Laserfiche WebLink
<br />without causing adverse impacts to upstream, downstream or adjacent property <br />owners; <br />IX. Whether the RICO structures as located in the stream reach can adequately <br />withstand stream forces for all flows up to and including the 100-year flood so <br />that damage and failure of the boating course is avoided; <br />x. Whether the hydraulic drop (head) in the stream reach is appropriate. A high <br />quality play boat and rodeo competition site can be created with significantly less <br />head provided that there is available discharge in the range; <br />xi. Whether the discharge in the stream reach exceeds the maximum amount that may <br />be necessary. There is a relationship between discharge and the amount of fall <br />available at a site; <br />xii. Whether the water velocity in the stream reach has an average velocity of 2m/sec <br />(6.6 ft./sec); <br />xiii. Whether the water depth in the stream reach is at least the minimum depth needed <br />to float a boat (0. 15m (6") is minimum depth), the minimum depth needed to take <br />paddle strokes (0.5m (20") depth), and the minimum depth to safely perform an <br />Eskimo roll (0.8 to 1.0 m (3 to 3.3 ft.) depth); <br />XIV. Whether the course is located in a stream reach where it meets at least the <br />minimum average width. This should be 5 m (16.5 ft.). This allows a 2-person <br />canoe to safely tum sideways. The minimum passable width of 1.2 m (4 ft.) is <br />possible provided that it is a local constriction only and not consistent for the <br />entire course. Debris and safety issues may preclude a narrow width of 4ft. from <br />being realistic. The general maximum width as recommended by the CWCB <br />should use the streamflow as efficiently as possible; <br />xv. Whether the course is located in a stream reach where it is at least the minimum <br />recommended course length of 240m (790 ft.); and, <br />xvi. Whether the RICn has a minimum average slope of 0.5% or whether there is <br />other information available demol!-strating why the minim,UIp. average slope is not <br />necessary. .. ,_,....u.. ", <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />c. Whether there is access for recreational in-channel use. The Board, in making this <br />finding, may consider, but is not limited to, the following: <br />i. The nature and extent of the access required for the activity for which a RICD is <br />being sought; <br />11. The ownership, leasehold, or other legal interest held by or available to the <br />App'licant for purposes of obtaining access; and, <br />iii. Any impediments to the Applicant obtaining access determined necessary for the <br />intended use. <br /> <br />d. Whether the exercise of the RICD would cause material injury to existing ISF water <br />rights. The Board, in making this fmding" may consider, but is not limited to, the <br />following: <br />i. The nature and extent of the ISF in the proposed reach or any affected <br />downstream reach; <br />11. The timing and duration of the RICO .as such may relate to the specific use which <br />is the basis for the ISF; <br /> <br />4 <br />