BOARD02156

• Board Meeting Date: 5/16/2006
• Description: ISF Section - ISF Subcommittee Recommendations
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

--;:::~

.

a. Staff Review. To initiate CWeB staff re,,'ie" of an Injury with Mitigation proposal. the proponent must
provide the following infonnation in writing:
I) Location of injury: (stream(s) affected. length of affected reach(es))
2) Quantification of injury (amount. timing and frequency)
3) Type of water use causing the injury
4) Hydrologic analysis showing "hy fulllSF protection is not possible
5) Detailed description of the propo~ mitigation. including any measures taken to reduce or minimize the
injury'
6) Statement of how the proposed mitigation will enable the Board to continue to preserve or impro\'e the
natural environment of the affected stream to a reasonable degn.'C in spite of the injury
7) Identification and feasibility analysis of any other altcmati..'es considered. including discussion of
environmental and economic ~nefits and consequences of each alternative
~~!~slon ufthe rca~Jabk!lC$S {)f~m;h a~matl\e Cllll~idcn..'4

b. DOW Consuhation. After receipt and review of the required infonnation. staff will consult w'ith the
OOW and with the entity that originally T\.'Commended the affected ISF water righlS(s) (if ()ther than DOW) to
detennine whether additional field work is necessaJ)' and to identify any sch(..-duling concerns. Staff will request
a recommendation from the OOW a.. to whether the proposed mitigation will enable the Board to continue to
preserve or improve the natural environment of the atl'ected stream to a reasonable degree in spite of the injury,
lIlcludlO~ a discusMun of Ih~_-.rt:.:l.SonablenC'~IJhc allem_3tl\c:, COllSldc:[~d.

.

4. Factors the Board May Consider in Evaluating Proposed Mitigation

The Subcommincc recommends that the Board consider the factors set forth below when evaluating Injul)!
with Mitigation proposals. with the following caveats: Because injuT)' with mitigation proposals may involve
unique factual situations. the Board may wish to cnnsidcr additional factors in specific ca<oes. Further.. evaluation
of each InjuT)' with Mitigation proposal will require the exercise of professional judgment regarding the specific
facts and reasonableness of the proposal.

a. Extent of the proposed injury
I) Location of injuf)' -- affccted strcam(s) and length of alTected reach(es)
2) Amount. timing and frequency of shortagl..>(s) to the affected ISF water right(s)
~Poll:nlial imp..;!'t to the..rE!.1!lDl.L~nvlrollment urtll\.." afli:,ted str~alJl..I\."a,h from SlJdl short~~

c. Evaluation of proposed alternatives. This evaluation applies both to altemati..'es explored to provide full
protection of the potentially affected ISF water right. and to mitigation alternatives

1) Availability of on.site mitigation alternatives
~) Technical feasibility of each altemath'c
3) Environmental benetiL~ and consequences of each alternative
4) Economic benefits and consequences of each alternative
51 Rea:'~lIlablefle~s of.3Jtt:'mall\C's

c. A provision allowing CWCR or OOW staffacc(..'Ss to the property on which structural
components orthe mitigation are located to insJk."Ct the structures at certain time intervals. and.lrll~l,:~ssar;'. to
p'crlunn bllllllgKal stream m\mit~mng._ll111U'ro\l:mm shall ckarh' ddine the rea:)~mable nature. e'\IC'n1 and
timine of sUl,;.l:1i!~!<.~s.s (I.e. advance notICe. dates. tlmc~t;~s(ln of acccss. c()\lrdmatloll With proPQ[!ent. and
IUl.;all~lIl alJ(t_m.!!le~ tIt' ag:_es:.),

.