WSP09644 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DRAFT SECTION 2 - DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS OF AL TERNA TIVES The development and analysis of alternatives was conducted in a three-step process beginning with a reconnaissance study, completed in September 1993, by the firm of URS Consultants, Inc. This study analyzed 16 potential sites for an endangered fish recovery facility. Following completion of the reconnaissance study, two additional sites were identified and analyzed using the same evaluation factors as those in the reconnaissance study. One of those additional sites, the Chiles Farms property, was selected as the best candidate for the facility and in November 1996, the firm of FishPro, Inc. completed a conceptual design report for a NASF specific to the Chiles site. The scope and purpose of the project was changed in the 1996 study from a facility primarily for federally- classified endangered fish to a facility capable of rearing all native aquatic species in Colorado which may be declining, threatened or endangered. The following paragraphs outline the process leading to a preliminary design and cost estimate for a NASF at the Chiles Farms site. 1993 Reconnaissance Study In 1989, the Colorado Legislature authorized the CWCB to prepare a study of fish culture techniques and fish hatchery construction and operation for the propagation, in Colorado, of the four endangered fish of the Upper Colorado River Basin. The study addressed primarily biological and technical design issues for a facility. A team of consulting engineers and biologists and a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) performed the study. The TAC was responsible for overall direction ofthe study and was composed of representatives from the CWCB, the CDOW, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The consultant team consisted ofURS Consultants, Inc.; FishPro, Inc.; Bio/West, Inc.; and Leonard Rice Consulting Water Engineers. The T AC and the consultant team compiled an initial list of 33 potential sites throughout the state for a recovery facility. Site selection and screening criteria were developed for the 33 sites. Due to incomplete or unavailable data, however, a numerical rating system could not be applied. Each of the sites was therefore evaluated objectively by the T AC and the consultant team and the 33 initial sites were screened to 16 for more detailed analysis. A set of six evaluation factors was used to analyze the alternative sites: water sources; water quality, including temperature; site physical factors; biological considerations; location factors; and probable cost. The evaluation factors were weighted with the highest 2~1