DOCSLIB.ORG

Savage Rapids Dam Grants Pass Project, Oregon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Savage Rapids Dam Grants Pass Project, Oregon Draft Environmental Assessment Fish Passage Improvements Savage Rapids Dam Grants Pass Project, Oregon U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region August 2005 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian tribes and our commitments to island communities. MISSION OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Acronyms and Abbreviations BMP best management practices CAR Coordination Act Report cfs cubic feet per second Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CWA Clean Water Act EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EFH Essential fish habitat ESA Endangered Species Act ESU Evolutionarily significant unit fps feet per second GPID Grants Pass Irrigation District LAET Lowest apparent effect threshold MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOAA Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (formerly NMFS – National Marine Fisheries Service) ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ODSL Oregon Department of State Lands PR/FES Planning Report/Final Environmental Statement Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation RM river mile ROD Record of Decision SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SONCC Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast SVOC Semi-volatile organic compounds TMDLs Total maximum daily loads USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VOC Volatile organic compounds TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... i Chapter 1 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................ 1 1.1 Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................. 1 1.2 Background ............................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Decisions Required ................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Existing Project and Facilities Description............................................................. 2 1.5 Issues and Concerns ................................................................................................ 3 Chapter 2 Descriptions of Alternatives ......................................................................... 7 2.1 Summary of Changes .............................................................................................. 7 2.2 Alternative A – 1995 PR/FES Preferred Alternative ............................................ 12 2.3 Alternative B – 2005 Preferred Alternative .......................................................... 13 2.4 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study......................................................... 15 Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.............. 19 3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Water Quality........................................................................................................ 19 3.2.1 Affected Environment............................................................................... 19 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 23 3.3 Wild and Scenic Rivers......................................................................................... 26 3.3.1 Affected Environment............................................................................... 26 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 27 3.4 Land Use............................................................................................................... 27 3.4.1 Affected Environment............................................................................... 27 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 27 3.5 Fish........................................................................................................................ 28 3.5.1 Anadromous Fish...................................................................................... 28 3.5.2 Resident Fish.............................................................................................35 3.6 Wildlife ................................................................................................................. 39 3.7 Vegetation ............................................................................................................. 40 August 05 – Public Review Draft i Table of Contents 3.7.1 Affected Environment............................................................................... 40 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 40 3.8 Endangered Species Act Threatened and Endangered Species............................. 41 3.8.1 Bald Eagle................................................................................................. 41 3.8.2 Northern Spotted Owl............................................................................... 41 3.8.3 Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon ..................... 41 3.8.4 Gentner Mission-bells............................................................................... 46 3.8.5 Cook’s Lomatium..................................................................................... 47 3.9 Candidate Species ................................................................................................. 47 3.9.1 Pacific Fisher............................................................................................ 47 3.9.2 Streak Horned Lark................................................................................... 48 3.10 Recreation ............................................................................................................. 48 3.10.1 Affected Environment............................................................................... 48 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 49 3.11 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................. 49 3.11.1 Affected Environment............................................................................... 49 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 49 3.12 Historic Properties................................................................................................. 50 3.12.1 Affected Environment............................................................................... 50 3.12.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 51 3.13 Indian Sacred Sites................................................................................................ 52 3.13.1 Affected Environment............................................................................... 52 3.13.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 52 3.14 Indian Trust Assets................................................................................................ 53 3.14.1 Affected Environment............................................................................... 53 3.14.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 53 3.15 Social Well Being ................................................................................................. 53 3.15.1 Affected Environment............................................................................... 53 3.15.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 53 3.16 Economics............................................................................................................. 54 3.16.1 Affected Environment............................................................................... 54 3.16.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 54 3.17 Air Quality and Noise ........................................................................................... 54 3.17.1 Affected Environment............................................................................... 54 3.17.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 55 ii Public Review Draft - August 05 Table of Contents 3.18 Environmental Justice........................................................................................... 55 3.18.1 Affected Environment............................................................................... 55 3.18.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 55 3.19 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .............................................................................. 56 3.19.1 Affected Environment..............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Edna Assay Development
    Environmental DNA assays available for species detection via qPCR analysis at the U.S.D.A Forest Service National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish Conservation (NGC). Asterisks indicate the assay was designed at the NGC. This list was last updated in June 2021 and is subject to change. Please contact [email protected] with questions. Family Species Common name Ready for use? Mustelidae Martes americana, Martes caurina American and Pacific marten* Y Castoridae Castor canadensis American beaver Y Ranidae Lithobates catesbeianus American bullfrog Y Cinclidae Cinclus mexicanus American dipper* N Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel Y Soricidae Sorex palustris American water shrew* N Salmonidae Oncorhynchus clarkii ssp Any cutthroat trout* N Petromyzontidae Lampetra spp. Any Lampetra* Y Salmonidae Salmonidae Any salmonid* Y Cottidae Cottidae Any sculpin* Y Salmonidae Thymallus arcticus Arctic grayling* Y Cyrenidae Corbicula fluminea Asian clam* N Salmonidae Salmo salar Atlantic Salmon Y Lymnaeidae Radix auricularia Big-eared radix* N Cyprinidae Mylopharyngodon piceus Black carp N Ictaluridae Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead* N Catostomidae Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker* N Cichlidae Oreochromis aureus Blue tilapia* N Catostomidae Catostomus discobolus Bluehead sucker* N Catostomidae Catostomus virescens Bluehead sucker* Y Felidae Lynx rufus Bobcat* Y Hylidae Pseudocris maculata Boreal chorus frog N Hydrocharitaceae Egeria densa Brazilian elodea N Salmonidae Salvelinus fontinalis Brook trout* Y Colubridae Boiga irregularis Brown tree snake*
    [Show full text]
  • AFS Policy Statement #32: STUDY REPORT on DAM REMOVAL for the AFS RESOURCE POLICY COMMITTEE (Full Text)
    AFS Policy Statement #32: STUDY REPORT ON DAM REMOVAL FOR THE AFS RESOURCE POLICY COMMITTEE (Full Text) (DRAFT #7: 10/05/01, J. Haynes, Editor) (DRAFT #8: 02/23/03, T. Bigford) (DRAFT #9: 03/18/03, H. Blough) (DRAFT #10: 09/23/03, T. Bigford) (DRAFT #11: 09/25/03, T. Bigford) (DRAFT #12: 10/31/03, T. Bigford) (DRAFT #13: 1/9/04, T. Bigford) (DRAFT #14: 7/7/04, T. Bigford) (DRAFT #15: 7/18/04, T. Bigford) (DRAFT #16: 11/20/04, T. Bigford) 2003-2004 Resource Policy Committee Heather Blough, Co-Chair, Kim Hyatt, Co-Chair, Mary Gessner, Victoria Poage, Allan Creamer, Chris Lenhart, Jamie Geiger, Jarrad Rosa, Wilson Laney, Tom Bigford, Danielle Pender, Tim Essington with assistance from Jennifer Lowery 2002-2003 Resource Policy Committee Heather Blough, Co-Chair, Thomas E. Bigford, Co-Chair Allan Creamer, Bob Peoples, Chris Lenhart, Maria La Salete Bernardino Rodrigues, Jamie Geiger, Jarrad Rosa, Wilson Laney, Kim Hyatt, Danielle Pender 2001-2002 Resource Policy Committee Tom Bigford, Chair, Heather Blough, Vice Chair, Jim Francis, Bill Gordon, Judy Pederson, Larry Simpson, Jarrad Kosa, Jaime Geiger, Bob Peoples, Maria La Salete Bernardino Rodrigues, Chris Lenhart 2000-2001 Coordinating Committee James M. Haynes, Chair, R. Duane Harrell, Christine M. Moffitt (ex officio), tc "James M. Haynes, Chair, R. Duane Harrell, Christine M. Moffitt (ex officio), Gary E. Whelan, Maureen Wilson, James M. Haynes, Chair 1999-2000 Study Committee Larry L. Olmsted, Chair, Donald C. Jackson, Peter B. Moyle,Stephen G. Rideout November 20, 2004 Introduction This study report provides background information to support a recommendation by the American Fisheries Society’s (AFS) Resource Policy Committee to develop a Dam Removal Policy Statement for consideration by the Governing Board and the full membership.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Benefits of Dam Removal
    A Research Paper by Dam Removal: Case Studies on the Fiscal, Economic, Social, and Environmental Benefits of Dam Removal October 2016 <Year> Dam Removal: Case Studies on the Fiscal, Economic, Social, and Environmental Benefits of Dam Removal October 2016 PUBLISHED ONLINE: http://headwaterseconomics.org/economic-development/local-studies/dam-removal-case-studies ABOUT HEADWATERS ECONOMICS Headwaters Economics is an independent, nonprofit research group whose mission is to improve community development and land management decisions in the West. CONTACT INFORMATION Megan Lawson, Ph.D.| [email protected] | 406-570-7475 P.O. Box 7059 Bozeman, MT 59771 http://headwaterseconomics.org Cover Photo: Whittenton Pond Dam, Mill River, Massachusetts. American Rivers. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 MEASURING THE BENEFITS OF DAM REMOVAL ........................................................................................... 2 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. 5 CASE STUDIES WHITTENTON POND DAM, MILL RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS ........................................................................ 11 ELWHA AND GLINES CANYON DAMS, ELWHA RIVER, WASHINGTON ........................................................ 14 EDWARDS DAM, KENNEBEC RIVER, MAINE ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Marmot Dam Removal Geomorphic Monitoring & Modelling Project
    MARMOT DAM REMOVAL GEOMORPHIC MONITORING & MODELING PROJECT ANNUAL REPORT June 2008 – May 2009 Prepared for: Sandy River Basin Watershed Council PO Box 868 Sandy OR 97055 Prepared by: Charles Podolak Johns Hopkins University Department of Geography & Environmental Engineering 3400 N. Charles St, Baltimore MD 21218 Smokey Pittman Graham Matthews & Associates P.O. Box 1516, Weaverville, CA, 96093 June 2010 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to sincerely thank all who assisted with the Marmot Dam Removal Geomorphic Monitoring & Modeling Project: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board – funding Johns Hopkins University & The National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics (NCED) Peter Wilcock Project Advisor Daniela Martinez Graduate Assistant NCED & National Science Foundation Research Experience for Undergraduates Kim Devillier Intern Dajana Jurk Intern Cecilia Palomo Intern Tim Shin Intern Katie Trifone Intern Graham Matthews & Associates Graham Matthews GMA Principle Investigator Logan Cornelius Streamflow and Sediment Sampling Cort Pryor Streamflow and Sediment Sampling Brooke Connell Topographic Surveys Keith Barnard Topographic Surveys/Survey Data Analysis Sandy River Basin Watershed Council Russ Plaeger Director U.S. Geological Survey Jon Major Jim O’Connor Rose Wallick Mackenzie Keith U.S. Forest Service Connie Athman Gordon Grant Portland General Electric David Heinzman John Esler Tim Keller Tony Dentel Metro Parks Bill Doran Landowners Mary Elkins David Boos MARMOT DAM REMOVAL GEOMORPHIC MONITORING & MODELING PROJECT – 2009 ANNUAL REPORT ii
    [Show full text]
  • Fielder and Wimer Dam Removals Phase I
    R & E Grant Application Project #: 13 Biennium 13-054 Fielder and Wimer Dam Removals Phase I Project Information R&E Project $58,202.00 Request: Match Funding: $179,126.00 Total Project: $237,328.00 Start Date: 4/26/2014 End Date: 6/30/2015 Project Email: [email protected] Project 13 Biennium Biennium: Organization: WaterWatch of Oregon (Tax ID #: 93-0888158) Fiscal Officer Name: John DeVoe Address: 213 SW Ash Street, Suite 208 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: 503-295-4039 x1 Email: [email protected] Applicant Information Name: Bob Hunter Email: [email protected] Past Recommended or Completed Projects This applicant has no previous projects that match criteria. Project Summary This project is part of ODFW’s 25 Year Angling Plan. Activity Type: Passage Summary: The project is to solve the fish passage problems associated with Fielder and Wimer Dams by removing the aging structures. This grant will provide funding for the pre-implementation mapping, assessments, analyses, design work, permitting, construction drawings, and preparation of bid packages needed for removal of these two dams. This Phase I pre-implementation work will be followed by Phase II implementation of the dam removal and site restoration plans that will be developed in this first phase. Objectives: Fielder and Wimer Dams are located on Evans Creek, an important salmon and Project #: 13-054 Last Modified/Revised: 4/11/2014 3:16:13 PM Page 1 of 12 Fielder and Wimer Dam Removals Phase I steelhead spawning tributary of the Rogue River. Both dams are listed in the top ten in priority statewide on ODFW’s 2013 Statewide Fish Passage Priority List.
    [Show full text]
  • Item F – Klamath Dam Removal - Contingency Funding March 9-10, 2021 Board Meeting
    Kate Brown, Governor 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 360 Salem OR 97301-1290 www.oregon.gov/oweb (503) 986-0178 Agenda Item F supports OWEB’s Strategic Plan priority #3: Community capacity and strategic partnerships achieve healthy watersheds, and Strategic Plan priority 7: Bold and innovative actions to achieve health in Oregon’s watersheds. MEMORANDUM TO: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board FROM: Meta Loftsgaarden, OWEB Executive Director Richard Whitman, DEQ Director SUBJECT: Agenda Item F – Klamath Dam Removal - Contingency Funding March 9-10, 2021 Board Meeting I. Introduction Removal of the four PacifiCorp dams along the Klamath River in Oregon and California that block fish passage has been a priority of multiple governors in both states for over a decade. After extensive work by the Klamath River Renewal Corporation and its contractors (in partnership with states, tribes, federal agencies, irrigators, conservation groups, and many others), there is now a clear path to completing dam removal in 2023. This staff report updates the board on the dam removal project and asks for a general indication of board support in the unlikely event that additional funding is needed to complete restoration work following dam removal. II. Background PacifiCorp owns and operates four hydro-electric dams on the Klamath River, three in California and one in Oregon. PacifiCorp has decided to that it is in the best interest of the company and its customers to stop operating the dams rather than spending substantial amounts on improvements likely to be needed if they were to continue generating power. PacifiCorp has agreed to transfer ownership of the dams to the Klamath River Restoration Corporation, which in turn has contracted with Kiewit Infrastructure -- one of the nation’s most experienced large project construction firms – which will remove the dams and restore the river to a free-flowing condition.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of the Glen Canyon Dam on Colorado River Temperature Dynamics
    Effects of the Glen Canyon Dam on Colorado River Temperature Dynamics GEL 230 – Ecogeomorphology University of California, Davis Derek Roberts March 2nd, 2016 Abstract: At the upstream end of the Grand Canyon, the Glen Canyon Dam has changed the Colorado River from a run-of-the-river flow to a deep, summer-stratified reservoir. This change in flow regime significantly alters the temperature regime of the Colorado River. Seasonal temperature variation, once ranging from near to almost , is now limited to 7 . The lack of warm summer temperatures has prevented spawning of endangered 0℃ 30℃ humpback chub in the Colorado River. Implementation of a temperature control device, to − 14℃ allow for warmer summer releases to mitigate negative temperature effects on endangered fish, was considered by the federal government. Ultimately, this proposal was put on indefinite hold by the Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service due to concerns of cost and unintended ecological consequences. The low-variability of the current dam-induced Colorado River temperature regime will continue into the foreseeable future. Agencies are reviewing humpback chub conservation efforts outside of temperature control. Keywords: Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Glen Canyon Dam, thermal dynamics 1.0 Introduction Temperature in natural water bodies is a primary driver of both ecological and physical processes. Freshwater plant and animal metabolisms are heavily affected by temperature (Coulter 2014). Furthermore, the thermal structure of a water body has significant impacts on the physical processes that drive ecosystem function (Hodges et al 2000); fluid dynamics drive transport of nutrients, oxygen, and heat. Human action, often the introduction of dams or industrial cooling systems, can alter the natural thermal regimes of rivers and lakes leading to reverberating impacts throughout associated ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Systematics of Western North American Cyprinids (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae)
    Zootaxa 3586: 281–303 (2012) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2012 · Magnolia Press Article ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:0EFA9728-D4BB-467E-A0E0-0DA89E7E30AD Molecular systematics of western North American cyprinids (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae) SUSANA SCHÖNHUTH 1, DENNIS K. SHIOZAWA 2, THOMAS E. DOWLING 3 & RICHARD L. MAYDEN 1 1 Department of Biology, Saint Louis University, 3507 Laclede Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63103, USA. E-mail S.S: [email protected] ; E-mail RLM: [email protected] 2 Department of Biology and Curator of Fishes, Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 3 School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4501, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract The phylogenetic or evolutionary relationships of species of Cypriniformes, as well as their classification, is in a era of flux. For the first time ever, the Order, and constituent Families are being examined for relationships within a phylogenetic context. Relevant findings as to sister-group relationships are largely being inferred from analyses of both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences. Like the vast majority of Cypriniformes, due to an overall lack of any phylogenetic investigation of these fishes since Hennig’s transformation of the discipline, changes in hypotheses of relationships and a natural classification of the species should not be of surprise to anyone. Basically, for most taxa no properly supported phylogenetic hypothesis has ever been done; and this includes relationships with reasonable taxon and character sampling of even families and subfamilies.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume III, Chapter 5 Northern Pikeminnow
    Volume III, Chapter 5 Northern Pikeminnow TABLE OF CONTENTS 5.0 Northern Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis)................................................... 5-1 5.1 Distribution ................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Life History Characteristics ........................................................................................ 5-2 5.2.1 Size & Mortality................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.2 Population Dynamics & Demographic Risk........................................................ 5-3 5.3 Status & Abundance Trends........................................................................................ 5-4 5.3.1 Abundance............................................................................................................ 5-4 5.3.2 Productivity.......................................................................................................... 5-5 5.3.3 Harvest................................................................................................................. 5-6 5.4 Factors Affecting Population Status............................................................................ 5-7 5.4.1 Northern Pikeminnow Management Program History........................................ 5-7 5.4.2 NPMP Review .................................................................................................... 5-11 5.4.3 Harvest..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • By Jane C. Marks
    DOWN GO THE Many dams are being torn down these days, allowing rivers and the ecosystems they support to rebound. But ecological risks abound as well. Can they be averted? B Y J A N E C . M A R K S 66 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MARCH 2007 t the start of the 20th century, Fossil Creek was a DAMS spring-fed waterway sustaining an oasis in the middle of the Arizona desert. The wild river and lush ripar- ian ecosystem attracted fi sh and a host of animals and plants that could not survive in other environments. TheA river and its surrounds also attracted prospectors and set- tlers to the Southwest. By 1916 engineers had dammed Fossil Creek, redirecting water through fl umes that wound along steep hillsides to two hydroelectric plants. Those plants powered the mining operations that fueled Arizona’s economic growth and helped support the rapid expansion of the city of Phoenix. By 2001, however, the Fossil Creek generating stations were provid- ing less than 0.1 percent of the state’s power supply. Nearly two years ago the plants were shut down, and an ex- periment began to unfold. In the summer of 2005 utility work- ers retired the dam and the fl umes and in so doing restored most of the fl ow to the 22.5 kilometers of Fossil Creek riverbed that had not seen much water in nearly a century. Trickles became waterfalls, and stagnant shallows became deep turquoise pools. Scientists are now monitoring the ecosystem to see whether it can recover after being partially sere for so long, to see whether native fi sh and plants can again take hold.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Rogue Fall Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
    CONSERVATION PLAN FOR FALL CHINOOK SALMON IN THE ROGUE SPECIES MANAGEMENT UNIT Adopted by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission January 11, 2013 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 3406 Cherry Avenue NE Salem, OR 97303 Rogue Fall Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan - January 11, 2013 Table of Contents Page FOREWORD .................................................................................................................................. 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 6 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER NATIVE FISH CONSERVATION PLANS ................................. 7 CONSTRAINTS ............................................................................................................................. 7 SPECIES MANAGEMENT UNIT AND CONSTITUENT POPULATIONS ............................... 7 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 10 Historical Context ......................................................................................................................... 10 General Aspects of Life History .................................................................................................... 14 General Aspects of the Fisheries ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Species Status Assessment Report for the Colorado Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus Lucius
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FINAL March 2020 Species Status Assessment Report for the Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of the Interior Upper Colorado Basin Region 7 Denver, CO FINAL Species Status Assessment March 2020 PREFACE This Species Status Assessment provides an integrated, scientifically sound assessment of the biological status of the endangered Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius. This document was prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), with assistance from state, federal, and private researchers currently working with Colorado pikeminnow. The writing team would like to acknowledge the substantial contribution of time and effort by those that participated in the Science Team. Writing Team Tildon Jones (Coordinator, Upper Colorado River Recovery Program) Eliza Gilbert (Program Biologist, San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program) Tom Chart (Director, Upper Colorado River Recovery Program) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Status Assessment Advisory Group Craig Hansen (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6) Reviewers and Collaborators Upper Colorado River Recovery Program Directors Office: Donald Anderson, Katie Busch, Melanie Fischer, Kevin McAbee, Cheyenne Owens, Julie Stahli Science Team: Kevin Bestgen, Jim Brooks, Darek Elverud, Eliza Gilbert, Steven Platania, Dale Ryden, Tom Chart Peer Reviewers: Keith Gido, Wayne Hubert Upper Colorado River Recovery Program Biology Committee Members: Paul Badame, Pete Cavalli, Harry Crockett, Bill
    [Show full text]