PROJ00404 ‎(2)‎

• Contract/PO #: C150091
• Contractor Name: Silver Springs Trout Farm, Inc. & Daniel A. & Jacqueline P. Sherwood Trust
• Contract Type: Loan
• Water District: 41
• County: Mesa
• Bill Number: HB 02-1152
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Approval Letter

Silver Springs Trout Farm I ShelWood Trust Agenda Item 22a.
November 19-20, 2001 (Updated November 26, 2001)

required to avoid the recurrence of whirling disease. The feasibility study was completed by John
Van Sciver in accordance with CWCB guidelines and includes an assessment of alternatives
available for rehabilitation of the Silver Springs Trout Farm hatchery,

The Silver Sprinqs Trout Farm I Sherwood Trust
The Silver Springs Trout Farm, Inc. is a commercial fish hatchery owned and operated by the
Sherwood family trust, Daniel and Jacqueline Sherwood Trustees, and registered with the
Colorado Secretary of State. The purpose of the Corporation is "to engage in the business of
raising, marketing and selling trout and aI/ other lawful activities". The Company and the Trust
have the power to take on debt and to pledge collateral for that debt. The Trust owns the
property that will be collateral for the loan. Neither of these entities is subject to TABOR

Water Riqhts
The SSTF I ST owns direct flow water rights in amount of 15.85 cfs, from springs and ditches
above the hatchery, as described in Table 1:

Table 1: Water rights owned by the Silver Springs Trout Farm I Sherwood Trust

Priority # Uses C.F.S.
#243 RD. Corev Coliection line Fish culture 5.00
#244 RD. Corey Feeder line #7 Fish culture 2.50
#245 RD. Corev Feeder line #8 Fish cuiture 5.00
#229 RD. Corey Collection line I rriqation/piscatorial 2.00
#230 RD. Corev Feeder line #7 Irriqation/piscatorial 1.00
#231 (RD. Corey Domestic pipeline) Domestic/stock 0.02
#1 11/3 Interest in Bancroft Ditch) 0.33
Total 15.85

These water rights are non-consumptive and used for the purpose of raising fish.

Project Description
Three alternatives were analyzed in the feasibility study:

1. No Action
2. Reconstruction of the hatchery raceways ($350,000)
3. Reconstruction of the hatchery, including raceways, source water collection, and
predator control ($408,000 estimated)

Alternative 2, Reconstruction of the hatchery raceways, is critical to elimination of whirling
disease from the facility. The new concrete raceways are designed so that they can be easily
and frequently cleaned to eliminate M. cerebralis spores before they can Infect the trout. This
work has been completed and is operating successfully. However, additional work is needed to
protect and improve the source water collection system and to provide predator control.
Alternative 3, Reconstruction of the hatchery, including raceways, source water col/ection, and
predator control was the aiternative with the least overall cost that provided the best defense
against recurrence of whirling disease. The source water system needs to be rebuilt so that it is
protected from surface contamination that might Include whirling disease. Predator controi
consists of screening to keep birds, raccoons and other animals from entering the hatchery
raceways and/or eating the fish. These wild animals cost the hatchery money in terms of lost
fish production, and are a possible source of M. cerebralis spores. This alternative is
considered the preferred alternative. The no-action alternative was considered unacceptable
since It means the hatchery would be unable to operate.

2