7315 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. 4) development of a hatchery simulation model to predict preliminary siting and design criteria. The model uses hatchery production goals, water supply and water quality parameters to produce output information of water flow needs, required number of rearing ponds, feed volumes, and other facility requirements to meet specific production goals; compilation of known and suspected fIsh diseases for each of the endangered species and related species; and, integration of prior experience on fIshery facility design and utilization of concepts to provide state-of-the-art methodologies for creating a fully integrated recovery facility. SITE IDENTIFICA nON AND INmAL SCREENING 3) 5) . The TAC and the Consultant Team compiled a list of 33 potential recovery facility sites located throughout the state. The 33 sites included existing hatchery facilities and undeveloped sites that had potential for recovery facility development. An information request form was mailed to each of the contacts for the 33 sites. Site information was requested, including: available water sources; flow rates; water quality parameters for temperature, dissolved solids and pH; water rights information; description of land and improvements; potential hazards such as flooding and availability of community services. Development of the information request form and site screening methodology was based upon technical issues related to biological, engineering and operational considerations. Site selection criteria and screening factors were developed as the basis to review the 33 sites, and included: water source, flow rate, water quality, site physical characteristics, biological considerations, loeational factors, and the estimated cost range for construction, operation and maintenance for a hatchery facility. The initial screening methodology originally was intended to be based on a numerical rating system applied to each of the general site selection criteria factors described above, using the data obtained from the information request forms and other preliminary independent investigations. Due to incomplete or unavailable data, application of the numerical rating criteria for site screening was not feasible. Therefore, each of the sites was objectively reviewed and evaluated by the Consultant Team and the TAC, and, based on the relative rating with the site selection criteria, the initial 33 sites were screened to 16, and are listed in Table 1 and shown in Figure 1. The Site ID numbers included in the table were randomly assigned prior to the study and do not indieate any ranking of the sites. A brief description of tbe 16 potential sites is provided at the end of this Executive Summary. . 3