Purpose
The recovery of Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed salmon and steelhead populations in the Upper Columbia Region is dependent on the implementation of habitat restoration and protection actions identified in the Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan), and consistent with strategic technical guidance from the Upper Columbia Regional Technical Team’s (UCRTT) Biological Strategy (UCSRB 2007; UCRTT 2008; in review 2012). A comprehensive framework is necessary to assure strategic allocation of funds to priority recovery efforts throughout the 4 sub-basins of the Upper Columbia Region: Okanogan, Methow, Entiat, and Wenatchee.

The purpose of the Upper Columbia Habitat Programmatic Project (Programmatic Project) is to administer an approach for funding habitat projects in high biological priority areas in the Upper Columbia Region consistent with, and in support of, the Recovery Plan. The process Upper Columbia Regional partners have developed for the selection of projects and actions for funding is based on existing guidance about priority recovery actions and reaches (see below). This guidance has been developed and refined through multiple planning processes and scientific assessments that culminated in the development of the Recovery Plan, and has been further refined through adaptive management since Recovery Plan adoption in 2006.

A programmatic approach to identifying and selecting high biological, reach-based priority projects for funding enables the UCSRB to take advantage of effective ongoing efforts in the Upper Columbia, from project development and technical review of final designs, to ensure implementation of actions that address primary limiting factors associated with habitat degradation in the four sub-basins.  Although the primary goal is to benefit ESA-listed Upper Columbia spring Chinook and steelhead populations, there is significant habitat overlap and benefit for mitigation responsibilities in the Upper Columbia Region.

Personnel
Three primary staff classifications work on the Programmatic Project: Executive Director, Associate Director, and Project Manager.  Four staff members fill these three classifications, whose experience and roles are described below.
• Executive Director – Julie Morgan, MS
Ms. Morgan is responsible for the overall direction and mission of the organization.  As such, she works very closely with the Associate Director to identify and understand political and technical barriers to successfully implementing habitat restoration and protection projects.  Her strategic guidance and co-facilitation with partners in each of the sub-basins is an important nexus to the UCSRB’s Board of Directors, state and national legislative staff, and other federal, state, tribal and local government partners.  She spends a quarter of her time on the Programmatic Project.
• Associate Director – Derek Van Marter, MPA
Mr. Van Marter facilitates overall implementation of the Recovery Plan.  As such, he closely tracks the priority project areas, habitat implementation progress, technical and social feasibility of implementing large scale projects, and other topics relevant to the successful implementation.  He and Ms. Morgan work closely on identifying and responding to time-sensitive political and technical issues particularly that affect successful implementation of habitat restoration and protection projects across the four sub-basins.  He closely coordinates with partners in each of the sub-basins, the Regional Technical Team, governmental and non-governmental partners across the region, and others outside of the region that are interested in and important to the success of our effort.  He spends half of his time on facilitating the Programmatic Project.
• Program Manager – Joy Juelson, MS and Greer Maier, MS
Ms. Juelson and Ms. Maier bring extensive project management and fisheries experience to the Programmatic Project.  Ms. Juelson’s role in the Programmatic Project is to work closely with partners that have received BPA funding to ensure timely and successful implementation of those funded activities.  This is distinctive from contract management, which is something BPA will largely resume on all funded activities.  The Program Manager will track success of the project over the life of those activites - from concept to implementation, and act as the liaison to the Associate Director from the field.  Ms. Juelson will spend a quarter of her time on the Programmatic Project.

Ms. Maier will utilize her fisheries science background to assist management of the Programmatic Project on meeting the highest biological priorities feasible on each project.  She will do this by working closely with the Regional Technical Team to help identify and communicate updates to the Biological Strategy.  Ms. Maier will spend one-sixth of her time on the Programmatic Project.

Process
The Programmatic Project proposal approved by the Northwest Planning and Conservation Council (Council) articulated a six-step process for identifying, evaluating and funding high biological priority, reach-based actions across the four sub-basins.  The process continues to be refined as we learn efficiencies coordinate closely with other funding sources, implementing high priority actions, and learn from the actions and processes we implement.  In this third year of the Programmatic Project, the following steps encompass the full range of funding a project – from concept to contracting.
1. Partners develop project “abstracts” that describe potential actions for consideration of funding.  For further review, the abstracts must meet the following criteria: (a) describe actions consistent with the needs identified in one of the RTT biological priority areas; (b) have a completed reach or rapid site assessment; (c) be consistent with “reach-based” restoration, or large-scale actions (i.e. typically defined as greater than $500k).
2. The UCSRB, RTT and the Action Agencies (BOR and BPA) will evaluate the abstracts on the merits of the three criteria above.  Those partners that meet the three criteria, and are feasible for implementation in the near-term (e.g. 2014 or 2015) will be asked to submit a thorough proposal for more comprehensive evaluation.
3. Partners identified for thorough proposals will submit those to the UCSRB and BPA.  In turn, the UCSRB will facilitate a multi-phased evaluation process on the following merits:
a. Biological Benefit – the RTT will evaluate the potential biological benefit based on the described actions.  Technical input will include opportunities for improvement, and concerns related to addressing the known limiting factors.  The RTT will use its existing technical review criteria for evaluation, and then will scale the results for further analysis by BPA.  
b. Cost and Uncertainties – the UCSRB and Action Agencies will evaluate estimated costs described by the partners.  The cost evaluation is a measure of cost/benefit analysis using information from the RTT.  The evaluation will also include the feasibility of implementation on the proposed timeline with respect to available funds, social acceptance and technical input.
c. Expert Panel Results – the Action Agencies will work with the UCSRB and RTT to understand implications for revisions to priority areas based on the 2012 Expert Panel results.  The RTT is currently reviewing the information from the Expert Panel while it updates the Biological Strategy.
4. Provided proposed actions make it past this early evaluation step, they will then be placed on a planning table managed by the UCSRB that indicates when each of the proposed actions may move on to the “Targeted Track” for funding, and in what fiscal year.  
5. This step constitutes the transition from early planning and identification to targeted funding for the corresponding federal fiscal year.  The following steps are part of the original six approved by the Council.
a. Early Review of Alternatives – the partners will work with the RTT, through the UCSRB, to describe the range of alternatives being concerned in concept on a project identified for funding.  The purpose of this early review is to ensure that the project alternatives are still in line with the biological priorities of the respective reach.  The RTT will provide written input to the partners, either through a subgroup process, or through the full RTT.
b. Site Visit – it may be necessary for the RTT to visit the proposed site.  The partners will work through the UCSRB to arrange a site visit if it is warranted.
c. 30% and 60% Design Review – the RTT will review a 30% and 60% design set, and again provide written comments on the direction of the project consistent with the biological priorities of the respective reach.  This is typically done through a workgroup of the RTT.
d. Final Proposal Score – as a final step, the project partners will submit a revised project proposal that includes all the relevant technical and design information to date.  This proposal will be officially scored by the RTT using the same project proposal evaluation criteria as they used before.  However, the score will not be scaled as was described in an earlier step.  The purpose of this step is to provide an historical compilation of the technical scores for Programmatic Project funded actions.

Status
This is the third year contract for the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board (UCSRB) to provide regional facilitation and coordination for BPA to target high priority actions in the Columbia Cascade Province that will be funded for implementation.  In short, the contract enables the UCSRB to (a) facilitate an approach that targets the highest biological priority areas in the region, and incorporates current processes to tap into the four sub-basin Watershed Action Teams (WATs), Regional Technical Team (RTT), Implementation Team (IT), and the UCSRB; (b) facilitate funding coordination with the WA State Salmon Recovery Funding Board and Tributary Committees during an annual open 6-step process for funding; (c) coordinate among the 4 sub-basins within the Province, and the Regional Technical Team, to ensure adequate timing, biological benefit, M&E, and adaptive management; (d) provide assistance to BPA on regional policy coordination, particularly on topics that have the potential to stall or impede future implementation; and (e) provide for maintenance of installed projects, where needed.  The project also provides assistance to develop contracting tools for timely and efficient implementation of habitat actions that ultimately reduces the burden of BPA to manage multiple contracts.

In its first two years, the UCSRB facilitated BPA contracting of 14 actions in the Province; 10 of those are complete or in progress.  In this 3rd year of the contract, the UCSRB will be developing a progress report that will be transmitted to the Council and ISRP, and it will be used during the Council's habitat Categorical Review.  The UCSRB is providing regional support for funding coordination, and facilitating regional and statewide discussions on a variety of important policy issues that have the potential to impact BPA's ability to fund FCRPS actions in the Province.