Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r '_,_ ..,~ 001838 09/04/92 13: 39 URS CONSULTANT DENUER 002 <br />1'1. ~::i: 8'G(. ~ Q,O (0 cIt.o ~~ a...v-Hto fll:~.'t+\.Q <!..o lo("~ ~ <br />. ~- (\. ~~.~ ~ t3ca.rd (e.~Ct3 '10 p~ a. -Fe.a.s ;0\ l, ~~ "11 ~ c.ultur; <br />(A,nO . . (Df\S1ructl'On a.JI'd " 0(\ fer i-IU pnrp <br />. . s o..vrJ-t1 S h d~ ".sVi ~ ~ V ppu C!'tJ\D("ddo . \ftM' ba.J in. <br />. ,'" Ct> \O~ Oi ~ATCHERY FEASIBILITY STUDY' <br />EXECUTIVE SUMMARY <br /> <br />, .1fit~ODUCTION <br /> <br />~~~~~~7 <br /> <br />species are the Colorado squawfiSh(Ptychochellus IUClus), hum.' pback ChE. ..' Ila cypha), <br />bonytall chub (Gila eJegans), and razorbaC:i}J~rauch~n texanus. I ,pyrpose <br />of this Executive Summary Is to provide "'1] p '~.overview of the s . ~ Final <br />)J ~ReporJ includes more detailed Informatlo~lth compute'r model printouts, design layouts ~ <br />a. rlous tkbulations of costs and design Information. : Commen~made by the ~ <br />< / ecovery Program Committee will be Incorporated in an Addendum to~eport. .~ e; ~ <br />. 1 oA~ ~~or <br />f~, ~ This study ~ only)Nitn the biological technical Issues. Economic MEPsoclallsstm.S~re <br />~ beyond the scope of this study and were therefore not Included.. These Issues sho~ld (J ~ <br />. be considered in the ultimate site selection process. l- ~ ~S ~ <br /> <br />atchery ~d w,;Q-- <br />gram nd the State of <br />Color@Q.P In determining where a site should be located, IS study is a unique <br />undertaking as such a facility would provide propagation, research, broodstock holaing <br />refugla and public educational opportunities which have not; been previously pursued. <br />There are some uncertainties about culture and large scale, production techniques for <br />theS.!.!/Shes, therefore some assumptions were made as to how this type of facility should <br /> <br />peJ\operated.~ ~ ~ <br /> <br />The study was perlor d by a team of engineers and biOI091$t~nder the direction of a <br />Technical Advisory ommittee (TAC). The TAC Is composed:of epresentatlves from the <br />CWCS, Colorado Ivlslon of Wildlife (CDOW) and the U. $. F sh and Wildlife Service <br />(USFWS). The tudy team consisted of URS Consultants, .Inc., prime contractor and <br />responsible for s te evaluation and engineering; Fish Pro, Inc.~ specializing in fish biology <br />and hatchery design; Bio/Wesl, Inc., specializing In fish biology and fish culture <br />techniques and Leonard Rice Consulting Water Engineers, specializing In the Investigation <br />of the water supply aspects of the study. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />'~ <br />The primary study tasks are briefly described In the lollowlng sections and are as follows: ~l <br /> <br />o Review of Existing Uterature and Facilities <br />o Biological Design and Culture Techniques <br />o Site Identification and Screening <br />o Site Evaluation and Screening <br />o Hatchery Design <br /> <br />B,I( UJ~ <br />757-S/27 <br /> <br />1 <br />