Administrative Record 12-22

• Year: 2009
• Instream Flow Rules - Doc Type: Rulemaking Hearings

ISF Rule 8i.(3) -Injury With 1Vlitigation
(Changes to July 2008 Draft shov~-n in bold)
September 8, 2008 Draft
ri~~ht(s } in accordance «~ith the priorit~:° s~•stem or j~-ith
Colorado ~;-ater la~~-.
(e~} To initiate C~~-CB staff re~-ie«~ of an injur~° ~=.-ith mitigation
proposal. the uroponent must pro~~ide the follo~~•in~
information in «-ritin~:

i_ Location of iniur~~ to ISF ~°ater right(s) (stream(s)
affected. len~Tth of affected reach(es));
ii Quantification of injur~° (amount. timing and
frequency-};
iii T~-pe of ~~-ater use that would cause i~ the injtln=;
i~ b' :~nal~°sis shc~~z~in~ «~h~- full ISF
protection is not possible;
~- Detailed description of the proposed miti~ation_
including all measures taken to reduce or minimizz
the injury-:
i Detailed description of ho~,~= the propvserl miti~~ation
~;-ilI enable the Board to c~~ntinue to preser~-e or
impro~-e the natural en~-ironment of the affected
stream to a reasonable degree in spite of the injurti•;
-ii Identification and feasibility- anal~-sis of all other
alten~ati~°es considered, including discussion of
e111,-11"t~iunental and economic benefits and
e-onsequences of each alternati~-e; and
~ iii ~ discussion of the reasonableness cf each
alternatit-e Conside~-e-d.
tfI after receipt and rep-iec~~ o f the re~quireti information, staff
:~ ill consult «-it11 the DOt~' and ~~-ith the entit~° that
oriainall~~ recommended the affected ISF t~•ater rights(s) (if
other than DO«'1 tc~ determine tz-hether additional field
t•orli i5 nzcessar~- and to identify and- scheduling concerns.
Staff t~-i11 request a recommendation from the D~~'t' as to
~1-11ether the proposed mitigation ~~-i11 enable the Board to
Continue to presel-~-e or impro~=e thz natural en~-ir~~lunznt of
the affected stream tt~ a reasonable degl-ee in spite of the
injury-. including a discussion of the reasonableness of the
alternati~-es Considered.
(~ i Prior to bringing the proposal to the Board for prelilninar~=
consideration. staff ~~~i11 consult E.-ith the Di~-ision of t~`ater
•
Resources on ~~-hether the proposal «-ould result in the
Dig-ision of ~~'ater Resources being unable to properlti=
administer the affected ISF ~,~°ater 1-ight(5} in accordance
~.-ith the priority- s~°stem or ~,~-ith Colorado tt-ater la~~-.