Laserfiche WebLink
<br />09/11/92 <br /> <br />.46 <br /> <br />URS CONSULTANT D~NUE~ <br />001815 :. <br /> <br />004 <br /> <br />HATCHERY FEASIBILITY STUD,Yi <br /> <br />STUDY CONCLUSIONS <br /> <br />· The results of the site evaluation Indicate that many pf the 16 sites In the final / <br />evaluation can be developed into an endangered fish patchery Irecovery facility. <br /> <br />A major difference between sites is whether warm ground water. cold ground <br />water, or surface water is available. . <br /> <br />"" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The type of water supply and the water temperature significantly affect land area <br />requirements, facility layout and ultimately const.ructjo~Rost&. _. ~ O-.~ ' <br />~~ 0 (U')~ '-'-'~ <br />Development costs are significantly affected by the nutnber of fish prOduced and <br />whethe~ a total recovery facility or only a core facility is built. <br /> <br />This feasibility study should be the basis for dlscus$lon between the State of <br />Colorado, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and lother Recovery Program <br />participants on the following Issues: ' <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />a. <br /> <br />Should an endangered fish hatchery {recovery ~acllity be built? <br />Where in Colorado should such a facility be loqated? <br />What components should such a facility Includ,? <br /> <br />b. <br /> <br />c. <br /> <br />d. <br /> <br />~ <br />A~~ <br />Who should operate the facility?, (9--~L <br /> <br />If a decision is made to proceed with the deyelopment of a hatcher0n <br />Colorado, the screening criteria and assumptlon~ of culture techniques. fish <br />production numbers need to be re-evaluated a~d finalized. <br />1\. - i <br />~o~~~~ , <br /> <br />How should such a facility be funded? <br /> <br />e. <br /> <br />f. <br /> <br />~ <br />