Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2010-073-00 - Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Restoration Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2010-073-00 - Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Restoration
Project Number:
2010-073-00
Title:
Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Restoration
Summary:
Columbia Land Trust will accelerate the development, design and construction of on-the-ground habitat restoration actions in the Columbia River Estuary that benefit threatened and endangered salmonid species and help meet survival benefit targets/goals required under the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Biological Opinion (BiOp). The Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Restoration Project is intended to implement the following RPA required by the FCRPS BiOp. RPA action 37 states:

“Estuary Habitat Implementation 2010-2018 - Achieving Habitat Quality and Survival Improvement Targets. The AAs will provide funding to implement additional specific projects as needed to achieve the total estuary survival benefits identified in the FCRPS BA.”
All restoration actions conceived of and implemented within this project are intended to benefit threatened and endangered salmonid species rearing and migrating in main stem and tidal habitats of the Columbia River estuary. As a principle implementer of restoration in the Columbia Estuary, Columbia Land Trust has conserved over four thousand acres of Columbia Estuary floodplain over the last nine years. Columbia Land Trust accomplished this by permanently securing a land base from willing land owners through fair market processes. These lands now serve as a platform from which on-the-ground restoration projects are able to be implemented. Columbia Land Trust restoration projects result in some of the highest survival benefits for threatened and endangered salmon in the estuary (Johnson et al. 2007).

Columbia Land Trust will its specific land protection and restoration goals by working closely with land owners, local, state and federal agencies, providing risk capital through a revolving transaction fund, negotiation capacity, legal expertise and an ability to leverage significant sources of project funding. Columbia Land Trust has identified and is developing numerous estuary habitat acquisition and restoration projects within priority areas identified within the that this project supports.

The projects developed within this program are largely tidal reconnection actions that restore full or near full tidal influence to areas that have been historically disconnected from tidal and fluvial hydrologic processes by levees, roads, dredge material and railroad causeways. These restoration actions intend to restore such natural habitat forming processes as tidal hydrology, sediment accretion, and the movement of macro-detritus that shape and maintain estuarine wetland habitats. Specific restoration objectives are to: 1) Restore connectivity between river and floodplain, as well as in-river habitats; 2) Increase shallow water peripheral and side channel habitats toward historic levels. In addition to the ISRP review of this proposal there are two levels of scientific review for all estuary habitat restoration projects identified and implemented under this project.

Columbia Land Trust will coordinate with the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership’ s Science Work Group for the initial level of scientific review for on-the-ground habitat projects. The second level of scientific review will be done by the RPA 37 Expert Regional Technical Group as required in the 2008 BiOp; this review will be conducted in coordination with the Science Work Group.
Proposer:
Proponent Orgs:
Columbia Land Trust (Non-Profit)
Starting FY:
2011
Ending FY:
2020
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia River Estuary Columbia Estuary 50.00%
Elochoman 5.00%
Grays 5.00%
Lower Columbia Columbia Lower 25.00%
Kalama 5.00%
Sandy 5.00%
Willamette 5.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Lower Columbia River ESU
Chum - Columbia River ESU
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - All Anadromous Populations
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - Resident Populations
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - Southwest Washington/Columbia River ESU
Lamprey, Pacific
Sockeye - All Populations
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Lower Columbia River DPS
Sturgeon, Green
Sturgeon, White - Lower Columbia River
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:

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"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2019 (Previous) $1,784,412 $1,784,412 $1,355,405 $1,400,843 $1,196,669

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $1,784,412 $1,355,405 $1,400,843 $1,196,669
FY2020 (Current) $2,366,581 $2,366,581 $10,307,535 $10,307,535 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $2,366,581 $10,307,535 $10,307,535 $0
FY2021 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Sep-2019

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2019 - FY2021)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2019 Expense $1,784,412 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) August FY18 Transfers 08/24/2018
FY2020 Expense $2,416,561 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY20 SOY 06/05/2019
FY2020 Expense $49,980 To: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) Estuary Budget Transfer (FY20) 9/4/2019 09/05/2019

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2020
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 (Draft)
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011

Contracts

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.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-005926 Bonneville Power Administration Template Active $0 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
BPA-005924 Bonneville Power Administration Land Acquisition Active $1,348 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
BPA-006247 Bonneville Power Administration Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Active $5,394,175 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-006847 Bonneville Power Administration Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Active $1,721,990 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-007491 Bonneville Power Administration CLT Land & Stewardship Active $718,187 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
BPA-007862 Bonneville Power Administration FY15 CLT Land & Stewardship Active $159,021 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
BPA-008516 Bonneville Power Administration FY16 CLT Land & Stewardship Active $60,798 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
BPA-008517 Bonneville Power Administration FY17 CLT Land & Stewardship Active $108,947 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
BPA-009578 Bonneville Power Administration FY18 CLT Land & Stewardship Active $170,178 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
80023 SOW US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2010-073-00 EXP USFWS CWTD TRANSLOCATIONS Issued $227,190 8/1/2018 - 10/31/2019
80251 SOW Columbia Land Trust 2010-073-00 EXP COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ESTUARINE (CLT) Issued $863,111 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
BPA-010613 Bonneville Power Administration FY19 Land Aquisitions/other Active $492,294 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
83076 SOW Columbia Land Trust 2010-073-00 EXP COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ESTUARINE RESTORATION (CLT) Issued $1,039,165 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
BPA-011337 Bonneville Power Administration FY20 Land Acquisitions/Misc. Active $170,000 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
83590 SOW US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2010-073-00 EXP USFWS CWTD TRANSLOCATIONS (USFWS) Signature $212,070 11/1/2019 - 10/31/2020
CR-333135 SOW Falling Springs, LLC 2010-073-00 EXP SVENSEN ISLAND DSBU RESTORATION Pending $8,886,300 1/1/2020 - 12/31/2020



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):15
Completed:14
On time:13
Status Reports
Completed:44
On time:8
Avg Days Late:22

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-005924 Land Acquisition Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
52484 59773, 62810, 66801, 70448, 73737, 77222, 80251, 83076 2010-073-00 EXP COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ESTUARINE Columbia Land Trust 04/2011 04/2011 Issued 32 85 15 0 20 120 83.33% 21
BPA-006247 Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
55910 59863 2010-073-00 EXP KANDOLL FARM Columbia Land Trust 01/2012 01/2012 Closed 8 11 0 0 2 13 84.62% 0
BPA-006847 Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007491 CLT Land & Stewardship Bonneville Power Administration 10/2013 10/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
BPA-007862 FY15 CLT Land & Stewardship Bonneville Power Administration 10/2014 10/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008516 FY16 CLT Land & Stewardship Bonneville Power Administration 10/2015 10/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008517 FY17 CLT Land & Stewardship Bonneville Power Administration 10/2016 10/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009578 FY18 CLT Land & Stewardship Bonneville Power Administration 10/2017 10/2017 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
80023 83590 2010-073-00 EXP USFWS CWTD TRANSLOCATIONS US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 08/2018 08/2018 Signature 4 0 4 0 0 4 100.00% 0
BPA-010613 FY19 Land Aquisitions/other Bonneville Power Administration 10/2018 10/2018 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-011337 FY20 Land Acquisitions/Misc. Bonneville Power Administration 10/2019 10/2019 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 44 96 19 0 22 137 83.94% 25


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: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2010-073-00-NPCC-20131126
Project: 2010-073-00 - Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Restoration
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-2010-073-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through FY 2018. See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation D for monitoring in the estuary.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #1—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation D for monitoring in the estuary.
Council Condition #2 Programmatic Issue: D. Columbia River Estuary – effectiveness monitoring—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation D for monitoring in the estuary.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2010-073-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 2010-073-00 - Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Restoration
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-2010-073-00
Completed Date: 6/11/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:

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

The program is highly significant and is one of the key restoration programs in the estuary and relates to major regional documents as the Council's Monitoring Evaluation Research and Reporting (MERR) plan, the BiOp, and subbasin plan for the estuary. This is a generally solid proposal, and activities are well organized and explained. Justifications for estuarine restoration are well supported, but the sponsors do not specify how their program will meet these restoration needs.

The Columbia Land Trust is continuing to improve connections to other projects in the estuary and to improve effectiveness and transparency of project solicitation, review, and selection activities.

Objective statements are stated as goals. Objectives should be quantified and include a projected date or time frame for completion. Both elements are important to aid in tracking actual accomplishment of actions. There are three stated objectives (actually goals) covering re-accessing of habitats, increasing productivity and capacity of habitats and for improving realized function of the ecosystem. Deliverables for each of the objectives (goals) are included, but to see the details, the ISRP was referred to the 2012 Synthesis Memorandum which was developed by CEERP. No linkage to the document was provided.

Projects under the habitat umbrella are supposed to describe all the steps in the program's process to solicit, review, prioritize, and select habitat projects for implementation. This was done fairly well in the proposal, but it appears the sponsor totally delegates these steps to others, especially The Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership’s Project Review Committee. Therefore a flow chart or road map of some kind would be useful to understand the procedure.

The sponsor is sometimes a subcontractor to LCREP, but some projects are conducted independently. Although this seems to be a workable arrangement, it would be helpful to clarify how the sponsors determine which projects they will independently implement and if there are any criteria for the sponsor to conduct projects separately. Is this a function of the solicitation process?

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

The Columbia Land Trust has permanently conserved 6,222 acres of Columbia Estuary floodplain over the last twelve years which is about 30% of the LCREP 19000 acre goal by 2014. The sponsors should be complimented for this achievement. It is encouraging to note that several applied research projects are being conducted by NOAA and others on areas purchased by the sponsor.

No results were reported specifically by this project, only those reported by others were given. The history of reporting accomplishments is not stellar.

In general, the sponsors seem well aware of the needs and benefits of adaptive management and have identified a number of lessons learned, for example weed control, but do not appear to have fully incorporated it into the current project design. One reason given is that invasive plant control could not occur due to prohibition of using necessary chemicals. It seems that the sponsors should have been aware of this prohibition before the activity was planned. Another delay was due to unresolved permitting issues which may be beyond the control of the sponsors.

It would be helpful to clarify what role the sponsor actually has in adaptive management since they do not appear to do any monitoring themselves. The CEERP adaptive management approach is used. A summary of accomplishments and recent research findings of others is provided, but there is no discussion as to how these findings are actually being applied in the current program. A number of the findings appear particularly relevant to prioritizing sites for acquisition and for the design of restoration treatments. 

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

It is stated that there are no RM&E protocols identified for this proposal, but elsewhere in the narrative many are given. The sponsors presumably are relying on monitoring data produced by others under the umbrella.

All current projects are assigned a Level 3 monitoring status under the CEERP Action Effectiveness program. It is stated that a subset of CLT projects are included in more intensive Level 1 and 2 monitoring. It is not clear how or when these projects are selected for more intensive monitoring.

There is no discussion of transitioning from the current CEERP action effectiveness monitoring approach to the ISEMP/CHAMP/AEP protocols.

There are a number of emerging factors that the sponsors recognize, especially sea level rise and invasive species. For the latter, the sponsors state, "Columbia Land Trust actively manages newly restored lands to ensure that these invasive species do not gain a foothold on these sites is an ongoing responsibility," but no details are given on how this is done.

The relationship of this project with other projects in the estuary is described fairly well. However, there is no discussion regarding community, landowner or public outreach engagement. This appears to be an important component for the project that needs future consideration.

A useful table showing limiting factor prioritization is provided. Two principal factors limiting the amount of habitat opportunity in the estuary are the loss of estuarine wetlands and the reduction in the spring freshets due to the hydrosystem. It is not clear if the constraints imposed by the hydrosystem operations mean that making changes to the first factor will have limited impact.

The review process for this umbrella project is outlined in the proposal but is described in greater detail in project proposal #2003-011-00. The evaluation criteria have been reviewed by the ISRP. Membership on the Project Review Committee is listed in this proposal. The proposal states that the Estuary Partnership may modify the review criteria to accommodate the objectives of particular funding sources. This flexibility seems reasonable.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The discussion of the two-level process for project prioritization was clearly stated. There is a solid review process that includes site visits and application of a two-step prioritization screening. The Estuary three-component prioritization model is used for the first stage. This scores projects on a 100 point scale. There is limited discussion of how the primary components were weighted and the sub-elements of each are qualitative and are not assigned individual weights or points. Including this in the model would be an improvement. Selection of three focus areas for acquisition and restoration is a solid foundation for a more strategic and efficient program. 

Given the complexity of achieving meaningful restoration of the estuary, an overarching strategic approach is needed. There is discussion about development of an improved strategy for restoration using the Estuary Partnership Restoration Priority Strategy and Restoration Inventory in conjunction with the BPA Landscape Planning Framework. Also, completion of an ESA Recovery Plan is mentioned. Both are to be completed in the spring of 2013. It is not clear if they will replace the current sources of guidance for prioritization or if they will ultimately be synthesized into a single unified strategy. A review of these final products by the ISRP may be worthwhile.

Metrics for gauging accomplishment appear limited to acres and miles of acquired and/or restored habitat. They do not link with the three stated objectives for the project. Doing so would provide a more complete picture of accomplishments relative to the stated objectives.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

No link to monitoring.methods.org is provided.

On a budgetary note, it is not clear why a fully equipped office is need in both Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington.


===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

Qualification #1 - Qualification #1
See the programmatic comment for the estuary and the response request for LCREP. Continued work on justifying prioritization, coordinating RME, and results reporting at the programmatic level is recommended. The ISRP's concerns, questions, and comments can be dealt with in contracting and future project reviews.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

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

The program is highly significant and is one of the key restoration programs in the estuary and relates to major regional documents as the Council's Monitoring Evaluation Research and Reporting (MERR) plan, the BiOp, and subbasin plan for the estuary. This is a generally solid proposal, and activities are well organized and explained. Justifications for estuarine restoration are well supported, but the sponsors do not specify how their program will meet these restoration needs.

The Columbia Land Trust is continuing to improve connections to other projects in the estuary and to improve effectiveness and transparency of project solicitation, review, and selection activities.

Objective statements are stated as goals. Objectives should be quantified and include a projected date or time frame for completion. Both elements are important to aid in tracking actual accomplishment of actions. There are three stated objectives (actually goals) covering re-accessing of habitats, increasing productivity and capacity of habitats and for improving realized function of the ecosystem. Deliverables for each of the objectives (goals) are included, but to see the details, the ISRP was referred to the 2012 Synthesis Memorandum which was developed by CEERP. No linkage to the document was provided.

Projects under the habitat umbrella are supposed to describe all the steps in the program's process to solicit, review, prioritize, and select habitat projects for implementation. This was done fairly well in the proposal, but it appears the sponsor totally delegates these steps to others, especially The Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership’s Project Review Committee. Therefore a flow chart or road map of some kind would be useful to understand the procedure.

The sponsor is sometimes a subcontractor to LCREP, but some projects are conducted independently. Although this seems to be a workable arrangement, it would be helpful to clarify how the sponsors determine which projects they will independently implement and if there are any criteria for the sponsor to conduct projects separately. Is this a function of the solicitation process?

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

The Columbia Land Trust has permanently conserved 6,222 acres of Columbia Estuary floodplain over the last twelve years which is about 30% of the LCREP 19000 acre goal by 2014. The sponsors should be complimented for this achievement. It is encouraging to note that several applied research projects are being conducted by NOAA and others on areas purchased by the sponsor.

No results were reported specifically by this project, only those reported by others were given. The history of reporting accomplishments is not stellar.

In general, the sponsors seem well aware of the needs and benefits of adaptive management and have identified a number of lessons learned, for example weed control, but do not appear to have fully incorporated it into the current project design. One reason given is that invasive plant control could not occur due to prohibition of using necessary chemicals. It seems that the sponsors should have been aware of this prohibition before the activity was planned. Another delay was due to unresolved permitting issues which may be beyond the control of the sponsors.

It would be helpful to clarify what role the sponsor actually has in adaptive management since they do not appear to do any monitoring themselves. The CEERP adaptive management approach is used. A summary of accomplishments and recent research findings of others is provided, but there is no discussion as to how these findings are actually being applied in the current program. A number of the findings appear particularly relevant to prioritizing sites for acquisition and for the design of restoration treatments. 

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

It is stated that there are no RM&E protocols identified for this proposal, but elsewhere in the narrative many are given. The sponsors presumably are relying on monitoring data produced by others under the umbrella.

All current projects are assigned a Level 3 monitoring status under the CEERP Action Effectiveness program. It is stated that a subset of CLT projects are included in more intensive Level 1 and 2 monitoring. It is not clear how or when these projects are selected for more intensive monitoring.

There is no discussion of transitioning from the current CEERP action effectiveness monitoring approach to the ISEMP/CHAMP/AEP protocols.

There are a number of emerging factors that the sponsors recognize, especially sea level rise and invasive species. For the latter, the sponsors state, "Columbia Land Trust actively manages newly restored lands to ensure that these invasive species do not gain a foothold on these sites is an ongoing responsibility," but no details are given on how this is done.

The relationship of this project with other projects in the estuary is described fairly well. However, there is no discussion regarding community, landowner or public outreach engagement. This appears to be an important component for the project that needs future consideration.

A useful table showing limiting factor prioritization is provided. Two principal factors limiting the amount of habitat opportunity in the estuary are the loss of estuarine wetlands and the reduction in the spring freshets due to the hydrosystem. It is not clear if the constraints imposed by the hydrosystem operations mean that making changes to the first factor will have limited impact.

The review process for this umbrella project is outlined in the proposal but is described in greater detail in project proposal #2003-011-00. The evaluation criteria have been reviewed by the ISRP. Membership on the Project Review Committee is listed in this proposal. The proposal states that the Estuary Partnership may modify the review criteria to accommodate the objectives of particular funding sources. This flexibility seems reasonable.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The discussion of the two-level process for project prioritization was clearly stated. There is a solid review process that includes site visits and application of a two-step prioritization screening. The Estuary three-component prioritization model is used for the first stage. This scores projects on a 100 point scale. There is limited discussion of how the primary components were weighted and the sub-elements of each are qualitative and are not assigned individual weights or points. Including this in the model would be an improvement. Selection of three focus areas for acquisition and restoration is a solid foundation for a more strategic and efficient program. 

Given the complexity of achieving meaningful restoration of the estuary, an overarching strategic approach is needed. There is discussion about development of an improved strategy for restoration using the Estuary Partnership Restoration Priority Strategy and Restoration Inventory in conjunction with the BPA Landscape Planning Framework. Also, completion of an ESA Recovery Plan is mentioned. Both are to be completed in the spring of 2013. It is not clear if they will replace the current sources of guidance for prioritization or if they will ultimately be synthesized into a single unified strategy. A review of these final products by the ISRP may be worthwhile.

Metrics for gauging accomplishment appear limited to acres and miles of acquired and/or restored habitat. They do not link with the three stated objectives for the project. Doing so would provide a more complete picture of accomplishments relative to the stated objectives.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

No link to monitoring.methods.org is provided.

On a budgetary note, it is not clear why a fully equipped office is need in both Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington.


===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 11:59:29 AM.
Documentation Links:

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Glenn Lamb Supervisor Columbia Land Trust
Anne Creason Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Ian Sinks Project Lead Columbia Land Trust
Dan Roix Project Lead Columbia Land Trust
Jonathan Goodman (Inactive) Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Travis Kessler Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
John Skidmore Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration