Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199405900

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date

Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Yakima Basin Environmental Education
BPA Project Proposal Number 199405900
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Educational Service District 105
Business acronym (if appropriate) ESD 105

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Julie Bradley
Mailing Address 33 South Second Ave.
City, State, Zip Yakima, WA 98902
Phone 5095752885
Fax 5095752918
Manager of program authorizing this project
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Columbia Plateau
Subbasin 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

[No information]

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal

NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: 7.6B.6
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: na
Other Planning Document References

CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous

Section 2. Past Accomplishments

n/a or no information

Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

n/a or no information

Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. To provide relevant, hands-on curriculum to all particpating teachers and their students a. continue to develop communication links with local research projects that have potential for student involvement
1. b. involve students in community problem solving related to local environmental issues, and arrange for area scientists to participate in teacher training sessions and student presentations
2. Provide teachers and students with neceszary equipment and materials to participate in local environmental education activities a. identify, purchase, and maintain equipment related to teacher training field trip topics
2. b. organize a check-out system for the equipment
3. Continue to support teachers and students who have participated in the program over the years a. provide updated information and access to newly acquired resources
3. b. provide resources for ongoing student projects
4. Foster community partnerships to improve both education and the environment a. involve various community agencies and organizations in active participation in classroom activities
4. b. involve students in presenting possible solutions to environmental problems they have identified to appropriate agencies or organizations
5. stimulate student interest in science and the environment as possible career choices a. arrange for local biologists and other scientists to participate in field trip trainings and classroom presentations
5. b. offer opportunities for student involvement in various area projects
6. a. arrange partnerships with local agencies and organizations to involve students in relevant projects
6. b. provide a curriculum with appropriate information aimed at creating positive attitudes about the environment among future decision makers

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 08/01/00 07/01/01 na na 69.0%
2 08/01/00 07/01/01 na na 6.0%
3 08/01/00 07/01/98 na na 5.0%
4 08/01/00 07/01/01 na na 5.0%
5 08/01/00 07/01/01 na na 5.0%
6 08/01/00 07/01/01 na na 10.0%

Section 5. 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
Total Itemized Budget $125,186

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project 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%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable

Reason for change in scope

Not applicable

Cost Sharing

Not applicable

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $125,000 $127,000 $130,000 $132,000
Total Outyear Budgets $125,000 $127,000 $130,000 $132,000

Other Budget Explanation

Not applicable

Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Lieberman G.A. and Hoody L.L. 1998, Closing the Achievement Gap, State Education and Environment Roundtable No

Section 7. Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 99-2 Recommendation:
Fund for one year
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
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.

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999

CBFWA: Nonwatershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
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 -

CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
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.

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Mar 1, 2000
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
Sponsor (Eco-Northwest) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page