Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2008-307-00 - Deschutes River Sockeye Development Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2008-307-00 - Deschutes River Sockeye Development
Project Number:
2008-307-00
Title:
Deschutes River Sockeye Development
Summary:
To implement the development and re-establishment of sockeye in the Deschutes Basin. The project would develop natural and harvest mortality factors, providing information to the Columbia genetic library for Oncorhyncus nerka. Development of a model to predict smolt outmigrants using collected data correlated with hydroacoustic monitoring.

Oregon historically had two sockeye runs; the Wallowa Lake and the Deschutes/Suttle Lake Run. The Deschutes population became extirpated in the 1960’s with the finished construction of the Roundbutte Dam. This project in coordination with the Portland General Electric and Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon Pelton –Roundbutte FERC license begins the redevelopment of the Deschutes sockeye population. In order to re-establish a sockeye run in the Deschutes Basin critical population information is necessary. This project in partnership with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Portland General Electric will develop a cost effective and reliable method of sampling reservoir age class population data, and a life history model developed for predicting the age 1+ population available for outmigration and source for kokanee harvest. Genetic information for the sockeye library will be collected and tracked through the Columbia Basin. The study will also link the use of Suttle Lake production with Lake Billy Chinook and if separation is applicable. Spawning escapement will also be refined as well as subsequent fry production needed for the model inputs. As a result of the information collected and model developed the basin managers can make informed decisions on managing and balancing the re-establishment of sockeye in the Deschutes Basin with a harvestable kokanee population in Lake Billy Chinook.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2008
Ending FY:
2032
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau Deschutes 100.00%
Purpose:
Programmatic
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Kokanee
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

Map of the Deschutes River Basin, including Lake Billy Chinook and Metolius River Subbasin.

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P125168

Document: Deschutes River Sockeye Development Project; 12/08 - 2/11

Page Number: 13

Project: 2008-307-00

Contract: 52139

Map of upper Metolius River Subbasin including Lake Creek and Suttle Lake.

Figure Name: Figure 2

Document ID: P125168

Document: Deschutes River Sockeye Development Project; 12/08 - 2/11

Page Number: 14

Project: 2008-307-00

Contract: 52139

Kokanee seining and tagging/release locations in the Metolius Arm of Lake Billy Chinook, Oregon in 2009 and 2010.

Figure Name: Figure 7

Document ID: P125168

Document: Deschutes River Sockeye Development Project; 12/08 - 2/11

Page Number: 28

Project: 2008-307-00

Contract: 52139

Kokanee resight survey reaches in the Metolius River Subbasin in 2010. Reach numbers correspond with Table 3. Survey reaches that were dropped after the 2009 surveys (those marked with an asterisk in Table 2) are not included in this figure.

Figure Name: Figure 8

Document ID: P125168

Document: Deschutes River Sockeye Development Project; 12/08 - 2/11

Page Number: 30

Project: 2008-307-00

Contract: 52139

The Three River Arms of Lake Billy Chinook, Oregon: Metolius, Deschutes, and Crooked. Red lines indicate the terminus of the Crooked and Metolius Arms.

Figure Name: Figure 10

Document ID: P125168

Document: Deschutes River Sockeye Development Project; 12/08 - 2/11

Page Number: 37

Project: 2008-307-00

Contract: 52139

Geographic distribution of age 0+ kokanee in Lake Billy Chinook in February 2011. Each transect has been subdivided into 250 m intervals. Each data point represents the mean fish density within an interval. Excerpted from Mueller and Degan (2011).

Figure Name: Figure 18

Document ID: P125168

Document: Deschutes River Sockeye Development Project; 12/08 - 2/11

Page Number: 46

Project: 2008-307-00

Contract: 52139

Geographic distribution of age 1+ kokanee in Lake Billy Chinook in February 2011. Each transect has been subdivided into 250 m intervals. Each data point represents the mean fish density within an interval. Excerpted from Mueller and Degan (2011).

Figure Name: Figure 19

Document ID: P125168

Document: Deschutes River Sockeye Development Project; 12/08 - 2/11

Page Number: 47

Project: 2008-307-00

Contract: 52139

Geographic distribution of bull trout in Lake Billy Chinook in February 2011. Each transect has been subdivided into 250 m intervals. Each data point represents the mean fish density within an interval. Excerpted from Mueller and Degan (2011).

Figure Name: Figure 20

Document ID: P125168

Document: Deschutes River Sockeye Development Project; 12/08 - 2/11

Page Number: 48

Project: 2008-307-00

Contract: 52139


Summary of Budgets

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

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2018 (Previous) $204,028 $204,028 $167,153 $167,153 $158,028

Post 2018 – Warm Springs $204,028 $167,153 $167,153 $158,028
Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs $0 $0 $0 $0
FY2019 (Current) $204,028 $1 $1 ($72,167)

Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs $204,028 $1 $1 ($72,167)
FY2020 (Next) $204,028 $204,028 $0 $0 $0

Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs $204,028 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Oct-2018

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2018 - FY2020)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2018 Expense $204,028 From: Post 2018 – Warm Springs FY18 Initial Planning Budgets (WS, CTUIR, YN, CRITFC, CCT, ID) 2/10/2017 02/13/2017
FY2018 Expense $51,786 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Budget Transfers (WS) 4/23/2018 05/24/2018
FY2018 Expense $51,786 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Budget Transfers (WS) 4/23/2018 05/24/2018
FY2019 Expense $204,028 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Extensions (Warm Springs Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2020 Expense $204,028 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Extensions (Warm Springs Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2019   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
2018 $14,865 7 %
2017 $18,631 10 %
2016 $11,485 7 %
2015 $12,166 6 %
2014 $13,603 9 %
2013 $11,720 7 %
2012 $26,000 8 %
2011 $26,000 12 %
2010
2009 $27,000 24 %

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-004916 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Deschutes River Sockeye Dev Active $0 12/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
BPA-004999 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Deschutes River Sockeye Dev Active $2,457 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
BPA-006614 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Deschutes River Sockeye Development Active $18,689 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
78650 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 2008-307-00 EXP DESCHUTES RIVER SOCKEYE DEVELOPMENT Issued $167,153 3/1/2018 - 2/28/2019
CR-326037 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 2008-307-00 EXP DESCHUTES RIVER SOCKEYE DEVELOPMENT Pending $1 3/1/2019 - 2/29/2020



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):10
Completed:6
On time:6
Status Reports
Completed:39
On time:26
Avg Days Late:17

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
BPA-004916 PIT Tags - Deschutes River Sockeye Dev Bonneville Power Administration 12/2008 12/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40778 52139, 56745, 60587, 64275, 68409, 71834, 75392, 78650 2008-307-00 EXP DESCHUTES R. SOCKEYE DEVELOPMENT Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 12/2008 12/2008 Pending 38 154 16 0 16 186 91.40% 8
BPA-004999 PIT Tags - Deschutes River Sockeye Dev Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006614 PIT Tags - Deschutes River Sockeye Development Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 38 154 16 0 16 186 91.40% 8


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: Unsubmitted Accord Projects Remaining from the RME+ Categorical Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2008-307-00-NPCC-20120427
Project: 2008-307-00 - Deschutes River Sockeye Development
Review: Unsubmitted Accord Projects Remaining from the RME+ Categorical Review
Approved Date: 4/30/2012
Recommendation: Implement
Comments: August 19, 2010

In 2008-2009, the Bonneville Power Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Action Agencies) signed agreements with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO), the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (YN), and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC). These agreements with these Tribes and CRITFC are referred to as the Three Treaty Tribes MOA. The Action Agencies also signed agreements with the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CCT), the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (SBT), and the states of Idaho, Montana, and Washington. These agreements are known as the Columbia Basin Fish Accords (Accords).

As set forth in the guidance document outlining the review process for the Accords, the Council recognizes Bonneville’s commitment to Accord projects. The Accords do not, however, alter the Council’s responsibilities with respect to independent scientific review of project proposals or the Council’s role following such reviews. As with all projects in the Fish and Wildlife Program, Accord projects are subject to review by the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP), and the Council provides implementation recommendations based on full consideration of the ISRP's report and the Council’s Program.

On November 4, 2008, the Council received from Bonneville an Accord proposal from the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO), #2008-307-00, Deschutes Basin Sockeye.

On December 12, 2008 the ISRP provided its preliminary review (ISRP document 2008-15). The ISRP found that the proposal needed additional detail and provided a recommendation of “Response Requested - Does Not Meet Criteria.”

On May 12, 2010 the Council received from Bonneville a response to the issues raised by the ISRP, and on June 14, 2010 the Council received the final review from the ISRP (ISRP document 2010-19). The ISRP found that the proposal “Meets Science Review (In-Part, Qualified).” No public comment was been received on the ISRP reviews.

The goal of this collaborative program is to develop and re-establish a self-sustaining harvestable anadromous sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) run above the Pelton Round Butte Hydroelectric Project (PRB Project). [1] The objectives of this project are designed to address critical uncertainties in the Deschutes River basin associated with the Lake Billy Chinook and Suttle Lake O. nerka ecology and life-history as follows.

Objective 1. Determine the genetic structure of O. nerka in the Deschutes and Metolius river basins.
Objective 2. Determine outmigration timing and abundance of O. nerka from Suttle Lake.
Objective 3. Determine movement of O. nerka from Suttle Lake to SWW
Objective 4. Compare SAR rates between Suttle Lake and Lake Billy Chinook
Objective 5. Determine O. nerka population size and distribution in LBC
Objective 6. Determine spawner escapement of O. nerka in the Metolius River for the LBC group.
Objective 7. Develop quarterly and annual reports. [2]
Objective 8. Facilitate the development of a sockeye reintroduction plan [3]

The ISRP found the proposal much improved over the original version reviewed in late 2008. The panel found that two of the objectives meet review criteria (Objectives 1 and 5) and additional detail is needed for Objectives 2, 3, 4 and 6. The ISRP qualified its recommendation regarding Objective 8, develop a sockeye reintroduction plan, with the condition that if the reintroduction involves artificial production funded through the Fish and Wildlife Program a proposal to develop a Master Plan under the Council’s Three-Step process would be needed.

The additional detail requested for Objectives 2, 3, 4 and 6 addresses the adequacy of the sample size required to satisfy the precision of the estimates outlined in the specific objectives. The ISRP suggested that a statistician would be able to provide this analysis. The Council staff agrees with the ISRP and suggests that this analysis could be conducted through Project #1991-051-00, M&E Statistical Support For Life-Cycle Studies and work with Dr. John Skalski of the University of Washington to complete the analysis for ISRP review.

Notes
[1] The PRB Project is owned and operated by Portland General Electric Company (PGE) and the CTWSRO. In 2005, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) granted PGE and CTWSRO a new 50-year operating license. In 2004, a Settlement Agreement concerning the relicensing included provisions for a Fish Passage Plan to: 1) establish self-sustaining harvestable anadromous fish runs of Chinook, steelhead and sockeye above the PRB Project; and 2) provide for safe, timely and effective upstream and downstream fish passage of adult and juvenile life stages of several fish species including sockeye. The achievement of the goal is a shared responsibility among the CTWSRO, PGE and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) because CTWSRO and PGE are co-licensees and CTWSRO has co-management authority with ODFW regarding fish and wildlife in the Deschutes River Basin. Within the Deschutes Subbasin, CTWSRO, PGE and ODFW conduct O. nerka investigations both cooperatively with and independently of one another in the basin and this project like others has been developed to accommodate and support information and data sharing.

[2] The Council agrees with the ISRP that this objective should be treated as an administrative task and addressed in contracting.

[3] The development of a sockeye reintroduction plan is being paid for by PGE and facilitated by CTWSRO and ODFW.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Based on the ISRP review, the Council supports the project for implementation, subject to return by the ISRP of a favorable analysis of the sample size, as called for in ISRP document 2010-19, prior to initiating the activities associated with Objectives 2, 3, 4 and 6.
Council Condition #2 In addition, if the reintroduction plan (Objective 8) involves artificial production funded under the Fish and Wildlife Program further ISRP review will be required.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2008-307-00-ISRP-20120427
Project: 2008-307-00 - Deschutes River Sockeye Development
Review: Unsubmitted Accord Projects Remaining from the RME+ Categorical Review
Completed Date: 4/27/2012
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/15/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

Objective 1 (genetic analysis): Meets Science Review

Objectives 2, 3, and 4 (determine outmigration timing and abundance, movement from Suttle Lake, and compare SAR values): Response Requested – confirmation of the adequacy of sample sizes to achieve precision in the population estimates is needed. The ISRP recommends consultation with statisticians.

Objective 5 (hydroacoustic surveys): Meets Science Review

Objective 6 (determine spawner escapement): Response requested – provide confirmation that sample sizes of marked and recaptured fish are providing robust estimates of kokanee spawning escapement to the Metolius River.

Objective 6 (determine spawner escapement): Response requested – provide confirmation that sample sizes of marked and recaptured fish are providing robust estimates of kokanee spawning escapement to the Metolius River.

Objective 7 (prepare reports): Delete – this is an administrative task associated with all other objectives. It would be more appropriate to incorporate as a work element (task) under each objective associated with management objectives.

Objective 8 (develop a sockeye reintroduction plan): Meets Science Review (qualified). If the reintroduction of sockeye involves artificial production funded through the Fish and Wildlife Program a proposal to develop a Master Plan using the Council’s Three-Step process would be needed. See additional literature on sockeye reintroduction plans.

ISRP Comments

The proposal is much improved from the original version. Some objectives currently meet scientific review criteria, but other objectives need further development and presentation to the ISRP before a conclusion can be established.

Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships (sections B-D)

ISRP comments on the original proposal included a request for a discussion of the biological need for the work proposed. The revised proposal addresses that with a few sentences and a list of objectives in the abstract – not quite to the level the reviewers requested. However, the section on Technical Background was expanded and now provides good background. It is clearly
written, but still terse.

The brief summary of O. nerka life history and status in the Deschutes subbasin above Round Butte Dam was adequate. The discussion of the anticipated passage facilities and attempts to attract and pass juveniles was incomplete.

Based on the technical background, it appears considerable uncertainty remains regarding the relationship of Metolius River/Lake Billy Chinook and Suttle Lake kokanee with remnant predevelopment lineages. This needs to be resolved, and the proponent’s philosophy and approach to reintroduction or recovery of the anadromous life history from kokanee should be clearly
stated in an elaboration of Objective 8, the sockeye reintroduction plan. An evaluation of the evolutionary (ESU) status of the extant kokanee is needed. Once consensus is achieved on that topic, decisions on the primary goals of re-establishing anadromy will need to be made. The essential decision is what approach to take if the Suttle Lake or Lake Billy Chinook populations appear to be remnants descended from pre-development sockeye. These fish may then have conservation priority as kokanee even if they fail to reestablish anadromy at an abundance and productivity sufficient to support harvest.

The proponent cites one example of reestablishing anadromy from kokanee, and uses this as justification for attempting the recovery effort. There probably are less than a half-dozen examples of sockeye being reestablished, so the outcome is very uncertain in the opinion of the ISRP. If reestablishing anadromy is ultimately the goal, the fish management actions need to support the evolutionary processes that permit the extant genetic diversity to respond to selection for anadromy. There is not an established protocol to implement this type of objective. There may be a trade-off between kokanee and sockeye and/or a trade-off between conservation of
remnant relics and contemporary harvest. These topics should be fully discussed in the reintroduction plan. The ISRP provides additional citations of literature on reintroduction of sockeye in the Adams River (Williams 1987), Coquitlam Reservoir (Bocking and Gadbury 2003), and modeling sockeye populations (Macdonald et al. 2010) that may be useful for the proponents.

Reviewers’ queries about how the work would be sponsored and conducted by the number of entities involved now seem to be adequately addressed.

Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods (section F)

Objectives were significantly revised and strengthened. In some cases they are now more specific than some of the original vague, broadly-stated objectives (i.e., develop a life history model) of which reviewers were critical. Objective 1 is now to assess the genetic structure of the fish, in conjunction with Project 200890700. Objective 7 (report preparation) is an administrative task associated with other objectives and should be incorporated as a work element (task) under them.

Additional details are required on the sufficiency of tagging and recovery components of Objectives 2, 3, 4, and 6. The information provided is not sufficient for scientific review. The ongoing use of acoustics to assess kokanee abundance is still given in only very minimal terms. The revised proposal mentions using mid-water trawling to validate acoustics, with minimal detail.

Additional Literature

Bocking, B. C., and M.N. Gaboury. 2003. Feasibility of reintroducing sockeye and other species
of Pacific salmon in the Coquitlam Reservoir, BC. Bridge-Coastal Fish and Wildlife
Restoration Program 6911 Southpoint Drive Burnaby, BC V3N 4X8.
http://www.bchydro.com/bcrp/reports/docs/coq_feasibility_mar2003_final.pdf

Macdonald, J. S., D. A. Patterson, M. J. Hague, I. C. Gutherie. 2010. Modeling the influence of
environmental factors on spawning migration mortality for sockeye salmon fisheries
management in the Fraser River, British Columbia. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 139:768-782.

Williams, I. V. 1987. Attempts to re-establish sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka)
populations in the upper Adams River, British Columbia, 1949-84. Pages 385-395, in H. D.
Smith, L. Margolis, and C. C. Wood (Eds.). Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka)
population biology and future management. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 96. Withler, F. C. 1982. Transplanting Pacific salmon. Canadian.

Documentation Links:

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 2008-307-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 2008-307-00
Review: Unsubmitted Accord Projects Remaining from the RME+ Categorical Review
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Supports 2008 FCRPS BiOp
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: No BiOp Workgroup Comments

The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: ()
All Questionable RPA Associations () and
All Deleted RPA Associations ()
Proponent Response:
Review: Fish Accord ISRP Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2008-307-00-ISRP-20100323
Project: 2008-307-00 - Deschutes River Sockeye Development
Review: Fish Accord ISRP Review
Completed Date: 8/19/2010
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/15/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Objective 1 (genetic analysis): Meets Science Review

Objectives 2, 3, and 4 (determine outmigration timing and abundance, movement from Suttle Lake, and compare SAR values): Response Requested – confirmation of the adequacy of sample 2 sizes to achieve precision in the population estimates is needed. The ISRP recommends consultation with statisticians.

Objective 5 (hydroacoustic surveys): Meets Science Review

Objective 6 (determine spawner escapement): Response requested – provide confirmation that sample sizes of marked and recaptured fish are providing robust estimates of kokanee spawning escapement to the Metolius River.

Objective 7 (prepare reports): Delete – this is an administrative task associated with all other objectives. It would be more appropriate to incorporate as a work element (task) under each objective associated with management objectives.

Objective 8 (develop a sockeye reintroduction plan): Meets Science Review (qualified). If the reintroduction of sockeye involves artificial production funded through the Fish and Wildlife Program a proposal to develop a Master Plan using the Council’s Three-Step process would be needed. See additional literature on sockeye reintroduction plans.
Modified by Bryan Mercier on 12/14/2011 10:33:29 AM.
Modified by Bryan Mercier on 12/15/2011 11:24:23 AM.
First Round ISRP Date: 12/12/2008
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
In its current form the proposal is insufficient for technical review. Reviewers concerns arose because of inadequate information rather than evidence of unsound science. This proposal is in need of revision, and ISRP comments and queries are designed to provide feedback to help in that effort.
Documentation Links:
Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2008-307-00-NPCC-20110711
Project: 2008-307-00 - Deschutes River Sockeye Development
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement through FY 2016 per August 18, 2010 Council decision.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Based on the ISRP review (ISRP document 2010-19), the Council supports the project for implementation, subject to return by the ISRP of a favorable analysis of the sample size, as called for in ISRP document 2010-19, prior to initiating the activities associated with Objectives 2, 3, 4 and 6. In addition, if the reintroduction plan (Objective 8) involves artificial production funded under the Program further ISRP review will be required.

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Brad Houslet Interested Party Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Jeffrey Hogle Technical Contact Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Cyndi Baker Project Lead Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
John Skidmore Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Jesse Wilson Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Charles Combs Interested Party Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Chris Brun Supervisor Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs