My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ00404
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
PROJ00404
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:22:24 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:53:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C150091
Contractor Name
Silver Springs Trout Farm, Inc. & Daniel A. & Jacqueline P. Sherwood Trust
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
41
County
Mesa
Bill Number
HB 02-1152
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
134
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Silver SprIngs Trout Farm ( Sherwood Trust <br />November 19-20, 2001 <br /> <br />Agenda Item 22a. <br /> <br />Van Sciver in accordance with CWCB guidelines and includes an assessment of alternatives <br />available for rehabilitation of the Silver Springs Trout Farm hatchery. <br /> <br />The Silver SprinQs Trout Farm / Sherwood Trust <br />The Silver Springs Trout Farm, Inc. is a commercial fish 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 seiling trout and all other lawful activities". The Company and the Trust <br />have the power to take on debt and to pledge collateral for that debt. The Trust owns the <br />property that will be collateral for the loan. Neither of these entities is subject to TABOR <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 />Priority # Uses C.F.S. <br />#243 (RD. Corev Collection line Fish culture 5.00 <br />#244 RD. Corev Feeder line #7 Fish culture 2.50 <br />#245 RD. Corey Feeder line #8) Fish culture 5.00 <br />#229 RD. Corey Collection line) I rriqation/piscatorial 2.00 <br />#230 RD. Corev Feeder line #7) I rriqation/piscatorial 1.00 <br />#231 (RD. Corev Domestic pipeline) Domestic/stock 0.02 <br />#1 (1/3 Interest in Bancroft Ditch) 0.33 <br />Total 15.85 <br /> <br />These water rights are non-consumptive and used for the purpose of raising fish. <br /> <br />Proiect Description <br />Three alternatives were analyzed in the feasibility study: <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 />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 />agaiflSt-reetlrrenee-of-whirHng-disease-:--'fh-e-suurce-waler system needs to be rebUilt so mat It IS --- <br />protected from surface contamination that might include whirling disease. Predator control <br />consists of screening to keep birds, raccoons and other animals from entering the hatchery <br />raceways and/or eating the fish. These wild animals cost the hatchery money in terms of lost <br />fish production, and are a possible source of M. cerebralis 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 />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.