Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />I <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br /> <br />Sliver Springs Trout Farm I Sherwood Trust <br />November 19.20, 2001 <br /> <br />Agenda Item 22.. <br /> <br />Van Sciver in accordance with CWCS guidelines and includes an assessment of aiternatives <br />available for rehabilitation of the Silver Springs Trout Farm hatchery. . <br /> <br />The Silver Sprinas Trout Farm I Sherwood Trust <br />The Silver Springs Trout Farm, Inc. is a commercial fis~ hatchery owned and operated by the <br />Sherwood family trust, Daniel and Jacqueline Sherwood Trustees, and registered with the <br />Colorado Secretary of State. The purpose of the Corporation is "to engage in the business of <br />raising, marketing and selling trout and all other lawful activities". The Company and the Trust <br />have the power to take on debt and to pledge collaterai for that debt. The Trust owns the <br />property that will be collateral for the loan. Neither of th'ese entities is subject to T ASOR. <br /> <br />Water Riahts <br />The SSTF / ST owns direct flow water rights in amount of 15.85 cfs, from springs and ditches <br />above the hatchery, as described in Table 1: ' <br /> <br />Table 1: Water rights owned by the Silver Springs Trout Farm / Sherwood Trust <br /> <br /> <br />C.F.S. <br />5.00 <br />2.50 <br />5.00 <br />2.00 <br />1.00 <br />0.02 <br />0.33 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Proiect Description <br />Three alternatives were analyzed in the feasibility study: <br />) <br /> <br />1. No Action <br />2. Reconstruction of the hatchery raceways ($350,000) <br />3. Reconstruction of the hatchery, including raceways, source water collection, and <br />predator control ($408,000 estimated) <br /> <br />, <br />Alternative 2, Reconstruction of the hatchery raceways, is critical to elimination of whirling <br />disease from the facility. The new concrete raceways are designed so that they can be easily <br />and frequently cleaned to eliminate M. cerebralis spores before they can infect the trout. This <br />work has been completed and is operating successfully. However, additional work is needed to <br />protect and improve the source water collection system and to provide predator control. <br />Alternative 3, Reconstruction of the hatchery, including raceways, source water collection, and <br />predator control was the alternative with the least overall cost that provided the best defense <br />against recurrence of Whirling disease. The source;water system needs to be rebuilt so that it is <br />protected from surface contamination that might in~lude whirling disease. Predator control <br />consists of screening to keep birds, raccoons and ~ther animals from entering the hatchery <br />raceways and/or eating the fish. These wild animal's cost the hatchery money in terms of lost <br />fish production, and are a possible source of M. c~rebralis spores. This alternative is <br />considered the preferred alternative. The no-action alternative was considered unacceptable . <br />since it means the hatchery would be unable to operate. <br /> <br /> <br />2 <br />