Laserfiche WebLink
<br />UU1891 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />.I~ <br /> <br />c-. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />DRAFT <br /> <br />HATCHERY FEASmILI1YSTUDY <br />EXECUTIVE SUMMARY <br /> <br />INTRODUCTION <br /> <br />The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) conducted this feasibility study of fish <br />culture techniques and of construction and operation of a fish hatchery for the <br />propagation, in Colorado, of threatened and endangered fish of the Upper Colorado river <br />basin. The four threatened and endangered fish species which are the subject of the <br />study are the Colorado squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha) , <br />bonytail chub (Gila elegans) , and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). <br /> <br />The study was performed by a team of engineers and biologists under the direction of a <br />Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TACis 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 /W est, 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 />The primary study tasks are briefly described in the following sections and are as follows: <br /> <br />o Review of Existing literature 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 />o Issues <br /> <br />REVIEWF EXISTINCliTERATURl!NDFACILITIES <br /> <br />The purpose of this task was to gather and review available literature and other <br />information relevant to fish culture, propagation techniques and hatchery design for these <br />four endangered fish species, as there was no centralized data base for information prior <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 <br />Fish Hatchery; 4) visits and interviews with propagation specialists from the USFWS and <br />the CDOW; and 5) telephone interviews with key contacts identified by the TAC and <br />members of the study team. <br /> <br />CWCBl.ES <br /> <br />1 <br />