My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP12584
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
WSP12584
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:16:40 PM
Creation date
8/1/2007 2:14:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.21
Description
Colorado River Basin Threatened and Endangered Species - UCRBRIP - Hatchery Facilities
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
9/1/1992
Author
CWCB
Title
State of Colorado Hatchery Feasibility Study for Endangered Fishes of the Colorado River Basin - Edited Drafts-With Status of Study Tasks and Schedules - 09-01-92
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
101
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />1219/11/92 <br /> <br />148 <br /> <br />URS CONSULTANT DENUER <br />i e. <br /> <br />12107 <br /> <br />001818 <br /> <br />4) compilation of known and suspected fish diseases for ~ach of the endangered and <br />related species; and, i c.d'i('~;,~ -f <br />5) integration of prior experience on fishery facility deslg:n and wtm2lA, concepts to )4. <br />provide state~of-the-art methodologies for creating a fully integrate~acility. <br /> <br />SITE IDENTIFICATION AND INITIAL SCREENING i r~ <br /> <br />The TAC and the Consultant Team complied 'a list of 33 potenlial sites located throughout <br />the state. The 33 sites inCluded existing hQlChery facilities a~d other undeveloped sites <br />that had certain potential for recovery facility development. ~lfteen additional sites were / <br />evaluated by the T AC but were determined to not be feasibl~ and were not Included In <br />~~~ i <br /> <br />An information request form was mailed to each of the contacts for the 33 sites.. <br />Information such as available water sources; flow rates; waterjquality parameters such as <br />temperature, dissolved solids and pH; water rights informati~>n; description of land and /' <br />improvements; potential hazards such as flooding and availa~lIity of community services <br />for each site were requested. Development of the Inform~tlon request form and site <br />screening methodology w~s based upon technical iss~es related to biological, <br />engineering and operational considerations. ' <br /> <br />The general site selection criteria and screening factors wer~: water source, flow rate, <br />water quality. site physical charaCteristics. biological conSider~ions, locatlonal factors. and <br />the estimated cost range of construction, operation and maintenance for a h$tchery <br />facility. i <br /> <br />Originally t the initial screening methodology was to be ba,sed on a numerical rating <br />system applied to each of the general site selection criteria fac~ors described above, using ____ <br />the data obtained from the information request form~ and other independent <br />investigations. Due to Incomplete or unavailable data. appllc~tlon of the numerical rating <br />criteria for site screening was not feaSible. Therefore, each :Of the sites was Objectively <br />reviewed and evaluated by the Consultant Team and the T AQ, and, based on the relative <br />rating of the site selection criteria, the Initial 33 sites were screened to 16. and are listed <br />in Table 1. A brief d.escription of the 16 potential sites is provided at the end of this <br />~~~ i <br /> <br />,,~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.