Administrative Record 12-22

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

ISF Rule 8i.(3) -Injury With Mitigation
(Changes to July 2008 Draft shove n in bold)
September 8, 2008 Draft
the potentiail~,~ affected 1SF ~~-ater riUht. and to llliti~ation
alternati~-es:
i ~~=ailabilit~~ of on-site miti~~ation alternati~-es:
ii Technical feasibilit~~ of each alternati~-e:
iii En~-irolunental benefits and consequences of each
altelnati~-e:
1-i-i•i~- Economic belletit5 and consequences of each
altel7lati~-e:
~~- Reasonableness of alternati~-es: and
~=i F~~r Initiation alternati~-e5. ~t-hether the miti~atioll
«-as or ~z-ill be put in place to 5atisf~- a requirement
or need unrelated to the injure «-it11 mitigation
proposal.
•
~k~ The Board ~~~ill consider mitigation on a dilferznt reach of
stream or another stream t`'off--site mitigation-`) as a last
rzsol-t and ~~-i11 on1~- consider miti~iation in an area other
than the affected stream reach if no reasonable alternati~~e
exists for mitigation on the affected stream read:. The
Board onl~• ~~°ill consider off-site miti~~ation on stream(s)
located in the same draina~4e as the affected stream.
Factors that the Board ma~~ consider in lool;ill~ at such a
proposal include. but are not limited to. the de~Tree and
frequznc~- of Impact to the affected stream: t11e
ens,-ironlrental benefits provided to the off-site stream b~-
the mitigation: «-11ether the proposal could, in effect.
constitute a Illodiflcatlt~il of the ISF ~z•ater ri~llt on the
affected stream: car ~;~hether thz proposal could result in thz
Di~°ision of ~?4'ater Resources being unable to ~roperi~-
administer the affected ISF «-ater right(s) in accordance
«~ith the priol-it~= s~~stelll or «-it11 Colorado ~~-ater la~~-.
(1_) Stipulations and ~~°atel- court decrees that incorp~~rate injury=
~~-ith miti~atio n shall include. but not be limited to illclusit~n
of. t11e folio«=ink terms and conditions:
i _~ nro~-isit~n that the nrouollent ti~°ili not dig=ert e=ater
•
or take aII~- other action that «-ould reduce fl~~«-s in
the affected stream belolz- the decreed ISF amount
until the agreed-upon Ilutl~atlon measures are in
place and full= operational:
ii ~ requirement that the structural components of the
mitigation be maintained pennanentl~-;
iii ~ ~~ro~°i5ion allo~~°in~ Ct~~CB or D4~'~' staff access
to the propem~ on :~:•hich structural components of
4