FY 2000 proposal 199405900
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 199405900 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Yakima Basin Environmental Education |
| Proposal ID | 199405900 |
| Organization | Educational Service District 105 (ESD 105) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Julie Bradley |
| Mailing address | 33 South Second Ave. Yakima, WA 98902 |
| Phone / email | 5095752885 / julieb@destiny.esd105.wednet.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Provides training for area teachers and students allowing them the opportunity to participate in the maintainance and restroation of their local watershed, through Integrated, hands-on curriculum that meets the essential learnings mandated the state of Wa |
| Target species | citizens of the watershed |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | 180 days @ $240.00/day | $45,000 |
| Fringe | $14,850 | |
| Supplies | supplies, equipment and instructional materials | $3,000 |
| Operating | ESD 105 office costs | $8,000 |
| Travel | Teacher field trip transportation @ $500/trip X 4 trips; incidental coordinator travel | $3,000 |
| Indirect | 9.00% | $10,336 |
| Other | 50 substitutes @ $120/sub X 4 trips | $24,000 |
| Subcontractor | EcoNorthwest | $17,000 |
| $125,186 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $125,186 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $125,186 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund for one year. Subsequent funding beyond FY 2000 contingent on correcting the deficiencies.Comments: We believe environmental education is an important purpose and support the need for it. However, this proposal makes a weak case for the project as described in the proposal. The proposal states that there are a number of education programs offered by various resource agencies in the Columbia Basin, but in Section 8c (relationship to Other Projects) it fails to mention these other projects and how this projects interacts with them. This shortcoming was identified last year. The proposal has six objectives but appears to have only one measurable criteria for success and that is the number of teachers trained. That performance measure does not adequately address the range of objectives described in the text. There are a large number of projects funded by BPA in the Yakima Basin that could be related to this education program. The proposal does not mention any of them and leaves the reviewers wondering how familiar the project leader is with the ongoing environmental and fisheries work in the basin. As mentioned in last year's review, this proposal should provide more information on the curriculum.
Additional comments include:
Since it has already operated for a number of years and there was an audit in 1998, the proposal should provide an assessment of the results to date, what has and has not worked well, and any changes needed in the future.
A more specific listing/description of the curriculum would be helpful for reviewers to relate what is being taught relative to the objectives of the overall Yakima program. (e.g., is the restoration program providing a useful context for environmental education?)
The proposal describes the results of research showing the benefits of environmental education, but does not cite the references for these studies. The proposal needed to deal with the issues of data availability and data quality more directly.
Do the large number of student/teacher visits to spawning grounds constitute an excessive disturbance for spawning fish? What actions are taken to minimize these effects?
The use of $17,000 for a subcontractor (EcoNorthwest) is not spelled out.
The proposal discusses presumed benefits of the program but does not specify how the program results will be evaluated.
The proposal needed to address how to assess the expected impacts of the education in more detail. Assessing the success of these projects in terms of changed behavior is clearly important. This might be very difficult to measure in a rigorous way, and very few environmental education specialists have either the time, training, or money to conduct such assessments in addition to teaching.
The lack of information on the curriculum was noted in last year's review. Shown here in bold. ISRP Evaluation: Inadequate proposal, adequate purpose The proposal needs to better describe its curriculum and the expected benefits to fish and wildlife in the basin. The proposal is not adequately related to watershed councils or other education programs.
Comment:
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? NA -Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? NA - Doesn't seem to belong in program. Very poorly prepared and missing information.
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? NA -
Resource Criteria 4: Met? NA -
Comment:
The criteria are not suitable to evaluate this type of project. This is a good educational program that should be funded. The role of the subcontractor is not clearly defined. We recommend that a fixed funding source be sought for future years. The development of the program has been firmly established, and funding should be moved from the BPA FWP.Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $135,000 | $135,000 | $135,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website