Laserfiche WebLink
<br />09/11/92 <br /> <br />146 <br /> <br />URS CONSULT~NT DENUER <br />- e <br />001816 <br /> <br />005 <br /> <br />HATCHERY FEASIBILITY STUDY <br />EXECUTIVE SUMMARY <br /> <br />INTRODUCTION <br /> <br />- - <br /> <br />In 1989, the Colorado Legislature authorized the Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />(CWCB) to prepare a feasibility study of fish culture tech~iques' and fish hatchery / <br />construction and operation for the propagation in Colorado, I of endangered fish of the <br />Upper Colorado river basin. The four endar'!gered species ate the Colorado squawflsh <br />(Ptychochellus luCIUS), humpback chub (GliB cyphB), bonyta'l chub (Gila elegans). and <br />razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). : <br /> <br />The purpose of this Executive Summary is to provide a ,brief qverview of the Final Report <br />of this study. The Final Report and technical appendices ~nclude more detailed site r <br />information as well as hatchery simulation model printouts, Qesign layouts and various <br />tabulations of design information and costs. ': <br /> <br />This study addresses only biological, technical and engineering design Issues. Economic, <br />social and philosophical issues related to the propagati:on and augmentation of <br />endangered fiSh populations are beyond the scope of this stu~. However, these Issues <br />shoUld be considered .In deciding whether ~endangered fi~h hatchery/shOUld be buRt ~. o. L <br />and where such a facIlity should be located. " ~! I (~~ {6~, 1 <br /> <br />The study evaluated sites in Colorado for a hatcheru4aclllty and Included a feasibility level <br />design that will aid the State of Colorado and the R'Jc~very PrQgram In determining where <br />a site should be located and what Its construction and operatl~n costs will be. This study <br />Is a unique undertaking as such a facility would proviqe propagation. research, <br />broodstock holding, refugia and public educational opport4nities for endangered fish ,/ <br />species. which has not been attempted before. There are unc~rtalntles about culture and <br />large scale production techniques for these fishes. therefor~ some assumptions were <br />made as to how.this type of facIlIty should be developed anq operated. <br /> <br />The study was performed by a team of consultant engin+ers and biologIsts and a <br />Technical A,Sjvlsory Committee (T AC). The T AC was respon$ible for overall direction of <br />the studY~~8 T AC is composed of staff representatives (rom the eWCB, Colorado <br />Division of Wildlife (CDOW) and the U. S. Fish and Wildli(e Service (USFWS). The <br />Consultant Team consisted of URS Consultants. Inc., prime pontractor and responsible <br />for site evaluation and engineering; FiSh Pro, Ino., specializing,n fish biology and hatchery <br />design; Blo/West, Inc., Specializing in fish biology and life hlstqry techniques and Leonard <br />Rice Consulting Water Engineers, specializing In the Investigation of the water supply <br />aspects of the study. i <br /> <br />x. <br /> <br />( 'Culture teohlllq\le,. . dellnltloll 01 thll ana otn.r tol.ntllle terms used In this ~ecutiv. Summary are Inoluded In th.. y <br />gloaeary, " <br /> <br />YI <br /> <br />~ <br />