Purpose
The recovery of Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed salmon and steelhead populations in the Upper Columbia Region is dependent upon 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, 2013). 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 facilitate funding for 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. 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 region, 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 region.

Personnel
Two staff classifications work on the Programmatic Project: Executive Director and Program Manager.  Four staff members fill these two classifications, whose experience and roles are described below.
• Executive Director – Derek Van Marter, MPA
Mr. Van Marter is responsible for day-to-day operations of the organization.  He facilitates implementation of the Recovery Plan by closely tracking the priority project areas, habitat implementation progress, technical and social feasibility of implementing large scale projects, and other topics relevant to project success.  He identifies and responds to time-sensitive political and technical issues particularly that affect successful implementation of habitat restoration and protection projects across the four sub-basins.  He works with staff to coordinate 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 the regional effort.  He spends one-third of his time facilitating the Programmatic Project.
• Program Managers – Joy Juelson, MS; Greer Maier, MS; and James White, MS (candidate)
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.  She will also work with partners and staff to facilitate project development and coordination of technical information. Ms. Juelson will track success of the project over the life of those activities - from concept to implementation, and act as the liaison to the Executive Director and BPA 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.  She will also bring her technical expertise and knowledge to each targeted project to continue to ensure biological objectives are identified and met. Ms. Maier will spend one-quarter of her time on the Programmatic Project.

Mr. White is a Program Manager for the UCSRB.  James has a Bachelor of Arts in Geography and is a candidate for a Master of Science in Resource Management from Central Washington University.  James provides technical and other assistance across UCSRB programs, in addition to coordinating data management, and monitoring and evaluation activities across the region.  Mr. White will spend one-third of his 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.
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 fourth 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.  While there is no targeted solicitation process planned for FY14, the FY13 targeted process described above identified projects for implementation in FY14 (lower Entiat), FY16 (middle Entiat and Twisp Floodplain) and FY17 (middle Entiat and Twisp Floodplain).  The FY13 targeted solicitation process also identified a "provisional" list of projects (Upper White Pine, Peshastin ID, Nason Creek RM 4.6), and a "proposed" list of projects (Barkley-Bear, Blewett R&G).  In effect, these projects represent "shelf stock" of proposed actions in the Upper Columbia that are consistent with biological priority areas.  A future subsequent targeted solicitation process will generate more specific detail about these provisional and proposed projects.  

The majority of staff time in this contract is devoted to moving those targeted projects forward by working with the project partners and BPA to identify needs, scope the projects, coordinate technical information, and prepare for implementation in the identified year. In summary, 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.  

In its first three years, the UCSRB facilitated BPA contracting of 19 actions in the Province (2 "programmatic" and 17 designs and actions).  The list of these 19 projects are included below.  In this 4th year of the contract, the UCSRB will be developing a progress report that summarizes the accomplishments in the first 3 years of the programmatic approach and that will be transmitted to the Council and ISRP in March 2014.  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.

List of Projects To Date
Admin Habitat (programmatic) - 59600
USFWS Design Team (programmatic) - 63007
Tyee Ranch - 59682
Dillwater - 56586
Lower Wenatchee Instream Flow - 56585
Okanogan Screens - 59451
M2 EC and Pre-implementation - 55349
M2 wood - 54517
M2 implementation - 57327
Upper Beaver - 58681
Elbow Coulee - 58682
Lower Entiat 2.6-3.5 Design - 56662
Lower Entiat .8 - 2.3 Design - 58734
Lower White Pine - 61917
Lower Entiat 1.9 Design - 58733
Loup Loup Creek - 51398
Lower Entiat .8-2.3 Implementation - CR-265592
Lower Entiat 2.6-3.5 Implementation - CR-269718
Lower Entiat 1.9 Implementation - CR-265593