Administrative Record 23-30

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

S I ii. Benefits cf the mitigation to the natural environment:
1. The nature and extent of the benefts the mitigation will provide to the
existing natural environment of the affected stream:
1. The scientific justification for accepting the mitigation; and
Whether the mitigation will enable the Board to continue to preserve or
improve the natural environment of the subject stream to a reasonable
degree.
~ i Evaluation of proposed alternatives. This evaluation applies both to alternatives explored
_
tc proytide tali protection of the potentially affected 1SF water right, and to mitigation
al_ernatitres:
i. Availabilii~~ of on-site mitigation alternatives;
ii. Technical feasibility of each altemative;
iii. Environmental benefits and consequences of each alternative:
il;'. Economic benefits and consequences of each altemative:
v. Reascnableness of alternatives; and
t.= For rni~igation alternatives. whether the mitigation a°ras or will be Rut in place to
sa~isfiy a requirement or need unrelated to the Injury with Mitigation proposal.
-
"°
-
"
r ` ,~,
,i ~
off-
~~ ;
n n different reach of stream or another stream
. t ne Boa,g Y,~„ consider m.t~gat~o o a t
1
sites mit~gatior•~ i as a last resort and will only consider mitigation in an area other than the
affected stream reach if no reasonable alternative exists for mitigation on the affected
stream reach The Board only will consider off-site mitigation on streams} located in the
same drainage a~ the affected stream. Factors that the Board may consider in looking at
such a proposal include but are not limited to. the degree and frequency of impact to the
affected scream- the en°dironmental benefits provided to the off-site stream by the
mitigation ~•rhether the proposal could in effect. constitute a modification of the ISF water
righ* cn the affects stream er whether the proposal mould result in the Division of Water
Resources being ur'ab~e to administer the affected 1SF water rights} in accordance with
the-priorit~r system or Yndith Colorado water la~~~.
il; Stipu~ations and avater court decrees that incorporate Injury with Mitigation shall include.
but not be limited to inclusion cf. the followinc terms and conditions:
i it provision that the proponent wilt not divert water or take any other action that
would reduce flows in the affected stream below the decreed ISF amount until
the agreed-upon mitigation measures are in place and fully operational:
ii A requirement that the structural components of the mitigation be maintained
perrrmanentl
iii A prop=Sinn allowing C1Pr'CB or DOW` staff access to the property on which
s~ructural ~ompenents e# the mitigation are located to inspect the structures at
certain time internals and. if necessary, tc perform biological stream monitoring.
This r~rov~son steal: clearly define the reasonable nature. extent and timing of