Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2006-004-00 - Wenas Wildlife Mitigation Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2006-004-00 - Wenas Wildlife Mitigation
Project Number:
2006-004-00
Title:
Wenas Wildlife Mitigation
Summary:
The Wenas Wildlife Area (W.A.) was approved as a wildlife mitigation project in 1996. The BPA-funded portion of the Wenas Wildlife Area encompasses 70,487 acres of state land, including 54,259 acres of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife land, 16,228 acres of Department of Natural Resources holdings and 3,485 acres managed on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management. This project partially meets BPA's mitigation obligation to compensate for wildlife and habitat losses resulting from the construction of Grand Coulee, McNary and John Day hydroelectric dams.
The focal species, representing habitat losses associated with the dams, are sage grouse, mule deer, western meadowlark, black-capped chickadee, yellow warbler and mink.
In addition, the Yakima River and Umtanum Creek also support ESA listed steelhead.
Located in Yakima and Kittitas Counties, the Wenas W.A. is predominately comprised of shrub steppe vegetation (29,060 ha (71,777 ac)), with the remainder consisting of riparian forest (423 ha (1,045 ac)), ponderosa pine forest (563 ha (1,390 ac)) and riverine habitat (130 ha (320 ac)) located along the Yakima River. Present habitat conditions were influenced primarily by past agricultural practices, extensive livestock grazing, and fires. Years of soil disturbance, uncontrolled vehicle use, and fires have all contributed to degraded shrub steppe and riparian habitats and widespread weed infestations throughout the Wildlife Area.
The management strategies for the Wildlife Area address several critical landscape level limiting factors such as shrub steppe habitat conversion, degradation, and fragmentation, as well as species-specific limiting factors. Management activities that have been implemented to address habitat conversion and degradation factors include seeding old agricultural fields to native-like vegetation, protecting and maintaining existing habitat, and controlling introduced vegetation. These activities and strategies also address factors that limit local populations of sage grouse such as quality and availability of nesting, foraging and wintering habitat.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
2006
Ending FY:
2023
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau Yakima 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Bass, Smallmouth
Catfish
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Kokanee
Pikeminnow, Northern
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Steelhead - Upper Columbia River DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Brown
Trout, Bull
Trout, Lake
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 100.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:

Description: Page: 1 Cover: Cover photo

Project: 2006-004-00

Document: P118194

Dimensions: 640 x 480

Contract: 65913

Location: 46.773375° N, -120.562572° E

Dimensions: 3264 x 1836

Contract: 65913

Location: 46.777725° N, -120.565436° E

Dimensions: 3264 x 1836

Contract: 65913

Location: 46.777258° N, -120.564919° E

Dimensions: 3264 x 1836


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 $121,941 From: General Cloned from: Wildlife O&M 06/05/2019
FY2020 Expense $442,635 From: General FY20 SOY 06/05/2019
FY2021 Expense $564,576 From: General FY21 SOY 06/09/2020
FY2021 Expense $293,808 From: General - Within Year Budget Transfers (BOG, BiOp) 10/6/2020 10/06/2020
FY2021 Expense $293,808 To: General - Within Year Budget Transfers (BOG, General) 11/5/2020 11/05/2020
FY2021 Expense $293,808 From: General Budget Transfers (BOG, General) 11/5/2020 11/05/2020
FY2022 Expense $65,442 From: General Budget Transfers (BOG, General) 11/5/2020 11/05/2020

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2021   DRAFT
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 $3,226,116 85%
2019 $1,825,759 76%
2018 $282,733 39%
2017 $409,872 50%
2016 $174,076 30%
2015 $452,180 40%
2014 $655,335 44%
2013 $832,776 70%
2012 $763,692 68%
2011 $414,418 54%
2010 $132,235 27%
2009 $224,163 40%
2008 $130,675 28%
2007 $210,075 38%

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Closed, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
24950 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2006-004-00 EXP WENAS WILDLIFE AREA O&M Closed $341,908 10/1/2005 - 9/30/2006
25831 SOW Central Washington University WENAS WILDLIFE - CULTURAL RESOURCE INVTRY Closed $9,765 11/21/2005 - 8/31/2006
596 REL 11 SOW Historical Research Associates, Inc. WENAS WLDF FIREBREAK - LIT REVU / ARCH SURVEY Closed $6,983 6/19/2006 - 9/30/2006
596 REL 12 SOW Historical Research Associates, Inc. WENAS WILDLIFE - ROAD PROJ Closed $13,988 7/10/2006 - 11/10/2006
29533 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2006-004-00 EXP WENAS WILDLIFE AREA O&M Closed $341,908 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
35034 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2006-004-00 EXP WENAS WILDLIFE AREA O&M Closed $263,406 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2008
39851 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 200600400 EXP WENAS WILDLIFE AREA O&M Closed $327,174 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
44851 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 200600400 EXP WENAS WILDLIFE AREA O&M Closed $595,546 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2011
55102 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2006-004-00 EXP WENAS WILDLIFE AREA O&M Closed $548,668 10/1/2011 - 6/30/2013
61677 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2006-004-00 EXP WENAS WILDLIFE AREA (OPERATION AND ENHANCEMENTS) Closed $359,217 7/1/2013 - 6/30/2014
65913 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2006-004-00 EXP WENAS WILDLIFE AREA (OPERATIONS AND ENHANCEMENTS) Closed $807,314 7/1/2014 - 6/30/2015
69074 SOW Pacific Habitat Services Inc WENAS HERBICIDE ESA CONSULT Closed $44,345 4/24/2015 - 5/1/2016
69573 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2006-004-00 EXP WENAS WILDLIFE AREA: OPERATIONS AND ENHANCEMENT Closed $625,067 7/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
73075 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2006-004-00 EXP WENAS WILDLIFE AREA: OPERATIONS & ENHANCEMENTS Closed $414,174 7/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
74314 REL 9 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2006-004-00 EXP WENAS WILDLIFE AREA: OPERATIONS AND ENHANCEMENTS Closed $414,174 7/1/2017 - 6/30/2018
74314 REL 44 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2006-004-00 EXP WENAS WILDLIFE MITIGATION: O&M (ENHANCEMENTS) Closed $392,699 7/1/2018 - 6/30/2019
74314 REL 78 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2006-004-00 EXP WENAS WILDLIFE AREA O&M Issued $564,576 7/1/2019 - 8/31/2020
74314 REL 110 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2006-004-00 EXP WENAS WILDLIFE AREA O&M: PROTECT AND RESTORE Issued $564,576 7/1/2020 - 6/30/2021
86468 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2006-004-00 EXP WENAS BOG FUNDING 3 YEAR FIRE RESPONSE Signature $293,808 10/26/2020 - 10/14/2023
CR-346474 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2006-004-00 EXP WENAS WILDLIFE AREA O&M Pending $564,576 7/1/2021 - 6/30/2022



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):17
Completed:4
On time:3
Status Reports
Completed:64
On time:17
Avg Days Late:13

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
24950 29533, 35034, 39851, 44851, 55102, 61677, 65913, 69573, 73075, 74314 REL 9, 74314 REL 44, 74314 REL 78, 74314 REL 110 2006-004-00 EXP WENAS WILDLIFE AREA O&M Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 10/2005 10/2005 Pending 63 192 15 0 26 233 88.84% 5
86468 2006-004-00 EXP WENAS BOG FUNDING 3 YEAR FIRE RESPONSE Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 10/2020 10/2020 Signature 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 63 192 15 0 26 233 88.84% 5


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: 2017 ISRP Wildlife Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2006-004-00-ISRP-20201118
Project: 2006-004-00 - Wenas Wildlife Mitigation
Review: 2017 ISRP Wildlife Review
Completed Date: 11/18/2020
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/28/2017
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

1. Objectives and outcomes 

The primary goals of this project are protection and enhancement of existing shrub-steppe, riparian and wetland habitats, and restoration of former agricultural fields and degraded areas to native habitats. The focal wildlife species are mule deer, sage grouse, western meadowlark, black-capped chickadee, yellow warbler, and mink. The main enhancement goal (returning 1,200 acres of disturbed sites to native habitats per BPA’s mitigation objectives) was completed by 2006. 

The brief Summary Report lists a number of tasks (actions) needed to achieve the two general objectives. Some of these tasks are quantitative and were used to evaluate progress. Other tasks were not quantitative but could be re-worded to be quantitative so that progress could be monitored. A more comprehensive table of tasks, quantitative performance measures, and description of progress was presented in the Wenas Management Plan Update for 2012-2013. This table effectively conveyed proposed and actual progress on these activities. Many of these performance measures involved habitat restoration such as planting seeds, controlling weeds, or maintaining wildlife fences, but none directly involved an evaluation of focal wildlife species. The 2006 Management Plan lists a number of management recommendations that include quantitative metrics, but it is not clear whether or not these quantitative recommendations have been monitored and evaluated. 

2. Scientific principles and methods 

The ISRP commends the WDFW project for conducting the “nested frequency vegetation plot” study, especially with the limited budget. Apparently much, if not all, of the monitoring effort is performed using non-BPA funds. The approach appeared to be appropriate, based on the limited presentation in the review materials. However, hypotheses and methods for this study should be presented in a progress report, even if the long-term study is still incomplete. Furthermore, the experimental design should incorporate an evaluation of whether forbs are spreading from the initial plot. The proponent noted that they purchase seeds from BFI Native Seeds. Other restoration proponents, such as the Nez Perce Tribe, have begun to produce their own native plant seeds, and the proponents of the Wenas project may benefit from their experience. 

3. Monitoring and evaluation 

The various reports provided a detailed description of actions over the years to maintain habitat quality. Some results were presented from the “nested frequency vegetation plot” study in a separate document and in the PowerPoint presentation. More details of this ongoing study and analysis are needed. The influence of fire on the study design should be assessed and discussed. 

The Summary Report cites references and provides computer links to nine reports involving sage grouse, mule deer, avian-perch deterrents on electric power lines, focal species, and landscape integrity connectivity. These reports involve a limited set of species across a broad area of Washington State, extending well beyond the Wenas Wildlife Area. As such it is difficult to evaluate the status of these species in the Wenas Wildlife Area and the contribution of the wildlife area to the status of the focal species. Future reports should summarize text from these reports that is relevant to the Wenas Wildlife Area. Summaries of vegetation data and lek surveys should also be included in the annual report. 

4. Results: benefits to fish and wildlife and adaptive management 

Six lessons learned and management responses are briefly described. Lessons learned involved difficulty in establishing native forbs, aerial application of herbicides and impacts on ESA-listed fishes, fires caused by target shooters, and public outreach regarding target shooting. Corrective actions were taken. 

WDFW highlighted the funding shortfall that presumably impacts implementation of habitat restoration actions in the wildlife area. However, the Summary Report did not clearly articulate the extent to which habitat restoration actions and habitat maintenance were lagging behind in response to funding shortfalls. The effect of funding shortfalls could be demonstrated by presenting quantitative objectives and performance measures, then describing the extent to which actions did not occur in response to limited funding. Fire was identified as a major unpredictable event that required considerable funding (i.e., $1.6 million in 1 year). To what extent did fire limit planned activities? 

Human-caused fire is a major issue affecting habitat and wildlife in the Wenas Area, requiring considerable funds ($1.6 million for suppression and restoration in response to one large fire). In one recent year, six of seven fires were attributed to target shooting on the wildlife area (lightning caused one fire). The WDFW should report whether the fire was caused by bullet ricochet (sparks), tracer ammunition, smoking by the participants, or by some other means in order to develop appropriate management approaches to minimize their future occurrence.

Target shooting is reportedly allowed throughout the wildlife area, rather than in specific areas where damage to habitat may be controlled. In response to recent fires, target shooting is now allowed only from sunrise to 10:00 am during the fire season (about June 1-Sept. 30). This restriction appears to have reduced the risk of fire during the past two years. The WDFW is also working through a public outreach process to address safety and habitat degradation issues associated with target shooting, with the hope of having a plan by the end of 2017. The wildlife area should consider a ban on the use of lead bullets (and shot) because lead is toxic to wildlife (https://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/lead_poisoning/). The ISRP strongly supports the efforts of WDFW managers to limit the time and location of target shooting in the wildlife area given the significant impacts of fire caused by target shooting and safety issues in an area that is designated as a wildlife area. Not only does human-caused fire have a significant impact on wildlife habitat, it also reduces the availability of funds and workforce that are needed for habitat restoration and maintenance. According to the wildlife managers, the policy decision to restrict locations of target shooting in the wildlife area and to ban use of lead bullets (and shot) is made by the Director of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Qualification #1 - Inclusions in Next Annual Report
In the next annual report, the proponent should provide the following information: 1. Quantitative objectives and performance metrics that will be monitored, evaluated, and used to help justify the need for increased funding. 2. Hypotheses, methods, and initial results of the ongoing experimental vegetation study.
Documentation Links:
Review: Wildlife Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2006-004-00-NPCC-20091217
Project: 2006-004-00 - Wenas Wildlife Mitigation
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Approved Date: 5/31/2009
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Programmatic issue # 9
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: Equipment/facilities purchase and replacement

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2006-004-00-ISRP-20090618
Project: 2006-004-00 - Wenas Wildlife Mitigation
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Completed Date: 5/19/2009
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The project history with timeline was presented as requested and was quite informative. It indicates that several monitoring projects need to be started. It was useful to learn that some of the native-like grasses may not be self-sustaining in the long-term and that some competition exists between native and native-like species. In most cases weed issues are important, and there is a need to establish native forbs after the weeds are controlled. The rationale for choosing projects was based on those areas in poorest condition, usually related to overgrazing. Choice of projects also included proximity to present sage grouse populations and soil depth which provided a better chance of success. This empirical approach seems reasonable and appears to include the wildlife management concepts of connectivity and perhaps carrying capacity. Some preliminary data (using about 50% of information) was presented from the nested frequency plots, as requested, but the data shows considerable variability which limits the ability to detect changes at this time. The ISRP is hopeful that the nested frequency plots will become very useful in the future. As implied in the Sunnyside comments, WDFW is proposing a more deliberate M&E strategy that will be integrated across all WDFW eastern Washington BPA mitigation projects (refers to Schroeder report), and it seems like a great concept.
First Round ISRP Date: 3/26/2009
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
This is a thoroughly prepared proposal and meets most scientific criteria with the exception of reporting results. If no data are produced to indicate if the project is meeting goals and objectives (with accruing benefits to wildlife) how can it be evaluated or justified?

The sponsors are asked to respond to the following:

1. tabulate the project history along a timeline so that patterns of success and problems can be assessed;
2. metrics are rarely given for Work Elements that have measurable attributes, e.g., Work Elements 1.1 and 1.2;
3. what is the scientific rationale for choosing projects, is any kind of a habitat network planned or are they chosen on availability/opportunity?
4. 125 permanent nested frequency plots established in 2002 to monitor establishment and success of native and native-like seedings - 52 plots were revisited, but no data are presented although there was some general discussion of the findings. Please present this analysis;
5. "Preliminary surveys have been conducted on many of the wildlife areas enabling a brief assessment of data collected to this point. Not all wildlife areas have been surveyed at this stage, primarily because of the time and money required to initiate surveys." How do the proponents plan to prioritize this survey work?

1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships
The justification for the Wenas Wildlife Area habitat restoration project is very detailed and builds a strong case for its support using many references and appropriate supporting data. The program is large and clearly significant and enables inclusion of a complete set of landscape and habitat elements for focal species (including major habitats for anadromous fish) with extensive home ranges and migration patterns. The sponsors have good working relationships with numerous other agencies which share common goals for restoration of the habitats of key focal species.

Relationships to other projects are described in detail and this project is coordinated with shrub-steppe recovery efforts that are consistent with WDFW’s LT Murray, Oak Creek, Quilomene/Whiskey Dick, Sunnyside, Asotin, Sagebrush Flat, Scotch Creek and Swanson Lakes Wildlife Areas.

2. Project History and Results
The project history is described thoroughly in a detailed narrative, but it would be useful to tabulate this information along a time line so that patterns of success and problems can be assessed by reviewers. The sponsors state "When restoration efforts began native species from local watersheds were not commercially available, so cultivars were chosen that had the closest resemblance to the native species." These cultivars are referred to as "Native-like." The proposal would be improved by inclusion of further details on these species. Do the native-like species perform the same ecological functions as native species, and have they caused any problems in the area?

3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods
Work elements and objectives are commendable and similar to other areas, including reintroducing the sage grouse by 2020, connecting the functional core habitat units by 2015, restoring the natural fire regime (maintain fire breaks), and thinning stands of trees. However, in most instances metrics are not given for Work Elements which could have measurable attributes, e.g., Work Elements 1.1 and 1.2. It would be useful to learn if there is any scientific rationale for choosing projects. Is there any kind of a habitat network in mind or are they chosen on availability/opportunity?

4. M&E
The ISRP in 2007 pointed out that HEP and HSI should not be emphasized as management tools. These are for accounting, not effectiveness monitoring. The ISRP wanted to see the number, length, and location of transects used for monitoring and also wanted to see the results of these surveys. This report describes the plots as requested and lists 125 permanent nested frequency plots established in 2002 to monitor establishment and success of native and native-like seedings – 52 plots were revisited, but no data are presented although there was some general discussion of the findings. The ISRP is interested in seeing data, which are important for making proper management decisions.

Five exclosures were constructed between 1968 and 2003 to monitor use by big game (especially elk). In 2005, intensive vegetation sampling occurred in all 5 exclosures. One table of percent cover inside and outside the exclosures was presented. No wildlife data were presented, no data on success of weed control activities, or effects of fertilizing on native or native-like vegetation. On page 26-27 the importance of M&E is recognized, but it appears that the collection and use of the data is planned to occur in the future (including integration of wildlife information with habitat information).

Schroeder et al. (2008) and Chao 2004 are cited, wherein future comparisons will be made between reference and treatment sites. We wonder if Dr. Schroeder is spread too thin on all of these projects. The sponsor states on p.26 "Preliminary surveys have been conducted on many of the wildlife areas enabling a brief assessment of data collected to this point. Not all wildlife areas have been surveyed at this stage, primarily because of the time and money required to initiate surveys." It would be helpful to learn how the proponents plan to prioritize this survey work. A strategic approach might be encouraged. It seems that data collection schemes for M&E are transitioning.
Documentation Links:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2006-004-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2006-004-00 - Wenas Wildlife Mitigation
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Interim funding pending wildlife o&m review.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2006-004-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2006-004-00 - Wenas Wildlife Mitigation
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The sponsors provided an effective, detailed response to concerns raised by the ISRP. The response on the monitoring, although generic, did indicate that they had a plan. This response was quite similar with the response to 200201400, therefore the ISRP evaluation of the response for this project is similar to that presented for 200201400.

Sponsors provided information about monitoring and evaluation such as noting that they currently incorporate standard Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) and Habitat Suitability Indices (HSIs). See general ISRP programmatic comments on HEP; this shouldn't be emphasized as a management tool. In addition, for operation and maintenance projects before and after photographs document the progress and completion of the project. They also provide some general information about monitoring of various mammal and bird species of interest. They should be more specific on the site designs. In the future, the ISRP wants to see the number, length, and location of transects used for monitoring and also see results obtained from these surveys. Also in the future, the ISRP would like more specific information included in proposals or linkages to readily available documents that specify monitoring and evaluation information.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2006-004-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2006-004-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: O&M on BPA-funded wildlife mitigation site; assume requested funds consistent with terms of MOA. Upon review, BPA concerned that funding is being applied in lieu of state funding; will need additional cost share or other resolution. Rating changed from a "1" to a "3."

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2006-004-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2006-004-00
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
Paul Dahmer Supervisor Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Cindi Confer Morris Project Lead Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Carolyn Sharp Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Andre L'Heureux Project SME Bonneville Power Administration
David Kaplowe Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Victoria Bohlen Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration