children* Continuing victims may receive services multiple times

Source: Advocates in Routt County and Advocates in Moffat County, 2003


1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Adult Juv. Adult Juv. Adult Juv. Adult Juv. Adult Juv. Adult Juv.

Property CrimesTheft-Larceny 43 19 15 28 28 19 26 12 31 30 34 14 Theft-Vehicle 1 1 6 2 4 4 - 1 1 - 6 - Burglary 11 - 9 1 13 18 11 4 1 7 4 Vandalism 7 9 27 - 19 6 15 2 20 2 15 4

Violent Crimes - - - - Assault-Other 92 22 63 14 92 27 51 16 73 37 76 25 Aggravated Assault 18 4 14 3 10 1 7 2 10 4 20 2 Domestic Violence 10 1 9 - - - - - - - Rape 2 - 2 1 3 4 2 3 - 2 - Robbery - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 Murder - - 1 - - - - - - - -

Substance Abuse - - - - Drug Violations 39 7 23 13 26 15 15 5 22 18 45 4 DUI 111 3 58 5 56 2 37 3 33 6 34 1 Liquor Law Violations 37 26 60 22 35 18 23 38 41 27 29 20

Juvenile Issues - - - - Curfew Violations N/A **** N/A **** N/A **** N/A 10 N/A 37 N/A 22 Runaways N/A **** N/A **** N/A **** N/A 27 N/A 26 N/A 21

All Other 346 87 167 86 164 137 188 34 279 42 355 66

TOTAL 717 179 455 175 450 251 375 150 517 230 623 184


1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Adult Juv. Adult Juv. Adult Juv. Adult Juv. Adult Juv. Adult Juv.

Property CrimesTheft-Larceny 28 14 5 17 37 11 49 14 53 25 70 26 Theft-Vehicle 3 1 4 1 2 2 5 - 4 - 5 6 Burglary 5 1 11 9 15 2 11 2 9 6 13 3 Vandalism 7 2 14 7 28 4 19 2 26 7 17 5

Violent CrimesAssault-Other 35 3 65 4 47 1 50 6 70 - 56 1 Aggravated Assault 4 - 8 3 17 4 18 1 18 - 15 - Domestic Violence 1 - 2 - - - - - - - - - Rape 1 - 1 - - - 3 - 1 1 2 - Robbery - - - - 5 - - - - - - - Murder - - - - 1 - - - - - - -

Substance AbuseDrug Violations 22 1 62 1 38 4 116 13 102 18 55 15 DUI 106 - 226 4 262 4 296 4 262 7 263 3 Liquor Law Violations 63 47 176 64 152 19 139 49 121 56 72 58

Juvenile IssuesCurfew Violations N/A **** N/A **** N/A **** N/A - N/A - N/A 1 Runaways N/A **** N/A **** N/A **** N/A 1 N/A - N/A -

All Other 441 17 660 16 496 15 548 22 495 13 503 19

TOTAL 716 86 1,234 126 1,100 66 1,254 114 1,161 133 1,071 137


Social

Source: Colorado Bureau of Investigation

Source: Colorado Bureau of Investigation

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:49 PM Page 26

Historic Site Designation

Licensed Child Care

The preservation of historic structures is an impor-tant indicator of our commitment to the culturalheritage of the Yampa Valley and its communities.

Historic Routt County! has a nominations initiative thatoffers technical assistance to property owners interested indesignating their properties to the local, state or nationalregistry. In 2004, the City of Steamboat Springs receivedthe Preserve America award for its historic preservationefforts.

Historic Sites1970s 1980s 1990s as of 11/1/04

National/State/Local 1 0 4 8National/State 5 5 5 14State Only 0 0 0 2State/Local 0 0 3 4Local Only 0 0 18 58

Sources: Colorado Preservation Inc, Colorado Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, Historic Routt County, Museum of NW Colorado

Child care is essential for working parents.Demand for childcare is linked to popula-tion growth (see Census Data in the Social

section of this report), labor income and industrygrowth (see Industry Diversity in the Economy sec-tion) and family income. Child care is one of thetwo largest expenses for families in the YampaValley. (see Living Wage in the Economic Sectionof this report.)

Child Care Facilities and their Capacities

1993 1997 2002 2004 October FACILITIES CAPACITY FACILITIES CAPACITY FACILITIES CAPACITY FACILITIES CAPACITY


Center 1 60 0 0 1 60 1 60Home 19 107 17 90 17 136 17 143Preschools 1 20 4 110 3 172 3 104TOTAL 21 187 21 200 21 368 21 307


Center 9 384 10 432 8 355 8 346Home 25 143 23 128 21 178 21 178Preschool 1 30 4 90 5 93 5 85TOTAL 35 557 37 650 34 626 34 609


Social

Source: Child Care Referral Network

The job of civic leaders is figuring out how to allocate scarce resources among competing needs.

That can be an extremely difficult job.These indicators give decision-makers the tools

to make better decisions.

MICHAEL LARSON

VICE PRESIDENT

MOUNTAIN VALLEY BANK

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:49 PM Page 27

EnvironmentI N D I C A T O R S I N T H E Y A M P A V A L L E Y


The Yampa Valley is unique in the west andin the world for its natural beauty, healthy anddiverse ecology, and wealth of naturalresources. The Yampa River itself is one of thelast remaining tributaries of the ColoradoRiver which is largely undammed and thereforemaintains the high spring flows so importantto the wildlife and habitats along its length.

Since homesteaders arrived in the late1800s, the Valley’s lands have been primarilydedicated to crop and livestock production.

However, as the abundant and varied resourcesof the Valley have drawn more and more peo-ple, land uses have begun to shift and moreareas are dedicated to residential, recreational,commercial and industrial uses.

These changes increase the complexity ofthe environmental issues facing our Valley. Asa result, we must work together to steward eachelement of the landscape we value includingour air, water, wildlife, natural areas, agricul-ture, and natural resources.

Introduction


■ The Yampa River is unique in Coloradoand the west because as a river system it isnot over appropriated, meaning that inmost years, not all of the water in the riveris legally “spoken for.”

■ Data on farms by size shows an increase insmall or part-time operations. It also indi-cates a consolidation of commercial opera-tions, i.e. commercial agriculture must getbigger to survive as a sole source of incomefor a family. This trend is consistent withfarms and ranches nationwide.

■ The Yampa Valley supports the largestherds of mule deer and elk in Colorado.These herds are a cornerstone of wildlife-related recreation and economic sectorslocally and statewide. The upland grass-lands and sagebrush/oak shrublands in theYampa Valley support the only remaining

population of Columbian sharptailedgrouse and some of the few remainingpopulations of greater sage grouse inColorado.

■ The majority of Moffat County lands are

public and close to half of Routt Countylands are public. Public lands are not gener-ally open to subdivision or residential andcommercial development and they sustain alarge portion of the valley’s landscape, pro-ductive wildlife habitat, renewableresources, and functioning natural systems.

■ Since 1990, the Steamboat Springs area has

seen a 46% reduction in average annualPM-10 (particulate matter) levels due toCity and County efforts to reduce woodand coal burning and to improvements instreet sanding and street cleaning efforts.

The Yampa Valley community

is dedicated to preserving,

protecting and enhancing

our natural environment in a

sustainable manner for future

generations while balancing

responsible public and private

land use decisions.

We value our land and its

resources.

Our Vision

Yampa Valley Partners appreciates the assistance of The Nature Conservancy in developing this section.

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:58 PM Page 54

Environment Land


The amount of public versus private land in an area is anindicator of the natural resources available to the people ofthat area and to visitors. The relative acreage of public ver-

sus private land can tell us about the history, the economy andthe future of the area. While private land is able to be put to mostof the uses that the property owner may desire, at that ownersdiscretion, public land is managed by governments for all con-stituents, and its uses may be limited or guided by the missions ofthe managing entities.

Both Routt and Moffat County have significant acreage inpublic lands. The majority of Moffat County lands are public,while close to half of Routt County’s lands are public. The major-ity of public lands in Moffat County are managed by the USBureau of Land Management with additional holdings managedby the National Park Service, the Colorado State Land Board, theUS Forest Service, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the US Fishand Wildlife Service, and Colorado State Parks. The majority ofpublic lands in Routt County are managed by the US ForestService with additional holdings by the US Bureau of LandManagement, the Colorado State Land Board, the ColoradoDivision of Wildlife, and Colorado State Parks. The cities of Craigand Steamboat Springs both hold properties designated for openspace and recreation.

Depending on the managing entity, public lands may be opento the public’s use and enjoyment through both extractive andnon-extractive uses of the natural resources on those lands,including oil, gas, coal, timber, livestock forage, wildlife, recre-ational opportunities, solitude, and scenic beauty. Public lands arenot generally open to subdivision or residential and commercialdevelopment and have sustained a large portion of the valley’slandscape in a relatively natural condition, supporting productivewildlife habitat, renewable resources, and functioning natural sys-tems over the long term. However, land exchanges and transfersdo occur, shifting land ownership between public and privateover time. The data presented represents a snapshot of MoffatCounty as of 2004 and of Routt County as of 1981.

MOFFAT COUNTYTotal Acres: 3,515,415

as of 2004 as of 1981

ROUTT COUNTYTotal Acres: 1,491,840

69%Public Acres

2,432,632

31%Private Acres

1,082,783 49%Public Acres

735,199

51%Private Acres

756,641

Sources: American Farmland Trust, Colorado Cattlemen’s Agricultural Land Trust, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Open Lands,The Nature Conservancy, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Yampa Valley Land Trust, and Routt County Assessor’s Office.

This indicator tells us how much of each county’s private landbase is currently afforded long term protection from subdivi-sion and residential/commercial development. Open, undevel-

oped private lands support significant wildlife habitat and sensitivenatural areas, and contain the most productive agricultural lands.Private lands are also the places where community residential andcommercial growth can occur.

Private lands are generally available to be subdivided and/ordeveloped, unless they are protected by public policies such as zoningand regulations, or long term agreements like conservation ease-ments and Routt County’s Land Preservation Subdivision remainderparcels. Conservation easements are voluntary land conservationagreements that private landowners may enter into with qualifiedland trusts. They are one tool available to landowners who wish toprotect their land from subdivision and development permanently.

In 1996, Routt County voters set aside a fund of tax dollars for thepurpose of purchasing development rights and establishing conser-vation easements. This fund, known as the Purchase ofDevelopment Rights Program (PDR), has contributed to the perma-nent conservation of 3,904 acres as of spring 2004.

Private Land with Long-term Protected Status

Percent of Public Land vs. Private Land

Moffat Routt2004 1981

Private Acres (deducted from Total and Public) 1,082,783 756,641

Total Private Acreage Protected under Voluntary Land Conservation Agreements 0 46,900

Percent of All Private Land Protectedunder Voluntary Land Conservation Agreements 0.00% 6.20%

Sources: Moffat & Routt County Assessor’s Offices

Parcelization is a measure of the distribution of sizes of private landparcels in a county and the degree to which large tracts of landhave been divided into smaller tracts. The parcelization of private

land parallels increasing demand for residential parcels. As large ranchesbecome divided into smaller pieces, they eventually lose their ability tofinancially support a family in agriculture. The changes to vegetation,increased roads and utilities, and increased human activity that oftenaccompany subdivision of large properties and development for residen-tial or commercial uses can cause wildlife, such as bald eagles and greatersage grouse to stop using these areas, and generalist wildlife such as rac-coons and crows to use the area more. The changes that accompany sub-division can also affect important natural processes such as water runoff,fire, and a river’s ability to move and flood.

Sources: Routt County Planning Department, Moffat County Assessor’s Office

Parcelization of Private Land by County5 acres >5 acres & 70 to 140.1 to >350

and less <70 acres 140 acres 350 acres acresM O F F A T C O U N T Y

Total Acreage of Parcels 2190.692 44245.9 30330.82 161567.2 844442.6


Total Acreage of Parcels 8,469 51,193 44,646 117,435 540,634

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:58 PM Page 56

Acid Levels in Moisture (Rain and Snow)

Both the Upper and Lower Yampa Riverwatersheds received favorable ratingsfrom the Environmental Protection

Agency’s Index of Watershed Indicators,which measures watershed conditions andvulnerability. The measure of pH in precipi-tation is a water quality indicator related to

air quality. PH levels at Dry Lake andBuffalo Pass are a concern because at levelsbelow pH 5, scientists have determinedimpacts to frogs, salamanders, and otheramphibians are likely and impacts to vegeta-tion and other aquatic life also possible.Acidic precipitation is often associated with

sulfur dioxide emissions. Sulfur dioxideemissions result from burning wood and fos-sil fuels. The acid level of precipitation in theYampa Valley has been at or below the 5.0level since 1994. However, some improve-ment in acid levels measured at all threeYampa Valley sites has occurred since 2001.

Sources: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Routt County Department of Environmental Health

pH Levels1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Sand Springs (Moffat) 5.21 5.07 5.23 5.18 4.87 4.95 5.07 4.92 4.93 5.00 5.13 4.93 5.39 5.14Dry Lake (Routt) 4.87 5.05 4.87 4.87 4.77 4.72 4.91 4.83 4.82 4.76 4.94 4.90 4.98 5.09Buffalo Pass (Routt) 5.05 5.13 4.92 4.99 4.91 4.84 4.98 4.90 4.87 4.89 4.94 4.93 5.05 5.03

Atmosphere Environment


Source: Western Regional Climate Center

DinosaurSteamboat National

Craig Hayden Springs Yampa Monument

Station Number 051932 053867 057936 059265 052286Station Elevation 6440 ft 6440 ft 6840 ft 7890 ft 5920.00

Year (Jul-Jun)1977-1978 77.00 149.80 216.10 121.50 41.301978-1979 83.30 166.30 224.00 120.50 68.401979-1980 100.40 150.70 179.80 153.00 70.001980-1981 47.80 63.20 91.70 87.50 32.401981-1982 77.20 139.00 212.10 147.50 52.901982-1983 82.10 105.00 157.70 111.60 51.801983-1984 119.70 159.80 236.80 171.00 91.501984-1985 126.60 145.50 178.70 121.00 55.601985-1986 95.60 156.50 138.20 134.00 43.801986-1987 87.30 73.00 n/a 111.50 31.301987-1988 68.30 105.00 210.50 130.00 48.201988-1989 89.50 125.60 135.70 115.00 46.001989-1990 61.60 111.50 157.60 95.00 39.601990-1991 69.10 103.00 174.70 124.50 27.901991-1992 58.40 86.00 n/a 92.00 16.801992-1993 95.40 116.50 206.40 115.50 62.901993-1994 49.10 87.50 n/a 57.00 21.201994-1995 23.00 107.50 170.40 129.10 37.801995-1996 61.00 133.00 220.70 178.40 13.501996-1997 39.50 149.00 252.50 145.50 30.301997-1998 46.60 123.70 142.50 119.50 32.801998-1999 32.70 87.80 113.20 101.50 29.901999-2000 37.70 96.40 125.60 115.10 11.002000-2001 29.10 122.10 n/a 137.00 20.802001-2002 37.00 86.80 n/a 88.00 27.702002-2003 66.00 128.60 n/a 151.90 17.002003-2004 45.90 108.60 n/a 100.00 21.80

Annual Snowfall

PM-10 is a measure of air quality, and is defined as particu-late matter less than 10 micrometers in size. PM-10 is inhal-able and can cause respiratory health risks, degraded visibility,climate changes, and damage to soil and vegetation.

An ambient air quality sampling network is operated by theRoutt County Department of Environmental Health in down-town Steamboat Springs in cooperation with the ColoradoDepartment of Public Health and Environment. The monitor-ing site at the Routt County courthouse annex provides anexcellent location for monitoring air quality in and aroundSteamboat Springs, the major population center of RouttCounty.

Chemical analysis of air quality filter material has shownthat most of the particulate matter is generated locallythrough activities such as street sanding, unpaved roads, andwood and coal burning. Since 1990 the Steamboat Springsarea has seen a 46% reduction in average annual PM-10 levelsdue to City and County efforts to reduce wood and coal burn-ing and to improvements in street sanding and street cleaningefforts.

Sources: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Routt County Department of Environmental Health

Maximum 24-Hour Average PM-10 levels/micrograms per cubic meter

1990 164 37

1995 139 32

2000 98 25

2001 100 23

2002 119 25

2003 149 24

Air Quality/PM-10 Monitoring Results

6

5

4

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:58 PM Page 57

Environment Water

The Yampa River is an unusualand important river in the westbecause it still has the ability to

produce high, overbank flows duringthe spring snowmelt. Most of the othertributaries of the Colorado River havemain stem dams that control and “flat-ten’ their spring peaks. However, theYampa’s tributary dams have not great-ly impacted its annual flow “signature”or hydrograph.

The intact hydrograph on theYampa plays a pivotal role in the lifecy-cle of the species that have evolved withthe river, and may have declined oncontrolled rivers. The high flows inMay and June often have the volumeand power to move heavy cobbleswithin the channel, building and clean-ing bars critical for the reproduction ofspecies including the Coloradopikeminnow and narrowleaf andFremont cottonwood trees. Thesespring flows also produce overbankflows that create and rejuvenate flood-

plain habitats.Low flows are as much a part of the

Yampa’s ancient signature as highflows. Naturally low flows can be fur-ther reduced by diversions for irriga-tion, electricity generation, municipaland industrial uses. The U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (USFWS) recommendsdaily average base-flows not fall below93 cubic feet per second (cfs) atMaybell from July 1 through October31 at any greater frequency than hasoccurred historically. The biologicalbasis for this recommendation is thatthe amount of riffle habitat available tosupport a prey base for native fishesdrops quickly at flows below 93 cfs.Some of the storage capacity in thesoon to be expanded Elkhead Reservoirwill be used to augment base-flows.

While the USFWS makes no specificflow recommendation with respect tospring peak flows, it does recommendthat reductions in peak flows be mini-mized.

Water quality protection establishes desig-nated uses of streams, lakes and groundwater including support for aquatic life,

water supplies, recreation and agriculture. Standards(allowable concentrations of pollutants) are thenadopted to ensure that water quality continues tosupport designated uses.

The “Status of Water Quality in Colorado –2004” report by the Water Quality Control Divisionindicates the Yampa and Green Rivers are among theleast developed rivers in Colorado. Water quality inthe Yampa/Green Basin fully supports the designat-ed uses for 97% of the basin. Streams and lakes aregenerally of very good quality. However, somestream segments do not meet all water quality stan-dards and are thus listed as “impaired waters” asrequired under section 303(d) of the Clean WaterAct.

Middle Creek at Road 33 south of Milner has pHlevels higher than the allowed standard. The allow-able range of pH is 6.5 – 9.0 units and the MiddleCreek sampling site has levels up to 9.3 units. Thismeans the water is too alkaline. PH values lower andhigher than the acceptable range can impact fishspecies. The Middle Creek site also had E. coli bacte-ria of 188 parts per 100 milliliters, compared to thestandard of 125 per 100ml. Because there were onlytwo water samples for E. coli, Middle Creek has beenplaced on the “monitoring and evaluation” list for303(d), meaning that monitoring is necessary to seeif it consistently exceeds the E. coli standard. Otherwater bodies placed on the “monitoring and evalua-tion” list include Stagecoach Reservoir, due to lowdissolved oxygen levels, and Foidel Creek, due to E.coli bacteria that exceeded standards. The RouttNational Forest recommended a number of streamsegments be placed on the list in 1998 due to sedi-ment concerns. The Routt National Forest has beenmonitoring these streams for sediment impacts.

Dry Creek, which starts upstream from and flowsthrough the Town of Hayden, was placed on theimpaired list due to high selenium concentrations.The selenium standard to protect aquatic life is 4.6micrograms per liter (ug/l). The levels in Dry Creekare 59.4 ug/l. Selenium is toxic to fish but is natu-rally occurring in the shale formations downstreamof Steamboat Springs. Activities such as mining, irri-gation, and construction may expose soils and causeselenium and other minerals to be picked up bywater passing through this geology. Streams listed asimpaired on the 303(d) list must be monitored fur-ther and a pollution source reduction plan prepared,known as a “total maximum daily load (TMDL)”plan.

Source: Colorado Water Quality Control Division


Water Quality in Yampa/Green River Basin Yampa River Flows

100,000

10,000

1,000

100

10

1/1/

30

1/1/

33

1/1/

36

1/1/

39

1/1/

42

1/1/

45

1/1/

48

1/1/

51

1/1/

54

1/1/

57

1/1/

60

1/1/

63

1/1/

66

1/1/

69

1/1/

72

1/1/

75

1/1/

78

1/1/

81

1/1/

84

1/1/

87

1/1/

90

1/1/

93

1/1/

96

1/1/

99

1/1/

02

Daily MeanStreamflow

(cfs)

Source: Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (text)

Hydrograph of Yampa River Near Maybell, Jan. 1930 to Sept. 2003

Source: U.S. Geologic Survey

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:58 PM Page 60

Environment Water Usage

The Yampa Valley isunique in Coloradoand the west

because as a river systemit is not over appropriat-ed, meaning that in mostyears, not all of the waterin the river is legally “spo-ken for” (decreed) for oneof a number of legallydefined “Beneficial Uses.”

In order to use waterfor most of the BeneficialUses, owners mustremove (divert) theirdecreed water right fromthe stream. However, twoother Beneficial Uses existthat involve water remain-ing in the stream. Theseare the “Recreational In-Channel Diversion,” andthe “Minimum In-streamFlow.”

Once water is divertedfrom the stream, someportion may flow back tothe stream as a “returnflow,” and another por-tion of the water mayleave the system as a“Consumptive Use.”Consumptive Use is thepart of water diverted thatis evaporated, transpiredby plants, incorporatedinto products or crops,consumed by humans orlivestock, or otherwiseremoved from the imme-diate water environment.

Another way in whichwater may leave theYampa system is througha “Transbasin Diversion”where water is movedfrom one watershed intoanother, such as from theYampa River Basin intoEagle River Basin.

All data presented isfor Water Districts 44, 57and 58.

Source; Colorado Division of Water Resources

Annual Consumptive Use of Water Upstream of the Confluence of the Little Snake and Yampa Rivers

150,000

120,000

90,000

60,000

30,000

01994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Municipal 3,634 3,470 1,892 1,060 1,398 1,394 1,394 1,697 1,776 1,599Industrial 19,043 17,732 18,440 20,938 22,906 19,142 19,142 17,536 17,905 19,378Irrigation 86,911 57,472 66,487 48,510 62,024 57,570 57,570 69,670 83,916 96,922Reservoir Evaporation 6,824 3,708 6,451* 3,142 5,869 5,063 5,063 6,108 6,974 7,137

Total Consumptive Use 116,412 82,382 95,370 73,650 92,197 83,169 104,613 95,011 110,571 125,036

Consumptive Use(Acre-Feet)

Use 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Irrigation 305,031 264,154 331,389 283,252 317,794 301,497 338,445 312,562 269,889 303,777Power Generation 44,934 53,761 70,500 71,735 72,092 66,896 57,863 5,704 31,979 38,268Industrial 19,043 17,732 18,440 20,938 22,906 19,142 14,287 18,568 20,551 19,378Livestock 13,769 18,119 18,544 13,004 14,726 14,198 13,733 7,667 5,157 2,298Fishery 8,698 10,512 11,942 9,931 9,736 10,305 7,227 8302 6,471 7,053Municipal no data 5,338 5,824 no data 5,783 5,437 5,823 5,824 6,525 6,459Domestic 3,997 3,459 1,660 1,163 1,848 1,699 1,386 620 1,006 829Recreation 485 1,141 1,897 1,935 1,730 1,904 1,535 1,639 1,957 2,700Snowmaking 300 303 323 281 349 350 309 316 291 331Commercial 403 716 143 91 13 93 21 48 44 17Total Transbasin Diversions 3,209 3,292 4,972 3,458 4,486 2,048 2,490 2,751 1540 3474

Total* 399,869 378,527 465,634 405,788 451,463 423,569 443,119 364,001 345,410 384,584

* Does not include data for miscellaneous category "all other beneficial uses.” Source: Colorado Division of Water Resources


Annual Acre-Feet of Water Diverted for Use Upstream of the Confluence of the Little Snake and Yampa Rivers

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:58 PM Page 62

Environment Natural Resources


The Yampa Valley has significantoil and gas resources and leas-ing and development of these

resources contributes considerably tothe local economy. Oil and gas wellpads are serviced by roads andpipelines. This development can resultin loss and degradation of wildlifehabitat by introducing weeds anddisturbing sensitive species such asgreater sage grouse. Mitigation strate-gies are available to minimize or elim-inate these impacts.

It is important to note that, whilethe map shows all oil and gas welllocations in the Valley, each well rep-resented is not necessarily in activeproduction.

All Oil and Gas Wells in Routt and Moffat Counties http://oil-gas.state.co.us/

Source: Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

Oil and Gas

Routt National ForestTimber Harvesting1994-2003

Location Acres Board FeetHarvested Harvested

Routt National Forest 7,500 35,000,000Routt County Only 4,000 18,000,000Moffat County Only 1,000 6,000,000

Source: Routt National Forest

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:58 PM Page 64

Residential electricity demandin our valley is a function ofthe size and energy efficiency

of homes, the amount of timehomes are occupied, the types ofappliances in homes, and the priceof electricity.

Source: Yampa Valley Electric Association

Residential Kilowatt Hours

Environment Resource Use


■ Although the population continues togrow, solid waste generation is decliningin the Yampa Valley. 47,500 tons of solidwaste is generated in the Yampa Valleyincluding 30,900 tons in Routt Countyand 16,600 tons in Moffat County. Thetotal for the valley is the lowest numberin the last 5 years.

■ 2,743 tons of waste were recycled in theYampa Valley in 2003, a slight increaseover 2002. Waste Management of theRockies recycling volumes have increased

29% in 6 years.

■ 43% of the recycled waste was corrugat-ed cardboard and 36% was magazinesand newspaper.

■ The recycling rate is the waste recycleddivided by the waste generated, estimatedto be 5.8% in the Yampa Valley.

■ The waste generation rate is approxi-mately 7.3 pounds per person per day(ppd) for the entire Yampa Valley com-pared to 8.0 ppd in 1998.

■ Projects for Yampa Valley Recyclesinclude educational programs, assistingand developing a variety of local recy-cling efforts and developing thePedestrian Recycling Unit (PRU). PRUsprovide locations where pedestrians candispose of their waste so that it can berecycled. These units also help to beauti-fy the sidewalks downtown.

■ The city of Craig plans to begin a recy-cling program in May 2005 for plastics,aluminum, cardboard and paper.

Solid Waste and Recyling

Average Annual Consumption(Kilowatt Hours) Per ResidenceWithin the Yampa Valley Electric Service Area**Yampa Valley Electric Service Area includes Routtand Moffat Counties and portions of Wyoming,Eagle County and Rio Blanco County

KilowattYear Hours

1992 9,7311993 10,0981994 9,8461995 9,5501996 9,7431997 9,0771998 9,3301999 9,3622000 9,4932001 9,3882002 9,7802003 9,444

Yampa Valley Solid Waste, in tons

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

2,235 2,552 2,703 2,911 2,691 2,743

52,914 52,353 52,970 55,542 53,100 47,525

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

4.2% 4.9% 5.1% 5.2% 5.1% 5.8%

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL GENERATED

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

ALL WASTE

Recycling Rate, Percent of all Yampa Valley Waste6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

Sources: Waste Management of the Rockies, Yampa Valley Recycles

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:58 PM Page 66

Environment Agriculture


Although it does not tell the wholestory, a profile of statistics regardingagriculture sheds some light on the

status of the agricultural economy and theuses of agricultural lands in the YampaValley. As the statistics indicate, the cattleindustry as a whole is a steady but not grow-ing industry, while both Routt and MoffatCounties show a declining year-round sheepindustry.

Hay is the single largest plant crop raisedin Routt and Moffat Counties. Hay acres arecyclical due to variable weather/rain patternseach year. Harvesting hay is not always feasi-ble in dry years. Acres have actually increasedover time because in the 1970s and 80s addi-tional water storage was built and allowedmore acres to be irrigated than in the 1960s.Conversely, the acreage in small grains(wheat, oats and barley) clearly shows adeclining grain farming industry in bothcounties.

Data on farms by size shows an increasein small or part-time operations. It alsoindicates a consolidation of commercialoperations, i.e. commercial agriculture mustget bigger to survive as a sole source ofincome for a family. This trend is consistentwith farms and ranches nationwide. Somelarger operations have been subdivided intosmaller parcels because of the economics ofland values in relation to agricultural pro-duction values.

Market Value of Agricultural productssold is a broad measure of sales of crops andlivestock in each county annually. It gives anindication of whether the agriculture indus-try in both counties is growing, shrinking orstable. However, it is important to recognizethat there are periodic fluctuations due tothe cyclical prices received for farm products,particularly cattle.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY NOTES: All fig-ures are derived from one of two sources. TheUnited States Department of Agriculture con-ducts an agricultural census every five years.The other source of data is from the ColoradoAgricultural Statistic's, a program of the StateDepartment of Agriculture.

1-9 10-49 50-179 180-499 500-999 >1000acres acres acres acres acres acres TOTAL


2002 9 178 144 112 58 92 5931997 17 111 105 84 56 121 4941992 9 88 85 74 55 127 438

Market Valueof Ag ProductsSold $/1,000

M O F F A T

2002 20,1791997 18,9381992 16,644

R O U T T

2002 25,1611997 22,8581992 26,365

Sources: Colorado Agricultural Statistics, United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Census , Routt County Cooperative Extension

Livestock InventoryBeef Cattle Sheep and Calves and Lambs


2002 31,800 86,2921997 41,829 72,7151992 25,504 90,5181981 37,000 121,0001977 27,000 114,0001973 37,000 109,0001968 30,200 108,000


2002 29,784 5,2061997 45,718 9,9321992 37,042 20,8201981 34,000 23,0001977 32,500 20,0001973 42,000 61,0001968 43,100 65,000

Total Acreage HarvestedAll small grains acres:

oats, barley, winter wheat, spring wheat


2001 14,4001996 18,3001992 20,9001981 48,1001977 41,4001973 36,9501968 36,490


2001 8,2001996 11,9001992 14,4001981 24,9001977 24,3001973 36,3001968 30,010

All hay:Hay-alf, other, wild, silage


2001 47,5001996 25,5001992 27,7001981 25,5001977 17,4001973 27,5001968 18,200


2001 48,5001996 42,0001992 39,0001981 43,5001977 35,0001973 45,0001968 48,580

Number of Farms by Size

1-9 10-49 50-179 180-499 500-999 >1000acres acres acres acres acres acres TOTAL


2002 0 91 94 94 50 114 4431997 16 54 66 82 43 128 3891992 8 50 67 51 40 134 350

200

150

100

50

150

120

90

60

30

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:58 PM Page 68

Environment Agriculture


Noxious weeds are plants that can invade and even-tually dominate lands and can cause substantialdamage to the health of natural systems and to the

productivity of agricultural lands. Under the 2003Colorado Noxious Weed Act, all List “A” species must beeradicated wherever found. List “A” species are non-nativespecies that have become serious noxious weed problems inother Western states but are not yet serious problems inColorado. Because of their limited distribution in the state,it is urgent that they be eradicated now before they becomemajor problems. Donkeytail spurge, cypress spurge, andpurple loosestrife are all escaped ornamental weeds thathave been positively identified in the City of SteamboatSprings. Meadow knapweed is located near the Mad Creektrailhead on RCR 129, and is being actively managed.Donkeytail spurge was located and controlled in an orna-mental planting in the City of Craig.

Sources: Routt and Moffat County Weed Control Programs

Occurrence of List ‘A’ Weed Species by CountyCommon Name Scientific Name Routt Moffat

African rue (Peganum harmala)Camelthorn (Alhagi pseudalhagi)Common crupina (Crupina vulgaris)Cypress spurge (Euphorbia cyparissias) XDyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria)Giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta)Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata)Meadow knapweed (Centaurea pratensis) XMediterranean sage (Salvia aethiopis)Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae)Myrtle or donkeytail spurge (Euphorbia myrsinites) X XPurple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) XRush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea)Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata)Squarrose knapweed (Centaurea virgata)Tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea)Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis)

Noxious Weeds

The indicator process and report is a valuable toolfor Northwest Colorado. It gives us great data

to make smart decisions. Colorado NorthwesternCommunity College uses the report to determinewhat classes may be needed to meet the interests

and demands of the community and the total college service area.

DR. DEAN HOLLENBECK

VICE PRESIDENT CRAIG-CAMPUS,COLORADO NORTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE

“Ideally, I think the Community Indicators can provide feedback on how well we aredoing at reaching our goals as a community. Although, the Yampa Valley community is quite diverse, there are certain goals we can all agree on, like maintaining our social

well-being, productive agricultural lands, healthy wildlife populations and a strongeconomy. Through the Community Indicators, we begin to see a picture of our progress

toward these goals: where we are doing well, and where we might do better.

ANN OLIVER

YAMPA RIVER PROJECT DIRECTOR

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

“I have found that the Yampa Valley PartnersIndicators Project is a useful tool anytime I am

meeting with businesses that have a presence in ourvalley but are absentee by nature. Many times they

are surprised to find a report of this quality available to them in our small area. Most of them

have expressed a desire for all communities to generate this type of information in a concise

and usable document. Thank you!”

DAVE DEROSE

BUSINESS OWNER AND MAYOR OF CRAIG, COLORADO

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:58 PM Page 70

Environment Wildlife


The Yampa Valley supports the largestherds of mule deer and elk inColorado. These herds are a corner-

stone of wildlife-related recreation and eco-nomic sectors locally and statewide. Twoherd units (Data Analysis Units) occur inthe Yampa Valley, the Bears Ears herd andthe Flattops/White River herd. Other herdunits occur in the western portions of thevalley but are much smaller.

Herd productivity is the most sensitiveindicator of herd health collected by wildlifeagencies. It is measured by the ratio of muledeer fawns per 100 does, and elk calves per100 cows. Changes in these ratios track theeffects of wet and dry years, mild and severewinters, and good and bad forage conditionson herd health. These ratios can also indi-cate the position of the herd relative to car-rying capacity. Carrying capacity is the max-imum number of animals that can be sup-ported without damaging the habitat.Steeply declining ratios can indicate popula-tion levels that exceed the resources avail-able. In Colorado, biologists consider aratio ranging from 50 to 70 young per 100females to be optimum.

The ratio of males per 100 females indi-

cates the impact of hunting seasons on pop-ulations and hunter satisfaction with the sexand age structure of populations. In manag-ing the Yampa Valley’s herds, biologists strivefor a ratio of 20 to 25 males per 100 females.

These indicators serve an important rolein tracking deer and elk population size,growth rate, health and the amount of hunt-ing pressure necessary to maintain popula-tions at desired levels.

ElkE-2 Bear's Ears Elk Herd E-6 White River Elk Herd

Year Males:Females Young:Females Males:Females Young:Females

1980 3.30 54.40 4.89 59.461981 5.70 55.10 4.77 56.341982 6.65 44.92 4.29 54.011983 7.90 47.50 6.78 43.281984 7.02 44.01 4.26 49.371985 8.01 51.95 15.03 51.311986 17.93 53.99 19.53 62.711987 20.24 52.65 22.15 53.771988 22.00 60.29 23.85 56.691989 25.24 66.18 24.80 64.491990 22.32 54.58 21.48 62.541991 22.27 55.08 17.49 56.291992 21.93 55.14 18.33 55.801993 17.68 54.13 18.10 58.051994 20.01 52.20 16.88 49.391995 25.24 45.60 21.59 45.011996 20.60 54.80 18.35 55.831997 16.07 42.72 15.33 44.341998 21.50 56.81 20.32 48.161999 23.85 56.01 25.48 47.522000 21.87 55.62 21.50 59.112001 23.90 54.70 20.32 64.012002 26.30 52.50 21.30 59.142003 30.60 50.20 19.00 58.00

Deer

D-2 Bear's Ears Deer Herd

Year Males: Females Young:Females

1980 5.7 86.01981 12.1 74.31982 14.3 72.91983 12.1 66.91984 3.8 54.41985 9.5 66.01986 19.7 70.01987 20.0 64.01988 22.3 78.61989 19.9 70.61990 23.7 80.21991 20.1 75.21992 23.1 63.61993 13.3 62.71994 14.3 71.91995 17.0 56.11996 20.5 59.61997 14.8 57.61998 18.3 61.01999 22.9 59.92000 27.8 57.22001 29.3 51.42002 26.8 62.82003 33.6 86.3

Deer

D-7 White River Deer Herd

Year Males: Females Young:Females

1987 18.90 57.131988 15.38 63.001989 15.13 63.901990 18.46 62.151991 18.85 55.581992 17.44 49.721993 11.33 47.111994 13.75 54.851995 10.72 47.631996 18.90 57.131997 12.76 47.701998 12.78 49.751999 33.56 48.322000 20.90 59.152001 32.70 77.302002 30.89 73.702003 29.20 87.73

Source: Colorado Division of Wildlife

318

U.S. 40

13

64

131

129

13

Craig

Steamboat Springs

Meeker

Dinosaur

Rangely Toponas

Oak Creek

Phippsburg

Yampa

Hayden

Milner

Clark

Hahns Peak

MaybellSunbeam

Lay

Elk Springs

Blue Mountain

Massadona

Buford

Hamilton

Axial

Pagoda

Great Divide

Powder WashHiawatha

Fortification

Elk DAU E-6Deer DAU D-7

Elk DAU E-2Deer DAU D-2

Yampa Valley Elk and Deer Data Analysis UnitsElk and Deer: Herd Health


Post-season Ratio Estimates

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:58 PM Page 72



The sage grouse is a chicken-like bird that depends onsagebrush ecosystems and can serve as a sensitiveindicator of the overall health of these environments.

Greater sage-grouse populations have been in decline acrosstheir range in the west. Conservation plans for the twopopulation areas in the Yampa Valley have been preparedwith broad participation from landowners, agencies, con-servation, and industry interests.

In the early spring, male grouse gather at “leks” to danceand breed on clearings in the sage and females nest undersagebrush shrubs. During the summer, sage grouse look forfood including insects, leaves and flowers throughout thepatchwork of sagebrush, grasslands and wet meadows. Inthe winter months, grouse depend almost entirely on sage-brush leaves for food.

Counts of breeding males (lek counts) in the spring arewidely used to indicate sage grouse population trends andare the only field measure that can be effectively obtainedacross large areas. While these counts do not tell us theactual population size, they are the best and most longterm measure available for tracking population trends.

The Colorado Division of Wildlife has been carrying outlek counts since the 1950s, and has increased and standard-ized these efforts since the late seventies. Tracking the num-ber of active leks provides an index of the distribution ofsage grouse breeding activity across a population area.


In Northwest Colorado and Southern Routt County Management ZonesHigh Count of Male Greater Sage-Grouse on Leks

Management Zone 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Southern Routt 76 91 49 92 83 811 241 165 133 117 1372 54 41 18 25 37

3a 222 628 503 459 4333b 282 424 744 774 6503c 13 74 109 170 1184a 45 20 143 54 644b 94 43 69 63 885 389 451 289 226 3226 479 429 349 337 3217 0 0 0 0 10

Number of Active Leks Management Zone 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Southern Routt 4 4 3 5 3 41 12 11 7 7 62 4 4 4 3 3

3a 8 13 12 13 153b 12 19 25 24 233c 2 3 2 4 34a 2 2 4 2 24b 6 5 6 6 85 21 22 19 19 176 7 9 8 8 97 0 0 0 0 1

Greater Sage Grouse Lek Activity

U.S. 40 Craig

Steamboat Springs

Meeker

Dinosaur

Rangely Toponas

Oak Creek

Phippsburg

Yampa

Hayden

Milner

Clark

Hahns Peak

MaybellSunbeam

Lay

Elk Springs

Blue Mountain

Massadona

Buford

Hamilton

Axial

Pagoda

Great Divide

Powder WashHiawatha

Fortification

ZONE 1

ZONE 2

ZONE 6

ZONE 2ZONE 3a

ZONE 3b

ZONE 3c

ZONE 4a

ZONE 4b

Southern Routt

ZONE 6

County

Sage Grouse Occupied Habitat

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:58 PM Page 74



’75 ’76 ’77 ’78 ’79 ’80 ’81 ’82 ’83 ’84 ’85 ’86 ’87 ’88 ’89 ’90 ’91 ’92 ’93 ’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0 2 2 3 6 4 4 5 6 5 9 8 10 13 12 13 6 14 14 10

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 4 5 6 9 7 8 11 10 10 12 12 9

No. of Fledged Young

No. of Active Nests

Bald Eagle

Bald Eagle Nests in Yampa Valley

The number of successful baldeagle nests is one indicator of thehealth of the Yampa River and the

continued regeneration of its forests.Most bald eagles in Colorado build theirnests in December through June in largecottonwood trees along rivers and lakesin areas that are relatively free fromhuman disturbance. A pair of eagleswill use the same nest year after year,

adding material so the nest becomesvery heavy. The availability of large,mature cottonwood trees along a waterbody is one of the key ingredients forsuccessful bald eagle nesting. The birdsand their young depend on the fish andwaterfowl found around the rivers andlakes where they nest and winter.

In 1967, the bald eagle was listed as“Threatened” under the Endangered

Species Act due to declining numbersrelated to the effects of DDT, hunting,and habitat loss. While the increase inthe number of active eagle nests on theYampa may be partly attributable toincreased search effort, the YampaRiver's population of breeding baldeagles has certainly grown and con-tributes significantly to the number inColorado.


“The ‘Community Indicator’s Report’ offers both locals,visitors, and those researching our area the best glimpse

of life in the Yampa Valley. It is a valuable resourcewhich saves me hours of research time, and I cannotimagine performing the duties of my job without it.”

ALYSA SELBY

RESEARCH LIBRARIAN

BUD WERNER LIBRARY- STEAMBOAT SPRINGS

“The Yampa Valley Indicators is a valuable resourceto the Community Agriculture Alliance because itoffers a wide range of statistics about the impactsthat affect not only agriculture, but also business,

community and resort interests. To determine howto move forward, we must know where we have been

and the Indicators help us recognize what factors are important to the diverse economies

of our communities in Northwest Colorado.”

MARSHA DAUGHENBAUGH

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

COMMUNITY AGRICULTURE ALLIANCE

CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 4:58 PM Page 76

Appendix

INCOME■ Total Personal Income: Private earn-

ings, income from government andgovernment enterprises, dividends,interest, rent, and transfer payments;plus adjustments for residence, minuspersonal contributions for social insur-ance.

LABOR SOURCE INCOME ■ Wage and Salary: Monetary remu-

neration of employees, includingemployee contributions to certaindeferred compensation programs, suchas 401 K plans.

■ Other Labor Income: Payments byemployers to privately administeredbenefit plans for their employees, thefees paid to corporate directors, andmiscellaneous fees. Payments to pri-vate benefit plans account for more

than 98 percent of other labor income.■ Proprietors' Income: Income from

sole proprietorships, partnerships andtax-exempt cooperatives. A sole propri-etorship is an unincorporated businessowned by a person. A partnership is anunincorporated business association oftwo or more partners. A tax-exemptcooperative is a nonprofit businessorganization that is collectively ownedby its members.

NON-LABOR SOURCE INCOME■ Transfer Payments: Payments to

persons for which they do not rendercurrent services. As a component ofpersonal income, they are payments bygovernment and business to individu-als and nonprofit institutions.

■ Retirement & Disability InsuranceBenefit Payments: Old-age, sur-vivors and disability insurance pay-

ments made by Social Security,Railroad Retirement, military, federal,state and local government, and non-governmental programs.

■ Medical Payments: Medicare, publicassistance medical care and CHAMPUSpayments.

■ Income Maintenance:Supplemental Security Income (SSI),Temporary Assistance for NeedyFamilies (TANF), Food Stamps, andOther- Income Maintenance Payments,such as emergency assistance, fostercare payments and energy assistancepayments.

■ Unemployment Insurance BenefitPayments: Unemployment compen-sation for state and federal civilianemployees, railroad workers, and veter-ans.

■ Veterans Benefits: Primarily com-pensation to veterans for their disabili-

ties and payments to their survivors.■ Federal Education and Training

Assistance: Job Corps payments,interest payments on GuaranteedStudent Loans, federal fellowship pay-ments, and student assistance forhigher education.

■ Other Government Payments:Compensation for survivors of publicsafety officers killed on duty and com-pensation for victims of crime.

■ Payments to Non-ProfitInstitutions: Payments for develop-ment and research contracts. Forexample, this category includes pay-ments for foster-home care supervisedby private agencies.

■ Business Payments to Individuals:Personal-injury liability payments, cashprizes, and pension benefits financedby the Pension Benefit GuaranteeCorporation.

■ Transformative – This groupingincludes any industry that transformsone product or material into another,e.g. trees into lumber, lumber intohouses, coal into fuel, seeds into crops,etc.

■ Distributive – This grouping includesthose industries that move people andthings around, for example movingelectricity from the power plant toyour house, visitors from the airport tohotels, or food from the processor tothe warehouse and eventually to thestore.

■ Retail – This industry group isinvolved in the final sale of tangiblegoods to end users.These goods arefinished products that have been pro-

duced and distributed, and are nowready for purchase by consumers orbusinesses.

■ Services – This broad industry grouphas been separated into additionalsub-groupings to allow a moredetailed review of these varied indus-tries.

■ Consumer Services – This groupingincludes industries in amusement,recreation, hotel and lodging, repairs,and household and personal services.In this grouping,“price” in the market-place often plays an important factorin a consumer’s decision to select onepurveyor of a service over another.Because of this price sensitivity, theseindustries try to keep costs as low as

possible.Therefore businesses in thisgrouping typically have lower payingjobs.

■ Professional Services – This indus-try group provides finance, insurance,legal, real estate and business services.This group deals with intangibles, orideas and concepts, where the ‘prod-uct’ is typically intellectual.The intel-lectual skill associated with businessesin this group of industries results insome of the higher paying jobs in theeconomy.

■ Social Services – This sector includeshealth, social and educational services,with characteristics of both the con-sumer and professional segmentsdescribed above. Limited revenue

sources for industries in this segment,especially social services and educa-tion, result in lower paying jobs.However, some parts of the healthindustry depend heavily on intellectualpower resulting in higher pay moreakin to the professional services seg-ment.

■ Government – Government behavesdifferently than all other segments, asgovernment services are operated on a“break even” basis.The services thatgovernment provides expand or con-tract in proportion to the availability of revenue sources (taxes and fees).Government jobs typically pay lowerthan similar jobs in the private for-profit sector.

INDUSTRY GROUPINGS


CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 5:05 PM Page 82

Data Sourceswww.yampavalleypartners.com Yampa Valley Partnerswww.co.routt.co.us Routt Countywww.co.moffat.co.us Moffat Countywww.steamboat-springs.net City of Steamboat Springswww.yampavalley.info Community Information Centerwww.steamboatedc.biz Steamboat Springs Economic Development Councilwww.yampavalleyrecycles.org Yampa Valley Recycles

www.ncl.org National Civic Leaguewww.sustainablemeasures.com Sustainable Measureswww.tnc.org The Nature Conservancywww.sonoran.org Sonoran Institutewww.communityinitiatives.com Community Initiativeswww.national.unitedway.org United Way of America

www.state.co.us State of Coloradowww.dola.state.co.us Department of Local Affairs, State of Coloradowww.cdphe.state.co.us/cohid Colorado Dept. of Public Health &Environment /COHIDwww.cdphe.state.co.us Colorado Dept. of Public Health & Environmentwww.ag.state.co.us Colorado Dept. of Agriculturewww.coloradokids.org Colorado Children’s Campaignwww.cdpsweb.state.co.us/ Colorado Bureau of Investigationwww.wfco.org Women’s Foundation of Coloradowww.cofiscalpolicyinst.org Colorado Fiscal Policy Institutewww.cde.state.co.us/index_stats.htm Colorado Department of Educationwww.coloradohistory-oahp.org Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservationwww.coloradoski.com Colorado Ski Countrywww.nsaa.org National Ski Areas Association

www.census.gov U.S. Dept. of Commerce - Census Bureauwww.bea.doc.gov Bureau of Economic Analysiswww.stats.bls.gov Bureau of Labor Statisticswww.nass.usda.gov National Agricultural Statistics Sectionwww.epa.gov Environmental Protection Agencywww.colorado.gov Division of Wildlifewww.nea.org National Education Assn.www.cdc.gov Center for Disease Controlwww.health.gov/healthypeople Healthy People 2010www.os.dhhs.gov US Dept of Health / Human Serviceswww.ed.gov US Dept of Educationwww.fws.gov US Fish and Wildlife Servicewww.bls.gov Bureau of Labor Statisticswww.iwpr.org Institute for Women’s Policy Researchwww.ama-anns.org American Medical Associationwww.aarp.org American Association of Retired Persons

www.bococivicforum.org Boulder County Civic Forumwww.hmccolorado.org Healthy Mountain Communities / Colorado Indexwww.communitysummit.org Operation Healthy Communities – Southwest Coloradowww.civicforum.org Mesa County Civic Forumwww.pphcp.org Peak to Peak Healthy Communitywww.montrose.org/region10 Uncompaghre Healthy Communitywww.citizens4lakewood.com Citizens 4 Lakewood

Community Indicators Project


CIP 2004/2005 FINAL 1/13/05 5:05 PM Page 83

community indicators project 2005-2006

Documents

yampa valley community

yampa valley supportthe

theyampa valley

ourchanging valley

yampa river

yampa valleyorganizations

routt county arebecoming

routt county workforce