Laserfiche WebLink
<br />cJ) <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />, 001879 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />The information and data collected from these sources was assembled into five work <br />products designed to document and provide ease in access to the available information. <br />These work products include: <br /> <br />1) an alphabetized list and annotated bibliography of pertinent literature. One <br />hundred published references were cited; <br />2) a catalogued library of pertinent literature; <br />3) a file of personal communicatior:'ls with key fish cu/turists. Seventy three people <br />were interviewed; <br />4) a computerized data retrieval system with key culture data and subject issues ; <br />and, ~ <br />5) a study report which ~hlights pertinent informa~ion. _ _ JL -z; <br />~.-..'^"-~ \'1.~ fl""~ . <br />BIOLOGICAL DESIGN AND CULTURE TECHNIQUES <br /> <br />The purpose of this study task was to evaluate. factors to be used as specific design <br />criteria for a fisheries facility capable of providing for the propagation, research, refugia <br />and broodstock facilities for the four endangered fish species. The hatchery design <br />criteria were developed through analysis of the following: <br /> <br />1) agency and project team consultation; <br />2) interpretation and ase of the. study task report on available literature and <br />information; ~~ <br />3) development of a hatchery simulation model to predict preliminary siting and f, <br />design criteria; <br />4) compilation of known and suspected fish diseases for each of the target <br />and related species; and, <br />5) integration of prior experience on fishery facility design and utilizing <br />concepts to provide state-of-the-art methodologies for creating a fully <br />integrated facil~.~-ko..Q <br /> <br />SITE IDENTIFICATION AND ;CREENING <br /> <br />The original list of potential hatchery sites developed by the T AC consisted of 33 sites <br />located throughout the state. These 33 sites are listed in Table 1. Fifteen additional sites <br />were evaluated by the T AC but were determined to not be feasible and were not included <br />in the Study. An information request form was mailed to each of the contacts for the 33 <br />sites. The data sheets contained questions requesting information such as available <br />water sources; flow rates; water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved solids <br />and pH; water rights information; description of land and improvements; potential hazards <br />such as flooding and availability of community services. Completed data sheets were <br />returned to the~B for evaluation. <br /> <br />~rr~ <br /> <br />CWC81.ES <br /> <br />2 <br />