BOARD01821 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 in tioth more and higher quality habitat for aquatic life so the condition of the habitat i~ better than conditions that existed when the CWCB initially appropriated miniml1m stream flows, 3) Improvements to the South Fork ofthe 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 and a significant benefit to the fishery, 4) The development ofthe 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) of 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, 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 curtailment was unacceptable because it needed a year-round refreshing flow into the Upper Meadow Ponds to maintain fish habitat in the ponds, The Staff concurs that a year round refreshing flow may be necessary to ensure that oxygen levels remain at acceptable levels for fish survival through the winter. This led to a discussion ofIrliury Accepted With Mitil?ation. Pursuant to Rule 9.43 of the CWCB's Rules and Regulations, the CWCB may accept a proposal for Irliury Acce.pted with Mitigation, The Applicant's Engineer, George Fosha, provided the following in support of a request for Injury Acct;pted with Miti gation: 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 fish hal)itat of the Little Snake River watershed, i Pursuant to Rule 9.43, Injury Accepted with Mitigation is a two-meeting process, The first meeting in this process was conducted at the Board'~ July 2001 meeting in Montrose, At the July Board meeting, the Board: 1) Made the preliminary determination that "the natural environment could be preserved to a reasonable degree with the proposed ip,jury or interference if applicant provided mitigation," and ' 2) Recommended that the Applicant amend the proposed stipulation before bringing a final proposal to the Board, . 2