CCR-41357:  This contracting action is necessary to add budget for the Science/Technical Support Staff person ($2,077).  .25/month of time is necessary to achieve contract deliverable of providing technical review service relative to only fish habitat (WE 'E').
________________________________________________________________________

CR: 309265

Through this contract action, the following service will be accomplished:

This contract will focus on services related to the effective coordination, facilitation, selection (recommendations of projects to BPA to fund), and limited technical advisement (fish habitat advisement) on the design of targeted projects through the FFY of 2018, as well as provide limited services related to running the annual open solicitation round from which BPA may select projects for funding.

Personnel operating under this contract: Two staff classifications work on the Programmatic Project: Executive Director and Program Manager.  

• Executive Director

The Executive Director (ED)  is responsible for day-to-day operations of the organization and overall execution of this comntract with BPA.  The ED facilitates implementation of the Programmatic by tracking the priority project areas, habitat implementation progress, and social feasibility of implementing large scale projects, and other topics relevant to project success.  The ED  identifies and responds to time-sensitive political issues particularly that affect successful implementation of habitat restoration projects.  The ED works with BPA and UCSRB staff to coordinate with partners in each of the sub-basins, the RTT, governmental and non-governmental partners across the region, and other stakeholders. The ED will provide administrative oversight of the Programmatic, including reporting, contract management, and coordination with BPA. The ED will also engage in the Executive Teams of projects being funded through the Programmatic.

Program Managers

*PM-Project Administration/Policy Support: . PM will work closely with BPA, sponsors and partners (AA and others) toward progress of Programmatic-funded activities and identify and help address issues or delays.  PM plays a coordination and facilitation role with BPA, partners, sponsors, and RTT including, coordinating RTT project reviews, partner meetings (Exec Team or Project Teams), and the Targeted Solicitation process when needed. PM will help to administer the contract, including compliance, being responsive to BPA and timely submittal of deliverables.

*PM-Science/Technical Support: Will limitedly advise project design based on fish habitat and fish utilization. Participate in project development to ensure biological goals and objectives are identified and tiered to any identified limiting factors, and that projects are designed to achieve the highest feasible biological benefit. In the interest of best use of PM time, PM will prioritize programmatic projects to assess the need to review and submit comments to BPA related to biological benefits. This work often entails providing reasonable and relevant habitat and fish use data, reviewing hydrographs and life history periodicity, potentially running habitat suitability models or analyzing hydraulic model outputs for habitat suitability, and reviewing available easily accessible data and results from similar projects, Review is meant to help inform the development of Programmatic projects. PM does not have the authority to contact regulatory agencies without prior consent from project proponent and/or when a Project is under the official BPA HIP review process.  Additionally to maintain optimum coordination with the funder, BPA, PM is discouraged from contacting design consultants, submitting comments to project proponents, AA partner, or design consultants outside of the regular design process meetings or official comment periods.

*PM-Administration Support: submission of invoices and supporting documents.  


Background/Purpose for this contract:

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 to achieve BiOp credit.  This is the eighth-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 could be funded for implementation.

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), consistent with strategic technical guidance from the Upper Columbia Regional Technical Team’s (RTT) Biological Strategy (UCSRB 2007; UCRTT 2008, 2013). A comprehensive framework is necessary to assure strategic allocation of funds to priority efforts throughout the 4 sub-basins of the Upper Columbia Region: Okanogan, Methow, Entiat, and Wenatchee. However, through the Programmatic process funding will only be allocated to 3 sub-basin: Wenatchee, Entiat, and the Methow.

A programmatic approach to identifying and selecting high biological, reach-based priority projects for funding enables BPA to take advantage of effective ongoing efforts in the region, from project development and technical review of final designs (RTT review) for implementation of actions that address primary limiting factors associated with habitat degradation in the three sub-basins.  The primary goal is to benefit ESA-listed Upper Columbia spring Chinook and steelhead population that will result in achieving mitigation responsibilities for BPA in the region.

Annual Open Solicitation Round:

The process Upper Columbia regional partners have developed for the selection of projects and actions from the annual open solicitation round for funding is based on existing guidance about priority 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 its adoption in 2006.  BPA may select projects for funding from this round.



BACKGROUND ON PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS:

Process: The Programmatic Project involves a scientifically-rigorous, locally-vetted process for identifying, evaluating and funding high biological priority reach-based actions across the three sub-basins.  The adaptive process continues to be refined as we learn efficiencies, coordinate closely with other funding sources, implement high priority actions, and learn from the actions previously implemented.

Targeted Solicitation: Solicitation announcements are distributed through the Upper Columbia WATs in the Upper Columbia. These groups are made up of project sponsors whose role it is to ensure a coordinated and sequenced implementation of recovery actions in their respective watersheds.  The WAT leads distribute the Targeted Solicitation announcements thru their mailing lists to project sponsors.  In addition, BPA and UCSRB staff also attend the WAT meetings in the subbasins included in the solicitation to announce the solicitation and answer questions.

Proposal Development: Partners develop project proposals that describe potential actions for consideration of funding.  For further review, the proposal must meet the following eligibility criteria:

1. RTT priority reach and restoration action type based on the RTT’s Biological Strategy
2. Completed “reach assessment” or “rapid site assessment” (as defined by the RTT)
3. Be consistent with “reach-based” restoration or high priority actions

Proposal Evaluation: Once proposals are submitted by project sponsors, they are 1) filtered for eligibility, 2) evaluated and scored by the RTT, and 3) evaluated and scored/ranked by the UCSRB and BPA.  Proposals are then evaluated and scored by UCSRB and BPA based on the following criteria:

•Biological benefits evaluated by the RTT (from scoring described above).  
•Cost (evaluated by BPA with input from UCSRB): Total BPA funding requested for future years (i.e., without any previous funding). Overall potential value and schedule relative to available budgets (by BPA).
•Risk/Uncertainties) is evaluated by BPA reviewers using a 14-element "Risk-Based Graded Approach" adapted from the BOR.  The result is a total risk score for each project.
•Expert Panel (BiOp priorities) importance is evaluated using previous Expert Panel results in terms of survival gaps.

The RTT evaluates the potential biological benefit based on the described actions using their scoring criteria.  The UCSRB and BPA 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.  Other factors, like budget availability by year, and possibilities of alternative funding. Projects are selected for funding by the BPA based on the technical feedback from the RTT and the facilitation and input from the UCSRB.  

Project Funding Tracks: Provided proposed actions make it past this early evaluation step, they will then be placed on a planning table managed by the BPA and UCSRB that indicates when each of the proposed actions may move on to the “Targeted Track” for funding, and in what fiscal year.  Project may fall into three funding categories:

•Proposed - not on targeted track
•Provisional- once key issues are resolved, may move to Targeted Track
•Targeted – on Targeted Track for BPA funding

RTT Design Review:  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 design review process.

1.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.
2.Site Visit – although uncommon, 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.
3. Conceptual and 30% – the RTT will review a conceptual and 30% 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.
4. Final Proposal Score at 60% Design Review – 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.    The purpose of this step is to provide an historical compilation of the technical scores for Programmatic Project funded actions.

This 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 sub-basin WATs, RTT, and Implementation Team (IT); (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 sub-basins within the Province, and the RTT, for adequate timing, biological benefit, 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) when authorized by BPA, provide for maintenance of installed projects, where needed.  The UCSRB engages in regional and statewide discussions (funded only limitedly through this contract and specific discussions UCSRB will engage in will be coordinated and agreed to by BPA) on a variety of important issues that will benefit the Programmatic and BPA's funding of high priority actions for mitigation responsibilities in the Province, and UCSRB will coordinate and communicate with BPA in advance of these efforts occurring.

Since its inception, 29 actions have been implemented in the Province under the Programmatic Project (see below).  In the 4th and 7th year of the contract, the UCSRB submitted to the ISRP and BPA a progress report that summarized the accomplishments in each of the proceeding 3 years of the Programmatic.  

List of Projects To Date:

Admin Habitat (programmatic) – 74470, 70930, 63472, 59600, 55221, 50379, 292171
Icicle Creek Flow Restoration Project
Nason Creek RM 2.3 Side Channel Connection
Lower Methow Reach Assessment Phase 1
Nason Creek RM 4.6 Side Channel Connection
Lower Peshastin Creek Design
Icicle and Pesh. Irrigation Dist. Fish Screen Upgrade Design
City of Leavenworth Fish Screen Upgrade Design
M2 Reach - WDFW Flow Connection
USFWS Design Team (programmatic) - 63007, 56835
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 REL 8
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 - 64314
Lower Entiat 2.6-3.5 Implementation - 56662 REL 37
Lower Entiat 1.9 Implementation - 64315
M2 3R Floodplain and Side Channel - 62793
Bureau Design Mid Entiat - 69953
TRFP - 69930
Barkley Irrigation - MVID - 70143
Barkley Bear Pre-Implementation - 71355