Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ihe.Board.:finds:thatJbenaty;r~. ancl~typeof recrea~ional activity for which~e <br />RlCD is sought ("recreational kayaking and related activities") and the type of <br />recreational activity sought is appropriate for the 600 cfs flow rate sought at the <br />time of year sought, especially considering that the Applicant has requested this <br />higher flow rate for a maximum of 12 days ayear; <br />11. The length of the proposed RlCD is appropriate; <br />111. The Board finds that there are adequate stream gages to measure the RICD; <br />IV. The Applicant has failed to provide any information demonstrating that the RICD <br />would not affect flooding, flood control, or the one-hundred year flood elevations. <br />However, the Applicant has met with the Board Staff to discuss this matter, and <br />the Applicant's staff has indicated a willingness to provide all of the necessary <br />information to demonstrate that the RICD reach will not affect flooding, flood <br />control, or the one-hundred year flood elevations. Thus, the Board includes as a <br />condition of approval that the Applicant will provide all of the necessary <br />information to demonstrate that the RlCD reach will not affect flooding, flood <br />control, or the one-hundred year flood elevations. <br /> <br />c. The Board must determine whether there is access for recreational in-channel use. The <br />Boardfirtdsthanhere is'.adequate access forthe RICD. The Board makes the following. <br />findings about this RICD for the three holiday weekends, wherein 600 cfs (Level Two <br />Flows) is claimed: <br /> <br />1. The Board finds that the nature and extent of the access required for the activities <br />sought is proper; <br />11. The Applicant has demonstrated ownership, leasehold, other legal interest, or <br />powers of condemnation held by, or available to the Applicant. As such, the <br />Board finds that there is adequate access for the RICD; and, <br />111. The Board finds that there are no impediments for the Applicant obtaining <br />adequate access. <br /> <br />d. The Board must consider whether the exercise of the RICD would cause material injury <br />to existing ISF water rights. The Board makes the following findings about this RlCD <br />for the three holiday weekends, wherein 600 cfs (Level Two Flows) is claimed: <br /> <br />1. The nature and extent of the ISF water rights do not serve as a basis to <br />recommend denial of the RICD application; <br />11. There is an ISF held by the CWCB for 55 (May I-July 31) and 52 (August 1- <br />September 30), and 50 cfs (October I-April 30), but the existing ISF water rights <br />do not serve as a basis for denying the RICD water rights application. The Board <br />notes, however, that the RlCD and the ISF water rights should not be stacked (or <br />u~__ tabulated separately) as a matter of fact and law; ____... .___ <br />111. Based on information provided by the Applicant, Trout Unlimited, and the now, <br />. ~--~ tlie-Board' finds that the RlCD would not ,. negatively -impact-the natural <br />environment for which the ISF was decreed as long as the Applicant includes the <br />term and condition regarding ramping rates included in the proposed decree; and, <br />IV. The Board finds that the RICD could affect the natural environment that the ISF <br />rotects during the construction process, so the Board conditions this factor on the <br /> <br />6 <br />