My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00675
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00675
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:53:07 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:42:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
3/21/2006
Description
ISF Section - Instream Flow Subcommittee Recommendations
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />- 2- <br /> <br />appropriations in just a few water divisions simply because of the geographic location of BLM <br />lands. By addressing only one or two division per year, the BLM could be foreclosed from <br />participating in the ISF Program during those years that staff focuses on divisions where there <br />are no BLM lands. In addition, this approach could interfere with an entity's ISF protection <br />priorities. For example, the Division of Wildlife's (DOW) Species Conservation Plan may <br />require that sensitive or endangered species be protected across multiple divisions in any given <br />year. If DOW was prohibited from recommending a stream that was considered critical for <br />species conservation, it may not be able to rely on the ISF Program to help meet its objectives. <br />This would apply to all recommending entities and could hamper efforts that the state has been <br />making to get Federal agencies such as the USFS, BLM and USFWS to rely on the ISF Program <br />to accomplish water protection goals on federal lands. <br /> <br />In an attempt to address all of the above concerns, a flexible, basin-oriented rotating <br />schedule is proposed whereby staff will coordinate with the recommending agencies and identify <br />a maximum of two water divisions a year in which recommendations will be considered. <br />These two divisions would be identified at the February Workshop and considered by the Board <br />at its March meeting. Recognizing that the appropriation process may take multiple years to <br />address all of an entity's current needs in a given water division, it is conceivable that staff may <br />focus on those divisions for more than one year. <br /> <br />There is a possibility that a request for an ISF recommendation may be received that <br />does not fit within the established annual basin rotation schedule determined at the February <br />Workshop, or that does not fit within the established timeline for processing recornmendations. <br /> <br />In either case, the recommending entity will be required to provide staff with the <br />justification for requesting an expedited process for that particular recommendation. Staff will <br />evaluate the request based on criteria established by the ISF Subcommittee, and will recommend <br />to the Board whether to exempt the recommendation from the normal basin rotation schedule or <br />the normal processing timeline. ISF Rule 5c. allows the Board to modify or delay the new <br />appropriation schedule, or any part thereof, as it deems appropriate. If the Board denies the <br />request, the recommendation will be considered within the standard processing timeline or basin <br />rotation schedule for that particular water division. <br /> <br />Basin Rotation Criteria for an Expedited Process <br /> <br />In order to determine whether to allow for an expedited process for recommendations that do <br />not fit within the established annual basin rotation schedule or the established time line for <br />processing recommendations, staffwill evaluate each requested recommendation on a case by <br />case basis with regard to specific written evidence that clearly outlines and justifies the need. <br />Such evidence must be of a substantive nature and should include consideration of one or more <br />of the following criteria. Other extenuating circumstances or criteria not identified below may <br />also be presented to the staff. Staffwill in turn compile all of the evidence and/or other <br />extenuating circumstances involving the request for an expedited process and provide it to the <br />Board with a recommendation for its consideration. <br /> <br />I. The recommendation has broad public support. <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.