Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />- 3 - <br /> <br />information or for changes to the proposal. Staff will work with the proponent and <br />interested parties on finalizing the proposal and bring it back to the Board for final action <br />at a subsequent Board meeting. <br /> <br />4. Factors the Board May Consider in Evaluating Proposed Mitigation <br /> <br />The Subcommittee recommends that the Board consider the factors set forth below when <br />evaluating Injury with Mitigation proposals, with the following caveats: Because injury with <br />mitigation proposals may involve unique factual situations, the Board may wish to consider <br />additional factors in specific cases. Further, evaluation of each Injury with Mitigation proposal <br />will require the exercise of professional judgment regarding the specific facts of the proposal. <br /> <br />a. Extent ofthe proposed injury <br /> <br />1) Location of injury - affected stream( s) and length of affected reach( es) <br />2) Amount, timing and frequency of shortage(s) to the affected ISF water right(s) <br /> <br />b. Benefits ofthe'mitigation to the natural environment <br /> <br />1) How does the mitigation benefit the existing natural environment of the affected <br />stream? <br />2) What is the scientific justification for accepting the mitigation? <br />3) Will the mitigation enable the Board to continue to preserve or improve the natural <br />environment of the subject stream to a reasonable degree? <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />c. Evaluation of proposed alternatives. This evaluation applies both to alternatives <br />explored to provide full protection of the potentially affected ISF water right, and to <br />mitigation alternatives <br /> <br />1 ) Availability of on-site mitigation alternatives <br />2) Technical feasibility of each alternative <br />3) Environmental benefits and consequences of each alternative <br />4) Economic benefits and consequences of each alternative <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />5. Terms and Conditions to Be Included in Injury with Mitigation Case <br />Resolutions <br /> <br />The Subcommittee recommends that the Board direct Staff to use its best efforts to include <br />the following terms and conditions in stipulations and water court decrees that document an <br />Injury with Mitigation pretrial resolution. <br /> <br />a. A provision that the proponent will not divert water or take any other action that would <br />reduce flows in the affected stream below the decreed ISF amount until the agreed-upon <br />mitigation measures are in place and fully operational. <br />b. A requirement that the structural components of the mitigation be maintained <br />permanently. <br />c. A provision allowing CWCB or DOW staff access to the property on which structural <br />components of the mitigation are located to inspect the structures at certain time intervals. <br />d. A term providing that if the proponent ceases to provide the agreed upon mitigation (such <br />as removing structural components or failing to maintain them to a specified level, or <br />ceasing to implement non-structural components), that the proponent will not divert water <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />