PROJ00252

• Contract/PO #: C150028
• Contractor Name: Colorado Division of Wildlife
• Contract Type: Grant
• Water District: 0
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I

SECTION 2 - DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS OF AL TERNA TlVES

Introduction

The development and analysis of alternatives for the Native Aquatic Species Restoration
Facility began with a reconnaissance study by the firm ofURS Consultants, Inc. in
September 1993. The URS study analyzed 16 potential sites for an endangered fish
recovery facility. Following completion of the reconnaissance study, two additional sites
were identified and analyzed using the same evaluation factors as those in the
reconnaissance study.

One of those additional sites, the Chiles Farms property, was selected as the best
candidate for the facility and in November 1996, the firm of FishPro, Inc. completed a
conceptual design report for a NASRF specific to the Chiles site, The scope and purpose
ofthe project was changed in the 1996 study from a facility primarily for federally-
classified endangered fish to a facility capable ofrearing all native aquatic species in
Colorado which may be declining, threatened or endangered.

In June 1998, CDOW contracted with FishPro for the final design of a facility somewhat
different than that proposed in the 1996 conceptual design report. The design work was
substantially complete in May 1999.

The following paragraphs describe the process leading to the final design for a Native
Aquatic Species Restoration Facility at the Chiles Farms site,

1993 Reconnaissance Study

In 1989, the Colorado Legislature authorized the CWCB to prepare a study offish culture
techniques and fish hatchery construction and operation for the propagation, in Colorado,
ofthe four endangered fish of the Upper Colorado River Basin. The study addressed
primarily biological and technical design issues for a facility.

A team of consulting engineers and biologists and a Technical Advisory Committee
(T AC) performed the study. The T AC was responsible for overall direction of the study
and was composed of representatives from the CWCB, the CDOW, and the US Fish and
Wildlife Service. The consultant team consisted ofURS Consultants, Inc.; FishPro, Inc,;
Bio/West, Inc, and Leonard Rice Consulting Water Engineers,

The T AC and the consultant team compiled an initial list of 33 potential sites throughout
the state for a recovery facility, Site selection and screening criteria were developed for
the 33 sites. Due to incomplete or unavailable data, however, a numerical rating system
could not be applied, Each of the sites was therefore evaluated objectively by the TAC
and the consultant team and the 33 initial sites were screened to 16 for more detailed
analysis,

2-1