Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1.- <br />~{~ <br />~/ <br />~ <br /> <br />c3) <br /> <br />0) <br /> <br />./ <br /> <br />001878 <br /> <br />e e y~y~ <br />, -/)~ <:Y" ~ <br />DRAFT ~ ~6_,r , <br />EXECU~IVE SUMMARY ~ ~ <br />/ ~ cfI ~ o(f" <br />~ . <br /> <br />INTRODUCTION <br /> <br />The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) conducted this feasibility study of fish <br />. '. sh hatchery for the <br />, ,ea ened and endangered fis <br />. . The four threatened and endangered fish species which are the subject of theS <br />study are the.Colorado squawfish (Ptychoc;heilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), <br />bonytail chub (Gila elegans), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). () M <br />-+tAc2 Cu:k:13 -:a.~ <br />The study was performed by a team of engineers and biologists under the direction oW ~ <br />Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC is composed of representatives from the . <br />CWCB, Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife ServiCe <br />(USFWS). The study team consisted of URS Consultants, Inc., prime contractor and ~ <br />responsible for site evaluation and engineering; Fish Pro, Inc., specializing in fish biology <br />and hatchery design; Bio/West, 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 />The primary study tasks are briefly described in the following sections and are as follows: ~ <br /> <br />o Review of Existing Literature and Facilities . #,;\'f' 1'1' <br />o Biological Design and Culture Techniques ~ \(' ~ <br />o Site Identification and Screening ...~~ ~ ~ '\ <br />o Site Evaluation and Screening ~)I.. ~/ /(1 <br />o Hatchery Desj~ _ 'fL X"'~'..tV'! <br />o Issues QMd ~ ;f',-f cI:. ~ - II <br /> <br />REVIEW QF EXISTING LITERATURE AND FACILITIES ,,\8~"" <br /> <br />The purpose of this task was to gather and review available literature and other V~~ <br />information relevant to fish culture, propagation techniques and hatchery design for these ~,t ~ <br />four endangered fish species, as there was no centralized data base for information prior _ Jib.. d'\ <br />to this study. Information was compiled from: 1) personal and public sources identified ~ <br />by the study team; 2) local, state and federal agencies; 3) a field visit to Dexter National l-i JrJ~ <br />Fish Hatchery; 4) visits and interviews with propagation specialists from the USFWS and 'f':P <br />the CDOW; and 5) telephone interviews with key contacts identified by the T AC and ;:i/J <br />members of the study team. ~t;...~~ - :?:.Y <br /> <br />- ~~~tnf-~~ ,;/'" <br /><CWCBl.ES ~~. ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~to!Qe. <br />-' ~,.(J)~ ~~~t.-~~ ~ ~ ~ <br />~~~/p ~ <br />