Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001823 <br /> <br />1219/11/92 <br /> <br />URS CONSULT~NT DENVER <br />ie <br /> <br />12111 <br /> <br />.5121 <br />C; ~C\lQCt k" <br />nJNjl.~. ' -., pj,.:.../ <br />/ ~ - Vvv'V--- ,t <br />'I <br />!' : <br />Ii .. : <br /> <br />pOPulatlqfl.. levels. This problem is compounded because the ~aclllty will be ~eCelvJng and <br />releaslng},Jlsh from multiple sources and watersheds.tnat maY--be--ienetically. -unique. <br />These fa~rs necessitate that all practical measures are take~ to protect fish health and <br />guard against disease outbreaks and transfer among varlO~S populations. Potential <br />disease threats to each of the four species have been revlewe~ so that features which will <br />minimize the threats to fish health can be incorporated In the fc4cllity design. Other design <br />characteristics which must be emphasized due to the unique c~aracter of endangered fish <br />species culture are methods which will minimize or eliminate predation, escapement and <br />theft or vandalism. Genetic segregation as well as the quality and quantity of water <br />available have been given high priority with a resulting mark~d Influence on design. <br />eu......l....'" l~ ! <br />~The purposes of t e proposed hatchery, broodstock and ~fu9la holding .facillty and <br />research facility, referred to as the recpvery! facility, are to meet the X <br />endangered fish recovery goals of propagation of endanger+d fishes. augmentation of <br />~ . native populations, refugia and broodstock holding and to pr~vide facilities for research. <br />During the initial development of the scope of work, the CVi'CB staff selected, for the <br />purposes of this study, a range of hatchery production goal$ for each species. These <br />production scenarios, for each species, are as follows: Sc~nario 1 - 150,000 fish per <br />year, Scenario 2 - 300,000 fish per year and Scenario 3 - 60~,Ooo fish per year. These <br />production goals were estimated to meet the needs of both ~ugmentation and research <br />and were selected because there was no firm estimate of the! number of fish needed for <br />the recovery program. : <br /> <br />The original scope of the design phase of the study was to iprepare a recovery facility <br />design for each of the three highest ranked sites. this design poncept was later modified <br />because the three Sites with the highest rankings were all slm"~r sites locat~d In the same <br />geographic region, the San Luis Valley of the Rio Grande Ba~in, which is outside of the <br />native habitat of the four endangered fish. The high ranklngs for these sites resulted <br />primarily from availability of naturally occurring high tery,perature (700 to 1180F) <br />groundwater. that is preferred for spawning and growth a~d offers a significant cost <br />advantage over heating a cold water supply. To provide for greater flexibility In the <br />ultimate selection of a hatchery site, the CWCB Staff, with agr.ement of the TAC, d,cided <br />to prepare feasibility level designs f9r each of the for three typ~s of water sources: warm <br />groundwater, cold groundwater and surface water. ' <br /> <br />The three different production quantities of 150,000, 300,000, and 600,000 fish of each <br />species as specified by the scope of work were considered fQr each of the water supply <br />types. A total of nine design scenarios were developed, including an estimation of <br />construction and operation and maintenance costs. The de~lgn effort was focused on <br />the 300,000 fish production scenario, with extrapolation of d~sign and cost Information <br />to the 150,000 and 600,000 production scenarios. : <br /> <br />Standardization of the design of the production units was dO:ne as much as possible to <br />allow flexibility in production quotas for each of the four specief;. This flexibility would also <br /> <br />if? <br />