The restoration of degraded habitat in urban areas is clearly an issue in the Yakima basin and elsewhere in the Columbia River Basin. The proposal gives thorough background and explains how the work would improve habitat. The proposal indicates association with the Yakima subbasin plan and high priority objectives. The relationship of this ongoing project with other projects in the lower Yakima is clearly described. Collaboration with other local government and school entities is a strong part of this project. The work is put in context of a myriad of agencies and groups and includes substantial collaboration with government and non-government organizations. Benefits would primarily be educational rather than to fish and wildlife.

The project history section of the proposal describes the original need and identifies tasks completed during the previous phase. Not all objectives were met, such as land purchase, so this element is included in this proposal. Past biological monitoring is not clearly described nor reported. Educational benefits are reported in terms of students involved rather than impact (presumably to maintain and foster a conservation ethic in this urban area).

In future reports the sponsors should identify monitoring efforts in more detail so success of the project can be documented. Reports should include more than number of feet of shoreline restored and trees planted but should also document tree survival, the effect of weed removal activities, baseline water temperature and temperature changes, etc. Methods are based on basic stream restoration principles but do not explicitly recognize that bioengineered solutions will require long-term maintenance. The project seems to rely on monitoring of some results (e.g., water quality) by citizens, students, and volunteers. The monitoring objective would be improved if it clearly identified what monitoring will be done, where, why, and how. Effort will be needed to maintain QA/QC of results and the proponents should have explained how they plan on doing this.

More details regarding information transfer should be provided. The method of transfer mentioned: "The resulting project data and information will be shared on-line (include hosting website address), via surface mail and through verbal information transfers, presentations where required and media distribution." is too vague to evaluate. More details concerning information transfer should have been provided. Note: This is a three-year project scheduled to terminate in FY09.

The restoration of degraded habitat in urban areas is clearly an issue in the Yakima basin and elsewhere in the Columbia River Basin. The proposal gives thorough background and explains how the work would improve habitat. The proposal indicates association with the Yakima subbasin plan and high priority objectives. The relationship of this ongoing project with other projects in the lower Yakima is clearly described. Collaboration with other local government and school entities is a strong part of this project. The work is put in context of a myriad of agencies and groups and includes substantial collaboration with government and non-government organizations. Benefits would primarily be educational rather than to fish and wildlife.

The project history section of the proposal describes the original need and identifies tasks completed during the previous phase. Not all objectives were met, such as land purchase, so this element is included in this proposal. Past biological monitoring is not clearly described nor reported. Educational benefits are reported in terms of students involved rather than impact (presumably to maintain and foster a conservation ethic in this urban area).

In future reports the sponsors should identify monitoring efforts in more detail so success of the project can be documented. Reports should include more than number of feet of shoreline restored and trees planted but should also document tree survival, the effect of weed removal activities, baseline water temperature and temperature changes, etc. Methods are based on basic stream restoration principles but do not explicitly recognize that bioengineered solutions will require long-term maintenance. The project seems to rely on monitoring of some results (e.g., water quality) by citizens, students, and volunteers. The monitoring objective would be improved if it clearly identified what monitoring will be done, where, why, and how. Effort will be needed to maintain QA/QC of results and the proponents should have explained how they plan on doing this.

More details regarding information transfer should be provided. The method of transfer mentioned: "The resulting project data and information will be shared on-line (include hosting website address), via surface mail and through verbal information transfers, presentations where required and media distribution." is too vague to evaluate. More details concerning information transfer should have been provided. Note: This is a three-year project scheduled to terminate in FY09.