Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />HATCHERY FEASIBILI'IY STUDY <br /> <br />STUDY CONCLUSIONS <br /> <br />· A major difference between sites is whether warm ground water, cold ground water, <br />or surface water is available. <br /> <br />· The type of water supply and the water temperature significantly affect land area <br />requirements, facility layout and ultimately construction and operation costs. <br /> <br />· Development costs are significantly affected by the number of fish produced and <br />whether a total recovery facility or only a core facility is built. <br /> <br />· This feasibility study should be the basis for discussion between the State of <br />Colorado, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other Recovery Program <br />participants on the following issues: <br /> <br /> a. <br />. b. <br /> c. <br /> d. <br /> e. <br /> f. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Should an endangered fish hatchery/recovery facility be built? <br /> <br />Where in Colorado should such a facility be located? <br /> <br />What components should such a facility include? <br /> <br />How should such a facility be funded? <br /> <br />Who should operate the facility? <br /> <br />If a decision is made to proceed with the development of a hatchery/recovery <br />facility in Colorado, the screening criteria and assumptions of culture <br />techniques, fish production numbers and other design factors need to be re- <br />evaluated and finalized. <br />