06 ‎(4)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 11/18/2008
• Description: ISF Section - Instream Flow Rules Revision
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

ISF Rule 8i.(3) Injury W ith Mitigation Nov ember 10 , 2008 Draft
( No c hanges to September 2008 d raft)

(h) At the first meeting of the two - meeting process required by
this Rule, staff will bring the proposal to the Board for
preliminary consideration after completing its review of the
proposal and its consultation with DOW. Staff will work
with the proponent and interested parties to address any
preliminary concerns prior to bringing a proposal to the
Board. Preliminary consideration by the Board may result
in requests for more information or for changes to the
proposal. Staff will work with the proponent and interested
parties to finaliz e the proposal and bring it back to the
Board for final action at a subsequent Board meeting.

(g) (i) The Board will consider the following factors when
evaluating i njury with m itigation proposals. B ecause injury
with mitigation proposals may involve unique factual
situations, the Board may consider additional factors in
specific cases. Further, evaluation of each i njury with
m itigation proposal will require the exercise of professional
judgment rega rding the specific facts of the proposal.

Ô Extent of the proposed injury :
1. Location of injury affected stream(s) and
length of affected reach(es) ;
2. Amount, timing and frequency of
shortages(s) to the affected ISF water
right(s); and
3. Potential impact to the natural environment
of the affected stream reach from such
shortages.

ÔÔ Benefits of the mitigation to the natural
environment :

1. The nature and extent of the benefits the
mitigation will provide to the existing natural
environment of the affected stream ;
ii 2. T he scientific justification for accepting the
mitigation ; and
3. W hether the mitigation will enable the Board
to continue to preserve or improve the natural
environment of the subject stream to a
reasonable degree .

(h) (j) Evaluation of proposed alternatives . This evaluation applies
both to alternatives explored to provide full protection of

3