My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00851
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD00851
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:54:39 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:44:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/23/1998
Description
ISF Section - Instream Flow Subcommittee Draft Report
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />The Subcommittee met again on May 18, 1998, to discuss the staff's summary of the public <br />concerns that had been raised to date. The issues were presented in a matrix format with each of <br />the issues raised by the public categorized into one of five ISF progranunatic areas; New <br />Appropriations, Legal Protection, Physical Protection (monitoring), Donations and Acquisitions, . <br />and ISF Quantification Methodologies. Each issue was also summarized with regard to current <br />level of CWCB activity, public concerns and issues, current limitations (if any), and staff <br />recommendations for addressing the issue. Following these discussions, the matrices were <br />updated to include any additional issues raised at the meeting. The completed matrices are <br />included in this report as Appendix A. <br /> <br />Prioritizing the Subcommittee Participant's Interest in the Issues <br />Subcommittee participants at the May 18 meeting were then asked to prioritize their level of <br />mterest in the issues through a polling process. Several of the participants agreed to participate <br />in the polling process with some trepidation. They suggested that all of the issues were <br />important and that the polling process should not be used to eliminate any of the issues. They <br />also opined that the ISF Program should be staffed to whatever level necessary to address aU of <br />these issues. <br /> <br />The results of the Subcommittee participant polling process are also included within Appendix <br />A. The percentage of total votes cast for a particular issue appears in parenthesis within the <br />"Issue Type" cell of each matrix. Some issues did not receive any votes, but remain in the tables <br />in response to the participant's concerns that the polling process not be used to eliminate any of <br />the issues raised during the Subcommittee process. <br /> <br />It should be noted that the issues reviewed below do not necessarily represent the positions or <br />opinions of all Subcommittee participants. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Based on the results of the polling process, staff consolidated several individual issues into one <br />of four general categories (Table 1). Cumulatively, these four general concerns received <br />approximately 70% of the total votes cast. <br /> <br />Table 1. General Categorization orISF Subcommittee Issues. <br /> <br />General Category - Programmatic Category % of Total Votes <br />Instream flows to protect other uses New Appropriations! ,33% .. <br />(Riparian; channel maintenance, etc.) Methodologies! <br /> Acquisitions <br />Direct purchase of water rights and acquire Acquisitions 20% <br />interests in water <br />Inundation Legal Protection 10% <br />Monitor jnstream flows Monitoring 7% <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.