AG Opinion

• Year: 2009
• Instream Flow Rules - Doc Type: Post Rulemaking Documents

iii. Type of water use that would cause the injury;
iv. Analysis showing why full ISF or NLL protection is not possible;
v. Detailed description of the proposed mitigation, including all measures taken to
reduce or minimize the injury:
vi. Detailed description of how the proposed mitigation will enable the Board to
continue to preserve or improve the natural environment of the affected stream of
lake to a reasonable degree despite the injury;
vii. Identification and feasibility analysis of: (1) all water supply alternatives
considered by the proponent in the context of this proposal: (2) all alternatives
evaluated by the proponent to fully protect the potentially affected ISF or NLL
water right. but rejected as infeasible: and (3) all alternatives evaluated by the
proponent and designed to mitigate the injury to or interference with the affected
ISF or NLL water right. This information shaft address the environmental and
economic benefits and consequences of each alternative: and
viii. A discussion of the reasonableness of each alternative considered.
(f, After receipt and review of the required information: staff will consult v~rith the DOW and
~~•ith the entity that originally recommended the affected ISF or NLL water rightsis) (if
ocher than DO~~'V) to determine ~~rhether additional field work is necessary and to identify
any sch~dufing concerns. Staff v/ill request a recommendation from the DOW as to
~~ Nether €he proposed mitigation ~r!~ill enable the Board to continue to preserve or improve
the natural environment of the affected stream or lake to a reasonable degree despite the
injury, including a discussion of the reasonableness of the alternatives considered.
C~NCB staff ~^rill use best efforts to consult ~,nrith affected land o~,~rners and managers
regarding the proposal.
(g) Prior to bringing the proposal to the Board for preliminary consideration. staff will consult
~°r ith the Division of `JVater Resources on whether the proposal ~,vould result in the Division
of •Nater Resources being unable to administer the affected ISF or NLL water right(s) in
accordance with the priority system or with Colorado water law.
(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
proposa! 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
finalize the proposal and bring it back to the Board for final action at a subsequent Board
meeting.
(i} The Board will consider the following factors when evaluating Injury with Mitigation
proposals. Because Injury with Mitigation proposals may involve unique factual situations.
the Board may consider additional factors in specific cases. Further, evaluation of each
Injury with Mitigation proposal will require the exercise of professional judgment regarding
the specific facts of the proposal.
Extent of the proposed injury:
Location of injury -affected stream(s) or lake and length of affected
reach(es);