Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002782 <br /> <br />obtained to complete the RAPD analyses and prepare a draft final report which is expected by <br />November of 1996 (Czapla I996a). According to preliminary interpretations of the completed <br />genetic data, there appears to be random mating among all Colorado squawfish, regardless of possible <br />past genetic differentiation. These results strongly indicate that no isolation existed among Colorado <br />squawfish populations in the recent past and possibly at present (Morizot 1996), and that there are <br />no genetic differences among Colorado squawfish populations in the Upper Basin. <br /> <br />5.0 Propagation Facilities Development by the Recovery Program <br /> <br />Development of additional propagation facilities was necessary to meet Recovery Program and <br />recovery plan requirements. Three major activities were undertaken concerning the development of <br />additional hatchery and refugia facilities including (1) propagation management and facilities planning, <br />(2) hatchery feasibility study by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), and (3) <br />propagation facilities development. The Recovery Program's accomplishments regarding these <br />activities are discussed in the following sections. <br /> <br />5.1 Propagation Management and Facilities Planning <br /> <br />The first management plan concerning propagation ("Plan for the Propagation of Threatened and <br />Endangered Fishes of the Upper Colorado River Basin") was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife <br />Service in 1988 and approved by the Recovery Implementation Committee (US. Fish and Wildlife <br />Service 1988). This plan provided several strategies for the systematic development of the initial <br />three years of the propagation program. The six objectives of this plan were discussed in Section 3. I. <br /> <br />An ad hoc work group, the Propagation Work Group (pWG), was formed in June of 1989 and a <br />propagation coordinator was hired. In support of the Plan, the PWG verified the facilities needs for <br />development and implementation of propagation and genetics management activities. It identified <br />the general type of facilities, conducted preliminary site evaluations, and developed design criteria <br />required for short and long term fish and program needs. PWG and the propagation coordinator <br />visited several potential sites in 1990 including: <br /> <br />Dexter National Fish Hatchery (NFH), New Mexico <br />Page Springs State Fish Hatchery (SFH), Arizona <br />Saratoga National Fish Hatchery (NFH), Wyoming <br />Ouray Endangered Fish Culture Experiment Station (EFCES), Utah <br />Bellvue Fish Research Unit (FRU), Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado <br />Cameo Power Plant, Grand Valley area, Colorado <br />HorsethiefState Wildlife Area (SWA), Grand Valley area, Colorado <br />Pueblo State Fish Hatchery (SFH), Colorado <br />Off stream gravel-pit ponds, Grand Valley area, Colorado <br />Hotchkiss National Fish Hatchery (NFH), Colorado <br /> <br />Based on preliminary design and site evaluation criteria, preliminary rankings were developed among <br />the various sites. These rankings were used for determination of the best sites for propagation of <br /> <br />22 <br />