§4.2 — priority audience. The RFP names outdoor enthusiasts already using the trail as a primary audience. The first thing this page answers is the question they actually ask: can I get on it, when, and what do I need to know. Not organizational history.

Empty community pages. Several settlement pages are live with the text “no copy at this time” — Galena is one. An empty page still gets indexed and still gets found, and it tells a visitor nobody is minding the site. The new structure does not publish a community page until it has content, and the editor sees exactly which ones are waiting.

§4.2 and Attachment 1 — integration of webstore, donations and membership. Separating the three journeys is the single highest-value change available to the Alliance’s revenue, and it costs nothing extra to build. A donor who lands on a merchandise page usually leaves.

§4.6 — secure development and user data. Keeping card entry inside the payment provider is what keeps the Alliance out of direct card-data scope. We configure, test and document the three journeys — product purchase, donation, membership — including cancellation, confirmation email and what the administrator sees afterwards.

Why we kept Square. Your current site is Weebly, and Weebly is a Square company, so the existing catalog and payment account already sit inside the Square ecosystem. That makes this the lowest-risk commerce path available to you, and it is why we are not proposing to replace it.

This is the deliverable that decides the project. On October 31, 2026 we inventoried four of your public resource listings and found 141 distinct PDFs totalling 286 pages. Today they sit across several hand-maintained list pages with inconsistent titles and no dates, types or sizes. That collection is the Alliance’s institutional memory and it is also, under a federally funded award, its largest accessibility exposure.

§4.5 and §4.6. Every file gets a usable title, a topic, a date where known, its type and size, and a link from the collection it belongs to. Each one is triaged for accessibility and either remediated or given a complete accessible equivalent. The status below is shown to the public, not hidden in a report.

Products and prices are the Alliance’s own, read from the current store on October 31, 2026. Catalog counts, variants, shipping and tax settings would be inventoried before any migration is confirmed — we are not assuming a rebuild.

Governance content has a review date. Your current board page still lists classes of 2020–2022. Every page of this type carries a review interval, and the editor dashboard lists what is overdue. Stale governance information is a credibility problem for a grant-funded organization.

Why show this at all. The Alliance is a volunteer-governed nonprofit with one primary editor and two backups. The risk is not that the site launches badly; it is that nobody can keep it current six months later, which is exactly what happened to the current site — events last updated in June 2020, and a patch still “under development”. The editing experience is the real deliverable.

§4.4 — roles, permissions and workflows. Editors draft, a reviewer publishes, and an administrator holds configuration. Two-factor is on for privileged accounts. Nobody needs to touch the theme, the plugin list or the template files to do their job, which is what keeps a small team safe.

§4.6 — accessibility that survives handover. The checks sit in the publishing screen, not in a training document nobody reopens. An accessibility warning is recorded against the draft rather than quietly ignored. This is how conformance holds up twelve months after we leave.

Write once, appears everywhere. The three checkboxes replace the current practice of hand-maintaining the same item on several list pages, which is why the existing archive pages have drifted out of step with each other.

§4.6 and the federal funding notice. This award is funded in whole or in part through federal financial assistance, which brings Section 508 expectations alongside WCAG 2.2 AA. The deliverable we propose is a written conformance report listing pages tested, methods used, findings, fixes and residual limitations — the document a grantor or a complaint would actually ask for. An automated score is not that document.