BOARD01116

• Board Meeting Date: 7/23/2001
• Description: ISF Section - Injury with Mitigation: Three Forks Ranch - Case No. 6-00CW48
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Middle Fork Little Snake, 0.45 miles of the North Fork Little Snake, 6.90 miles of the South
Fork Little Snake and 1,90 miles of the Little Snake River.

.

Based on hydrologic analyses provided by the Applicant, it appears that staffs original proposal
would result in significant curtailment of the Applicant's water rights, The Applicant indicated
that curtaihnent was unacceptable because it needed a year-round refreshing flow into the Upper
Meadow Ponds to maintain fish habitat in the ponds. This led to a discussion of Iniury Accepted
With Mitigation. .

Pursuant to Rule 9.43 of the CWCB's Rules and Regulations, the CWCB may accept a proposal
for Iniurv Accepted with Mitigation, The Applicant's Engineer, George Fosha, provided the
follDwing in support of a request for Injury Accepted with Mitigation:
1) The habitat of the Middle Fork of the Little Snake River, in the segment proposed to
be depleted, was not of high quality prior to enhancement projects implemented by
Three Forks Ranch.
2) Channel improvements in the Middle Fork of the Little Snake River, in the segment
proposed to be depleted, have resulted i\1 both more and higher quality habitat for
aquatic life so the condition of the habitat is better than conditions that existed when
the CWCB initially developed minimum stream flows,
3) Improvements to the South Fork of the Little Snake River, the North Fork of the Little
Snake River, and the main stem of the Little Snake River have resulted in vast
improvements to the natUral environment
4) The development of the Upper Meadows.Ditch and Ponds have resulted in deep water .
habitat where none previously existed which should provide better over-wintering
conditions.
5) The quantity of new and rehabilitated habitat exceeds the total length (850 feet) oj-the
Middle Fork of the Little Snake River that would be depleted, and likely far exceeds
the amount of habitat that could potentially be affected,

Based on the site visit and the information provided by Mr. Fosha, the CWCB staff agrees that
this project provides a significant benefit to the fis1\. habitat of the Little Snake River watershed.
!
RECONSIDERATION OF RATIFICATION OF STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION
The staff was in the process of exploring the Iniurv Accented With Mitigation altemative when
the Applicant informed the staff that it had not received notice of the ratification process
pursuant to Rule 9.21. The Board ratified the S~atement of Opposition filed in this case at its
January 2001, meeting; however, the Applicant did not receive prior notification of the
ratification pursuant to Rule 9.21. Rule 9.21 provides:

i
Prior to ratification of a Statement of Opposition, the staff shall mail the applicant a copy
of the Board memorandum concerning the ratification and a copy of the agenda of the
meeting in which the ratification will be 6onsidered,

Rule 9.20 provides:

.

i
At a Board meeting following the filing pfthe Statement of Opposition, the staff shall

.1

2