Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2010-036-00 - Lower Columbia Coded Wire Tag (CWT) Recovery Project Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2010-036-00 - Lower Columbia Coded Wire Tag (CWT) Recovery Project
Project Number:
2010-036-00
Title:
Lower Columbia Coded Wire Tag (CWT) Recovery Project
Summary:
Washington’s current tag recovery program in the Lower Columbia River (LCR) is centered on the recovery of coded wire tags (CWT) from fisheries and escapement sampling, and development of escapement estimates primarily for Chinook salmon. Deficiencies have been identified for the program including: 1) low escapement sample rates, 2) non-representative escapement sampling, 3) incomplete escapement sampling, and 4) bias in estimates of total escapement. This is particularly true for coho salmon for which very limited escapement sampling occurs. In addition, the application of Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags has increased from 20,000 in 1988 to over 2,000,000 in 2009. Currently, 2% of the returning adult salmon and steelhead passing Bonneville Dam (BON) are PIT tagged. It is natural extension of the current CWT recovery program to include PIT tag recoveries. The goals of this proposal are: 1) to address high priority deficiencies in the CWT program, 2) to expand Washington’s LCR CWT program to include a recovery program for all tags, including PIT tags, and marks sampled in fisheries and escapement programs, 3) to provide point and interval estimates for recovered Pit and CWT tags by stratum when sample sizes are sufficient, 4) to have a single framework for tag recovery and salmon escapement monitoring programs, to report on Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) metrics for Chinook and coho salmon, and 5) to make this information available to policy makers, planners, managers, and others. This proposal builds on the existing framework and infrastructure of the current CWT recovery program along other state, federal, and locally funded fisheries and escapement sampling programs coordinated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Proposer:
Proponent Orgs:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
2010
Ending FY:
2021
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Gorge Columbia Gorge 33.00%
Columbia River Estuary Columbia Estuary 34.00%
Lower Columbia Columbia Lower 33.00%
Purpose:
Programmatic
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Lower Columbia River ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
Chum - Columbia River ESU
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Shad, American
Sockeye - All Populations
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Lower Columbia River DPS
Sturgeon, White - Lower Columbia River
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this Project.

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 $1,654,289 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY20 SOY 06/05/2019
FY2021 Expense $1,654,289 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY21 SOY 06/09/2020

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 $3,834,000 70%
2019 $3,999,000 71%
2018 $3,900,000 70%
2017 $3,749,124 69%
2016 $3,563,150 68%
2015 $3,464,212 68%
2014 $3,014,956 59%
2013 $2,976,800 63%
2012 $2,525,586 62%
2011 $1,555,000 90%

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
BPA-005315 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Lower Columbia CWT Active $1,721 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
48948 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 201003600 EXP LOWER COLUMBIA CODED WIRE TAG Closed $1,553,401 8/15/2010 - 1/31/2012
BPA-005517 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Lower Columbia CWT Active $2,410 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
57287 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-036-00 EXP WDFW COL. R. TAG REC., POP. MONITOR AND ANALYSIS Closed $973,894 2/1/2012 - 1/31/2013
57563 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 2010-036-00 EXP PSMFC COL. R. TAG REC., POP. MONITOR AND ANALYSIS Closed $423,973 6/16/2012 - 1/31/2013
61015 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-036-00 EXP WDFW COL. R. TAG REC., POP. MONITOR AND ANALYSIS Closed $884,228 2/1/2013 - 1/31/2014
59976 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 2010-036-00 EXP PSMFC COL. R. TAG REC., POP. MONITOR AND ANALYSIS Closed $818,517 2/1/2013 - 1/31/2014
64528 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-036-00 EXP WDFW COL. R. TAG REC., POP. MONITOR AND ANALYSIS Closed $1,020,976 2/1/2014 - 6/30/2015
64046 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 2010-036-00 EXP PSMFC COL. R. TAG REC., POP. MONITOR AND ANALYSIS Closed $1,079,416 2/1/2014 - 6/30/2015
69142 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-036-00 EXP WDFW COL. R. TAG REC., POP. MONITOR AND ANALYSIS Closed $860,539 7/1/2015 - 6/30/2016
69257 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 2010-036-00 EXP PSMFC COL. R. TAG REC. POP. MONITOR AND ANALYSIS Closed $769,805 7/1/2015 - 6/30/2016
72970 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-036-00 EXP WDFW COL. R. TAG REC., POP. MONITOR AND ANALYSIS Closed $792,560 7/1/2016 - 6/30/2017
72994 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 2010-036-00 EXP PSMFC COL. R. TAG REC. POP. MONITOR AND ANALYSIS Issued $860,000 7/1/2016 - 6/30/2017
74314 REL 7 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-036-00 EXP WDFW COL. R. TAG REC., POP. MONITOR AND ANALYSIS Closed $798,289 7/1/2017 - 6/30/2018
76302 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 2010-036-00 EXP PSMFC COL. R. TAG REC. POP. MONITOR AND ANALYSIS Issued $856,000 7/1/2017 - 6/30/2018
74314 REL 42 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-036-00 EXP WDFW COL. R. TAG REC, POP. MONITOR AND ANALYSIS Closed $842,808 7/1/2018 - 6/30/2019
78040 REL 6 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 2010-036-00 EXP PSMFC COL. R. TAG REC. POP. MONITOR AND ANALYSIS Issued $811,481 7/1/2018 - 6/30/2019
BPA-010804 Bonneville Power Administration Tag Readers - Lower Columbia CWT Recovery Program Active $8,426 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
74314 REL 75 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-036-00 EXP WDFW LOWER COLUMBIA CODED WIRE TAG RECOVERY PROJ Closed $885,438 7/1/2019 - 6/30/2020
78040 REL 16 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 2010-036-00 EXP PSMFC LOWER COLUMBIA CODED WIRE TAG RECOVERY PROJ Issued $768,852 7/1/2019 - 7/1/2020
74314 REL 111 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-036-00 EXP WDFW LOWER COLUMBIA CODED WIRE TAG Issued $885,437 7/1/2020 - 6/30/2021
78040 REL 28 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 2010-036-00 EXP PSMFC LOWER COLUMBIA CODED WIRE TAG Issued $768,852 7/2/2020 - 7/1/2021
CR-345835 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-036-00 EXP WDFW LOWER COLUMBIA CODED WIRE TAG Pending $885,437 7/1/2021 - 6/30/2022
CR-345876 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 2010-036-00 EXP PSMFC LOWER COLUMBIA CODED WIRE TAG Pending $768,852 7/1/2021 - 6/30/2022



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):20
Completed:10
On time:10
Status Reports
Completed:76
On time:27
Avg Days Late:9

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-005315 PIT Tags - Lower Columbia CWT Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
48948 57287, 61015, 64528, 69142, 72970, 74314 REL 7, 74314 REL 42, 74314 REL 75, 74314 REL 111 201003600 EXP LOWER COLUMBIA CODED WIRE TAG Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 08/2010 08/2010 Pending 42 117 13 0 12 142 91.55% 2
BPA-005517 PIT Tags - Lower Columbia CWT Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
57563 59976, 64046, 69257, 72994, 76302, 78040 REL 6, 78040 REL 16, 78040 REL 28 2010-036-00 EXP PSMFC COL. R. TAG REC., POP. MONITOR AND ANALYSIS Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 06/2012 06/2012 Pending 34 93 12 0 0 105 100.00% 1
BPA-010804 Tag Readers - Lower Columbia CWT Recovery Program Bonneville Power Administration 10/2018 10/2018 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 76 210 25 0 12 247 95.14% 3


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: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2010-036-00-ISRP-20190404
Project: 2010-036-00 - Lower Columbia Coded Wire Tag (CWT) Recovery Project
Review: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support
Proposal Number: NPCC19-2010-036-00
Completed Date: None
First Round ISRP Date: 4/4/2019
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

Qualifications:

The ISRP recommends that the proponents describe their responses to the ISRP's comments and suggestions below in their upcoming annual report covering FY 2019 accomplishments.

1.      The proponents should perform the power analyses they suggest in their proposal to help guide their sampling efforts and to provide measures of precision for all estimates.

2.      The project should begin to build a "brood table" for natural origin salmonids and show these values in annual reports, e.g., total adult recruitment produced by natural spawners. This information is needed for the evaluation of abundance and productivity, two key VSP parameters.

3.      Describe any efforts being made to link fish identification from the CWT- and PIT-tagging programs with comparable data obtained by Parentage-Based Tagging.

Comment:

This proposal clearly explains why the project was initiated, how it relates to the overall coded-wire-tag (CWT) program, and why it remains a critical monitoring effort in the Columbia Basin. However, the Adaptive Management section contains statements that reductions in funding hampered WDFW's ability to achieve sample rates targets for some fisheries in 2013-2017, and that "if additional funding is not identified, it will be necessary to prioritize fisheries and reduce or eliminate sampling of some fisheries. ... It may be possible to shift sampling effort among fisheries occurring simultaneously to come closer to sample rate targets, but this is often not possible as fisheries may occur on different days or large distances apart. Fishery sampling of the treaty Indian fishery (Zone 6) was especially challenging in recent years due to increased landings of dressed (i.e., gutted) fish and lack of access to sample some tribal fish buyers. The issues encountered by samplers in Zone 6 may result in a biased sample of the CWTs, PIT tags and individual fish weights even if sample rates met the targets due to the need to sample different stocks in proportion to the catch composition. These potential sources of bias in Zone 6 create issues for estimating harvest by stock and in general decrease precision in management by WDFW and co-managers in the Columbia River basin. WDFW is currently attempting to restructure sampling in Zone 6 to account for these potential sources of error, but difficulties may continue." These concerns parallel concerns expressed in the PSMFC proposal involving CWT (1982-031-00). These funding issues and associated implications require further discussion and evaluationby the Basin's fisheries managers, the Council, and BPA. To be effective, these discussions should occur now, prior to the Basin's fall fisheries.

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

The goals and objectives of the monitoring project are well defined and justified, including (1) estimate the number of PIT tags in Columbia River fisheries, (2) estimate CWT Chinook and coho salmon contributions to escapement count in Washington's lower Columbia tributaries as a means to support VSP status, (3) Chinook salmon escapement monitoring for the Toutle River, Upper Gorge, and Upper Columbia populations (including Hanford Reach), and (4) monitoring spawning escapement of coho salmon in key Washington populations below Bonneville Dam. Anticipated outcomes are expressed quantitatively as sampling rates and data standards to be achieved and maintained over the longer-term.This is a monitoring project that requires long-term continuity to evaluate fish status in relation to fisheries.

2. Results and Adaptive Management

Results from 2013-2017 are briefly presented in the proposal for (1) Chinook and coho salmon spawning in specific tributaries, including hatchery origin (HOR) and natural origin (NOR) spawners, (2) sport fisheries, (3) commercial fisheries, and (4) fall Chinook counts at Bonneville Dam. Origin (hatchery versus natural) is identified in the recreational catches (unmarked fish are released) and commercial catches, and spawning escapements. Harvest rates based on PIT-tag data are calculated despite some logistical and technological challenges to achieving a 20% sampling rate in the mainstem fisheries. The proponents have identified a plan to overcome these hurdles; measures of precision about estimates and assumptions should be provided when possible. Ultimately, data generated by this effort are used in agency reports that describe basic salmon population trends and harvests. The proponents should begin to use the population data to create "brood tables" which are key to development of stock-recruitment relationships and assessing stock productivity. Data and evaluations produced by this project are uploaded to the publicly accessible CWT database (RMIS). A comprehensive report for the 2010 season provides many details on the methods and results. The proponents have produced a series of publications on methods and data standards in addition to their annual reports.

WDFW recognizes the need to restructure sampling in Zone 6 to account for potential sources of error and bias because of increased landings of "dressed" fish and lack of access to sample some tribal fish buyers. WDFW is testing new methods of electronic data capture and transfer to databases. Stream surveys of coho salmon are being revised.

The proposal does not mention any effort directed toward linking fish identification data from the CWT- and PIT-tagging programs with data obtained by genetic (e.g., parentage-based tagging, PBT) or acoustic telemetry programs. A major recommendation from the Pacific Salmon Commission's expert panel review in 2005 (that motivated this project) was to develop a coordinated research and implementation plan, including integration of other genetic and electronic tagging tools/techniques. This integration could be particularly useful because, as noted in the proposal, exploitation rates of wild salmon in commercial fisheries stem from analysis of CWT hatchery salmon and the assumption that exploitation rates of wild salmon are the same as hatchery salmon.

3. Methods: Project Relationships, Work Types, and Deliverables

The proposal documents activities and methods in appropriate detail and makes good use of the published literature to justify assertions and support procedures. This project primarily serves a long-term monitoring and data sharing function. The proposal provides appropriate detail about the types of activities used to detect or recover CWT in samples of catches and escapements, and to estimate escapements and calculate harvest rate. There is a need to develop and describe integrated methods that can propagate uncertainty along the entire chain of computations to get final estimates with measures of uncertainty. On page 57 of the report, it states the need to "Consider a power analysis for important fishery management groups to ensure sufficient PIT tagging and sampling to meet management precision goals." This analysis should be completed immediately. We could not verify whether the statistical methods used for CWT analyses were standard or something different.

Some typos were noted in the caption to Table 1 of the 2018 report ("do NOT provide accurate pHOS estimates...") and values in Table 14 (commas misplaced or extraneous digits).

Documentation Links:
Review: Fast Track ISRP Review 2010

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2010-036-00-ISRP-20100622
Project: 2010-036-00 - Lower Columbia Coded Wire Tag (CWT) Recovery Project
Review: Fast Track ISRP Review 2010
Completed Date: None
First Round ISRP Date: 2/24/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
This project has the potential to benefit Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife by filling important gaps in recovery of passive integrated transponder (PIT) and coded-wire tagged (CWT) for salmonids in the Lower Columbia Region (LCR). However, the proposal narrative often referenced unpublished reports for details of viable salmonid population (VSP) monitoring methods and software to be used for different estimates. The ISRP requests a response in the form of a revised narrative to provide augmented details on methodologies outlined below.

An adequate response should provide the following information: The metric numbers provided for tagging, RME designs, and analysis and interpretation of data need to be augmented with a description of the metrics. Similarly, the metric numbers provided for tagging, random sampling of CWT and PIT tags, and analysis and interpretation of data need to be augmented with a description of the metrics.

The first proposed test of the tag detection rates appears problematic due to small sample size. In the second test plans to conduct the test at a hatchery or commercial sampling site have not been confirmed. Evidence of confirmation is necessary and details showing that the number of tags will be adequate should be provided. Details of how this test will be extended to examine differences between individuals/detectors should be provided.

Details for the sampling design to sample CWT and PIT tags from Columbia River sport and commercial fisheries should be provided.

The reference to a CV of 15% (Crawford and Rumsey, 2009) has not been established as a reasonable data standard. Crawford and Rumsey (2009) reference Carlile et al. (2008), which makes recommendations for coefficients of variation for estimates of total spawning escapement. The statistical and biological basis for the recommendation in Carlile et al. (2008) has not been reviewed. The justification that the standard represents a realistic goal for planning because it corresponds to an acceptable risk (one year or one stock in six) of failing to label a stock of concern when warranted appears to be arbitrary. The observation that the standard has proven to be attainable for many escapement estimation studies does not mean that this is the appropriate data standard. Further justification for sample size targets is required.

1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships
The technical justification was straightforward and adequate for expanding the tag recovery program by adding PIT tagging. The proposed project will address several deficiencies (that are clearly stated) in the current CWT program. In particular, the project will fill significant fall Chinook and coho salmon monitoring gaps in the Lower Columbia River during the Columbia River Tributary Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation (RME) process.

The proponents provided very good detail on how this project will respond to the Lower Columbia River Subbasin plans (LCFRB 2004) and generally the BiOp, PSC recommendations, and other Fish and Wildlife Program elements.

The proponents listed many projects (CWT and PIT) as related to and sharing data with this one. Also, this project coordinates with and shares data with the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Project’s (PNAMP) Integrated Status and Trend Monitoring (ISTM) project (#200400200) by using the same spawning distribution models for CWT recoveries and escapement.


2. Project History and Results
This is a new project that builds on three previous BPA-funded CWT recovery projects (# 198201301, #2007236800, and #2007355000). A brief history of the current CWT program (# 198201301) was provided.

3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods
Objective 1. "Escapement Sampling for CWTs" is not a fully stated, measurable objective and not until paragraph two following this statement do we find the full objective 1, which is "In this CWT and VSP monitoring effort, we intend to recover CWTs on spawning ground surveys to estimate exploitation rates for hatchery Chinook and coho salmon and concurrently gather data for VSP metrics (productivity, abundance, diversity, and spatial structure) using methods and sampling designs to meet the NOAA monitoring guidance (Crawford and Rumsey 2009)." The proponents provided useful tables summarizing assumptions needed to calculate unbiased population estimates. The methods for this objective are described in good detail for the most part, but often we are referred to reports for details of VSP monitoring methods and software to be used for different estimates. Links to some/many of those would be useful for reviewers.

The proponents state that this project will provide "better managing and maintaining of existing databases" (WDFW's CWT, age, scales and biological data, and spawning ground survey databases in Olympia), but there is not a clear description of what this entails.

Objective 1 includes marking and tagging of salmon for mark-recapture studies, but no details are provided on tagging methods, numbers and species of fish tagged, or possible negative effects of tagging on fish.

The metric numbers provided for tagging, RME designs, and analysis and interpretation of data need to be augmented with a description of the metrics.

Objective 2. "Fisheries Sampling for PIT Tags" should expand to "Fisheries Will be Sampled and Reported for PIT Tags as well as CWTs". This effort will be shared with ODFW and both agencies will upgrade to new detectors and data loggers. Methods for this objective are also well detailed and appear to be adequate for both sport and commercial Columbia mainstem fisheries.

Carcasses will be PIT tagged to assess PIT tag detection rates, but a concise summary of experimental design and methods was not provided.

The proponents state that CWT and PIT tags will be randomly sampled from Columbia River sport and commercial fisheries, but no sampling design is provided.

The metric numbers provided for tagging, random sampling of CWT and PIT tags, and analysis and interpretation of data need to be augmented with a description of the metrics.
Documentation Links:
Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2010-036-00-NPCC-20110624
Project: 2010-036-00 - Lower Columbia Coded Wire Tag (CWT) Recovery Project
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-2010-036-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement per April-May 2010 Council decision for Fast Track projects through FY 2013 with condition: Sponsors to participate in developing an over- arching plan on the future of CWT as described in programmatic issue #9. Funding beyond 2013 subject to ISRP and Council review of the plan.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #9 Coded-wire tags—.

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 2010-036-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 2010-036-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2010-036-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Response Requested
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: BPA would like to discuss further coordination in data management needs of this project to support RPA 72 and potentital coordination with PNAMP Data workgroup.

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: (50.4 50.5 50.6 51.1 62.4 )
All Questionable RPA Associations (72.1) and
All Deleted RPA Associations ( 50.7 72.3)
Proponent Response:

I welcome continued discusssion with PNAMP data workgroup.  I would like to discuss the questionable and deleted RPAs with the COTR and appropriate RM&E workgroups.

Dan

 


Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Dan Rawding Interested Party Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Janice Jackson Administrative Contact Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Bryce Glaser Project Lead Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
John Skidmore Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Thomas Wadsworth Supervisor Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
George Nandor Interested Party Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Todd Hillson Project Lead Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Catherine Clark Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Eric Andersen Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Martin Allen Project SME Bonneville Power Administration
Beth Deacy Technical Contact Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)