7315 ‎(2)‎

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7315
• Author: Colorado Water Conservation Board.
• Title: State of Colorado Hatchery Feasibility Study for Endangered Fishes of the Colorado River Basin, Vols. 1 & 2.
• USFW Year: 1993.
• USFW - Doc Type: \
• Copyright Material: NO

.

.

.

TABLE 1

SnIDY SITE UST FOLLOWING THE INITIAL SCREENING

Site ID
Number

Site N aIDe and Location

1. Glenwood Desalinization Facility (near Glenwood Springs, CO)
2. CO-Ute Plant/CIRG Site (near Craig, CO)
6. Rifle Falls SFH (near Rifle, CO)
8. Clines Fish Hatchery (Monte Vista, CO)
9. Putnam Fish Hatchery (Durango, CO)
10. Silver Springs Trout Farm (Montrose, CO)
11. McMillan's Trout Farm (Hotchkiss, CO)
15. Crystal Properties (near Hooper, CO)
16. Horsethief Site (near Grand Junction, CO)
18. Walter Walker State Wildlife Area (Grand Junction, CO)
23. Rangeview Trout Ranch (Saguache, CO)
24. Crystal Springs Ranch and Trout Farm (near Hotchkiss, CO)
25. Russell Lakes SWA (Saguache, CO)
26. Closed Basin Project (near San Luis Lake, CO)
28. Wastewater Treatment Plant (near Craig, CO)
32. Grand Junction Site #1 (Summerville Ranch, CO)

SITE EV ALUA nON AND FINAL SCREENING

The purpose of the site evaluation task was to screen the 16 sites listed in Table 1 to the
three highest ranking sites for which feasibility level hatchery/recovery facility designs would
be developed in a later task. As with the initial site screening task, the site evaluation and
screening criteria used for evaluating these remaining 16 sites was based on input from the
T AC and Consultant Study Team. The following screening methodology was used:

· Each of the potential sites was visited to confirm and supplement site information
gathered from the information request forms and other sources.

· More detailed site criteria were developed in the areas of water supply, water
temperature and water quality, site physical factors, biological considerations, site
location factors and estimated construction and operation costs.

· A system was developed for evaluating and rating each of the potential sites against
technical criteria. The sites were then ranked based on the evaluation results.

4