Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1995-011-00 - Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhancement Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1995-011-00 - Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhancement
Project Number:
Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhancement
The construction of Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph dams on the Columbia River in 1939 and 1956 blocked the anadromous fish passage. This area is often referred to as the "blocked area". The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation (CCT) work cooperatively with the regional co-managers (Spokane Indian Tribe and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) to enhance fishing opportunities in Lake Roosevelt and Rufus Woods as mitigation for the loss of anadromous fish (resident fish substitution). The Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhancement Project (CJKEP) is one such resident fish substitution project. This project was amended into the council's Fish and Wildlife program during the 1995 amendment process and its first year of implementation began in 1996. The goal of the CJKEP is to protect and enhance wild kokanee populations above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams in an effort to support the tribal subsistence and non-tribal recreational sport fisheries.
Proponent Orgs:
Colville Confederated Tribes (Tribe)
Starting FY:
Ending FY:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Province Subbasin %
Intermountain Columbia Upper 100.00%
Focal Species:
Bass, Smallmouth
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Pikeminnow, Northern
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 100.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
BiOp Association:

Description: Page: 6 Figure 1: Wild Sanpoil Kokanee, Caught in the 2008 Sanpoil weir on 10-8-2008

Project: 1995-011-00

Document: P119455

Dimensions: 800 x 600

Description: Page: 9 Figure 2: Permanent weir trap on the Sanpoil at the Keller Rodeo Grounds 2009 (Ridged weir lengths are now longer than shown in this picture)

Project: 1995-011-00

Document: P119455

Dimensions: 800 x 600

Description: Page: 10 Figure 3: Sanpoil River Screw Trap

Project: 1995-011-00

Document: P119455

Dimensions: 540 x 251

Description: Page: 35 Figure A-6: the Sanpoil River; reach 13, just below Thirty Mile Creek, depicting the lack of canopy cover along the river and the general composition of riparian zone vegetation.

Project: 1995-011-00

Document: P119455

Dimensions: 1289 x 966

Description: Page: 36 Figure A-7: The Sanpoil River, Section 15, Upstream from Dead Horse Creek near Thirty Mile Creek, illustrating the appropriate sized substrate for kokanee spawning

Project: 1995-011-00

Document: P119455

Dimensions: 800 x 600

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2020 - FY2022)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2020 Expense $580,841 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Extensions (Colville Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2020 Expense $32,850 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Budget Transfer (CCT) 4/1/2019 04/01/2019
FY2020 Expense $79,867 From: Fish Accord - Colville Fish Accord Budget Transfers - Colville 1/15/20 01/15/2020
FY2020 Expense $79,867 To: Fish Accord - Colville Fish Accord Budget Transfer - Colville 2/3/20 02/03/2020
FY2021 Expense $588,102 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Extensions (Colville Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2021 Expense $32,851 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Budget Transfer (CCT) 4/1/2019 04/01/2019
FY2022 Expense $595,453 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Extensions (Colville Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2022 Expense $32,851 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Budget Transfer (CCT) 4/1/2019 04/01/2019

Pending Budget Decision?  No

Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2021
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2020 (Draft)
2018 $14,400 2%
2017 $14,400 2%
2016 $14,400 2%


The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Capital Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
52435 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1995-011-00 CAP CHIEF JOSEPH KOKANEE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT History $1,214,218 4/1/2011 - 7/31/2012
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
246 REL 1 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1995-011-00 CHIEF JOSHEPH KOKANEE ENHANCEMENT Terminated $90,339 10/1/1998 - 3/31/2001
652 REL 4 SOW Pacific Northwest National Laboratory HYDROACOUSTIC & SONIC TAG TRACKING & ADCP Terminated $93,665 3/1/2000 - 2/28/2001
652 REL 8 SOW Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 1995-011-01 HYDROACOUSTIC & SONIC TAG TRACKING GRAND COULEE DAM History $361,582 3/20/2000 - 10/1/2002
36484 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1995-011-00 EXP CHIEF JO. KOK. ENHANCEMENT PROJECT History $351,195 1/1/2008 - 12/31/2008
73548 REL 47 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1995-011-00 EXP CHIEF JO KOKANEE ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Issued $580,841 1/1/2019 - 12/31/2019
73548 REL 76 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1995-011-00 EXP CHIEF JO KOKANEE ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Issued $613,691 1/1/2020 - 12/31/2020
CR-342319 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1995-011-00 EXP CHIEF JO KOKANEE ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Pending $620,953 1/1/2021 - 12/31/2021

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):28
On time:17
Status Reports
On time:44
Avg Days Late:0

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
652 REL 8 652 REL 15 1995-011-01 HYDROACOUSTIC & SONIC TAG TRACKING GRAND COULEE DAM Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 03/2000 03/2000 Closed 5 11 0 0 0 11 100.00% 0
4805 24422, 31101, 36484, 41540, 45289, 51092, 55011, 59250, 63568, 67615, 71006, 74732, 73548 REL 17, 73548 REL 47, 73548 REL 76 1995-011-00 CHIEF JOSEPH KOKANEE ENHANCEMENT Colville Confederated Tribes 10/2000 10/2000 Pending 61 182 16 0 20 218 90.83% 4
52435 1995-011-00 CAP CHIEF JOSEPH KOKANEE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT Colville Confederated Tribes 04/2011 04/2011 History 6 4 0 0 0 4 100.00% 0
Project Totals 72 197 16 0 20 233 91.42% 4

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1995-011-00-NPCC-20120313
Project: 1995-011-00 - Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhancement
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal: RESCAT-1995-011-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 2/26/2014
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through FY 2017. Refer to Data Managment Review and Recommendations (Part 3) for database development aspects of the project.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1995-011-00-ISRP-20120215
Project: 1995-011-00 - Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhancement
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number: RESCAT-1995-011-00
Completed Date: 4/13/2012
Final Round ISRP Date: 4/3/2012
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
First Round ISRP Date: 2/8/2012
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:

The proposal is well written and well organized. The objectives and deliverables are clearly explained and pertinent results are presented in a logical and interesting manner. The project has made some real improvements over the last decade and with the help of key guidance documents appears poised to provide further insight into the question of whether naturally spawning kokanee provide adequate mitigation for loss of salmon and steelhead. This worthy suite of projects could benefit from an updated and more comprehensive ecosystem-based approach.

The title of the project is slightly misleading as this is a predator control and deep water spawning research project that includes some stream spawning investigations.

See the programmatic comments on fish stocking, Lake Roosevelt projects, and comments related to ecosystem models.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The project sponsor, Colville Confederated Tribes, argues that the kokanee population in Lake Roosevelt should be enhanced to mitigate for the loss of anadromous salmonids when Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph Dams were constructed. Because the reach of the Upper Columbia now occupied by Lake Rufus Woods and Lake Roosevelt was a free flowing river before dam construction, it is unlikely that they contained kokanee in any significant numbers. Therefore, the kokanee now inhabiting Lake Roosevelt are either naturally spawning fish that are apparently aligned with the downstream Nespelem River stock or artificially produced fish that have been propagated in the tribal hatchery. In either case, they face a formidable obstacle in the form of introduced percid (walleye) and centrarchid (smallmouth bass) species, which prey heavily on fry and yearling kokanee. The Tribe maintains that kokanee are the most appropriate substitute for lost salmon and steelhead, and continue to seek support to promote naturally spawning kokanee populations in the Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee area. The primary emphasis of this proposal is to build wild kokanee runs in two streams on the Colville Reservation – the Sanpoil River and Barnaby Creek.

The technical background and objectives of the project are, in general, adequately described. An important development since the Fiscal 2007-09 project review process was the completion of a Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Guiding Document, which considers both habitat and harvest issues in the context of multiple interests. The ISRP reviewed a draft of the Guiding Document in 2009 (ISRP 2009-16) and found that it did not address the limiting factors that may be impeding establishment of a successful kokanee fishery. Following completion and review of this plan, the Tribe contracted with LGL to develop the Lake Roosevelt Kokanee Management Plan, which is the basis for actions proposed here. The project therefore appears to have the concurrence of the majority of regional stakeholders (although possibly excluding the recreational walleye and bass fishers) and is consistent with the subbasin plan and other planning documents. However, the ISRP has not conducted an in-depth review of the Lake Roosevelt Kokanee Management Plan.

The proposal is consistent with the biological objectives of the Fish and Wildlife Program, MERR, the Intermountain Subbasin Plan, the Sanpoil River Subbasin Plan, the Lake Roosevelt Comprehensive Management Plan (2010), and the Five Year Implementation Plan.

The sponsors approach for establishing a viable kokanee fishery has been, first, to conduct studies to quantify factors limiting kokanee and then, based on the knowledge gained from these studies, to implement actions addressing these factors. This is a logical approach and has yielded some important results. The technical background provides a clear, concise, and well organized discussion of the work that has been done to date.

The objectives are led by planning documents, mainly the Lake Roosevelt Guiding Document and the recent Lake Roosevelt Comprehensive Kokanee Management Plan (2010), as well as previous ISRP reviews. Kokanee restoration is proposed for Sanpoil River and Barnaby Creek through protection, enhancement, and investigations in the reservoir. Surveys have indicated plentiful spawning habitat in Sanpoil River, and a major culvert project should result in access to several more miles of spawning and rearing habitat in Barnaby Creek. The latter is augmented with egg plants, studies on egg-to-fry survival, escapement monitoring, as well as pilot studies on predator reduction and the monitoring of harvest. Investigations in the reservoir include shore spawning studies including hydroacoustic and ROV surveys, and genetic stock status. This proposal is well written and provides a comprehensive justification and history of works leading to these priority projects.

Entrainment of kokanee was noted as high and a key limiting factor for kokanee and rainbow trout in the reservoir. While studies to reduce entrainment were summarized, for example through use of strobe lights, these proved ineffective. It seems that entrainment remains a key limiting factor. A guiding document, recommended to be developed by the ISRP, was followed to address quantification of entrainment, predation loss, natural kokanee spawning and available habitat – all completed by 2009. Recently, fry stocking in the Sanpoil River was tried, but mortality from predation, primarily from walleye and smallmouth bass, exceeded 95%. Egg planting in artificial tubes is proposed for the Sanpoil River to evaluate egg-fry survival, which the sponsors think may be an additional limiting factor. This study will be followed by fry-emigrant survival studies in the next 5 years. There was mention of the use of kokanee eggs from Meadow Creek in Canada, but it was not clear why this choice was made rather than use endemic stock or Spokane Hatchery kokanee. Post-smolt kokanee yearlings will be supplied by Spokane and released in Sanpoil River annually to 2015, to support a put-and-take fishery. Escapement monitoring may provide further information on the fate of these fish.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (ISRP Review of Results)

Over the years, the project has engaged in several attempts to build an abundant naturally spawning kokanee population in the Sanpoil River. Many of these efforts have involved the infusion of large numbers of hatchery fish, but few have shown success. Research, however, has been able to identify key problems and limitations. The most significant problem appears to be a gauntlet of predators that inhabits the Sanpoil arm of Lake Roosevelt when hatchery released fry and yearlings migrate to the lake. Once the predator bottleneck was recognized, a walleye and smallmouth bass removal program was instituted. Another problem appeared to be poor survival of kokanee eggs in spawning gravels, and to remedy this, additional reaches of potentially favorable spawning areas have been opened up through culvert replacement.

However, the most interesting new finding has been that kokanee may be spawning in deepwater areas of Lake Roosevelt itself. If that is the case, it is possible that exposure to non-native predators may be lessened as emergent fry from deep water spawning sites do not have to run a gauntlet of predators. It is notable that the CCT has concluded, based on field studies and modeling, that the availability of spawning habitat in the Sanpoil River is adequate, and therefore a kokanee spawning channel is not needed; this is a good example of adaptive management.

In the past, the ISRP has been somewhat critical of the heavy reliance on artificial production to support the Lake Roosevelt kokanee fishery. The proposal's emphasis on understanding kokanee life cycle and behavior, and on building naturally spawning populations on the Colville Reservation, is a move in the right direction. However, the proposal is still unclear about how natural and artificial production will be balanced in the future. There is a need to clarify whether hatchery fish will continue to be planted for a put-and-take fishery. Releases of hatchery fish may attract predators that could also prey upon naturally spawned fish, and requires further exploration. Hopefully, the thermal-marked otolith and adipose clip marking programs will help reveal the fate of hatchery and wild kokanee.

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

In summary, the project’s accomplishments to date are significant, and results are clearly and concisely presented. The studies conducted so far, and those proposed, seem well designed. The sponsors’ studies show that predation by walleye and smallmouth bass on fry and yearlings may be one of the major limiting factors for kokanee in the Sanpoil River. They have begun a localized predator control program, and while catch of predators has been high, the sponsors did not provide information on actual predator abundance, which would have been helpful. It seems that unless predators are controlled reservoir-wide they could continue to recruit to the Sanpoil and diminish the effectiveness of predator control in the river.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging)

The questions addressed by the project are appropriate, and the methods for the most part seem adequate. The project has made progress over the last decade in identifying the factors limiting naturally spawning kokanee recruitment. More work is needed on the behavior and life history of wild versus hatchery fish, but the current proposal does include some elements that address this issue.

Entrainment of young kokanee by Grand Coulee Dam has long been known as a major source of loss from Lake Roosevelt; however, there is little in the proposal that deals with the problem. The strobe light experiment did not significantly reduce entrainment, but there may be other measures that can help prevent fish loss at the dam.

The project sponsors are not relying on BPA for sole funding for the project. Additional funds have apparently been obtained to purchase kokanee eggs for the planting tube experiment. If egg tubes are successful, the Tribe intends to use them as a means of releasing hatchery fish in tributaries. Little of this type research is being done elsewhere in the Upper Columbia. Several of the work elements, for example harvest monitoring, involve collaboration with other organizations such as WDFW and the Spokane Tribe.

The project coordinates with the Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Project (LRFEP: 1994-043-00), the Spokane Tribe Hatchery (1991-046-00), and the Sherman Creek Hatchery (1991-047-00). The sponsors provided a discussion of the possible impacts of climate change which could be favorable for non-native species and harm salmonids. They do not indicate how their work will help to alleviate these potential problems. Lacking also was an indication or recognition of the common issues and initiatives shared by managers in other resident fish reservoirs of the Columbia Basin. A need for collaboration among other resident fish / reservoir managers is evident.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The Deliverables are straightforward and appear accomplishable. Deliverables 1 and 2 are experimental, using egg tubes implanted in the spawning gravel in the Sanpoil River to determine egg to fry survival. If successful, the sponsors hope egg tube incubation can be used to establish a viable naturally spawning kokanee population. It is unclear, however, whether implanting egg tubes will continue indefinitely or only until the adult escapement goal is achieved. Success in returning spawners to the river will depend heavily on how well predators are controlled. For the egg-fry survival studies, the sponsors may want to consider placing some egg tubes in a hatchery environment to serve as a “control” of sorts for comparison with survival measures from the tubes placed in the river.

The three objectives and six deliverables are adequately described and most of the work elements have been developed in sufficient detail for the project to go forward. The use of microchemical analysis of otoliths with laser ablation to determine spawning preferences of wild kokanee is being investigated and project sponsors state that whether it will be suitable has not yet been determined.

Complete methods for the predator reduction program have been uploaded to; however, the ISRP cautions that bycatch must be carefully monitored. In the presentation to the ISRP, the project sponsors emphasized that every fish captured in the predator removal program would be identified and measured. Whether by gillnetting or electrofishing, the removal methods will be generally non-selective and the possibility exists that native fishes may be killed in significant numbers. These could include some species of concern such as interior redband trout.

Thorough assessment of kokanee use of newly available spawning habitat, for example the Barnaby Creek culvert replacement project, will be needed to document colonization of streams where kokanee have not spawned previously.

The inclusion of a deliverable calling for development of a resident fish database is an excellent idea.

4a. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in

The description of predator reduction methods is reasonably complete, but more details are needed on data collection from captured fish. Other than length and presumably species, the methods make no mention of dietary analysis, which is crucial to determining whether the program is effective. As mentioned above, careful recording of non-target bycatch should be continued. 

An investigation of the feasibility of using live capture techniques other than gillnets in the bottleneck area for predator control should be explored. This may have the advantage of not only live release of kokanee and others, but also allow biological sampling and fish marking. See

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/13/2012 4:29:52 PM.
Documentation Links:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1995-011-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1995-011-00 - Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhancement
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: ISRP fund in part: funding continues but part of funding contingent on outcome of a workshop with the ISRP to address ISRP concerns. If project sponsor decides to pursue artificial production (Obj 1, work element 3) then implementation is dependent upon favorable step review.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1995-011-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1995-011-00 - Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhancement
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The ISRP reviewed the revised proposal, noting the withdrawal of the deepwater spawning components. The reviewers acknowledge the historical and cultural significance that kokanee hold for the project sponsors, and the reviewers support the overall thrust of the project in "preserving the natural origin kokanee stocks in Colville Tribal reservation streams (San Poil and Nespelem rivers) and other tributaries capable of supporting natural origin kokanee." Overall, project results of this decade-long endeavor have generally been thin or (as in the case of strobe lights to reduce entrainment) negative, reflecting the many difficulties faced in managing kokanee in the Lake Roosevelt system.

Portions of the proposed workplan involve inventory or improvement of passage for natural origin kokanee and are found to be Fundable. Those efforts appear in the revised proposal as both of the two work elements (planning and inventory of natural origin kokanee) under Biological Objective 1, and Work Elements 1 and 2 under Biological Objective 3. The latter two work elements would determine the feasibility of providing spawner access to lower Barnaby Creek and then design and construct access structure if feasible.

Reviewers maintain that there is no demonstrated scientific basis for an endorsement of the other portions of the actions proposed, namely Biological Objective 2, to supplement current kokanee stocks using artificial production, and Work Element 3 under Biological Objective 3, to conduct a feasibility study of spawning channels in the Nespelem and San Poil rivers. The latter work element is not accompanied by any discussion or supporting information and thus is Not Fundable; the "supplementation" objective is likewise viewed as Not Fundable, as discussed below.

The sponsors use the term supplementation but propose to conduct the operation in a way which does not truly embody the concept, and which is basically harvest augmentation. They state that "the fundamental assumption behind the theory of supplementation is that hatchery fish returning to the spawning grounds are ‘reproductively similar' to naturally produced fish." The sponsors go on to say (a) they will use (instead of stream-specific fish) "an in-basin stock that is currently being reared as part of the Lake Roosevelt Kokanee Hatchery Program" and (b) the intent is to "artificially produce sufficient salmonids to supplement consistent harvest . . ." As developed elsewhere in the Columbia Basin, supplementation is proposed to increase the naturally reproducing population of a specific stream to a level at which it will sustain itself. The idea is to use the specific stream's adults as parents for hatchery production of young, and then release those young into the same stream with the objective that some will return there to spawn and increase that stream's natural production. Regardless of what it is called, it appears that hatchery-reared kokanee are already being released in Big Sheep Creek and perhaps other stream sites. If so, that should be reported.

The ISRP does not support funding the release of hatchery-reared kokanee in Big Sheep Creek, West Fork San Poil, and Gold Fork as proposed for FY 07-09. The proposal does not adequately justify the action and does not provide enough detail for reviewers' consideration. Questions arise, such as how many wild kokanee remain in these streams? What is historic and current harvest? Why did the wild kokanee run decline? Can the causative factors be rectified? Could enough hatchery-produced kokanee be expected to survive the predator bottleneck where the streams enter the reservoir? The discussion of the barrier problem on Barnaby Creek showed that if conditions are "right" kokanee will come. The barrier is effective in most years but passable with high flows such as occurred in 1997 when 800 to 1000 fish escaped to the stream. In light of these results, any future consideration of any supplementation/harvest augmentation should include a focused discussion of the causes for what was concluded to be low production in these streams and an M&E plan that has measurable goals, with objectives and strategies that are clearly linked to the goals.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1995-011-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1995-011-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: Fish passage projects, and channel spawning feasibility studies for kokanee.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1995-011-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1995-011-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Bret Nine Supervisor Colville Confederated Tribes
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Holly McLellan Project Lead Colville Confederated Tribes
Kary Nichols (Inactive) Interested Party Colville Confederated Tribes
Edward Gresh Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Jamie Cleveland Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Shay Wolvert Technical Contact Colville Confederated Tribes
Brady (USGS) Allen Project SME US Geological Survey (USGS)