2014, Dec adopted Shoreline Part 2 Appendix D-G City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010
Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014
Appendix
Wildlife and Bird Information
Spokane River Habitat and Ornithology
In an effort to increase the public involvement and to obtain more data on the ecological
importance of the Spokane River to native plants and wildlife, URS and the City of
Spokane Valley have sought the involvement of the Spokane Chapter of the Audubon
Society (Spokane Audubon). Spokane Audubon has graciously provided the following
information for inclusion in the Spokane Valley SMP.
Spokane Audubon Shoreline Notes provided by: Norma Trefry, Sylvia Wilson, Fran
Haywood, and Katie Krauss.
All habitats along the shoreline of the Spokane River, through the valley, are important.
Some locations receive less stress from noise and development and are large enough to
provide food, nesting sites, and allow for protection from predators. These areas are the
most important to protect and keep in their natural state. The Spokane River and the
Centennial Trail are great assets to the City of Spokane Valley as they provide open
space where all Spokane Valley residents can enjoy the river and associated wildlife.
The following narrative divides the Centennial Trail into sections beginning from a
trailhead or easy access point.
East of Barker Road to the City Limits
This stretch of river provides some of the best habitat for birds. The residential
development along the southern shore is set back enough from the river that a buffer has
been established. This buffer consists of a grassy area with scattered shrubs and small
trees between the development and the river. The area between the Centennial Trail and
the river provides for a good mixed habitat. This area consists of grassy areas
interspersed with shrubs, young and mature trees, as well as large woody debris.
Noxious weeds and non-native trees and shrubs are not yet a problem. Several species of
birds, such as: Yellow Warblers, Gray Catbirds, Eastern Kingbirds, and Cedar
Waxwings use this area to raise their young. This area has also benefitted in that the
residential development along the north shoreline has mainly adhered to the 200-foot
shoreline buffer. This allows both sides of the river to be used by birds.
Island Trailhead on Upriver Drive,East of Plantes Ferry Park.
The mature deciduous trees and thick underbrush provide excellent bird habitat. Grassy
places with scattered young and mature Pine Trees are located east of the pedestrian
bridge. The large rock outcrops in the river are scenic and provide quiet places for
waterfowl to rest. Spotted Towhees, Yellow Warblers, Orioles, and Chickadees, as well
as others, are abundant in this location. This year a Northern Shrike is using this area as a
wintering ground. The pedestrian bridge provides a great place to view this beautiful
stretch of river.
Mission Trailhead to Barker Road
The evergreen and deciduous trees, as well as the fruit bearing shrubs offer excellent bird
habitat. Bullock's Orioles, Black-headed Grosbeaks, Yellow Warblers, and Gray
Catbirds, among others, are found in this area. Cliff Swallows nested under the old
Barker Road Bridge and will hopefully nest under the new bridge. The bridge
construction may be impacting an excellent habitat close to the bridge on the western
side.
Mirabeau Park East Toward Sullivan Road
The habitat along the shoreline through this stretch of river is impacted by the number of
people using the Centennial Trail and the park. Homeless people also camp in this area
during warmer weather. Quail and migrating Sparrows, such as White-crowned
Sparrows, can be found in the open spaces despite all the activity. Gray Catbirds, Cedar
Waxwings, Yellow Warblers, Song Sparrows, and others use the shrubs along the river
for food, shelter, and nesting. Common Mergansers nest in the trees in this area, and an
Osprey nested across the river last summer. Nesting Meadowlarks can be found in the
field to the south. This is one of the few places left where they can be found along the
river. Bird activity decreases nearer to the Spokane Valley Mall. This is probably due to
the noise and activity associated with the mall.
Mira beau Park Headed West
The shoreline area near the waterfall provides attractive habitat in warmer weather. The
uninterrupted open space between the river and Centerplace Park to the south and west
allows movement between the shoreline and upland habitats. Woodpeckers, Pygmy and
Red-breasted Nuthatches, and Chickadees utilize this connected open space. The steep
bank further east is scattered with shrubs, Pine Trees, and deciduous trees. Mourning
Doves like this area.
Sullivan Road East towards the Mission Trailhead
Habitat along this part of the shoreline is affected by its proximity to the roads,
commercial development, and the Spokane Valley Mall to the south. The quality of the
habitat increases to the east as the tree density increases, as does the bird activity.
Summary
The Spokane River and associated shorelines are important to Eagles, Osprey, Great Blue
Heron, Spotted Sandpipers, and Swallows who use it for food, nesting, and perching.
Migrating birds use the river corridor as a resting place during the fall and spring in route
to their winter and summer territories. These birds include: Varied Thrushes, Yellow-
rumped Warblers, White-crowned Sparrows, and Flycatchers among many others. The
shoreline of the Spokane River is still in its natural state in many areas and is a treasure
for the City of Spokane Valley and its residents.
The Audubon Society of Spokane
Birds of the Spokane River within the City of Spokane Valley
Includes habitat within 200 feet of the shoreline
Common(should see in proper habitat) C
Uncommon(usually present in proper habitat, but might miss) U
Occasional(usually a few reports each year,sometimes irruptive, may be local) 0
Rare(not seen most years, but more than 10 records for period since 1980) R
Vagrant(fewer than 10 records since 1980) V
Nests N
Season
Species Spring/Fall Summer Winter Nests
American Coot 0 0 R
American Crow C C C N
American Gold Finch C C V
American Kestrel 0 0 0
American Robin C C U N
American Tree Sparrow R
American Wigeons R R
Bald Eagle U 0
Bank Swallow 0 0
Barrow's Goldeneye 0 R
Belted Kingfisher 0 0 0
Bewick's Wren R R
Black-billed Magpie C C C N
Black-capped Chickadee 0 0 U
Black-chinned Hummingbird U
Black-headed Grosbeak U U U N
Bohemian Waxwing 0
Brown Creeper 0 0 0
Brown-headed Cowbird U U N
Bufflehead U U U
Bullock's Oriole U U N
California Quail C C C N
Calliope Hummingbird 0
Canada Goose C C C N
Cassin's Finch R
Cedar Waxwing U U U N
Cliff Swallow U U N
Common Goldeneye 0 U
Common Merganser U U C N
Common Raven U U U
Common Redpoll R
Common Yellowthroat V
Cooper's Hawk 0 0 0
Dark-eyed Junco U U U N
Double-crested Cormorant 0 0 0
Downy Woodpecker U U U N
Eastern Kingbird U U N
European Starling C C C N
Evening Grosbeak 0 0
Golden-crowned Kinglet 0 U
Season
Species Spring/Fall Summer Winter Nests
Gray Catbird U U N
Great Blue Herron U U U
Great Horned Owl U U U N
Hairy Woodpecker 0 0 0
Hooded Merganser 0 0
House Finch C C C N
House Sparrow C C C N
House Wren 0 0
MacGilliuray's Warbler V
Mallard C C C N
Merlin 0
Mountain Chickadee 0 0 U
Mourning Dove C C C N
Nashville Warbler V _
Norhtern Goshawk V
Norhtern Rough-winged Swallow U 0
Northern Flicker C C C N
Northern Shrike R
Orange-crowned Warbler V
Osprey U U N
Pied Bill Grebe 0 0 U
Pine Siskin 0
Pygmy Nuthatch C C C N
Red Crossbill U 0 U
Red-breasted Nuthatch U U U N
Red-tailed Hawk C C C N
Red-winged Blackbird U C N
Ring-billed Gull C C U
Ring-necked Duck 0 R
Ring-necked Pheasant U U U N
Rock Pigeon C C C
Ruby-crowned Kinglet R
Rufous Hummingbird U U
Saw Whet Owl R
Sharp-shinned Hawk U U U
Snow Goose V
Song Sparrow U U U N
Spotted Sandpiper U U N
Spotted Towhee 0 0 N
Townsend's Solitaire R 0
Tree Swallow U U
Turkey Vulture R
Varied Thrush R R
Violet-green Swallow C C
Western Wood Peewee U U
White-breasted Nuthatch R 0
White-crowned Sparrow 0 R
Wild Turkey R R R
Willow Flycatcher 0 0
Winter Wren R
Wood Duck 0 0
Yellow Warbler U U N
Spokane River Ornithology:
Birds of the Spokane River in the Spokane Valley
Shoreline habitat along the Spokane River is very important to birds. At least 107
different species of birds have been observed along the Spokane River over the years.
Some species nest here, some winter here, and some rest and feed here during migration.
While all habitats are important, the best areas are those that are large enough to provide
room to feed, nest, and shelter from predators.
Black-headed Grosbeak*
- .. / 111;111)14"....., r.,--k 1'
411
14a,Brnwr_CLO
Habitat
The Black-headed Grosbeak breeds in a variety of deciduous and mixed forest habitats.
Food
Insects, seeds,and fruits.
Nesting
A loose, open cup of twigs, plant stems, rootlets, and pine needles, lined with fine stems,
rootlets, hair, string, and some green material.Nests are placed in outer branches of small
trees or shrubs, often near a stream.
Bullock's Oriole*
3nan �_Small
Habitat
Bullock's Orioles prefer riparian and open woodlands or woodlots with tall trees,
including parklands. Winter habitat includes riparian woodlands and woodland edges,
with some in pine,pine-oak, or fir forests.
Food
Caterpillars, fruits, insects, spiders,and nectar.
Nesting
Neatly woven hanging nests. Nests are placed in isolated trees, at edges of woodlands,
along watercourses, in shelterbelts, and in urban parks, often near water.
Cedar Waxwing*
nor
toe. ve
1 044d`
Habitat
Cedar Waxwings inhabit deciduous, coniferous, and mixed woodlands, particularly areas
along streams. In winter, Cedar Waxwings are most abundant around fruiting plants in
open woodlands,parks, gardens,forest edges,and second-growth forests.
Food
Fruits and insects.
Nesting
Female waxwings do almost all the nest building; males may do some construction for
the second nest of a season. The female weaves twigs, grasses, cattail down, blossoms,
string, horsehair, and similar materials into a bulky cup about 5 inches across and 3
inches high.
Common Merganser*
1W_:Errm E.Sim.1
Habitat
The Common Merganser breeds along lakes and rivers bordered by forests, and winters
on large lakes, rivers, coastal bays, and estuaries.
Food
Small fish, insects, mollusks, crustaceans, worms, frogs, small mammals, birds, and
plants.
Nesting
Nest in tree cavity or nest box, lined with downy feathers from chest of female.
Populations are declining due to a lack of large trees along the river(Spokane Audubon).
Eastern Kingbird*
,-.1(P
i^7
Habitat
The Eastern Kingbird breeds in open environments with scattered perches, such as fields,
orchards, shelterbelts,and forest edges, and winters in riparian habitats.
Food
Flying insects,fruits especially in winter.
Gray Catbird*
Habitat
Gray Catbirds live amid dense shrubs, vine tangles, and thickets of young trees in both
summer and winter. The Gray Catbird is only found along the river in the Spokane
Valley due to lack of habitat elsewhere along the river.
Food
In summer, Gray Catbirds eat mainly ants, beetles, grasshoppers, midges, caterpillars,
and moths. When fruits are available, they also eat holly berries, cherries, elderberries,
poison ivy, greenbrier, bay, and blackberries.
Nesting
Nests are a bulky, open cup made of twigs, straw, bark, mud, and sometimes pieces of
trash. It has a finely woven inner lining of grass, hair, rootlets, and pine needles.
Yellow Warbler*
Y.J
•
'
Habitat
The Yellow Warbler breeds in wet, deciduous thickets, especially in willows, as well as
shrubby areas and old fields.
Food
Insects and other arthropods, occasionally fruit.
Nesting
Nests are deep cup of grasses and bark that are placed in upright forks of shrubs or trees.
Northern Saw-whet Owl*
orWrir;;00,00,rd
.. : .. ,„ .„.
, ,,.., ,i.,,,,,. ,, .
,..t:
Ot.ty , , .
.4.. y4.' '
`rf
Habitat
The Northern Saw-whet Owl breeds in all types of forests within its range, and winters in
a variety of habitats with dense vegetation for roosting.
Food
Woodland mice. Occasionally some small birds and large insects.
Nesting
Nests in tree cavity, usually old woodpecker holes, and also uses nest boxes.
White-crowned Sparrow*
, Iff .;4.„ .:,.,..
t !,• yrs.. c,,,.:
iff
Habitat
White-crowned Sparrows breed in open or shrubby habitats. Patches of bare ground and
grasses are important characteristics. During winter and on migration, these birds
frequent thickets,weedy fields, agricultural fields,roadsides, and backyards.
Food
Seeds, grains, berries, and insects.
Nesting
Females build nests out of twigs, coarse grasses, pine needles, moss, bark, and dead
leaves. They line the nest cup with fine grasses and hairs. The finished product is about 5
inches across and 2 inches deep.
Great Blue Heron*
ii
Vi',' £
1. , ;
ir''
Habitat
Found along calm freshwater and seacoasts. Usually nests in trees near water, but
colonies can be found away from water.
Food
Fish, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and small mammals.
Nesting
Great Blue Herons nest in colonies, or sometimes as a lone pair. Nests are a large
platform of sticks placed high in trees, or occasionally on the ground.
*Source: allaboutbirds.org—The Cornell Lab of Ornithology
Gravel Pit Habitat and Ornithology: Species Summary
The Central Pre-Mix ponds provide an interesting place for bird watching due to the
variety of waterfowl and raptors that use the ponds and surrounding land. The central
location of the ponds allows for an easy drive; however, viewing the birds is challenging
due to the perimeter fence. Parts of the ponds are also difficult to view from the road.
People are interested in viewing and photographing the birds in the ponds due to the
presence of several rare birds for the area. A way to view the ponds from a place off the
road and above the height of the fence would be greatly appreciated. (Spokane Audubon)
The surface mining of gravel throughout the Spokane Valley has created urban water
bodies. These water bodies and associated shorelines provide habitat for at least 45
different bird species during winter and fall migrations. The most numerous in quantity
are waterfowl. Most of these species of waterfowl are shallow divers and feed on aquatic
flora and fauna. These various species of birds use the gravel pits as summer and winter
habitat, as well as for refuge during migration. The greatest varieties of non-waterfowl
species are present along the gravel pits during the summer months according to the bird
count supplied by the Spokane Audubon Society.
The most numerous and common bird species present at the gravel pits are as follows:
Ring-billed Gulls
o The Spokane Valley is not included in the winter range for the Ring-billed Gull.
However,they can be found at the gravel pits year-round. This is likely due to the
availability of food in the parking lots of restaurants and stores (Spokane
Audubon). The Ring-billed Gull is most abundant during the summer months
after returning from their traditional coastal wintering grounds.
Mallard
o The Mallard is the most common species of duck. Mallards are present in the
Spokane Valley gravel pits year-round. They are most numerous during the
winter months.
American Coot
o The American Coot is most numerous during the winter months. The summer
months see a drastic decline in numbers as they move to their summer habitat to
the north and east.
Canada Goose
o The Spokane Valley is listed as being year-round habitat for the Canada Goose.
Their presence at the gravel pits is most numerous during the winter.
Double-crested Cormorant
o While the Spokane Valley is along the migratory path of the Double-crested
Cormorant, they are present at the gravel pits year-round. The Double-crested
Cormorant typically migrates south or to the Pacific Coast. The Double-crested
Cormorant primarily eats fish.
Common Merganser
o The Spokane Valley is listed as year-round habitat for the Common Merganser.
They are most abundant during the winter months. The Common Merganser
feeds predominately on aquatic fauna.
All information on particular bird species was obtained from the Cornell Lab of
Ornithology website, allaboutbirds.org. The bird count data for the Spokane Valley
gravel pits in the following table was collected and provided by Norma Trefy of the
Spokane Chapter of the Audubon Society. Note that in some instances, Norma used a
quantity of "many" in her count. To provide a numerical estimate within the table, a
value of 35 was provided for each occurrence of "many". The species for which this
occurs has been noted.
Spokane Valley Gravel Pit Bird Counts
Data supplied by Norma Trefry(Spokane Audubon:
Year 2007 2008 2009
Species Season Winter Spring Winter Spring Summer Winter Spring Summer Fall
American Coot' 9 0 198 75 23 245 47 0 21
American Crow 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
American Kestrel 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
American Robin 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1
American Wigeons 0 0 9 9 2 16 16 2 0
Bufflehead 0 0 9 12 8 10 6 4 0
California Gull 0 0 0 39 14 0 9 14 9
Canada Goose' 13 18 131 123 34 102 28 74 10
Caspian Tern 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Cedar Waxwing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Cinnamon Teal 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 0
Common Goldeneye 2 6 9 7 0 15 5 0 1
Common Loon 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Common Merganser 2 0 30 8 7 24 9 8 4
Double-crested Cormorant 0 3 9 14 18 16 18 35 59
Duck(sp) 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Eared Grebes 0 0 0 0 11 _ 0 0 11 0
Gadwall 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Great Blue Herron 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green-winged Teal 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 4 0
Gull(sp) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Herring Gull 0 0 0 0 _ 7 5 0 10 0
Horned Grebe 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 0
House Finch 0 0 0 7 0 0 21 0 0
House Sparrow" 0 0 0 0 36 0 21 36 0
Killdeer 0 0 1 2 6 0 0 13 2
LesserScaup 0 0 0 2 6 2 2 6 0
Mallard" 43 0 109 51 5 256 26 24 25
Mourning Dove 0 0 0 1 12 5 5 37 2
Northern Flicker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
' Northern Pintail 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0
Northern Shoveler 0 14 0 2 12 0 0 10 0
Osprey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Pied Bill Grebe 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
Redhead 7 0 8 6 5 4 0 5 0
Red-necked Grebe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Red-tailed Hawk 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
Red-winged Blackbird 0 0 0 0 1 4 4 1 0
Ring-billed Gull' 0 35 192 182 244 89 131 244 73
Ring-necked Duck 4 0 19 15 4 1 1 2 0
Ruddy Duck 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 0
Snow Goose 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Song Sparrow 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Starling' 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 36 0
Swallow(spy' 0 0 0 0 35 0 35 35 0
Tree Swallow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Violet-green Swallow' 0 0 0 26 0 0 70 1 0
Western Grebe 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 2 0
'Value"many"used in count
Appendix 0: Degree of Association Between Focal
Wildlife Species and Focal Habitats for Breeding
Appendix D-1
Degree of association (* = close, o =general) for breeding between focal wildlife species and focal habitats of the Intermountain
Province _
I I Cliff Wetland Ripn Step e1Shrub-step Upland Forest I
Common Name I Scientific Name I Rock irpr l It I mc _ ci w, I cw 1 Ns M'J I w•tc I mm I dim 1 In I PP f gra
Amphibians
Coeur d'Alene salamander I Plctheden randrkci idaharr,su I I • I '- I. - II
C;Iumbtaspotted frog I 149111149111iwetrentr,s I _ • • , i I f• i
Long-toed salamander :irrrbrsroutamacrodauvimu I • • • I • jf
Northern leopard frog Rasta ospreys I I • • I • I I I 1
Rough-skmncd newt 11•ancha granulosa I l • ( • ` • T I Westcm toad i Bata bereas I • i • i • • l I I
Wood frog !Ram srlt•anca I - • I • �.....I • i i i I
Birds
Ainencut.row C-uriumbrachrrhrncos - I I l I
Amcnean dipper i C,,, 1us nresuanus • I • 1
Amencan kestrel 'Falco spat-versus I ; i
Aillerteari 1ti11Ie pel7ear• ;Agawam rrt•/lrro,lrrrrchas • I ,
Amer Waft wltleo11 !.Inas americana • I I
Raid eagle I Ifabaceurs ku ncephulas I�1 _ f '
T ( •
Barred oaf I Sim Yana •
Black tern 1 Cid:doa,us attar s I I I i
Black-hacked woodpecker I Prcntdas ar.^rrcus I - I I 1 a •
Black-capped chickadee I Pocr,k arricanrllus I I I I
1 Blue arouse I Dendr,gapus alxscursa } I • I I -. I •• I • ' •
Boreal owl i:Icgalias funerrns ! f I I I 1
California quail I calhaepia californica I I E
I Canada goose I Bronco canadcnsrs I
Chuks• i.Ilccran's chsrkar I • i • i
Common lam I Gatia inrn,r,• • I I I i _
Common merganser I.ticrgur merganser • _ I I • I f
1 i uhlc-cresteJ cormorant I Phalacrocroraxaurums • I I I1 I 1
I Downy woodpecker I Ptcordespubrseens ( I l
• Ferruginous hawk I Bused regalis c, • • I I
Flammaiatedowl 1Orruflarn+ncalm __ I I I • _ ..
Golden angle i Aquila ch,rsamas • I _ I - i 1
Grasshopper sparrow I.an,modran,us sat•annanun I • • 1 I
I Gras-panridae I Pcrdix per I I I I
Great blue heron I..Irdca hetvchas i • I I I ( I
1 Great arm owl i S:rrs deb:dour I I I I • l • I
Green winged scat I:Max cncca • I I I
Harlequin duck I ffistrraaicru hua:anrcus I • Ii _I I
Killdeer I C haradrr,uroams I `
Lew•+a•woctdpxckc: !.t/rlanerprs fetus j ._ - 1 .1 _ { I
Appendix 0-2
Cliff Wetland Rlpn Steppe/Shrub-step I Upland Forest
Common Name Scicntife Name Rock irpr h I mc ci we 1 du ss wj I wk I mm I vim I in I pp I ua
I Loggerhead shrike Lwuustudovwwnus 1 . 1 • • I 1 1 i I I
manard Aims !unrhvn1 cas • • I ' I ! I I
htarsh wren Ctstothorus vat:istrts • I I I 1 I ! { 1
Merhn I Fa&o colwnbar:s I !
'htoumtne.love Zcnazda inacroura I •• I J
Northern uoshawk dcctpncrecnrdis : T T • • I • I 1
Northern twenty owl Glum-dim puma : .. . . I i •• • 1 I 1
Northern rnu_h-wined swallow Srrtgidaptens scrrpeants - • i • I I I {
Olive-sided flycatcher Catmints cooper: i1 i •• I •• •• I I I
Osprey Paruhou hahactus • I ., I I I L 1 I
Pcre_rmc falcon Falcope.regr,aus • I I f
Heated woodpecker I Dn'uroptrs Occults I •- - I I
1 Pygmy.nuthatch Sirta Ps'gnatea I I •• _ 1 • i
Redhead !dwino americana • l
Rtng•bdicd gull !Larus delawareasis • I . 1 ``
I Rina-necked pheasant I Phasta nus col:/ucas I • I • I I S I
Rudthduck I Oxvura rwnuicc+rsts • ! i
Rutted_rause I&masa tonheUcrtar •• I I • I I
Rufous hummingbird '.'Iasphorru runts ! I I I I I
Sale arouse Centroccrcus urophasw1 nus t • • I I i 1 1
Sa_c sparrow .'in:plasm_a beth r 1 •• I 1 1
.Sage thrasher Oreoscgptes man:anus I I • I ; I
S;ndhdi crane urns carra:tensts • I v I I { { I
•Sha,+tailed„oust I fans maims,hasttmcllas '. • I • i + ,
Statued b;tndpiper I.Loos rna.u1:rrtrr • I
Spruce_crouse Dcndragap+ts cu.=
I ,' I
Se.ainsnn's hawk Buten swains • • ( I
lluec-toed woadand'.ecker Pica:des trattoriasI I • ,
Tundra! swan (Cygnus colunrbtanus 1
Upland sandpiper I Lrartranua longrcaudaI • I _ {
Vaux's swill I C haetura Tatrxr ( i i i _
Western burrowing owl _dthcne cwtic:darva C • • ( I
I\Westernarebc dechrnophonaocc:denrahs • • 1 I 1
I Western meadowlark Sturnella neg/ceta I I • I • • I •
- I
1 Western tanager Ptranga ludavicwna i I_ , . - 1 I I to • • • ( 1
White-headed woodpecker Pt'eo+des albolarvutus I 1 1 1 • I i
1Vildtur'kev Meleagrisgallopasa l 1 I !•
_ 1 1
Willow flycatcher Emptdonal wallaI ` _ I • I I I 1 - 1
Pillow warbler I Dendrotca paech+u 1 I _ ; • I . 1 1 r 1 I t 1
Appendix 0-3
I Mammals
American badger er 'Padenwits1 • I • I I
i American beaver 'C'asturcctnadensrs • • I • 1 f I
I American marten Moms americana i I I • I • ( • I 1
l3tahornsheep OVIAClinrrdenrrx - 1 IIII I I
Blink t>,::u Ursus ancrrcanrke ! I
Bobcattuts ruliu -
California mvotrs I.11t'oi s calrforurcus - • • !
Canada lynx Lynx eanadensts - • • i
Cougar Feltsconcalor _ i •
,Cuvutc I Cords hurunsI
I Fisher I Marks pennant, • • i
im
L Frcd mousI.thous dams/odes - i -
Grav wolf Cants lupus -
i I
Gnzxly bear Uesits areioa I T I 1
Lund cared my oris Thais cionsI - - - I
Long-Icaccd mutts Mynas t'olans _ I • • i • • 1 •
Mariam'.>hrow Soresnxrriam: i I • I I
\hnkMilsteinrasion I • I • I I I
Moose I.-does aloes I I ! I I
I Mountain goat Oreanutos americana - I ! I I I I c
Mule dear Odocadeur lrcnrianrrs henrruara• I .. I .: 1 1 • .. I - I - 1 .
Muskrat Ondaaa:iberluca i • • I • 1 1 I I
Northern boa lemming i Srnapsonn:r borealis •
i Northam flying squirrel I Glaucumtssabrrnur _ - - • •• •• . I
Pvgniv rabbit !&•adniugas alahoeasrs I 1t •
Pvemv shrew I.[dicrasures howI I • 5
Raccoon ProcronIotar • i I .. I M
Ricer inter Luria canadcnsis • • • I_ I I
Rocks Mt.elk I Coma elapluu aclsont .. .. y I
Snowshoe hare I Leptis americana • • • •• I ••
Townsend's bra-eared bar I Cort•hurhinus lou nscndu I i
Pale Townsends s bre caroti bat C.t.pedIescti to t
Washington ground squirrel SpermOphthcs wasiunerom 1 I 1 1 • • I 1 1
Western small-Tooted mvotts I Wrods cdtolabrun: I • 1 • • I • I
Whae•uded deer I Odocaileus ii:'intrtmu I i • 1 I '
White-tailed jackrabbit 1 Leftist tatursendii •• I 1 i 1
Wo(tennt Gula gado I - 1 I I I 1 1 I
Woodland caribou I Rangt&r tarmtdus I I I ' I ,
I Yuma mous •Mons rtmranensts I 1 • I • 1 I t •
Appendix D-4
'Reptiles
Noimail alhcatu:112.41+1 1 Io,',a .i'talea I I 1 - i i J 1 1 i
Rrn_r•.ccl:snake 1 IAalfrafphrs runuualres 1 - f�_� 1 1 I f
i Stn›..N.1ui+1 snake Ilnsrrcouhrs ra nrr+rus I r I i
Cliff or Rock Outcrop:
Wetland: Irpr=lake,river,pond,and reservoir:h=herbaceous:mc=montane coniferous.
Riparian: ei=eastside(interior)riparian-wetland.
Steppe or Shrub-steppe: wg=westside grassland:eig=eastside(interior)grassland:ss=-shrub-steppe.
Upland Forest:: wj=western juniper and/or mountain mahogany:wlc=westside lowland conifer-hardwood:mm=montane mixed conifer;elm=
eastside(interior)mixed conifer,
Ip=lodgepole pine;pp=ponderosa pine:ua=upland aspen.
(Source:Adapted from Johnson and O'Neil 2001)
Appendix 0-5
BirdWeb-Species of Special Concern Page 1 of 5
\*1 \_,I0. ,
y�"` 1 1 d \X/e D4.,
f_. }► t'h ' .0,4eaiLuc he-.,4 % i-'1,:41.°
^ ei1
.1.??, ". i ' ' '",',"P.,',11,C; i ' trds of Wasittn.,,gtun Suite
-f�.�4:hp —'..1 }• ,': + "` S )ft �ucJ(xtt�. Jfty�
tom s-!,01. �+1.- - .. .,1*. 1 I, ‘ J.* i a 1 r
. -,;a. g,_�.s:c{ ,wr..ar. tyn R1'Y' � ' ."..„1„.',1...41....../ ..:'...i........`
Species of Special Concern
f4any birds in Washington are showing signs of decline due to habitat loss and other environmental threats.
Some of these species are still relatively common and widespread while others have all but disappeared
from the state.After careful scientific monitoring, various government agencies and non-governmental
organizations formally designate those species deemed most at risk,placing them on special lists in order to
provide protection and call attention to their status. Designations from four of the most important lists are
compiled in the table below: the federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species(U.S.Fish and Wildlife
Service),the Audubon/American Bird Conservancy Watch List, the state Species of Concern list(Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife),and the Audubon Washington Vulnerable Birds list.Click on the links at the
left far further details about each list,or on a species'name on the table to go to its BirdWeb account.
1
http://www.birdweb.orgibirdweb/special_concern.aspx 12/1/2009
Bird Web -Species of Special Concern Page 2 of 5
f
Federal State Audubon
Endangered Endangered
Washington
Bird Endangered
Species List Conservancy Watch List Species list Vulnerable Birds
Ust
Brant '_ .. --
Early Warning
Cackling Goose -- — Monitored Early Warning
(Aleutian subspecies)
Trumpeter Swan -- Yellow List -- High Concern
Canvasback -- -. -- Early Warning
Redhead " -- -- Early Warning
Mariequm Duck -- -- -- Early Warning
Barrow's Gakleveeye --
-- -- Early Warning
Hooded Merganser -- -- -- Early Warning
Greater Sage-Grouse Candidate Yellow List Threatened Immediate
Concern
Sooty Grouse - Rad List -- Early Warning
Sharp tailed Grouse -- -- Threatened Immediate
Concern
Mountain Quail -- Yellow List -- Early Warning
Common Loon -- %- Sensitive Early Warning
Yellow-billed Loon -- Yellow Ust -- --
Horned Grebe -- -- Monitored --
Red-necked Grebe •- -- Monitored --
Western Grebe -- -- Candidate High Concern
Clark's Grebe -- Yellow List Monitored Early Warning
Laysan Albatross -- Red List -- --
Black-footed Albatross -- Red List -- Early Warning
Short-tailed Albatross Endangered Red List Candidate --
Pink-footed Shearwater -- Red List -- Early Warning
Buller's Shearwater -- Yellow Ust -- --
Sooty Shearwater -- Yellow List -- --
American White Pelican -- -- Endangered Early Warning
Brown Pelican Endangered -- Endangered Early Warning
Brandt's Cormorant -- -- Candidate Early Warning
Pelagic Cormorant -- -- -- Early Warning
-- — -- Immediate
American Bittern
Concern
Great Blue Heron -- -- Monitored --
Great Egret -- -- Monitored --
Green Heron -- -- Monitored •-
Black-crowned Night-Heron -- Monitored --
Turkey Vulture -- -- Monitored --
1
http://www.birdweb.org/birdweb/special_concern.aspx 12/1/2009
Bird Web-Species of Special Concern Page 3 of S
I
Osprey -- -• Monitored --
Bald Eagle Delisted- -- Sensit€ve Early Warning
Recovered
Cooper's Hawk -- -- -- Early Warning
-- -- Candidate Immediate
Northern Goshawk
Concern
Swainsonn's tiawk -- Yellow Ust Monitored Early Warning
Ferruginous Hawk -- -- Threatened Immediate
Concern
Golden Eagle -- -- Candidate High Concern
Merlin -- -- Candidate Early Warning
Gyrfalcon -- -- Monitored --
Peregrine Falcon Delisted- .- Sensitive Early Warning
Recovered
Prairfe Falcon -- -- Monitored High Concern
Sandhiii Crane -- -- Endangered Early Warning
American Golden-Plover -- Yellow List — --
Snowy Plover Threatened Yellow List Endangered Immediate
(Western subspecies) Concern
Black Oystercatcher -- -- Monitored Early Warning
Black-necked Stilt -- -- Monitored --
Wandering Tattler -- Yellow List -- --
Upland Sandpiper -- -- Endangered --
Whimbref -- -- Early Warning
Long-i7EElec Curlew -- Yellow List Monitored Immediate
Concern
Bar-tailed Godwit -- Yellow List .- --
Marbled Godwit — Yellow List -- Early Warning
Ruddy Turnstone -- -- -- Early Warning
Black Turnstone -- Yellow List -- Early Warning
Surtbird -- Yellow List -- Early Warning
Red Knot -- Yellow Ust -- Immediate
Concern
Sanderling -- Yellow List -- Early Warning
Semipatmated Sandpiper -- Yellow Ust -- --
Western Sandpiper -- Yellow Ust -- --
Rock Sandpiper — Red List -- Early Warning
Stilt Sandpiper -- Yellow List -- --
Buff-breasted Sandpiper -- Red List -- --
Short-billed Dowitcher -- -- -- Early Warning
Wilson's Phalarope -- -- -- Early Warning
Heermann's Gull -- Yellow List -- Early Warning
-- Yellow Ust -- --
http://www.birdweb.org/birdweb/special_concem.aspx 12/1/2009
BirdWeb -Species of Special Concern Page 4 of 5
1
Thayer's Gull
Western Guit -- _ T Early Warning
Caspian Tern -- -- Monitored High Concern
Black Tern -- -- Monitored Early Warning
Arctic Tern -- -- Monitored Early Warning
Forster's Tern -- — Monitored --
Elegant Tern -- Yellow list -- --
Common Murre -- -- Candidate Early Warning
Marbled Murrelet Threatened Yellow List 'Threatened Immediate
Concern
Ancient Murrelet -- Yellow List .. --
Cassia's Aukiet -- -- Candidate Early Warning
Tufted Puffin — .., Candidate Early Warning
Band-tailed Pigeon -- -- -- High Concern
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Candidate Candidate --
(Western population)
Flammulated Owl - Yellow List Candidate High Concern
Snowy Owl -- Monitored --
Burrowing Owl -- -- Candidate High Concern
Spotted Owl Threatened Red List Endangered Immediate
(Northern subspecies) Concern
•Great Gray Owl — P_ Monitored Early Warning
Short-eared Owl -- Yellow List -- High Concern
Boreal Owl -- -- Monitored --
(hack Swift -- Yellow List Monitored Immediate
Concern
Vaux's Swift — -- Candidate Early Warning
White-throated Swift -- -- Early Warning
Black-chinned Hummingbird -- -- -- Early Warning
Calliope Hummingbird -- Yellow List -- Early Warning
Rufous Hummingbird -- -- -- Early Warning
Lewis's Woodpecker -- Rad List Candidate High Concern
Acorn Woodpecker -- -- Monitored --
Williamson's Sapsucker -- Yellow List -- Early Warning
Red-naped Sapsucker -- -- •- Early Warning
Red-breasted Sapsucker -- -- -- Early Warning
White headed Woodpecker -- Yellow List Candidate Immediate
Concern
American Three-toed Woodpecker -- -- Monitored --
Black-backed Woodpecker -- -- Candidate Early Warning
Pileated Woodpecker -- — Candidate Early Warning
l
http://www.birdweb.org/birdweb/special_concern.aspx 12/1/2009
Bird Web - Species of Special Concern Page 5 of 5
Olive-sided Flycatcher Yeilow List - Immediate
Concern
Willow Flycatcher — Yellow Ust -- Early Warning
Hammond's Flycatcher -- e. Early Warning
Gray Flycatcher -- -- Monitored
Dusky Flycatcher -- -- -- Early Warning
Pacific-slope Flycatcher -- -- -- Early Warning
Ash-throated Flycatcher -- -- Monitored --
Loggerhead Shrike -- -- Candidate Immediate
Concern
Cassin's Vireo -- -- -- Early Warning
Horned Lark Candidate -- Endangered Immediate
(Streaked subspecies) Concern
Purple Martin -- -- Candidate High Concern
Boreal Chickadee -- -- Monitored --
White-breasted Nuthatch -- -- Candidate Early Warning
(Slender-billed subspecies)
Pygmy Nuthatch -- -- Monitored Early Warning
Western aiuebird -- •- Monitored Early Warning
Varied Thrush -- Yellow List -- --
Gray Catbird -- -- Early Warning
Sage Thrasher -- -- Candidate High Concern
Yellow Warbler -- -- -- Early Warning
Black-throated Gray Warbler _ _ -- Early Warning
Hermit Warbler -- Yellow Ust §- Early Warning
Northern Waterthrush -- -- Monitored --
MacGiilivray's Warbler -- -- -- Early Warning
Yellow-breasted Chat -- -- -- Early Warning
Green-tailed Towhee -a -- Monitored --
Chipping Sparrow -- -- -- Early Warning
Brewer's Sparrow -- Yellow List -- High Concern
Vesper Sparrow -- — Candidate Immediate
(Oregon subspecies) Concern
Sage Sparrow -- Yellow Ust Candidate High Concern
Grasshopper Sparrow -- n_ Monitored --
Lazuli Bunting -- -- -- Early Warning
Bobolink -- -- Monitored --
Rusty Blackbird -- Yellow List -- --
Lesser Goldfinch -- -- Monitored --
V2005-2008 Seattle Audubon Society Cred
http://www.birdweb.org/birdweb/special_concern.aspx 12/1/2009
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010
Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014
Appendix E
Technical Review Group Comments
17:
fiyy
14e
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
2315 N Discovery Place•Spokane Valley, Washington 99216-1566•(509)892-1001 FAX(509)921-2440
March 10,2010
City of Spokane Valley
Attn: Scott Kuhta
11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206
SUBJECT: Comments regarding the Technical Review Draft of Shoreline Inventory and
Characterization Report
Dear Mr. Kuhta:
The State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW) appreciates the opportunity
to review and comment on the draft version of the City of Spokane Valley's Shoreline Inventory
and Characterization Report February 2010. The inventory and characterization is very thorough;
we have only a few comments on the Report that highlight minor inconsistencies and ecosystem
characterization gaps.
Chapter 3,Regional Characterization:The shoreline analysis in this chapter is a comprehensive
inventory of ecosystem-wide processes and ecological functions in habitats within shoreline
jurisdiction in the City of Spokane Valley.However, the inventory of species and habitats in
Section 3.2 Spokane River Biological Resources does not include all state listed species related
to or affected by shoreline planning. In Spokane County, amphibians, such as western toad,also
depend on freshwater shoreline habitat in the county. The following link will take you to
WDFW's Priority Habitat and Species website http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm. County
Specific Lists of Species and Habitats are also available at this site under Related Links on the
left hand side of the page.
The characterization does not include species that are Sensitive or Candidates for listing and
therefore vulnerable of becoming Endangered or Threatened without removal of threats. We
have enclosed a list of priority species found in the WDFW priority habitats and species database
for Spokane County(http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phspage.htm). We recommend including these
species in your characterization report to inform policies and regulations that will adequately
protect the existing habitat functions upon which these species depend.
Additional Comments on the Species List:
Osprey,while included as a species of Local Importance in Spokane County, is no longer
included as a priority species and is not included on the State Monitor list.
Section 3.2: References to Rainbow trout as well as Redband trout. WDFW has conducted
genetics work under the Joint Stock Assessement Program and the redband trout have been
found to be genetically distinct, wild fish. It is redundant to have both redband and rainbow trout
listed. Columbia River redband trout(Onchorynchus mykiss gairdneri) are a subspecies of
rainbow trout(0.mykiss) (Behnke 1992). A genetic inventory of rainbow indicates we have a
virtually pure population of Columbia River redband trout in the Spokane River(Small et al
2007). For more information and to further improve the accuracy of the Characterization Report,
please refer to the specific comments provided by Jason McLellan, WDFW Fisheries Biologist,
forwarded through Doug Pineo, Ecology.
Section 3.5 Regional Processes,Stressors and Opportunites for Improvement:
Erosion (Spokane River): The Spokane River,particularly the upper reaches is not a wood
controlled system nor in the past is it believed to have been wood controlled. The upper reaches
of the river look much the same today as the reaches look historically indicating a system that is
somewhat stable overtime. WDFW looks at the movement of bedload and channel changes that
may occur with high flow conditions as a positive change. The embedded conditions that exist
in the Spokane are not indicative of a natural river condition. It takes extreme high flow events
(1996/1997)to move the bedload. The HEDs on the river do alter the natural flow regimes,
restrict flows,and limit gravel recruitment downstream. The limited sources of gravel feeder
bluffs and the operation of HEDs has resulted in a gravel starved system. This lack of gravel
recruitment is believed to be one of the limiting factors effecting trout production in this reach.
Flooding: WDFW does not look at flooding as negative, but rather as a natural river process.
Streams and rivers are supposed to be allowed floodplain connectivity and natural channel
migration. It is the process of shoreline development and a controlled system that has resulted in
flood control and resulted in altered natural shoreline and riverine processes.
Solarization: The main temperature issue in the upper Spokane is due to the operation of the
HED upstream in Post Falls. Temperature is considered to be a factor in reduced survival of
juvenile salmonids. The warmer water also supports the non-native smallmouth bass.
Fish and Wildlife: Fish: While the upper river habitat structure could be ranked as fair to good,
the water quality parameters,particularly instream flow and temperature, force the ranking under
Condition to be Poor. WDFW is quite concerned with the population decline of native redband
trout in the Spokane River and as described above,this is likely linked with reduced spawning
material, increased temperature, low recruitment success,and predation. Wildlife: Provide a
source for the rankings. While some areas might have suitable habitat, development limits the
functional use of the river by some wildlife species. The railroad,highway,residential, and
commercial development have all limited the habitat available for species.
WDFW suggests adding Residential Development as a process so that docks, danger tree
removal, private boat ramps, shoreline armoring,trails,riparian impacts, loss up upland habitat
and connectivity are all examples that can be included. Homeless encampments are also an
issue along the river within the City.
Poaching is another Stressor on the native trout resources. WDFW has recently increased
enforcement patrols to try to get control of the increased illegal fishing taking place on the
already stressed population. Activity includes angling out of season,not practicing catch and
release, and illegal use of bait in baitless/barbless area.
5.0 Local Characterization:
Fish: Include Redside shiner and sculpin spp. in the list of fish species found in the Spokane
River system. Bull trout, Chinook salmon, and northern pike could also be added to the list of
species that are occasionally noted—though all are entrained from the Couer d'Alene system.
Critical Areas: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas extend above the OHWL. For
example,the WDFW recommended riparian habitat width is 250 ft. This extends well above the
OHWL. Stating"below the OHWL" may cause confusion.
Shoreline Modifications: The City has an opportunity to address cumulative shoreline impacts
under this update process. Addressing cumulative shoreline impacts is a requirement under the
Ecology's SMA and relying on WDFW to address these impacts under the hydraulic code is
problematic at best. WDFW does not have the authority to address cumulative impacts from
individual applications and can only deny projects on the basis of impacts to fish life. WDFW
encourages the City to take this opportunity seriously and set an appropriate standard for future
shoreline developments.
Sources: WDFW would like suggest that the following sources be considered for best available
science:
A. Management Recommendations: WDFW produces management recommendations
supported by best available science. Management recommendations are most
appropriate to inform protection standards, but may also inform shoreline analysis
recommendations. Sources include:
1. The updated PHS list includes electronic links to PHS management
recommendations and single-page recommendations, recovery plans, living
with wildlife program, and NatureServe Species Reports for all priority
species. (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phsrecs.htm). Management
recommendations most commonly applied to SMP updates are:
a. Washington's Priority Habitats:Riparian(1997),
http://wdfw.wa.aov/hab/ripxsum.htm
2. Trout Recovery: A sampling of agency recommendations include:
a. Aquatic Habitat Guidelines, http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/ahg/, covering a
number of topics related to shoreline protection and restoration.
b. WDFW Wild Salmonid Policy(1997):
http://wdfw.wa.vov/fish/wsp/wsp.htrn
c. WDFW, Ecology, and DOT.Alternative Mitigation Policy Guidance:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/aha/altmtatn.pdf
d. Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout(Knight 2009);
http://wdfw.wa.gov/habitat/plannersQuide/index.htmI
Again we thank you for providing an opportunity to comment on the Report and are impressed
with the thorough inventory and characterization. With the inclusion of all WDFW priority
habitats and species, we believe this report provides a good foundation for your Shoreline Master
Program policies and regulations. We look forward to providing additional technical assistance
throughout your update process. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or requests for
additional information.
I look forward to continuing to work with the City of Spokane Valley on this Shoreline Master
Program Update.
Sincerely,
')
Karin A. Divens
Kad: KAD
Cc: Mark Wachtel, RHPM
Jennifer Davis, Environmental Services Coordinator
Doug Pineo, Department of Ecology
From:Person,Randy(PARKS)[mailto:Randy.Person@PARKS.WA.GOV]
Sent:Thursday,March 11,2010 3:17 PM
To:Lori Barlow
Cc:Parsons,Christine(PARKS);Person,Randy(PARKS);Schulz,Mark(PARKS);Guidotti,Chris(PARKS);
Fraser,Bill(PARKS);Scott,Kathryn(PARKS);Harris,Jim(PARKS); Koss, Bill(PARKS)
Subject:Response to Spokane Valley SMP inventory report
Thank you for making the Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report available for
comment. It contains a great deal of information,and should make a good basis for future
discussions. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has a few comments for
you to consider.
Spokane River Centennial Trail—the document routinely refers to the trail developed by the
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission,and maintained through an interagency
agreement,as simply"Centennial Trail." We recommend that the more complete reference
"Spokane River Centennial Trail (SRCT)" be used. Although it's not a bad reference in context,
there were several other"Centennial Trails"constructed in Washington at about that time,and
using the full reference will make it easier in the future,especially for digital search engines.
The SRCT is mentioned often as an important feature. At times it is a landmark,at other times
its presence as a barrier is noted. Unfortunately,only the map in figure 5-4 on page 42 actually
shows the alignment of the trail within the shoreline zone. Wherever possible, please show the
actual trail alignment. We can help with this—GIS data is available for the asking,that shows
State Park ownership, as well as the trail alignment. Please contact Kathryn Scott at
Kathrvn.Scott@parks.wa.eov, or(360)902-8691 to work out the details.
In a similar vein,the text is full of landmarks and other geographic references,which some of us
are unfamiliar with. Categorically, maps showing the locations of all the referenced items
should be included. It is difficult to fully understand the written information without some idea
of the physical relationships being discussed.
The second paragraph on page 69 discusses potential for non-motorized watercraft access near
Coyote Rock,"just west of Mirabeau Point." Is this correct? Our reading of the maps shows the
Coyote Rocks area lying just westerly of Myrtle Point,with Mirabeau further upstream.
Speaking of development, please consider the ongoing need for public access to the shoreline
during discussions of shoreline designations, appropriate uses,and development regulations.
This report describes a number of areas with social trails leading to the water edge. The
demand to reach this special area is high,and the need to protect the shoreline is also high. We
recognize that often the best solution is appropriate development of designated facilities such
as paths,viewing platforms,and hand carried watercraft launch and retrieval facilities.
Providing carefully designed convenient access facilities directs use,and helps protect adjacent
fragile natural areas.
To be able to provide useful public access facilities and thereby limit impacts,it is important that
public access facilities be shown as "permitted uses" in publically owned shoreline areas,and
especially those lands that contain the SRCT. Appropriate development regulations will then
help assure that facilities are well designed and strike a good balance between public access and
preserving most of the shoreline's existing natural character.
Please add the address local.government@parks.wa.gov to your mailing list. This site is
monitored regularly. Sending there will assure a timely response that is not dependent on one
individual.
Thank you. We look forward to continuing to work with the City of Spokane Valley as you work
towards a new revised Shoreline Master Program.
Randy Person,Park Planner
Washington State Parks
randy.person@parks.wa.gov
Phone 360-902-8655
Fax 360-586-0207
Snail mail PO Box 42650,Olympia,WA 98504
Street 1111 Israel Road SE,Olympia,WA 98504
Hi,Scott. We're always happy to review when someone actually pays attention to our
comments. Your newly available suite of maps is very helpful. The Shorelines by Section map
certainly shows the SRCT very accurately. Those same maps could be made more useful with
just a little more label work. Some examples:
• E-5i shows the Sullivan Road area,with several parking areas near the river. I
might presume the one west of Sullivan,closest to the river on the north bank, is public
recreational parking,and the others are business related. A short label in these
relatively clear areas would clarify things. If the parking on the north side is intended for
access to the SRCT,by walking across the bridge,that could even be stated.
• E-5o could easily label Myrtle Point.
• E-5j shows an unidentified railroad bridge
In general,take the attitude of an ignorant(though intelligent) person viewing the area for the
first time through your maps. Don't crowd them with so many notes that you can no longer see
the features, but the scale used allows a lot of room for helpful labels.
And speaking of scales.. . Even here at the office, my print default came up at 8 Y2 x 11. If I was
an interested citizen viewing these from home, I may well have a printer that could not produce
11 x 17. Especially today,when digital output is so controllable by the end user,it is important
to have a scale that works. The text 1"=200'does not. It should be replaced (or augmented)
with a graphic scale,which was well done on E-4. No matter what size the output,one can then
accurately determine distances.
I'm still not sure that I could pick out each area in the Audubon report, but I have a much better
idea of the site conditions with the draft inventory maps. Although a day in the field exploring
the river would be great, I'm probably destined to help coordinate our responses from Olympia,
so the printable product is very important for me.
Cheers,
Randy Person
To: Scott Kuhta
From: Walt Edelen
CC: Shoreline Inventory Comments
Date: 4/6/2010
Re: Characterization Report
Comments:
1. Page 5. It should state Spokane County Conservation District, not Service
2. Page 11. 3`d paragraph. It should read,According to Spokane County Conservation District's,
3. Page 11. 3`d paragraph states that the PFC rates the Spokane River as poor to fair ecologically.
This is inaccurate. The PFC states that the Spokane River, ecologically, is fair to good. The PFC
reported 24%as Good, 55%Fair,and only 21%as poor.
4. Scientific names of plants should be italicized on page 13.
5. Your water quality section is rather sparse. I would have expected a lengthy section with all the
TMDL efforts and data collected over the years.
6. Page 14. NPS. Your first sentence needs restructuring. It reads as though you are promoting
decreased use of urban runoff and fertilizers.
7. Shelley Lake. Might want to add something about the large waterline fluctuation of Shelley Lake
due to the spring runoff. There is a significant drop by summer without the pumping.
8. Would one of your issues(page 17)be instream flows? What about impacts of Post Falls dam?
9. Page 21.2"d paragraph. Ends with relatively recently. Change that to recently.
10. Page 21. Shelley Lake section. No mention of slaughterhouse history & use. Dumping of
carcasses in Lake? Probably not needed.
11. Page 24. It may be important to enhance the riparian corridor, but there are areas that need to be
protected from development encroachment. High quality areas that need restrictions likely greater
than the SMA or local ordinances.
12. It would be helpful to have the River Miles stated for the Study Segments in the documents. I
could line up other things with that information.
13. Page 31. I think this area is a Rosgen channel type C2 or C3. Not sure it matches up with PFC
work.
1
14. Table 5.5. I realize the one plant association comes out to 0%, but it just doesn't look good to the
general reader.
15. I do like the fact that you researched the amount of impervious surfaces within the riparian zone.
Great data.
16. I was a little confused as to how you have 144.6 acres of plant associations within your 88.5 acres
of Segment 1. Is this due to that the 88.5 is just the amount under jurisdiction?
17. Page 41. The statement regarding the SCCD report and adequate riparian vegetation of greater
than 60 ft. I think this interpretation is not entirely accurate. The SCCD report indicates that this
area had a riparian width similar to the previous reach(in the report—reach 4). It actually states an
average riparian width of 0-50 ft and that it the reach was dominated by discontinuous narrow
bands of vegetation. Overall,the reach is fair to good on habitat.
18. I do like the paragraph on page 41 where it states that more trees need to be added for restoration
efforts.
19. Page 43. Coyote Development. Who has determined that a 75' buffer is adequate? What types
of access are they trying to get with permits?
20. SR-4 — areas behind upriver dam are subject to wake action due to boating activities. Local
residents complain of this regularly. Lots without adequate vegetation are suffering streambank
erosion issues.
21. The trail around Shelley Lake has mooring areas for non-motorized boats? I didn't see any last
year.
22. The east side of Shelley Lake has a nice High quality area including the granite rock, Ponderosa
Pine community and some alder communities.
23. General comment: There should be better spacing between some of the text and the figures in the
document. It may be a formatting issue.
24. Page 65. Last paragraph. Misspelled word(t). the word"it"is missing the"i"
25. I do not think dock permitting should occur within the Spokane River at the Coyote Development
site. This is not protection of the shoreline and preserving its natural character. Don't allow this
activity to degrade a great City asset.
26. Your Recommendations section does not include any restoration plans for the shorelines. Why
not? You could work with local agencies,especially the SCCD to accomplish this.
27. Overall, I think you have a done a good job on the inventory section. Please contact me if you
have any questions regarding my comments
Regards,
Walt Edelen
Water Resources Program Manager
Spokane County Conservation District
•Page 2
Comment Response Form
Document Reviewed: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory&Characterization Report(Tech.Review Group Draft)
Subject: Shoreline Planning Commenter: Doug Pinneo and Comment 3-12-2010 Response 4-5-2010
Jeremy Sikes,Ecology Date: Date:
No. Ref. Comment Response Provided by
1. Section 1.0,4"'pgh [DAPI)I think this is supposed to be a heading Remnant sentence,removed JCP
]DAP2]:When referring to functions it's probably good to specify
ecological functions.Also these three bullets mix up the following
sequence a little bit:
I)Conduct a shoreline inventory;
2)Analyze inventory data and information to:
-characterize ecological functions including biodiversity,native plant
Sec.1.1 Purpose of and animal community integrity,etc.,so as to achieve a"meaningful
understanding of shoreline ecological functions;
2. the Revised paragraph to address comment. JCP
Characterization -identify elements of natural character,shoreline habitats and
ecosystems and related attributes which should not be disturbed,
damaged or destroyed because they can't be restored or replicated
within the time horizon of the SMP(10-12 years);
-identify opportunities for restoration of shoreline resources and
ecological function;
-characterize reasonably foreseeable uses and developments in the
shorelines as the basis for assessing potential cumulative impacts.
]DAP3]:SMP jurisdiction MUST be extended to include the delineated
boundary of all associated wetlands.Local governments MAY choose to
extend SMP jurisdiction to include the buffers necessary to protect
wetlands as they are critical areas as defined in the Growth Management
Act.
Sec.1.2 SMA All critical areas(as defined in the GMA)within SMP jurisdiction shall Revised per comment and added a reference to the latest
3' Jurisdiction be managed with the comprehensively updated SMP after it is approved SMP amendment. JCP
by the Department of Ecology and becomes part of the statewide
Shoreline Master Program.This was clarified earlier this week by the
legislature in its most recent amendments to the SMA and GMA.This
legislation has been informally labeled the"Anacortes Fix"during the
2010 legislative session.
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 1 of 6
No. Ref, Comment Response Provided by
[DAMThe technical advisory committee might also benefit from Many groups have been contacted(Audubon,IEFFC,
Sec.2.0 Methods, participation by experts in riparian ecology and stream ecology at SFF,TU,Native Plant Society)and involved with data
4' last bullet(Tribe) Eastern Washington University and from other local experts not gathering. Some have been more responsive than JCP
affiliated with government. others. The inventory is available on the website and
public notice has been published.
2.1-Field [jjs5[:Was there some kind of gap analysis document that was prepared Revised slightly. App.A includes a listing of data
5. Inventory,last for the City?If so,this section should at least refer to it and include it as sources and an evaluation of missing information that JCP
paragraph a reference.If not,this 3 sentence paragraph describing gaps does not was needed for the inventory.
really tell the tale.Either way this section requires some expansion.
Comment[DAP6j:The SMA requires"protecting against adverse Agreed. Reaches are given detailed assessment of all
impacts to the land,its vegetation and wildlife,and the waters of the veg.commuinities for this reason. Also,Sec.3.2,under
state and their aquatic life.Thus,riparian and associatedupland the Biological Resources heading,addresses not only
vegetation and native plant communities are thus given equal protection the importance of riparian habitat but of the importance
of the ecotone between the riparian habitat and the
6. under the SMA.It's fine to call out the special importance and NH
ecological functions riparian areas have in the landscape,but this adjacent upland communities. Some redundancy is
discussion should be revised to better emphasize the relevance of upland inherent in the outline of the document so the vegetation
plant communities in SMA jurisdiction.This need is better born out in is described in general regional terms(Sec.3),historic
terms(Sec.4),and study segment-specific terms(Sec.
2.2.1 Veg.Survey the actual descriptions of reaches in Section 5.
5).
Protocol
Rex Crawford's associations best matched the observed
Comment[DAPI]:Since Rex Crawford's work encompassed only the plant associations along the river(surprisingly!). So as
Columbia Basin and not the surrounding highlands,like the northern tier to minimize reinventing the wheel,the most applicable
7 of eastern Washington,the Spokane area,the Palouse and the riparian vegetation management guide was used,which
NH
and floodplain plant associations of the Blue Mountain counties(Asotin, happened to be RC's. It should be mentioned that
Garfield,Columbia,and Walla Walla),why did you not develop or Kovalchick et.al.and the SCCD's PFC study were also
assign your own plant associations or use those identified by others referenced for various wildlife habitat values as
including Kovalchik? presented in Table 5-1.
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 2 of 6
No. Ref. Comment Response Provided by
[DAPS[:From our Spokane River and Aquifer expert John Covert:
On page ten they have a graphic that shows gaining.and losing reaches
along the river.The most up-to-date version of this map can be found in
the 2009 Update addition of the SVRP Aquifer Atlas I am attaching a
screen capture of a portion of page 14 of the atlas that shows the most
current understanding of the relationships.It is slightly different than the
one in the draft SMP inventory.The aquifer boundary was updated in
2007(Bi state study)which isn't used on the image on page 10 Revised section to address comments. COSV is
In the third paragraph from the bottom of page 20 they say"Sometime acquiring the latest aquifer GIS information. Mapping
between 1910 and 1925 the Spokane Valley Irrigation District will be revised I this or the final draft depending on
constructed a canal to divert water from the river for irrigation near the when the information can be acquired.
state line."
.r the top of page 21 is this patine;apir
A review of the historic documentation indicates that the Spokane River The intent of this paragraph was to indicate that
8. 3.1-SVRP Aquifer did not play a large role in the development of the valley did not impact the river to a JCP
development of the Spokane Valley.Early land development is great extent. Irrigation from the river,lakes,and aquifer
generally associated with irrigation from certainly played a major role in development but the
the surrounding lakes and later with pumping from the Spokane- immediate river valley was not a significant factor in
Rathdrum Aquifer.The river was not shaping the valley as evidenced by no roads or utility
heavily used until relatively recently. corridors along the river as occurs in many other areas.
l'he Spokane Valley Farms Canal at Post Falls(USGS gage 12418500; Section revised.
diverted hundreds of cis from the Spokane River and irrigated thousands
of acres from the 1920s into the 1960s.That surface water was replaced
with groundwater wells in the late 1960s USBR project drilled 34 wells
m the aquifer to replace the surface water divcrsionl ery little surface
ater is actually used any more Almost all water users withdraw front
'11e paragraph 21 needs to bell '
3.1-SVRP
9. Aquifer,4i" IDAP9I:These two sentences contradict each other. Revised JCP
paragraph
[DAP10I:The Proper Functioning Condition assessment conducted by
the Spokane County Conservation District did in fact include some
limited annotation about ecological function,but significantly Section 3 presents a general,regional overview of SMP
3.2-Spokane River understates the ecological function s made evident elsewhere in this waters within the City. More detailed assessments of
10. (last paragraph) Inventory.Also,the river banks in much of the river reaches flowing geomorphic conditions and ecological functions are NH
through Spokane Valley are self armored and frequently characterized presented in Section 5;at the local assessment scale.
by large boulders and cobbles distributed by much larger flow regimes
than occur today.This section needs to be rewritten.
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 3 of 6
No. Ref. Comment Response Provided by
]DAP11]:This discussion does not tell us anything about,or introduce
future discussion of the spatial and temporal occurances and distribution
of these groups in the shorelines of the Spokane River.The SMP
guidelines tell us how to use local expertise but use of anecdotal Again,this is meant to provide a regional description to
11. 3.2-Bio Resources observations of wildlife abundance must be carefully placed in context showcase the matrix within the COSV shorelines fit NH
Even the PFC assessment is a one-day"fly by"of only very limited into.
value in the inventory discussion.
This introductory discussion also makes no mention of aquatic or
terrestrial macro-invertebrates,though they are briefly mentioned later. _
]DAP12]:Redundant.Red band are the native rainbow trout which
include both resident non-migratory populations and also the region's
anadromous steehead trout which do not reach into Spokane Valley. Per WDFW comments,a new table(Table 3-2)was
Also,many other priority species have been observed in Spokane Valley added to the report to include all priority species within
3.2-Bio Resources, over the years,and while a discussion of the Priority Species has a the county. Section 5 then links the life forms to
12. limited place in the SMP update Inventory,the SMA and SMP available habitats and describes their use potential in JCP/NH
trout bullets Guidelines require equal protective management for all species in Table 5-1. This is meant to provide a surrogate for the
shoreline environments.This is one of the areas in which the SMA and shoreline's potential to support these species and,
the GMA standards for Critical Areas differs significantly.The SMA thereby,highlight areas for conservation or restoration.
standard for protecting wildlife and their aquatic and terrestrial habitats
is higher in the SMA than in the GMA.
3.2-Bio Resources IDAP13]:Thurow is in error with respect to the status of red-band trout Revised to incorporate the findings of Small's 2007
13. 4's paragraph in the Spokane and its tributaries.See Jason McLellan's more thorough genetics study. JCP/NH
comments circulated separately.
I assume you are describing the"Vegetation"section.
Again,this is meant to provide a general/regional
overview of vegetation patterns along the river. By
]DAP141:This a vague,general and deficient discussion which doesn't describing the general bands of vegetation and
14. 3.2 plants add anything to our"meaningful understanding"of native plants along corresponding geomorphic positions,lay readers are NH
the spokane River in Spokane Valley. more readily able to visualize the shoreline environment
and understand the differences within a varying habitat
collectively referred to as"riparian". Further detail
provided in Section 5.
15. 3.3-Shelley Lake liis151:Has this"work"been referenced already elsewhere? No. Reference expanded. JCP
16. 3.4-Gravel Pits ]iis16]:Reference a figure here Added a reference to Figure I-I JCP
17. 4.1-historic veg. Conspicuous?Meaning they"stand out"less? Yes. I have changed conspicuous to"common"for NH
clarity.
18. 4.1 shoreline ]iis18]:They have a water right for discharge?Should this refer to an Revised—added reference to NPDES permit for JCP
alterations effluent discharge permit? discharge.
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 4 of 6
No. Ref. Comment Response Provided by
19. 4.1 Ijjs19j:The riparian impacts from the initial trail construction bear a Revised after discussions with Ecology. Please review JCP
little more description here.What type of vegetation?was it intact and comment.
riparian?How much?To what effect?
IDAP201:In a number of locations in Spokane Valley,where no
previous roadbed existed,the trail was constructed through remnant
intact patches of native Rathdrum Prairie and through riparian
20. 4.1 vegetation,for example west of Barker Road,over 30 acres of native Revised,see response in No. 19. JCP
plant associations were permanently lost.The trail also introduced
noxious weeds to areas previously not invaded.Trail maintenance has
included routine use of herbicides to control the weeds,also affecting
adjacent remaining native vegetation.
1115211:this implies that there was once much more water in the lake.Is Hard to say,since past information is hard to come by,
21. 4.2 that true?Miniature hydroplane races sound awesome. but we know that supplemental water was pumped into JCP
the lake from the aquifer until recently.
I jjs22j:SI there any more information on how this conversion will take Thereareapp roved DNR reclamationplans for each of
22. 4.3-gravel pits place?Will they actively restore the area to maximize habitat or just quit the pits. JCP
mining and let nature take it's course?
"Rare"as used in the report includes listed(T&E),
"Sensitive",and"Tracking"status plants. No records
Comment IDAP231:More significant in many ways than rare plants are of any rare plants or rare plant associations were
23. 5.1-rare plants the relative abundance and association of plant species which are not yet documented within the SMP areas. Overlapping rare NH
listed. plant associations were noted at the old Inland Empire
Zoo(Mirabeau Park)but not within the SMP during
fieldwork.
IDAP241:This is not true.The river channel is characterized by a
diverse channel morphology and fish species exploit different habitats
within the wetted perimeter.Temperature and dissolved oxygen also This section was updated to address cold water refugia
strongly affect the distribution of different species in the river.Small per McLellen&O'Connor(WDFW)2008 and 2009.
24. 5.1-fish mouth bass are as yet not widespread in the lower river below Monroe Further detail on spawning areas and local abundances NH
Street Dam in Spokane,as they are in the upper river in Spokane Valley. provided I the study segment subsections.
Contact WDFW for more recent surveys of fish in the upper Spokane
River.
25. 5.1-Critical areas IDAP251:Need to add geohazards According to the City GIS information no geohazards JCP
have been identified along the Spokane River.
5.1-sediment Ujs261:refer to figure;this is a little confusing.be more specific;what
26. transport natural areas?where are the corridors?how important are they Revised,added additional detail. JCP
regionally
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 5 of 6
No. Ref. Comment Response Provided by
[jjs271:I understand what you are getting at here,but I'm not sure about
the use of the word"buffer",Implies that it is providing more ecological
27. 5.1.1.1-recreation benefit than the trail actually does.The presence of the trial in the buffer Revised, JCP
actually degrades it's function over even a pervious dirt road and
certainly over a vegetated riparian corridor.Maybe"physical
separation"? _
28. 5.1.1.1-recreation ijjs28]:Is this informal parking causing or likely to cause any kind of No. Parking is along a paved road. JCP
shoreline degradation?
29. 5.1.1.1-trans Ws291:This sounds interesting;can you give a quick summary of the No. See www.bndeinethevalley.org,I emailed you the JCP
project? link.
DAP30-Need to characterize velocities better than to say the
30. 5.1.3.1-recreation "Backwater...is present." Especially at higher flows,there is significant Revised to better reflect conditions. JCP
current at this reach _
[DAP31]:This issue is far from over and it is Ecology's carefully Revised by adding discussion on permitting and
5.1.3.1-Shoreline evaluated position that docks should be prohibited in this reach,both
31. Modifications because of impacts on the river and public user,but also due to potential effects,including cumulative impacts. Note JCP
cumulative impacts to shoreline plant communities and habitat that all agencies review letters commented on this.
5.1.3.2-phys. [DAP32]:This is a good characterization and is a good standard for
32. characterization other SMPs.It represents a significant improvement over the City of thanks NH/JCP
Spokane Inventory.
[DAP33]:This is a well-intended effort to characterize areas which Within the COSV,the areas described as high quality
should not be disturbed,but is not tied to distinct metrics.The broad conservations areas are attributed to healthy,mature,
category of"high quality"also was applied to popular recreational areas
5.1.3.3-High intact bands of native riparian forest. I've documented
33. Quality Cons. regardless of their ecological function,and was also applied to large this in the report to make sure it is clear that this NH
monotypical stands of large,introduced European white willow and
Areas golden willow trees in the vicinity of the confluence of the Spokane and description is related to habitat conditions(rather than
Little Spokane rivers.Remove this reference while retaining the recreation,etc.). This rationale seems relevant to the
description of these important areas.A better terminology is needed. shoreline characterization so I've left it in for now.
34. Throughout Minor text edits made in track changes through document Incorporated NH/JCP
35.
36.
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 6 of 6
itiRS
Comment Response Form
Document Reviewed: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory&Characterization Report(Tech.Review Group Draft)
r
Subject: Shoreline Planning Commenter. Bill Gothman,COSY Comment 2-27-2010 Response 4/5/2010
Date: Date:
No. Ref. Comment Response
Expanded Section 6.4.3 a bit to address comments. We
have spoken with Central Premix and the City about
potential future uses. Please review and comment and if
I thought the discussion about the aggregate mines(gravel pits)was there are additional ideas we can address prior to
thoughtful and accurate,and for the most part thorough.However,some completion of the final document.
discussion of the future of these water bodies is warranted.There is a
general tendency to think they should forever be closed off from public
use because they expose the aquifer,but stepping back to realize that
this is what most naturally formed lakes also do often produces a
calming effect.Very high quality fisheries can be sustained in lakes of
this size and bathymetry,with the high water quality.Experience in
5.3 and 6.4.3- other parts of the US demonstrate that recreational use of lacustrine
1. future use of water bodies which form critical elements of major municipal and JCP/NHB
gravel pits regional water supplies can be successfully managed to protect water
quality.
A discussion of the future of the Park Rd.and Sullivan Rd.lakes is
warranted in the sections on opportunities for ecological restoration and
the Use Analysis.For process purposes,another discussion series is
warranted with the owner-operators of the current active surface
mines,to explore options for the future beyond the active economic
lives of these mines.
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 1 of 2
No. Ref. Comment Response
2.Water Trail—Some of you attended at least parts of this week's
Spokane River Forum,so you know discussion of public access and
recreation needs to be expanded to address more in-depth analysis of
the diversity and scope of current and reasonably foreseeable future Added reference to the water trail.
public use of Spokane River shorelines within the city.The very recent
Section 6.2- emergence of a Water Trail proposal for the entire river in Spokane
Additional detail County(and perhaps into Kootenai County to the east)should be a
2. on projected I would like to add that I appreciate these comments;they JCP
specific area of discussion,since it involves elements of public access, have helped us focus on an important element of the use
recreation recreation,and protecting shoreline ecological functions.Unlike the analysis that had not been addressed previously and is not
unrealized promises and potential of the Centennial Trail to date,the very clearly defined in WAC 173-26. Thanks
Water Trail also encompasses possibilities for interpreting the natural
and cultural history of the river and the landscape through which it
flows.These are all purposes within the scope of the SMA and local
SMPs,so should be addressed.
3.Whitewater—At least five sites have been identified or proposed for
Section 6.2- whitewater parks along the Spokane River,all located in reaches and on
Additional detail top of channel forms which are critical to native fishes and the aquatic Reviewed the REP initial siting study done in 2005,none
3. on projected macro-invertebrates upon which they feed.Several of these are located of the sites are within the COSV. However,there is a JCP
whitewater within the corporate limits of Spokane Valley,so are a"reasonably short discussion on enhancements of the entire reachbetween Barker and Sullivan that has been included.
recreation foreseeable use"which should be specifically addressed in the Use
Analysis.
4.Bridges—both conventional transportation bridges and those
envisioned for recreational purposes are significant perturbations on The reference to the pedestrian bridge is in the City of
4 Section 6.2- river channels and shorelands.At least one proposal for a recreational Liberty Lake. Added a short discussion on bridges in JCP
Future Bridges bridge across the Spokane River in the Spokane Valley has been general.
published in the Spokesman Review.These need to be addressed in the
Use Analysis.
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 2 of 2
URSComment Response Form
Document Reviewed: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory&Characterization Report(Tech.Review Group Draft)
Jason McLellen, Comment Response
Subject: Shoreline Planning Commenter: Ecology Date: 2-19-2010 Date: 4/5/2010
1 No. Ref. Comment Response
Redundant having both rainbow and redband trout listed.
Columbia River redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss
gairdneri)are a subspecies of rainbow trout(Oncorhynchus
1 Page 12, mykiss) (Behnke 1992). A genetic inventory of rainbow Text updated NBH/JCP
Comment 1 trout indicated we have a virtually pure population of
Columbia River redband tout in the Spokane River(Small et
al.2007).
This statement is not accurate. Steel head are the
Page 12, anadromous life history form of rainbow trout. Thus,
2. rainbow trout,including steelhead,native to the Columbia Text updated NBH/JCP
Comment 2
River drainage east of the Cascade Mountains are Columbia
River redband trout(Behnke 1992).
Page 12, Only in areas where the anadromous life history form has be
3. Comment 3 Removed NBH/JCP
eliminated.
This is not accurate for the Spokane River. A genetic
inventory showed little hybridization between hatchery
a. Page 12, (coastal origin,O.m.irideus)stocks of rainbow trout and Removed NBH/JCP
I Comment 4
redband trout in the Spokane River drainage(Small et al.
2007).
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 1 of 1
rf-
f � 'i, Comment Response Form
Document Reviewed: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory&Characterization Report(Tech.Review Group Draft)
Subject: Shoreline Planning Commenter: Karin Divens,WDFW Comment 3/10/2010 Response 4/5/2010
Date: Date:
No. Ref. Comment Response
The shoreline analysis in this chapter is a comprehensive inventory of
ecosystem-wide processes and ecological functions in habitats within
shoreline jurisdiction in the City of Spokane Valley.However,the
inventory of species and habitats in Section 3.2 Spokane River
Biological Resources does not include all state listed species related to A complete list of Priority Species was added as Table
or affected by shoreline planning.In Spokane County,amphibians,such 3-2 in the revised report NBH
as western toad,also depend on freshwater shoreline habitat in the
county. The following link will take you to WDFW's Priority Habitat
Chapter 3,Regional and Species website hun:.'/wdlw wa.sov/hab/nhslist.htm. County
Characterization Specific Lists of Species and Habitats are also available at this site
under Related Links on the left hand side of the page.
The characterization does not include species that are Sensitive or
Candidates for listing and therefore vulnerable of becoming Endangered
or Threatened without removal of threats.We have enclosed a list of
2. priority species found in the WDFW priority habitats and species See above NBH
database for Spokane County(http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phspage.htm).
We recommend including these species in your characterization report
to inform policies and regulations that will adequately protect the
existing habitat functions upon which these species depend.
Osprey,while included as a species of Local Importance in Spokane
Additional Comments County,is no longer included as a priority species and is not included
on the Species List on the State Monitor list.
3. Osprey reference removed. NBH
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 1 of 4
No. Ref. Comment Response
Section 3.2: References to Rainbow trout as well as Redband trout
WDFW has conducted genetics work under the Joint Stock
Assessement Program and the redband trout have been found to be
genetically distinct,wild fish. It is redundant to have both redband and
rainbow trout listed. Columbia River redband trout(Onchorynchus
4. mykiss gairdneri)are a subspecies of rainbow trout O.mykiss) Updated per Jason McLellen's comments NBH
(Behnke 1992). A genetic inventory of rainbow indicates we have a
virtually pure population of Columbia River redband trout in the
Spokane River(Small et al 2007). For more information and to further
improve the accuracy of the Characterization Report,please refer to the
specific comments provided by Jason McLellan,WDFW Fisheries
Biologist,forwarded through Doug Pineo,Ecology.
Erosion:The Spokane River,particularly the upper reaches is not a
wood controlled system nor in the past is it believed to have been wood
controlled. The upper reaches of the river look much the same today as
the reaches look historically indicating a system that is somewhat stable
overtime, WDFW looks at the movement of bedload and channel
Section 3.5 Regional changes that may occur with high flow conditions as a positive change.
5 Processes,Stressors The embedded conditions that exist in the Spokane are not indicative of Table 3-3 changed to reflect this information. NBH
and Opportunites for a natural river condition. It takes extreme high flow events(1996/1997)
Improvement to move the bedload. The HEDs on the river do alter the natural flow
regimes,restrict flows,and limit gravel recruitment downstream. The
limited sources of gravel feeder bluffs and the operation of HEDs has
resulted in a gravel starved system. This lack of gravel recruitment is
believed to be one of the limiting factors effecting trout production in
this reach.
Flooding: WDFW does not look at flooding as negative,but rather as a
natural river process. Streams and rivers are supposed to be allowed Agreed;table changed to describe flooding as a natural
6. floodplain connectivity and natural channel migration. It is the process process that has been affected by HEDs and has resulted NBH
of shoreline development and a controlled system that has resulted in in altered fluvial processes,including those described in
flood control and resulted in altered natural shoreline and riverine the above comment.
processes.
Solarization: The main temperature issue in the upper Spokane is due Table updated to reflect the relative importance of cold
to the operation of the HED upstream in Post Falls. Temperature is
7. considered to be a factor in reduced survival of juvenile salmonids. The water input from the aquifer rather than merely focusing NBH
warmer water also supports the non-native smallmouth bass. on shade from vegetation.
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 2 of 4
No. Ref. Comment Response
Fish:While the upper river habitat structure could be ranked as fair to
good,the water quality parameters,particularly instream flow and
temperature,force the ranking under Condition to be Poor. WDFW is
quite concerned with the population decline of native redband trout in
8. the Spokane River and as described above,this is likely linked with Table updated accordingly NBH
reduced spawning material,increased temperature,low recruitment
success,and predation.
Wildlife:Provide a source for the rankings. While some areas might
have suitable habitat,development limits the functional use of the river
9. by some wildlife species. The railroad,highway,residential,and Additional detail provided for condition findings. NBH
commercial development have all limited the habitat available for
species.
Other:WDFW suggests adding Residential Development as a process
so that docks,danger tree removal,private boat ramps,shoreline
10. armoring,trails,riparian impacts,loss up upland habitat and Added to Table 3-3 NBH
connectivity are all examples that can be included. Homeless
encampments are also an issue along the river within the City.
Other:Poaching is another Stressor on the native trout resources.
WDFW has recently increased enforcement patrols to try to get control
11. of the increased illegal fishing taking place on the already stressed Noted under stressors to Fish in Table 3-3 NBH
population. Activity includes angling out of season,not practicing
catch and release,and illegal use of bait in baitless/barbless area.
Fish: Include Redside shiner and sculpin spp.in the list of fish species
5.0 Local found in the Spokane River system. Bull trout,Chinook salmon,and
12. Characterization: northern pike could also be added to the list of species that are Added. NBH
occasionally noted—though all are entrained from the Couer d'Alene
system.
The current critical areas ordinance for fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas is related to the WDFW
Critical Areas: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas extend priority habitats. As you know,these are being updated
above the OHWL. For example,the WDFW recommended riparian and the current"Urban Natural Open Space"category is
13. habitat width is 250 ft This extends well above the OHWL. Stating being removed. Thus the future designation will likely NBH
"below the OHWL"may cause confusion. be one for"Fish Habitat Conservation Area"(below the
OHWM)and a separate designation for"Riparian
Habitat Area",which I have described as areas within
up to 250 feet from the OHWM on page 26.
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 3 of 4
No. Ref. Comment Response
Shoreline Modifications: The City has an opportunity to address
cumulative shoreline impacts under this update process. Addressing
cumulative shoreline impacts is a requirement under the Ecology's
SMA and relying on WDFW to address these impacts under the Cumulative impacts will be addressed specifically
14. hydraulic code is problematic at best.WDFW does not have the under the next element of the SMP update process. NBH
authority to address cumulative impacts from individual applications
and can only deny projects on the basis of impacts to fish life. WDFW
encourages the City to take this opportunity seriously and set an
appropriate standard for future shoreline developments.
WDFW produces management recommendations supported by best
available science.Management recommendations are most appropriate
to informprotection standards,but mayalso inform shoreline analysis Thank you for summarizing and providing links to all of
y these guidance documents! The existing
recommendations.Sources include: characterization repeatedly recommends riparian
enhancements,which I believe is consistent with the
1. The updated PHS list includes electronic links to PHS management riparian priority habitat guidance. This will be further
recommendations and single-page recommendations,recovery elaborated upon in the forthcoming shoreline restoration
plans,living with wildlife program,and NatureServe Species plan,which is a separate element of the SMP update
Reports for all priority species. process.
(Imp:;'wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phsrecs.htrn).Management
recommendations most commonly applied to SMP updates are: Per our conversations,most of the limiting factors
YY Priority
Habitats:
Riparian
, related to trout recovery have to do with factors outside
a. Washington's Priority ts:.iparian(1997), of the City's boundaries and beyond their control(e.g.
ntp_,t dtw.wa.eov/hab/ripxsum.htm HED flow controls). I have tried to acknowledge the
Management
15. issues present within the City and focus on shoreline NBH
Recommendations
2. Trout Recovery: A sampling of agency recommendations include: planning activities that are within the control of the
a. Aquatic Habitat Guidelines,hut) dRv.wa.Sov/hablahe City. These include protecting the cold water refugia
covering a number of topics related to shoreline protection west of Sullivan Rd,wherethe stream is recharged by
the aquifer. McLellen reports that this area is where
and restoration. most of their fish were captured during stock surveys
b. WDFW Wild Salmonid Policy(1997): conducted between the state line and Plantes Ferry park
http://wdfw.wa.govitish/wspiwsp.htm so I've tried to highlight thermal protection of this
habitat as a priority. Please let me know if there are
c. WDFW,Ecology,and DOT.Alternative Mitigation Policy other WDFW recommendations that apply to trout
Guidance:http:!/wdfiv wagovihah'ah,zialtmtatn.pdf recovery,which are within the City's ability to
d. Land Use Planning for Salmon,Steelhead and Trout implement and that I have not already addressed.
(Knight 2009);
http://wdfw.wa.eov/habitat/plannerseuide/index.html Thank you very much for your comments!
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 4 of 4
THISComment Response Form
Document Reviewed: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory&Characterization Report(Tech.Review Group Draft)
Walt Edelen
Subject: Shoreline Planning Commenter: ,SCCD Comment Response
4/5/2010
COSV Date: Date:
No. Ref. Comment Response
It should state Spokane County Conservation District,not Service
1. Page 5 Corrected JCP
It should read,According to Spokane County Conservation District's,
Page 11, 3"1
2. paragraph Corrected JCP
Page 11.3"' States that the PFC rates the Spokane River as poor to fair ecologically. This is Checked the GIS database,revised to
3. paragraph inaccurate. The PFCstatesthat the Spokane River,ecologically,is fair to good. state fair to good. JCP
The PFC reported 24%as Good,55/u Fair,and only 21/o as poor
Scientific names of plants should be italicized on.
4. page 13 Corrected NBH
Appreciate the comment;we tried to
summarize the water quality issues that
might affect the planning efforts within
Your water quality section is rather sparse. 1 would have expected a lengthy section with the City of Spokane Valley. Metals,
all the TMDL efforts and data collected over the years. PCBs,PBDEs are the contaminants listed
5. for the waters within the COSV. Non- JCP/NBH
Point nutrient sources are also an
important management issue for the P.
TMDL. Some additional text was
provided regarding temperature and DO
issues.
Your first sentence needs restructuring. It reads as though you are promoting decreased
6. Page 14. NPS use of urban runoff and fertilizers. Revised JCP
Might want to add something about the large waterline fluctuation of Shelley Lake
7. Shelley Lake due to the spring runoff. There is a significant drop by summer without the Added jcp
pumping.
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 1 of 3
Would one of your issues be instream flows? What about impacts of Post Falls dam?
8. page 17 Agreed—Added to table NBI-UJCP
9. Page 21.2 a Ends with relatively recently. Change that to recently Thanks—revised that paragraph JCP
paragraph extensively.
I have heard about the slaughterhouse
Page 21.Shelley No mention of slaughterhouse history&use. Dumping of carcasses in Lake? history and carcass dumping but have not
10. Lake section Probably not needed. been able to find any written JCP
documentation to reference,little impact
on current management practices.
Agreed,out of scope for SMP. For
It may be important to enhance the riparian corridor,but there are areas that need to be example,the Steen Road Gravel pit
protected from development encroachment. High quality areas that need restrictions should be protected as an overflow for
11. Page 24. likely greater than the SMA or local ordinances. Shelley Lake. There are also areas of JCP
intact prairie as well as wooded areas that
should be recognized in the GMA critical
areas.
It would be helpful to have the River Miles stated for the Study Segments in the
12. Agreed,RMs added JCP
documents. I could line up other things with that information
13. Page 31 I think this area is a Rosgen channel type C2 or C3. Not sure it matches up with Yes,C3 likely(cobble sub). Text added. NBH
PFC work
14. Table 5.5 I realize the one plant association comes out to 0%,but it just doesn't look good to Changed to"<1%" NBH
the general reader
I do like the fact that you researched the amount of impervious surfaces within the Thanks,hopefully it can be used in the
15. riparian zone. Great data future as an element to address JCP
cumulative impacts and no net loss.
I was a little confused as to how you have 144.6 acres of plant associations within your The total is 114.6 acres of plant
88.5 acres of Segment I. Is this due to that the 88.5 is just the amount under jurisdiction? associations(not 144.6). This includes
16. 88.5 acres above the OHWL(shorelands) NBH
and 26.1 acres below the OHWL
(frequently flooded willows).
The statement regarding the SCCD report and adequate riparian vegetation of
greater than 60 ft. I think this interpretation is not entirely accurate. The SCCD
17. Page 41 report indicates that this area had a riparian width similar to the previous reach(in Removed statement. JCP
the report—reach 4). It actually states an average riparian width of 0-50 ft and that
it the reach was dominated by discontinuous narrow bands of vegetation. Overall,
the reach is fair to good on habitat.
I do like the paragraph where it states that more trees need to be added for restoration
18. page 41 efforts. Thanks NBH
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 2 of 3
Believe that the buffer was set under the
previous(existing SMP)guidelines.
Coyote Development. Who has determined that a 75'buffer is adequate? What COSV adopted Spokane County's. It is
19. Page 43 types of access are they trying to get with permits? an interesting situation that has had many JCP
comments. We assume that as lots are
developed the homeowners will work
towards direct river access from each lot.
Thanks,comment added. From the
SR-4—areas behind upriver dam are subject to wake action due to boating activities. public meetings we have received
20. 5.1.4 Local residents complain of this regularly. Lots without adequate vegetation are comments about erosion due to wave JCP
suffering streambank erosion issues action and also a request to remove the
"no wake zone"requirement.
The trail around Shelley Lake has mooring areas for non-motorized boats? I didn't see There are a few posts driven into the
21. 5.2 any last year. banks so that non-motorized boats can be JCP
moored.
22. 5 2 The east side of Shelley Lake has a nice High quality area including the granite Agreed—this area is included in the JCP
rock,Ponderosa Pine community and some alder communities inventory.
23. General comment There should be better spacing between some of the text and the figures in the Agreed,will try to catch them all. JCP
document. It may be a formatting issue
24. Page 65. Last Misspelled word(t). the word"it"is missing the"i" Corrected. JCP
paragraph
Agency and public comments have been
5.1.3.3& I do not think dock permitting should occur within the Spokane River at the Coyote received about this. Since the
25. Development site. This is not protection of the shoreline and preserving its natural development was platted under the old JCP
Section 6.3 character.Don't allow this activity to degrade a great City asset. SMP guidelines not sure what the
outcome is going to be at this time.
Your Recommendations section does not include any restoration plans for the shorelines. A separate Restoration Plan will be
Why not? You could work with local agencies,especially the SCCD to accomplish this. developed,similar to the City of
26. 6.4 Spokane's. We look forward to working JCP/NBH
with the SCCD and other agencies and
user groups on this element of the SMP.
Overall,I think you have a done a good job on the inventory section Please contact me if
27. General you have any questions regarding my comments Thank you JCP/NBH
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 3 of 3
URSComment Response Form
Document Reviewed: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory&Characterization Report(Tech.Review Group Draft)
Comment 3-11-2010&3- Response
Subject: Shoreline Planning Commenter: Randy Person,WSPRC Date: 22-2010 Date: 4/5/2010
INo. Ref. Comment Response
Spokane River Centennial Trail—the document routinely refers to the
trail developed by the Washington State Parks and Recreation
General- Commission,and maintained through an interagency agreement,as
"Centennial Trail" simply"Centennial Trail."We recommend that the more complete
vs.Spokane River reference"Spokane River Centennial Trail(SRCT)"be used.Although References changed to SRCT. NBH
Centennial Trail it's not a bad reference in context,there were several other"Centennial
Trails"constructed in Washington at about that time,and
using the full reference will make it easier in the future,especially for
digital search engines.
The SRCT is mentioned often as an important feature.At times it is a
landmark,at other times its presence as a barrier is noted. To improve the clarity of maps,the SRCT was generally
Unfortunately,only the map in figure 5-4 on page 42 actually shows not shown in the small graphics contained within the report.
General-SRCT the alignment of the trail within the shoreline zone.Wherever possible, Because the trail crossing over the river in SR-3 is
2. boundary on maps please show the actual trail alignment We can help with this—GIS described in detail as a point where parks ownership,and NBH
data is available for the asking,that shows State Park ownership,as the natural buffer it provides,ceases to exist to the west,it
well as the trail alignment.Please contact Kathryn Scott at was shown on Figure 5-4.However,the trail boundary is
or(360)902-8691 to work out the shown on maps in Appendix E.
details.
In a similar vein,the text is full of landmarks and other geographic
references,which some of us
are unfamiliar with.Categorically,maps showing the locations of all
the referenced items should Appendix E was later provided to WSPRC. Maps within
3. Landmarks/Maps NBH
be included.It is difficult to fully understand the written information Appendix E shows the location of these landmarks.
without some idea of the
physical relationships being discussed.
Incorrect The second paragraph on page 69 discusses potential for non-
landmark motorized watercraft access near Coyote Rock,"just west of Mirabeau
4' description,page Point"Is this correct?Our reading of the maps shows the Coyote Good catch,Myrtle Point is correct JCP
69 Rocks area lying just westerly of Myrtle Point,with Mirabeau further
upstream.
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 1 of 3
No. Ref. Comment Response
—
Speaking of development,please consider the ongoing need for public
access to the shoreline during discussions of shoreline designations,
appropriate uses,and development regulations.This report describes a
number of areas with social trails leading to the water edge.The
Shoreline demand to reach this special area is high,and the need to protect the This will be addressed in policies goals and development
5. designations regulations. We have had discussions with Chris Guidotti, JCP
shoreline is also high.We recognize that often the best solution is
versus access appropriate development of designated facilities such as paths, Riverside State Park Manager about this topic.
viewing platforms,and hand carried watercraft launch and retrieval
facilities.Providing carefully designed convenient access facilities
directs use,and helps protect adjacent fragile natural areas.
To be able to provide useful public access facilities and thereby limit
impacts,it is important that public access facilities be shown as
Shoreline "permitted uses"in publically owned shoreline areas,and especially
6. designations those lands that contain the SRCT.Appropriate development See response to comment 5. JCP
versus access regulations will then help assure that facilities are well designed and
strike a good balance between public access and preserving most of the
shoreline's existing natural character.
Contact Please add the address_ to your
7. info./mailing list mailing list.This site is monitored regularly.Sending there will assure City has added this email address to the mailing list. COSV
request a timely response that is not dependent on one individual.
Note:the following comments were provided separately on March 22,2010:
The Shorelines by Section map certainly shows
the SRCT very accurately.Those same maps could be made more
useful with just a little more label work.Some examples:
E-5i shows the Sullivan Road area,with several parking areas near The City of Spokane Valley is preparing the map portfolio NBH/
Appendix E; the river.I might presume the one west of Sullivan,closest to the river (Appendix E of the Technical Review Draft). Comments 8-
8. various map on the north bank,is public recreational parking,and the others are DN(COSV)
panels business related.A short label in these relatively clear areas would I 1 have been forwarded to the City and will be addressed
clarify things.If the parking on the north side is intended for access to by Dan Neyman,GIS specialist with the COSV.
the SRCT,by walking across the bridge,that could even be stated.
• E-5o could easily label Myrtle Point.
• .E-5j shows an unidentified railroad bridge
In general,take the attitude of an ignorant(though intelligent)person
9 General mapping viewing the area for the first time through your maps.Don't crowd
note them with so many notes that you can no longer see the features,but
the scale used allows a lot of room for helpful labels.
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 2 of 3
No. Ref. Comment Response
And speaking of scales...Even here at the office,my print default
came up at 8 V2 x 11.If I was an interested citizen viewing these from
home,I may well have a printer that could not produce 11 x 17.
10. Mapping-page Especially today,when digital output is so controllable by the end user,
size issue it is important to have a scale that works.The text I"=200'does not.
It should be replaced(or augmented)with a graphic scale,which was
well done on E-4.No matter what size the output,one can then
accurately determine distances.
I'm still not sure that I could pick out each area in the Audubon report,
General mapping but I have a much better idea of the site conditions with the draft
11, comment pp g inventory maps.Although a day in the field exploring the river would
be great,I'm probably destined to help coordinate our responses from
Olympia,so the printable product is very important for me.
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 3 of 3
URfiComment Response Form
Document Reviewed: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory&Characterization Report(Tech.Review Group Draft)
Subject: Shoreline Planning Commenter: Bill Gothman,COSV Comment 2-27-2010 Response 4/5/2010
Date: Date:
No. Ref. Comment Response
•
P14,"Municipal
1. Wastewater" 1st line,Coeur d'Alene misspelled Thanks—fixed JCP
paragraph
Would you want to mention that the Barker Bridge project
2. P30,6"' involves removing several old piers from the 1910 bridge and Revised slightly, ood comment. JCP
paragraph constructing a bridge with fewer piers than the 1935(?)bridge? g
Abbreviations not defined(also in other tables of the document)
3. P32,Table5-5 Abbreviations thrown out-plant names spelled out. NH
"tunnel our walkway"should it be"tunnel or walkway"??
4. P41,bottom line Thanks-fixed JCp
5 P44,3`d would you want to mention the action to remove and analyze Revised to indicate that initial studies are being JCP
paragraph concrete dust to see if it has a use in capping land fills? done.
6. P65,3rd pgh,first change"the primary affect"to"the primary effect" Thanks—fixed JCP
line
7. P65 4"'line from chg"t"to"it" Thanks-Fixed JCP
bottom
8.
9.
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 1 of 1
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010
Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014
Appendix F
Map Portfolio
•
. ,i-;< r ti i �� WELLESLEY AV
1
•
cc
Z 1
z 1
Q O
ce
cc
t T/Z' cc
a Fig F-5r MAR O0 !
COsQ,
0�5� EUCLID AV :.. Euclid Av u.
EUCLID AV EIJCLICiAV
Ci u �
eR PV 1 Fig F-5d//�
het te' •
lCZ BUCKEYE AV �,.j / /J/� / /� ///
-ma''`r MoiFig F-5e Fig
/F-5c /7�//!
ce • KNOX AV ---f/////7// . ' / ,/,,,,;( /Aj
rn j
/ 1 "-a
1•
—�� ,,. ./ MISSION AV ! a
MISSION AV I N
1-
w o • 0
a cc 1
ir ore
W W W _
Z Q 2 v" BROADWAY AV BfroAn y iAvii .
`���i_ - Q
V / "� % :�
�r/Fig-t ^ A VALLEY WAY AV 0
/FigF-5u r / pPQ
•
r xj
W _
�� FT- 4TH AV • .'r 1 j' ♦ 1
Rt ♦ 1
I 8TH A13
ETH AV 1•
` '
1..w I le lie, 1
1
1 N Figure F-5a:Shoreline Inventory
Arterials Index
—1—ERailroads
Lakes/Rivers raw Umber'Confi Cantr
—••--•-� Iva(OrigiMenn
725de,rldcgm, City of Spokane Valley
Orighl.1125Jcgms
I.,w...,s City of Spokane Valley
$ 1 Shoreline Master Program Updates
� �,�„ February 2010
-"L. ' • ''''• - •?. • .•-.".-+ •. .,7- - • -1/40 '•-0.-7117k. ` " ''....
i.
r •' _ '•'t"tti�' � .! Merin : ? �,.F r , v ea..�
jr,
_ Alitii-Too
{� ., rF., ,, Ili ;Ilk . 4111.1. f:
.wairi-.,-- "At -(14.7111 . ,,,,,* ,A,-•' - i
. • • < .
.,. - -..,* -- 1st 5111;<-,,..„14.4Vi ..
pig. �,.."carr :it -, ',•... -4.-. -:71101S. -111611#0.1 ' ` _ -�+lo•°'it " . *'*.
•.1 6._ wr.r y,
i ", _,-ri"`
i , i-.3' V 3- S,. 0 I A 4.;to r' i. >F; ti . ' !•'ye,.
�,,r • ewr'
,.1 tqr RarMit
'' `.. J r,x # ..e 4, rr _ pAr ��,,a �•a.i 3. • iw 4:0„..,'', ,, „ . , • , -Ay,.*NI;G"`",
ii y+,,, " �y �r IyyY��.ft.,F t ,;" R
1p
rte . KM
}� ' P ?r"f` + �
711
, (( i" ` aia �� ,e
N Fig F-Sb:Shoreline Inventory
SMP Inventory Physical Features URS HR Hetet inventory —High Water tine Pubfn/Open Space Spolune River Study sego ut I
EROSION 0 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary n Parcell city ofSpokaoe Volley,Washington
TIL
UTY —Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration .ter River Study Segmenta j-:.j City of Spokane Valley __
Impervious Surface „rt....,Features • USGS River Miles r lei... ""'"r""�
„rt...., City of Spokane Valley
I _I Centennial Trail o loo w, ., Shoreline Master Program Updates
Ir.r, February 2070
, „_,,,,, , .. . ..‘",-.,e, . ...„.::::j. -, -------7.t„t-lisf-- -
. , .-4,1- Ift....
)it4, , VIE . , .. .. ,...
• f Et - y;
'` aka - 14`k •er`' :rk ..ri•vp 's dr 5 .. \-.• ` .. ve., . liiii 44,,
- 31" ..r. d - y, -r.•.�''/ iA� q �, :a ' r-•.oT• ; Jackson
f ,.. ov,..
'" \ tlid ';t'''",.
. e „ y t+
_. \,.
.. ilinak
.4r;t f +�~• ,.• .) • ,. rni moi` J
i.
M ---,.5 t” , lig Illi VA 1,11
_
'1::'
.• .� .iY - 1. py t /...t.: t MontgomoN
It
1 I ,�. « .A P_.._ I •"Mansfield �_ .4 . ��.. E . -�,`* c P �.;y a
• !x^'!. L •
,V� r elm r rr� j\4 �4Ilah ��h�' 4Lt+ .fy� I'
im
1. i s w cif-'1-r g : , _ Y
t, Se
u q Knox °lila If
1 • . I �t a
I illiiiii[;1 Fill! - '' -..'-' - '
4 kr•rr-'.- ' i �" l
N Fig F-Se:Shoreline Ikventury
SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory - tl (Mater Line Pubta/Open Space Spokane River Seedy Segment I
EROSION 0 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary] I Parcels City of Spokane Valky,Washington
UTILITY -Pipes.Culverts.Fences Potential Restoration ••••••River Study Segments City of Spokane Valley
Impervious Surface Q Area Features USGS River Miles `r„ n City of Spokane Valley
' ' Centennial Trail
.' ab tee.. February,010 am Updates
_ „Euclid r•
. .0.0001• ill
-
r _ r'r .e'
111. ' �� rte , mac...- "°
Y
..-F \
r r
1:104,.
.. \ ,::-.
.,. 1 , .. .
I ,, ,
a� .., ,�J •+•,. J' .' ,_ r -.44,.."d+t.`' at r. l NounWl�Vl,
4
_43*
..-:,‘,....„. _ _....
r
fi
a it r
r f r �t t f' �''' Graca
s1651111,[1,!1..E ;.4 . 1 It ' • o !� y
^ gimme
t OP
•
•
•- ♦ . , , <' • is t" k s ` •' 1y 1 r' a
is
`� !
R ,�♦ 7{ • \ r . sy " e ss . T a )}
P
, 1.: ! .,
/ ._. ,.,14 q•4.
tt,').:,,,.A..s , td F'+ 1 7iii% .�. 1 '• — A��, ( ` 1 'es' \: •e
1.1 II P-Sal:Shoreline Inventory
SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory -High Water Line Public/Open Space Spokane River Study Segment I
0 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential Conservelbn city orSpokaoe valley.Washlegtoa
EROSIONShoreline Management Program Boundary n Parcels
UTILITY -Pipes.Culverts.Fences Potential Restoration i ii..e River Study Segments I..a ....d°City of Spokane Valley
Impervious Surface 0 Ares Features a USGS Rlver Mlles awdaw.w...rn.rnlom
reline
r__ ay.093.1.1.0 City of Spokane Valley
ShL_7 Centennial Trail ,ao °°°,.... February 2010er Program Updates
1
'1"kkIL'A'lit . N,..: N . A , '
' -..,;.1% , . ....... . i it It.% t:..,,e;,4. ,..• .., ..
•
•
a' ver. e� -6% ya`l' s, / fr r
�.. .r ° 0 1, % 1112 tot c• iia ,..-i .os "'r. .t
_ 11 *, r_ l M. a` t „r\ -ern m�.r - 4��1Apti '! a L.4 �.
�'R
�Y- E § 1.t.‘•
y` ' los- '644.-3°' " r:. •�' �.,..:4 t�i �' 3,a t a -
t 1
a
.t, � JY',mvnv � 4.r ).i.1 r • R 1 I la'-.E 1
0111 try
ift .. I it, ,41_ ,, ..„0:: ,,,,, , , ., 44 - n
r •-1:4;4-4,1,-%-f ."-;',,
^, ,�r� _ a1 - RM. _ ```- y....... •F'"s`6- Buis
.1'g Ma., .*-
______ife
F...-..,
e {� ��- ra
N Flg P-5e:Shoreline Inventory
SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory -High Water tine Public/Open Space Spokane River Study Segment I
EROSION 0 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential Conservation Sholellne Management Program Boundary(1 Pantile cay of Spokane valley,Washington
UTILITY -Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration a River Study Segments :,:.Jj City of Spokane Wiley
Impervious Surface rr--����Area Featuresn...+,.....;n,i�,t,,.,
�J USGS River Mlles ,+v nv,b,,,l City of Spokane Valley
IICentennialTrag "' •',.. February20t0Master Program Updates
/, �.
••••N ,...:
/:01,..)6),/".....,
•
,J trti;5 l.� �„
sh _�� r///tk'" ,a^1t •
i I
L /
Ini
'
*e,. 4. L.. . ,ur
. i
, ,.,
...... rr ,,. _..,
-------„....,------------- __...
,‘ .:4'?:1,-: ,i'1 . ,
, - t t
„ r` ; '.} F. r'
11 LL
�� `` 5� /1 y K LL f/
•
t'
N Flg F-51':Shoreline
In Inventory
SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory —High Water Line Public/Open Space Spokane Plver Stony Segment I
EROSION 0 Monuments.Wells,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary n Parcels City arspotu■e vmlef,w■mt■gr■■
UTILITY —Pipes.Culverts.Fences Potential Restoration .......River Study Segments .—. `City of Spokane Valley
t.._.J rrmc u.rLe�
Impervious Surface 1 Area Features • USGS River Mlles �' ..'es�ap'b"'ir. City of Spokane Valley
Centennial Trail i k.. February 2010erP GF am wares
A
r - noIM1
.. .. __ ilf i. " .. •
x," . ,:...4. ..: : j,,,4. w,' r. illiel ri..
j
t t / �:. . ,
s
•
r' -' / i:. - - { - •
ITY All
.r. -- .0'''. s. ass
"a i K .aE ` /� / r:1, '-.2.. , .. . X4_1.> Mission Ii'
y
1r } -mss„ ,;:i.--„_,. i 4
', ,-ii f: •e; ' i• 4
'-'4":,44--" K_'.o.!;,' ""..-...---;"--- i.
•` , :r.
4,
,LY •
now -.:5�{'... L
NFig P-5g;Shoreline Inventory
SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory -High Water Una Public/Open Space Spokane River Study Segment t
EROSION 0 Monuments,Woks,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary nm
Parcels city of Spokane Vdley,W•whtngton
UTILITY Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration ovv.River Study Segments ..... City ofSpokane Valley
i..�.J
Awnr,rslA
Impervious Surface ®Area FeaturesUSGS River Mard.r y,rrw
Miles „y"'„t,,,n,�'"'° City of Spokane Valley
!Centennial hail , _ -- h., February 20 eer Program Uptlarea
1
ir
rr
- _ ./ /mo i
. e �,
_-_ .______ p,:-.."'''''',•...,„,..._......._... ~� �.'�V.'_�1a"d� �t1��ra P( ' •t„ (-^—f^F
•
'( ',.i ..------W-,--A4-
ren1U:T 1ill0T,2`} '.' _:¢,w` ,
•w, ��
.,,.... , ,. -.,,. . :7.. ,:.-,.- ,..,--,Ji . .4744 .,
rL f .t.
rPo `4 . .�d�.,.. jI
N Fig F-Sh;Shoreline Inventory
SMP Inventory Physical Features URS HR Field Inventory -High Water Une Public/Open Space Spokane wre,st.aySegment a
City or Spokane Vdley,Washington
EROSION 0 Monuments,Wells,Pile Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary Parcels
��rty Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration .�RNer Study Segments 1y_,�City of Spokane Valley _
Impervious Surface n Area Features • USGS River Mlles ,fir'," t',s,'`''"rte
CV or Spokane ValleyCentennial Trail ' m4 _. , Februalry 2010 er Program Updates
.aarr
sV
v
•
o t•* �' ''''''',/,,,,,i. L - . R .R4 •
",_i l R a.4 _ _S'�1',.:' :. .--e. _-
�' -, y
miri'sit .s ,,,P. ,. l fit
-or.
t �`�'�r,,, �,* .t'°� `�;e; ,``� -y �, `a I',kip 't
,. 4 ,
.•- ks
erNiit. • �` q...
j��_.�` r I, ^ , syr +{,
y 4 n T ry
•''' GY ,s �'..} r}ok) i "4. r..4t l ,',- ' , - ...2, • i ,
4 .
y i:1. Gl.• .*: .s 11 't �- e 1 , Dunu T `4...,
p/t
tor R. Yi 'ftp i`�_ ,y
\ * .. 1� •�r \ r div e r ��6y w ��:i --„ 4 '"I - ` -t
>t' s i �t \ . SAA .' ',;� - t.r,;. • °
Y .% t; � t5 I', Y , ie. ,.,, t_a ��1t! •J a•�y„� je '�' `,'}+.
1,1 Fig F-SI:Shoreline Inventory
SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory ---High Water Line Public/Open Space Spokane River Study segment I
EROSION 0 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary n Parcels City of Spokane Valley,Washington
UTILITY —Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration —Rhrer Study Segments City orSpokane Valley
E-1 Area Features i""d 4 na.0 rt,,,,..,
Impervious Surlaca USGS River Mlles y� Clty of Spokane Valley
! Shoreline Master Program Update.
IOC 203 '
,__j Centennial Trait , e„, Fobruary 2010
- _ ' t
t�` al.. ^,,.c—� qa- ` • awl.'.,, • •- r &
II
.— - sr0.ucn0.E .+87
r J
FENCEO psi a Cj. -a6. # .
a�
•
R
11 Nti t X4a I , ilr . }4
%k1141% / VIK% XIN '. L°It'.#14:itNit .4 t•e 01 . 1 ktAil ' 11 • A A ' j4
Ilk CHANNEL j.).
• s,,i * '1 ,..x'1 ;4. 4,.yz` ,� '1t0. �.. � �. i
t c y
•'3r„r +tri ....., I. ••
si
, Nil
N Fig P-SI:Shoreline Inventory
SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory —High Water Line Public/Open Space Spokane ItlreeStady Segmrnt I
air atSpokanVdiey.Wahingtoo
EROSION 0 Monuments,tfells,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary Parcels —"4"''''
UTILITY —Pipes.Culverts.Fences Potent al Restore`:or, •••+Wier Study Segments :.J City of Spokane Valley
Impervious Surface Area Features ♦ ...u• ”i4 is,`.: Valley
0 USGS River Miles
Ja+a.. CV el Spoline kane
ICentennialTrail Fe ruary2010��9�mates
! (
1 , iiritr t y, i �w +
-,k .-it. ...,..,
it
tO.:i‘14 2." ti. 1. 1 r tr.
titt.Jr
o' °! 0°rna�:UL +b t as . \�
•
jOk
• `• •:, h -C' -° a.-ice • �
•
Ili
! ii °��. e
'till
h? `� eo+ "� a.a°°.a a—r --
4 rat* %I.4 Iblk -4Z-it.;,---'''
• i :411111"i 0100V 1 ,‘N,tit 1Ttg+" ----_.._
'''P. ii .4.) ,4 , '' -
IS
`
' krittit t,. hv 'A . ' *• 1711-Nti--: %‘1%*4- 41- .-1".".--:--_,_„_,... ' —
an
1;f1—,1
tviii :•. R � R , �t i `LeMans_flok Mansllolil \ Ago ,
� . t....a 44. . �S! a%its!
t
N Mg F-5k:Shoreline Inventory
SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory —High Water Une PubtelOpen Space Spokane Steer Study Segment I
Chy of Spokane Valley.wa,hingtoa
EROSION 0 Monuments,Wets.Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary_Parcels
UTILITY —Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration a....Rivar Study Segments 1:::i City of Spokane Valley
Impervious Surface 1 fires Features C:++ + +,...
USGS Rhrer Miles ry„+I Oda City al Spokane Valley
L_1 Centennial Trail ° Shoreline Master Program Updates
P. FeaNary 2010
1 -
Mtraooa� a*I“y \ _ \a UTILITY S s
S \
3 J •w *is,,... w.r.,`, \ •` ori I '' '~ *1 ..• �.
„ r
..,
I '" `.o
4,6
,' • X` era 1 a \ I_. y ,
' . \
irS.
y~' do • ' } \\ w* _ _ I .. :- - _ �`
lit
, *I kt,, 4'., 1 t i l yy, \ II 2
\ 3110., 1[ nt , Air
NA,
-*e;.\ ;,- It -
t•,t,.v. Avsti:t. e , }
t‘civtit tik, ,litp. ., . k
, , ,,
, A , ..,.('' ° , ,A. , \ , ,-— i/a tqli? ''.. '
' i‘,\
. '''t •\.,i .4__ 1 _ \\, \.,
N \ • ()4 ::
Al, :yam . 1� , ,: I a ti` e.Iii � \ f p - p G`..+..: r •P`,
'� 1 1n ?�
.s,').‘1:4 1‘.i\''y 46., \-ik—*:.1, . ;;tsg%*46) :It, st• *
It
WELL
,, ktIlk-7:441‘ • !t , ...: ''''` 4\4. wk tt, .. "4 ‘ 4. 36‘ a r ;. i�a, ,
..Y',*iq ''' ik 'X.\lb,
kkkl!l tts 1 . • tib �,.
i ; , 1., 1441t*.' VI
1 ‘.
NI..., 't ,J,,, 't/I, it,V, ‘.
i ..„,
, ,...,-1 ,o... ilist: -,..,,'it\l,Istvitic..:71. 4,,,,„‘b x , , ,
_ IT , ,; ,. .v. r, *i 'b.. - ` l'81:14,,,‘41‘' \N4t, . Nti.
t , It ,. . ,, , ., .4,,,,,I, ,,,, ,,,,i(4„e. \tiLv. via . • , i, •
4
N Flg F-51:Shoreline Inventory
SMP Inventory Physical Features URS MR Field Inventory -High Water Line Public/Open Space Spokane Inver Stun ySegromt I
City orSpohane Valley.Washington
EROSION 0 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary Parcels
UTILITY
P-P-�1 Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration River Study Segments �.�City of Spokane Valley __
L
mperviitousC.01.014(MI
Surface LJ Area Features • USGS RHer Mlles "a"a„ .11,110... Gry of Spokane Valley
I Cenlennlat Trail tos m Shamans Master Program Updates
1 I•.. February 2171D
.-
� tr ri3` 1.,.....'"........."'....'"."''''.."......"'"',
rtrT * ., fes+
•
b 'mss * -4 __'._ 1
►� '_ c�
'T � 1 fit �,� •
wf_J"�- Tun' �� =
r +El.
. ,,P:
_,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
� s a=ir �,-.-'
,I _
. ..
..
....,,,,
,......,,
13 EA
4.
�y
i . ..
* a c
.l
a
a • F\\\\
.......„:„.......„\\,.. . :
- - ,v‘ , , , Nike 041, * ,
N Fig Faro:Shoreline inventory
SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory —High Water Line Public/Open Space Spokane Riper Study Segment I
EROSION 0 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary Q Parcels CkyofSpokane valley,Washington
UTILITY —Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration o�Rhrer Study Segments 1"."-:City of Spokane Valley
Area Features 1.•_.l rn.r' x..i.,,.`�
Impervious Surface 1 1 USGS River Mlles
Pe owN.onry... ShyeneMesVarey
e ,m ao an Shoreline Mester Program Updates
Centennial Trail r.n fe6rvery 2010
I -• . \>0..,'''N-7 .,
')1°11PH. ', :litiPAIr, L.1111.. - I
•
sC
.
\.._...2- _.,..n..--..—z. ' "Ili _ •'.
t \p•
-; ,R• _ r
L fi
pax•
� \71. �t' rr ,;,!-.
IS
"
car car .,,,,,.....E...-
4,,..
.. .,
•
�u4_.
Pie r F. S v. Y •t ,....!\.V. .. t- 4}
E� - pYrig* 1 Q
Iii s� 1 a* �• _ ! I�, f aF ''l •. ,i'• ?'
\illktilliPki 41 - '�l1 Pon'.Tl "Li'.-' - w+'2; � "l LP'''.'-:::.-,-. - *, -
liti.
•-•:.''''.VII ' 41' . -14:10k1411 aM04:11
N Flg F-Sn:Shoreline Inventory
SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory -High Water Line PublldOpen Space Spokane River Study Segment I
EROSION 0 Monuments,Walla,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary El Parcels Cay of Spokane vatky,washmgma
UTILfY -Pipes.CuNerls,Fences Potential Restoration ae River Study Segments :.9 City of Spokane Valley
Impervious Surface r----I Area Features er,+" .rra.+i�in}'w41�°,ka`,,.
I + USGS River Mlles °„.„n p,,,, City oISpokane Valley
Centennial Trail ° " "0 �0:,,, FebruShoreline
ary 207Oer Program Upderea
A 4
{4 i�(
4j:1
S Y•
s. ,
�,u l it L '� �� inn ::4:4.10.71,10:40.0:tirt:i
V {a • i'' ,}4fr i rJ° r °''-G• rp S s.. - 6 �F ij1r •e{'Y 4i1. x.1,.5,; { .,r"lisi feu, c-
{,:..„...... ;
e t __ „.r, S �r, r r jIA •.: ,RYA . .- � ,! 'rr •„ g r
1 . G' s. 1 *}.;aTa� r � 1� r, 'yr `- r �"a.T r r ar #i '..
I'll.f l� ry,T_' yr. �.-.: + .Z ri; *
�}�” 'AO A• t • • yam e" ;�fl"'� `.
-74\.,
'*"T• � s .e,''A�Ae.! `e�1,,4F, I x..,- �n""mac` Y� `-' �4f. ' �Itr ' � *'
4 •427 o:r' 1 s r si r.Wl.� t.- r... .„./..7.".1.-�., _ ,
___,..i'•,`"
f■Y r� f .�.' F 1 i xr ,mak ti, y
.^''6.`-R..'` s -, r. ',,..0,46.,•-°-4aa+' —.•";
I ".!..*,..-..!...0. ' _ , 1
t. = y} a N. tK� , �, ; _
F e '
#.fit t' . r.
7 a 14 r �arnuc unci
�A^
e;
e s i 'T YA. ' � . # rW
�' 6 � .rye. 'F`�e� isK"
.' r �d'� --ocoas �.-,
N Flg F•So:Shoreline Inventory 0
SMP Inventory
Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory -High Water Une Publ c/Open Space Spohme IUver Stray Segment 1
4 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential ConservetIon Shoreline Mena ementP Chy WSpoWne VWley,wabtngtoa
EROSION g rogram Boundary r�Parcels
UTILITY --Pipes,Cuhrerts,Fences Potential Restoration +r River Study Segments y �..t City o9 Spokane VaAey __
Im rvloua Surfaoo n Pres Features USGS River Milos '""'"""""''rdr+"•"
rse.r.ru•m•.. CV line Mast Valley
Centennial Trail . 1.,L �Wuery200f0erProgramUpdates
7),•-.:11
Y r/�
2...---('I , . i '
./. 10.
„ ...
a.tlay - fit ' , /'/ �.*.-Y
N. tG it _
. i .., . ,..,f..t.,_ri'-31,*,,,.;:,.-I:,'''::: ,.,'.-'._. ....,..„.....,..":V ;,-,7
p/f
} 4 r., / ,.,•.a.
* r W
h e!
x,.�'
-.T . a^ iiill
Illii!ii
EmP
., ;...S
, MONUMENT,.
4,1,.., ,,,..._.....,,,,alit -
.:0,i
. . . _
,... •
...... • .....4,.._..r. yli..,„,:i.,..: ....... 1,..,ar...1 ii„, -:- , ...for
• `4'it.. .... 'l'AIR .itc,::'.4'....:400. .:..-:-•-. .-- — ' !N:44.---‘
N Fig F-5p:Shoreline Inventory
SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory —High Water Line Public/Open Space Spokane Rhv Sn,er segmrnr l
EROSION 0 Monuments,wens,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary f)Parcels Cly of Spokane Wallq,wafhington
UT1UTY Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration .�River Study Segments 1—..:—. CIty of Spokane Valley
impervious Surface Area Features USGS River Mlles `"""rte.,br '' City o1 Spokane Valley
I-1 Centennial Trail o wo Shoredne Master Program Updates
1w. February2010
it 411
ii
fp
*mit - t *' 5a ti tit ��
''.0 ' ' 114 14/1/ _....._ . . . . .
1,01 1
lam: ','3-.'t%. ' NI? k liik� „ ..r
• fit- y�1 T Iil 'lE^' ,.A `J`. ___ ecne. `\\
MF ”- , ..;,,,2,,,...."7,,..'
1 _w"+ X t,, 4-..,%„ '�* •41 1. �{' ~ ,y yyj j' - `'' 6 oto R 1. 4-',-: ..•;.,..*‘'
' y1��'
*. '" ►r' y trot - �+ •...._;;.- GoY.
- prig ti4 ,ry
r'ytr _,i,
'--P- \
e'* , 4 � '�•�- •
..dei"fir- t - , + r _ i - y ri:
1.1111111111-.r
'''... .'r.:4'.;:A.4.....::':::::',;';,,,s.:L'.--',--'.0': ....".!,.' ...:...: :•.':.1 r,%‘3.:417—saiiisav otti.,,rit,,,e L ,,,,.. c.-- ' 0 S
. , , 11.; 45 *04 ' .
1.
1611
.4t• :
*Wr
0111111111111
1,-
� y 1. `� `i ...Poi •A
.. r, � .0 `•
. ., r# ► •feslik
N Fig Me:Shoreline Inventory
SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Held Inventory —High Water Une PubhNOpen Space Spokane River Study Segment I V
0 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential Conservation
City ofSpawx Volley,Washington
EROSIONShoreline Management Program Boundary n Parcels
UTILITY —Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration tee^River Study Segments
"i City at Spokane Valley
no,... .,1..rr,,.
`� .
City d Spokane VeAeyIra
impervious Surfers ®Area Features ® USGS Rlver Mlles 0,.r el...
,m m
.„ Shorefne Master Program Updates
1 Centennial Trail o ,. Peorvary 2010
a 'r+ �a'ilIC' :47-r,-u -.,&..4-''''''
1 fi
It I
a •
.. _tet t+ -• �V - -4 ..-z �,�' ,'+„} 10:�"� "�
III.
„, , r., IA ,p.:4e..
- -. ,.
�� _ oi l.fi es ter 4' , .
t
iii
MN ,
,ill r
. •r ,“ 04,
,,,.•
_
da }
P L
all
ilkk...„-1-,,.'....
1 t4 i P
Kiernan ^+ 'r _3
CO
:_ _.
- ,w
_EN
w I.
' Ill -. . gillryMI 111113113116111 �j
Fig P-Sr:Shornlhe Ismetory
SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory -High Water Line PubtstOpen Space Spow.e River Study Segment I
Cay ofSpokane V.tky,W.ehl.gto.
EROSION 0 Monuments,Wells.Pits
Potential Conservation
Shoreline Management Program Boundary n parcels
UTILITY �-Pipes,CuWaM1s,Fences Patanual Restoration .�River Study Segments 1 „!C1Fy of Spokane Valley
Impervious Surface fires Features USGS River Miles `"""""'” "^�
oy.nowt... Gty 0 I of Spokane Va71by
( (Centennial Trail as .om February2Or0� ram Updates
...,,_
0.
4th - 41y-: t '-
i -may.,.y.zig
6 F �.- 0.t` �' �_ 4 yo,•,„
s�.r ,. r ,� ' • - • 7,-,,., _
4tig
Nib. .
4k
I. {
axe
iso9c d-g'* - _.e-- ! , _. s . a
_ex.:
f E �F` G' � '.5 •J ,, 'u/r ,� ,
•
'� z f illei rP•4111p `�s i>t s a`. '`.'•' - - j4. S'4•v4 a•'' `
` •
r
am 3, t� 9-• t` ✓ f- - y fie, * '�1 .1
ii,
i, ,
, Ic
: J a c `t ° •
�` A , �� "fir W'� ?. • ;
s ' d. .. f^ r - _! ^ gym.umune,> �` ' . M...IP ' -+y ' ,t`.�.' 'Y % ' �S`
Ven
oso / ii `' J �**11+ '
fir •. ♦\ . S ` ! �'s i
411
- ' I'ge'Ai
• Y
• 40
fiti
•
. ,it,-,.-
,_ _ ' _._a>_, _ rd^ r 9\ `l a. i '! TFC
•4`13' al, { W-411#101 ,
. 1, r-^. ~...'�1. �", ', � ' 4..
1 'n .4 a t'6 .4* ,,,, ..' - '--, / #\ ' C114.1....t. .. ' 'L''''.... ..--::......---- 0.....gt .-
wy 4
p
N Fig F-5,t Shoreline Inventory
SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory -High 1Nater Line Pub11oJOpen Space Spokane River Stony Segment I
EROSION 0 Monuments,Mils,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary n Parcels City MSpdune Valley.Washington
UTILITY --Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration ••••••RNerStudy Segments 1.„ Cityof Spokane Valley
L
mpervious Surface [�Area Features USGS River Mlles ''"""""""�"^""" pry of Spokane Van
ey
0,4.1/2/4/0.44.1.1/2/4/0.44.1n Centennial Trail s Mr«, FebSlio
2
010 erProgram(Wares
ad _ „" �
FI G L
r ....., ,.),. .
.
.. •
.,..
,.. ,,,
e , ,
..
.. .....„
.111Vrilfz:l' I
y+'
1'�90 A. f 90 E256 OFF
9•p- ^eX 6'r n,ort
., ..% t r• 14. ted .• +1 ' �., r •
C'Z
Y :4 y
/".0"-{L-__: , ''.' 1 ,..-047', ,..,., -.--. -.0,1t, .
r -,_ :` ' e .rte- -
•
rti
.01 E
`Y.ot,en �c`f .1 - i
,Main, \ y - 7�....—.e.
1
A
N Fig P-S1:Shordlne Inventory
SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory -High Water Uno Public/Open Space -.J4- Spokane Weer Study Segment I
CSy of Spokane Valley,Washington
EROSION 0 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary n Parcels
UTILITY --Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration tom.River Study Segments 2."...."2 City of Spokane Wiley
'',1=
__
Impervious Surface n Area Features • USGS River Mlles ``0;",;,',r,,°jCity of Spokane Valley
Shoreline Centennial Trail "' "' wr.e February 2010� mm Updates
; f4r.cli, .Z.14, i - . ..-,, / 4-.-- .
-
rr •
3 (a5 I -- Valloyway
J. _ i d
Nlxo �L M1��� l c . -
•
II
11
Idr flo . . , .
-
r.4111•• r
•
._.,.,_. , 1..eituummoia.:___ .. 1..r.s.:" — ,i.Ase-_-.,_,. Iii.A.- . : .. ,M.. .,
Ar. .x
k {..I .1r
T i
fig', ,-. i j
.� -'4!%><*'1-i..,»t1r 7tR-r1+�.e--.b»t'Y ,-8 irm r 1. ,+;✓ + I 1 •3 �1 I "s'i ' -k zV•
s - " - .. - - .. ~ i - -7 Sprague
N Fig F-Su:Shoreline Inventory
SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory —High Water tine Public/Open Space Spokane ether Study Segment I
Cry ofSpokaer Valla.WarhIngron
EROSION 0 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary n Parcels
UTILITY —Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration sm....River Study Segments _.J City of Spokane Valley __
Impervious Surface Q Area Features USGS River Miles `"""'""a"""r"'""
pe ar.rx+.... City of Spokane Valley
Centennial Trail - �e ,'i.. February 2010er Program Updates
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010
Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014
Appendix G
Centennial Property Management - Shoreline Assessment
/1 '�
fTowey Ecological Services
if, + 24211 S. Harmony Rd.
_�.�, �► Cheney, WA 99004
509-939-5203
Mr. Scott Kuhta
City of Spokane Valley
RE: Centennial Property Shoreline Assessment
Scott- Attached you will find the shoreline assessment which was authorized by
Centennial Property Management to determine the current ecological condition of three
separate properties (Trentwood, Mirabeau and Mission Flora) located on the Spokane
River. I understand from our last discussions that the information contained within this
report will serve as supplementary information to the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline
Master Plan Update-Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (SMP). As you
know, the shoreline assessment was conducted to determine opportunities for shoreline
rehabilitation or other mitigation options (within the context of a long-term shoreline plan,
property development plan, shoreline access opportunities, wildlife viewing stations and
educational signage)and ecological condition and connectivity to adjacent properties.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you.
William T. Towey
Shoreline Assessment
Spokane River
Trentwood, Mirabeau and Mission/Flora Properties
August 6,2010
Prepared for
Centennial Property Management
Prepared by:
Towey Ecological Services
�124211 S. Harmony Rd.
�11Cheney, WA 99004
509-939-5203
Introduction
This Shoreline Assessment was authorized by Centennial Property Management to
determine the current ecological condition of three separate properties (Trentwood,
Mirabeau and Mission Flora) located on the Spokane River (see attached location and
parcel map). The information contained within this report will serve as supplementary
information to the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Plan Update-Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization Report (SMP). The information contained within the
SMP, for the segments assessed in this report, was accurate and is consistent with the
field observations. In addition, the shoreline assessment was conducted to determine
opportunities for shoreline rehabilitation or other mitigation options (within the context
of a long-term shoreline plan, property development plan,shoreline access opportunities,
wildlife viewing stations and educational signage) and ecological condition and
connectivity to adjacent properties. It should be noted that additional site specific
assessments (engineering, geo-technical, etc.) may be required for the properties in the
course of developing future site plans. The specific shoreline assessments were
conducted within the Spokane River Study Segment 2(SR-2)-identified in the SMP.
The field assessments were conducted in May 7 and 11, 2010. The primary investigator
was William T.Towey, a qualified biologist with Towey Ecological Services.
Methods
The field investigation consisted of assessing the current conditions within each of the
three identified properties. Information was collected by traversing the shoreline of each
property-documenting: 1) existing vegetative communities; 2)relative distances of intact
riparian habitat areas; 3) potential for habitat restoration opportunities; and 4) general
recommendations relative to the protection of shoreline function and values. In addition
to the field assessment, the investigation was guided by the use of aerial photographs,
Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey (see attachment), the City of
Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Plan Update and the Spokane County Shoreline Master
Plan Update.
Field data points were taken using a hip chain and a Garmin GPSmap-60. Data points
were downloaded to a USGS topographic map(see attachment).
1
Results and Discussion
Site Description/Analvsis
M.IRABEAU
This specific reach of the Spokane River is adjacent to the Centennial Trail(trail). The
shoreline is located on the left bank of the Spokane River. The riparian area waterward
of the trail is contiguous and intact,whereas the area upland of the riparian area consists
of fragmented habitat and disturbed habitat-including the trail. The area is heavily
utilized for recreational purposes such as biking,walking,jogging and rollerblading. The
majority of the shoreline habitat is protected by moderately steep topography and
vegetated upland areas.
Location 1- This area is immediately east of the Centennial trailhead and is accessible to
the Spokane River.The area is relatively flat with steeper topography to the east. The
intact buffer width in this area is approximately 125'. The shoreline habitat structure is
diverse with large woody debris, side-channels and boulders. The dominate vegetation
within this area is cottonwood(Populus balsamifera), serviceberry(Amelanchier
alnifolia), Oregon grape(Mahonia spp.),dogwood(Cornus stolonifera)and wild rose
(Rosa spp.). The riparian area transitions to upland grasses,serviceberry and the trail.
Habitat above the trail(south)consists of open field habitat with sparse pine,
serviceberry, and juniper, This area has potential for restoration through native plant(or
other appropriate species that provides proper function and value)installation.
Location 2-This area is characterized by steep shoreline topography. The dominate
vegetation includes a continuation of Location 1 and pine tree(Pinus ponderosa),
snowberry(Symphoricarpos albus),hawthorn(Crataegus douglasii),choke cherry
(Prunus virginiana)and juniper(Prunus virginiana). The riparian area transitions to
upland grasses,serviceberry,pine trees and the trail.
Habitat above the trail(south)consists of open field habitat with sparse pine,
serviceberry, and juniper. This shoreline area has potential for habitat restoration.
Location 3-This area is characterized by a continuation of vegetation found in locations 1
and 2 with the addition of douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii). The riparian buffer area
waterward of the trail is greatly reduced to 59'. The shoreline slopes are fairly steep and
lacks the diversity of downstream shoreline. The riparian area transitions to upland
grasses,serviceberry and the trail.
Habitat above the trail (south)consists of open field habitat with sparse pine,
serviceberry, and juniper. This shoreline area has potential for habitat restoration.
2
Location 4- The riparian area is bisected by the trail in this location. This location is the
end of the contiguous band of cottonwood. The vegetation is a continuation of locations
1,2 and 3 with an increased presence of currant(Ribes spp.)and lupine(lupinus spp.).
The shoreline topography is steep with the upland above the trail relatively flat.
Location 5- This location marks the beginning of pine trees,upland grasses and arrow-
leaved balsamroot(Balsamorhiza sagittata) above the trail. The riparian vegetation is
similar to location 4. The shoreline topography is steep with the upland above the trail
relatively flat.
Location 6-This marks the location of a transition from steep topography to moderately
steep topography.
Location 7- This area is characterized by relatively flat topography with the presence of
a walking trail. This area has restoration potential due to its sparse habitat and human
disturbance(trail). Restoration measures would include native plant(or other appropriate
species that provides proper function and value)installation and reclamation of the trail
footprint.
Location 8- This marks the end of the potential restoration area and relatively flat
topography. The shoreline area upstream transitions to steep topography.
Location 9- This marks the beginning of a narrower band of shoreline riparian next to the
trail. This area requires greater protection due to the narrow buffer and proximity to the
trail.
Location 10-This marks the end of the assessment and the train trestle. There is a
restoration opportunity southwest of the trestle-south of the trail. This area is sparsely
vegetated with pine and is optimal for habitat restoration measures.
Location 11-This marks the beginning of thick pine trees,juniper,mullein(Verbascum
thapsus), serviceberry and wild rose. This area requires thinning of pine tree for forest
health.
Location 12- End of thick stand of pine trees.
Summary- This shoreline segment is characterized by contiguous riparian vegetation in
close proximity to high recreational use. Due to the varying widths of riparian habitat in
this segment relative to the Centennial trail-and the potential areas for habitat
restoration-the opportunity to maximize protection of the shoreline function and value
through a buffer management plan exists. The dominant soils in the river segment
consist of Garrison very stony loam which is conducive to native plant(or other
appropriate species that provides proper function and value)restoration efforts.
A combination of plant restoration,pine tree thinning,buffer averaging(no net loss of
riparian habitat buffer protection)and establishment of a future buffer width would
3
preserve and protect the integrity of the shoreline habitat. Protection of the existing
habitat-including plant restoration when necessary-is critical to the maintenance of a
Properly Functioning Condition' designation for this segment. Due to the fragmentation
of wildlife corridors by commercial development to the southwest,heavy recreational
use, Centennial Trail,and the train trestle to the east,the riparian area is mostly
benefiting localized populations of wildlife-including waterfowl breeding.
MISSION/FLORA
This specific reach of the Spokane River is adjacent to the Centennial Trail(trail). The
shoreline is located on the left bank of the Spokane River. The riparian area waterward
of the trail is contiguous and intact,whereas the area upland of the riparian area consists
of fragmented habitat and disturbed habitat-including the trail. The area is heavily
utilized for recreational purposes such as biking, walking,jogging and rollerblading. The
majority of the shoreline riparian habitat is at least 250' from the ordinary high water
mark.
Location 1- This shoreline area is characterized by large boulders,large wood debris and
flat topography adjacent to the Spokane River. The dominant vegetation consists of
willow(Salix spp.),pine trees, currant, dogwood,oregon grape and serviceberry. The
intact riparian area is approximately 360' in width from the ordinary high water mark to a
disturbed area(parking lot and commercial building). The riparian area is protected from
the development by a berm vegetated with serviceberry,pine,wild rose and mock orange
(Philadelphus lewisii)The Centennial trail is approximately 240' from the ordinary high
water mark.
Location 2-This marks the end of the boulder-large woody debris complex. The area is
devoid of adequate vegetation and is a potential habitat restoration area(17,400 sq.ft).
The habitat consists of serviceberry,pine,hawthorn,Oregon grape and lomatium
(Lomatium spp.). The shoreline riparian area is at least 250' wide at this location.
Location 3-This marks the end of the potential habitat restoration area.
Location 4- This marks the end of dense pine and riparian vegetation. Shoreline habitat
is contiguous with locations 1 and 2. South of the Centennial trail the habitat opens up to
pine,lupine and serviceberry. The shoreline riparian area is intact for 250' from the
ordinary high water mark to the property boundary fencing(Location 5).
Properly Functioning Condition-When adequate vegetation,landform,or large woody debris is present
to:dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflow,thereby reducing erosion and improving water
quality;filter sediments,captures bedload,and aids in floodplain development;improve flood-water
retention and ground-water recharge;develop root masses that stabilize strcambanks against cutting action;
develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth,duration
and temperature necessary for fish production,waterfowl breeding,and other uses;and supports greater
biodiversity.
4
Location 6-The shoreline habitat area begins to become steeper in this area and closer to
the Centennial trail. The upland areas have potential for habitat restoration and currently
consist of sparse vegetation(pine trees,knapweed(Centaurea maculosa) and mullein
(Verbascum thapsus)).
Location 7-This marks the end of the potential habitat restoration area.
Location 8-This marks the area adjacent to a house with thinned vegetation immediately
upland of the riparian area. The Centennial trail is very close to the Spokane River in this
location. Very little habitat restoration potential given the residence/trail located near the
riparian area.
Location 9-This marks the end of the thinned area-start of riparian vegetation.
Summary- This shoreline segment is characterized by contiguous riparian vegetation in
close proximity to high recreational-residential and commercial use. Due to the varying
widths of riparian habitat in this segment relative to the Centennial trail-and the potential
areas for habitat restoration-the opportunity to maximize protection of the shoreline
function and value through a buffer management plan exists. The dominant soils in this
river segment is riverwash which is conducive to native plant restoration efforts. A
combination of habitat restoration,buffer averaging(no net loss of riparian habitat buffer
protection)and future establishment of the required riparian habitat area would preserve
and protect the integrity of the shoreline habitat. The majority of intact riparian habitat is
less than the required riparian buffer area and would need to include portions of the
upland areas.
Protection of the existing habitat-including habitat restoration when necessary-is critical
to the maintenance of a Properly Functioning Condition designation for this segment.
Due to the fragmentation of wildlife corridors by commercial development to the
southwest,heavy recreational use, Centennial Trail, and single family dwellings,the
riparian area is mostly benefiting localized populations of wildlife-including waterfowl
breeding. There is connectivity of intact shoreline habitat(wildlife corridor)along the
left bank of the Spokane River that provides access to migrating wildlife.
TRENTWOOD
The shoreline is located on the right bank of the Spokane River. The riparian area
waterward of the trail is contiguous and intact-but is very narrow in width. The upland
area is moderately sloped devoid of habitat diversity. The dominant vegetation in the
upland areas are knapweed,arrow-leaved balsamroot,lilac(Syringa spp,). The width of
the riparian habitat in this shoreline segment ranges between 50'-60'.
Location 1- This portion of the shoreline is immediately adjacent to a train trestle which
provides a distinct fragmentation of the shoreline habitat. The relatively narrow width of
5
the shoreline habitat consists of spirea(Spiraea douglasii), cottonwood,hawthorn,
dogwood and snowberry(Symphoricarpos albus). Potential for habitat restoration exists
in the upland areas.
Location 2- This marks the beginning of pine trees,Oregon grape and currant-along with
the vegetation described in location I-in the riparian habitat area. The shoreline is
moderately steep with a narrow riparian area(55'). Potential for habitat restoration exists
in the upland areas.
Location 3- This location is a potential habitat restoration area(approximately 3,000 sq.
ft.). The area has been previously disturbed and the vegetation removed. The shoreline
area is dominated by knapweed and has very strong potential for restoration to provide
for habitat continuity with the shoreline segment. Potential for habitat restoration also
exists in the upland areas.
Location 4-This marks the beginning of a relatively dense stand of cottonwoods for the
remainder of the shoreline segment(to end of assessment at location 5). The shoreline
topography gets noticeably steeper in for the remainder of the shoreline segment.
Potential for habitat restoration exists in the upland areas.
Location 5- End of assessment.
Summary- This shoreline segment is characterized by a narrow band of contiguous
riparian vegetation. The dominant soil type is a Garrison gravelly loam/riverwash which
is conducive to shoreline restoration work. Due to the varying steepness of the
topography-it is probable that a buffer averaging plan-which would include habitat
restoration-would provide the necessary protection of the functions and values of the
shoreline environment. The upland areas, immediately adjacent to the outer extent of the
riparian vegetation,are conducive for native plant(or other appropriate species that
provides proper function and value)restoration.
Protection of the existing habitat and increasing the width of the overall riparian habitat
areas through habitat restoration is necessary to the maintenance of a Properly
Functioning Condition designation for this segment. Large woody debris recruitment and
wildlife use would increase with the development of a much wider riparian habitat area.
Due to the fragmentation of wildlife corridors by a train trestle to the west,lack of habitat
to the north and fencing to the east,the riparian area is mostly benefiting localized
populations of wildlife-including waterfowl breeding.
•
6
PROJECT MAP
nn
��T SRN r,- _ _ `.!'- !i` '�,' P _;,;. •> FM=-:::7,34,44
,i •
. ��y r1/4100T
a�' ater Tank ,•�� r`"�� �r - ���r•�!�r,�y r: h ' '
C . � ••.. n. --4-----4Y
Grav= .C�. iY.:':{4 • IR' `•, S :ar , .-• I:
�TRENTWOOD . ;•> ••
993 ?. • t' `+; %•. ; i r ' f _ (t `'•' -
' • s PROPERTY `` .._
Gp_ /
?>:.74.�y. -r",+ I.
rte,Substation • .••i:• -:••"` ! ' ---- .rrr:•:r •..••y+Lrn• � •• 1 `
', ({ �;! IYYJt '
�1. W' , GJ_,4 , ,� ' ' i N-03:3.0 �kii iL , •:''::5: ..Y..w�+•.•t[rl •w T l'..
1
�' s
\�. 1 •/f `r.: •: ' s * �•• '_ -.••••Via; 1
ow
INLAND EM'PIR �� `' r� �'i �y ..:•!r' r J a
ZO • 1 •-''
2 '� ` C , —� III
.�`f`-‘. -411�1! ✓ Borrow 4i, •ti i k
j'1.------"-j
tkt-_7\ - -----.-"-------.-.44.-.-I:.:'i 4
ltN. 44911
} '.'::...---s. '3'.....--''..- -'....-..-'.-."....'"//,'-::;
•,� g-it • �_:— ..,a �M1SSION•FLORA ,7 ,9s4
NaL �Q Borrow , C,.• / i •
MIRABEAU INr�RNa�;°�' p,t" `y._._i `PROPERTY :/
1 ...'—i-4.' PROPERTY ! O - _� +�.
r1voGTON . 'n ,r,,--•"-..N 4Sultnraa• -•�-,_ 'I /: •i
rev _ _ 1' ll, 9
••e • • n p • • • • 1 -•......_.... • i r . •
ni
11.....,1L-...--:4It'.--..-.-:1__'•----- ----11.?....!!•.!.......'..-,.. 1,'•
Well j6� •V ,�
1. J - .; .I •• -i, 'i _rte—•-- �_ I� '— _.. 7 s 2': f 5
J3. '1tc
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
Page 1 of 1
r..„:.... -v4 f t1 ''t ; ,i,it n, CI yi i+ r� .•.{ #"1a �-' Illi
M 111,..*—
1 " A 1.er+�7- n:,.
iof . , �.. 5 1 i, nA:� , .'4":-..‘1115111}i'." :7:111.1.:44-4°.
; } c^, �,
' e t• _ e ex. ;1•. ..s.:'
Cil'
•
. \ ,..14.%(..es. . ..>4.- - --..r le,,- ....ii( . ,
qtr .
�,.Iii- .. R"�- •t .A•,a' • �• '�' � .- ' L. tom_ 1,111.,, . �,
r
C •
1 1 . ,,, v. �r ' s t I
AA r.. . ,..,r �, ✓ .e ..„ `, c , d L. r rf r IC j� I1 i/ C
r ?
.. _if-
—! fie ,.' '� 1l, ,�, y 1a •�1_
.-4 .;;:,4,-f_L'siV mit,,,,r -..÷ ' 4.:'''. ' '"" . 1, # r 4./1 t i 444111114.i
•i �1# �r � t a; +. � 0. 34 I ., — T,So^ori`` .
-� 7 ,' �tit t� L 4".i, � �ti , w �.I not 4 -.,, . '..- ? ii; Cl zti- A 1�
�' " .e i .. A r I r t, 1 �'.ti „-N- -- ; _ -AV r-.h r 1. y �. 1..i-$ 4. 7 'S}
•
II'
i i
\ ' '{ •r. yyKrbb AYk _ N. . om- w ty . • ,t1
± rIr„Ait. , � if e, , t 't
. - - ( , , - %., `.:7.- „I b i il
Rpt1
^1 rte ' y ,•jr:,•—•.;-:74,7,441.7-------744.t..._____,-- _____, / +.,` •-•:%•• .. oig. `
Ala t "'1~K , PIT' ' .a `gy �r =+ - ,_-.-+.� \: . "=•
. ( tlaarifl Ve .•.;i i ti- ct>8 I --.:7---------_,-.
1.
r� SrN Ave I 1 i .(-,_ `-'r:',;.,pi 1 ' .v •i • .., -i• e k ,
f. a. }' YRa,.t�r .. ;+±,; • ' ' J.4 S^arc,Ark-In}, .•l.urp Avee, ' \°��'
5.. •I �, EfoLvi*, .-..j...., S .;X'1. -3,- �a,�\ -
•r .8c}u rArk R FM+q�. i $7 f300e'd-AVd x, t ti `� 'G �� "+ ' 'w.
t 16,,..-11:" .. r _ Oeamat Ave•', .k. . .'i a" c. S \ .
z eS?rat Ayr.T. .1.•p M"", w _ r v.". 1 .r; ...' ,% .. . i � I, ,1' iQ .t
1 r« - -••Cata'ao A. `- p X ' , r! "*n. .. •I._...,_.,.,'t , . ; . J -.r FtVekM.IZC:. .y
4p.� .? ' ttr x �T gze. a., i C:af3C)Ave_i r S f� A.
I D .. 1
. ,. -.4., •utetaorkCi f - i . 'C. 3Y iv•:a $,1 ; '�4•Ir
,1 ' ,,•,, `r r.k.- .,. 1 .. . •6ta:an Ave 1r! . e Oita.; t, i d . ,
' 0 1935ft _. . sroac�ray aYs.•+•ha =.i"al - - • ... _ ,...:x17` n _e - b . 1 ,
http://websoi lsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/imsoutput/WssNavigate_salen-uip008v32922224215... 4/27/2010
NRCS SOIL SURVEY
•
Soil Map-Spokane....Jnty,Washington
(Centennial Properties)
n
T
'Cr
482500 483000 443500 48.7000 484500 485000 485500 486000 485500 487000
47.41'45 v
.v a 3,-
+e 290
State Hwy ..______-.:=1.4_
qtr
CP4 _
..r y ,..---- .-V ,---r7� .. 7 'S ii_1 lj 1 MIMI =Wen
7N rN
1
—' ?rem user trim 21."1.181
Aimil -lit;
- I- le! — omoidomme! . �,. _
Ni, ,, ~ 1j F i #. Jd` yl .! • _ r r 1' rN
•1 } 1c.x7 • `RIIr } 1 . ..ap a'S• N
Y , s.b PL 1 Wk i ,+fit, 4' / I t• •Yt^ .-'7iY WF
m •, },17. i . . ]] �� } 1 i - k . s/r
b _ ..� ` j J � M N
VI
_ s.3 ,I4
a 0u1j }' • "if t4 +•" - , . -
— — — E Mission Ave' '- a; �►, ,. y , i « j
- •i f r9 J tt "s7.r w - $s}
•'� _Iyam .a .• t�' ry 1 - ., { i ?.
a a'- fes„ F, 9 .s. Iglit
�,.,, �•F -? -- y. - C',. •,,n 7:7°:
S. +"'�'.-"'may,=�,. • ,„--43.:--,•— �:. :
Soil Map-Spokane County,Washington Centennial Properties
Map Unit Legend
Spokane County,Washington(WA063)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AO1
GgA Garrison gravelly loam,0 to 5 percent 2,187.0 68.4%
slopes
GgB Garrison gravelly loam,5 to 20 percent 248.5 7.8%
slopes
GnB Garrison very stony loam,0 to 20 499.6 15.8%
percent slopes
Pits Pits 27.4 0.9%
Rh Rivenvash 55.3 1.7%
Ro Rock outcrop 3.9 0.1%
SIC Spokane very rocky complex,0 to 30 25.7 0.8%
percent slopes
SuE Spokane extremely rocky complex,20 74.8 2.4%
to 70 percent slope s
W Water 64.1 2.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 3,166.1 100.0%
Pitt Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/27/2010
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3
Soil Map—Spokane County,Washington
(Centennial Properties)
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest(Aol) �P Very Stony Spot Map Scale:1:25.600 if printed on A size(8.5"x 11 )sheet.
Area of Interest(AOi) Wet Spot The soil surveys that comprise your AOl were mapped at 1:20.000.
soils A Other Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map
Soil Map units measurements.
special Line Features
Special Point Features Gully Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
,.t Blowout Web Soil Survey URL: http:Ffwebsoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
Short Steep Slope Coordinate System: UTM Zone 1IN NAD83
® Borrow Pit
Other This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
�; Clay Spot
Political Features the version date(s)listed below.
• Closed Depression Cities
Soil Survey Area: Spokane County.Washington
Gravel Pit Water Features Survey Area Data: Version 2.Jun 9,2009
.. Gravelly Spot Oceans Date(s)aerial images were photographed: 7/2/2006
Landfill Streams and Canals The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
Lava Flow Transportation compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
Rafts imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting
,. Marsh or swamp of map unit boundaries may be evident.
K Mine or Quarry . Interstate Highways
, Miscellaneous Water US Routes
p Perennial Water Major Roads
Rock Outcrop iv Local Roads
+ Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
p Sinkhole
i' Slide or Slip
O Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
• Stony Spot
t.Sn,\ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/27/2010
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3
.irkers
Name: 634
Short Name: 634
Coordinates: 047° 40'15.10" N, 117° 10'51.73"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 11:32:11 AM
Name:616
Short Name:616
Coordinates: 047°40'53.61" N, 117° 13' 12.87"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 8:39:55AM
Name: 617
Short Name: 617
Coordinates: 047°40'50.89" N, 117° 13' 10.35"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:08:27AM
Name:618
Short Name: 618
Coordinates: 047°40'49.79" N, 117° 13'07.54"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:15:16AM
Name: 619
Short Name: 619
Coordinates: 047°40'48.0T' N, 117° 13'04.53"W
r
Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:19:04AM
Name: 620
Short Name: 620
Coordinates: 047°40'46.39" N, 117° 12'59.03"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:23:19AM
Name: 621
Short Name: 621
Coordinates: 047°40'43.09" N, 117° 12'45.44"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:30:07AM
Name: 622
Short Name: 622
Coordinates: 047°40'42.75" N, 117° 12'42.38"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:31:33AM
Name: 623
Short Name: 623
Coordinates: 047°40'42.71" N, 117° 12' 32.42"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:40:06AM
Name: 624
Short Name:624
Coordinates: 047°40'41.80" N, 117° 12'23.89"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:44:43AM
Name: 625
Short Name: 625
Coordinates: 047°40' 38.72" N, 117° 12' 16.20"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:48:04AM
Name:626
Short Name: 626
Coordinates: 047°40'40.01"N, 117° 12'20.78"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:51:15AM
Name:627
Short Name: 627
Coordinates: 047°40'39.89" N, 117° 12' 38.74"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:59:05AM
Name:628
Short Name: 628
Coordinates: 047° 40'42.26"N, 117° 12'45.74"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 10:03:11 AM
Name: 629
Short Name: 629
Coordinates: 047°40'45.88"N, 117° 12'59.99"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 10:14:31AM
Name:630
tI Short Name: 630
Coordinates: 047°40' 14.69"N, 117° 11'08.33"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 11:01:08AM
Name:631
Short Name: 631
Coordinates: 047°40' 14.65"N, 117° 11'02.90"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 11:12:09AM
Name: 632
Short Name: 632
Coordinates: 047°40' 12.73" N, 117° 11,02.60"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 11:19:11 AM
Name: 633
Short Name: 633
Coordinates: 047°40' 12.89" N, 117° 10' 56.99"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 11:22:54AM
Name:634
Short Name: 634
Coordinates: 047°40' 15.10" N, 117° 10'51.73"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 11:32:11 AM
Name: 635
Short Name:635
Coordinates: 047°40' 19.99" N, 117° 10'48.45"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 11:39:02AM
Name: 636
Short Name: 636
Coordinates: 047°40'20.69" N, 117° 10'47.63"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 11:40:58AM
Name: 637
Short Name: 637
Coordinates: 047°40'24.20" N, 117° 10'47.03"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 11:43:46AM
Name: 638
Short Name: 638
Coordinates: 047°40'27.61" N, 117° 10'46.46"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 11:45:50AM
Name: 639
Short Name: 639
Coordinates: 047°41'25.12"N, 117° 13'48.55"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 12:44:58PM
Name: 640
Short Name: 640
Coordinates: 047°41'23.03" N, 117° 13'40.04"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 12:52:10PM
Name: 641
Short Name: 641
Coordinates: 047°41'21.68" N, 117° 13'37.11" W
Comment 11-MAY-10 12:54:25PM
Name: 642
Short Name: 642
Coordinates: 047°41'18.77" N, 117° 13'30.19"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 12:59:47PM
Name: 643
Short Name: 643
Coordinates: 047°41' 12.33" N, 117° 13'21.55"W
Comment: 11-MAY-10 1:10:49PM
w r ly
. j .... •Y Lew I • _ _
�lr ..., a++:n :• �p,.I 1L:_•.. r 3? 3t t3- ,,-,-,_.:14.--.50"
;•� �� fh+ l.`v .�.� _ 1,17:-....t-�� yy,.ys•..- -=T�'� S'�.-` 1� r•• ��; � I .,�;11 I '+.r N �"•.Q.�tn I�, 1•••••4044v. � 4,,,,.., .fir
'-'''4....-!.:i.',.`:'�.�"'�..G..._ w_.- :N:-- tet+ Ns �.� _lf .b �'- "may_ !1 P--_ •
••:::;.-
- /•' 11 t ^- • ��R�i.ia;C-•-�ae�+_+ i?i j7 ii
+a --�•,& •
'r` �, /` ., �....,sq+.� '.`^.IFjw,.",`rr ` ..',,-;74v r4 - 7 jt i I f:' to t.=,.,.1 i_.�ti.� rff" y. d a <.._,,,j.cjec,!*.
• • I{
•
• r. ''t4 r .. ,1,7 j' '-4 ,�, -. Fes.-- �' •`-,..,,,,_„,„_._,2,;:t
, '(•: i j , L� 9, V.. • f-:.:''j � P• vi''` +`•J
•
, '°� : •:...:,...._____-1-----
-- l', !! r" ,,•,F .,_ i r aTy -• •_-,,
,t' "1 rk..-�. ,..t- Sr.r �r rM,� I 4 Lc.-
,-,..,:,
'\ t,,al ;y,y;,, _ •j''''._.: -
j I tr y .l!>.a.7.�'FY.l :-..3 fth`:•1 .-_r... 1'�•YY it
•
iii
it,
-,. - :. t • a ' ', . t, ' .trT ..--1, -. a"t;..i.G..+,�r. it ��11 ,.- '[ 411, 5. •_.....•
-- "� i'S 1�� -lilt
�S .f _•1 xr
N-,-r .M�.i o r • ;s t -• ,;, -i. _ ,,,,,, , �' +p-- ;r•, i,. yla Y t,. afFrili q �.•11J. ilim e !T.F tit
04`QA�" ,ir + I,i'; ..L,-,....-,,...„..1,` [?,*,air er= - ' v.•�y-'»� S "'04-r ] r, (�`g �r+:ett 'f 7 E 111�;i,y,A,f•-'' _.`.vgisifi_ _:-i__:_ ..._...,�'�- ,,i• - ,_ .'r:'r
_ //{.�A-t,. -.�r.`,yS. \ - 1-.•;44",-.47-
'_' ' +4 ti.• r. q,,4 - ed h'1.4‘-.1;4-rt.' •'''.•••••,741
� lye a•.. •4. T 77•w w••4.•. -,*-`1 7 7 Ij. _ TMy- •r wig,• _ _.iM1:- �t
-. C• • raj I' `4,,- x - � •-` �1 l,t" , 1t• •� _Y � _'
Vii• A !I 1 s I' s{' ^.�'Y tom' +Vi�gL i .lt�pl4Li. + .. .z. 1'� . ;T,A 'W''
rp, ,''s
`1, {. Yi ,r . •�.ry _ eK��`1 t•j' 1:,:-,-1.•,:•.7,7,.„.., ';.fiifi �1��.�I,S - ,►iS'II, 6- + �' t-ib j_`i';ry"
ti \ � •-•,••4 "al "•''
- ,r mit i,_ ♦ til• J lit. _• w:`Y ,•-,r
'y y iV 0 l• a t
..14•~1 4 `. is u:S:�a .r al IV ' ik^+ _ - i t ..
V 'Fe.s•
•• `� 1 , 1 ;•;".'t•- . . . ..r ▪-:::n ft ti,' . f� i._.�'�'F ,1.'.e1YiL.•, .4-.•",:.-- -'
' `yt5 '�`y`'^ �e •!4 s� rc (, .tj ::.-•=1.-
'l. h ' L `^`" g--�. sat £..: t Vii. .- . ;• i• _...1.7..L I,�4 < �r �"'*i ; �. ,•-•7ty.. ._ r '• t•-'''itlit 11
t
_r _ .tit17Mt • mow �`S. P'1��0 - ��-�..%:_.m.7.-4.; ♦
...........------.......---,...,.......01Pltl�
".,.{�}e-� ' •
q y tk- w, �,,, .,t et _ _ sg yy
f
• t� ` --T-1,4144
N. •• •j. • t .
• _ ,..i- Y. ,. 11,11 1 (I;, r l•• r",'415., i� ,,i. 11; .4 i
.-, s r. a t'.;,it ;. T -^ ,__ , ..4,_-.1...
'..4,: 'S" ,. ." 1
. t _ i I ' . ',�iik.y, T".0 '*
70 7 [�A } r h. r4 __ - :4-r �,V' '`l' I1i Ali b• r• Y I 'FTIN..,} T..A [ ¢�rq+cam��.
r 'Al"-' ,/,';'..c.4.,
♦? t y i' !F�^ ,j _ act �~ : i - i .L�•j .r - `L - ' $•,,.IL�{ .4� •t S F'¢�,.
* ,1 { , \ � ,� y • ..i.,_____, E r t l+� _t �1i`z+ '>. ,, -r, < s9Li-• i°.ma
xi
" -%e7','-.-4 .' . x '. ." 'x }r j . i `4 K I_ .K I y S „,re ..3
s iS.'{{,,1 Jtiter ,ti.t., k .. y, 4 j '' r 37+�� �t t ' r�trT '' '
y ,/r3`M .y N.E i +r,_ '111• r v ` .- i1 + i ;�ri}'�'."�i._�t
, - .
�'• a'+• . e, T_y w, -fk 4-14•4.-.-,:-
' , Z� ,7'...=1`
I a� 'Iirf-! !• ?t% .vrrlr� f �t-_r t � ;a. ':t':c{t;,>T l
l_ - - .,, F' .,4z ` iL..,, , !'. - 'T', :,: .. ed ,• %',&•..;tT ?9.. ...,''�1'., •• •e +��'i.,"- � P. Y�
y _F i,.? 'el'j: , ' r. n d 4�'1, .tt .' •q3 -"l •1. ............. - .'""744.4.:_,..-V "---"•' 417 „.!.. , �]',, .t' ��
t.. -rT t „..,-;11
t .wr'C"4 � r' ' �"y.., !'.t r; 1;`" K�/ - }▪ .,��.''• , J 1 ��n11` 'i.: • t a- tl i -.iv_
•`.,4 M LF.12 .•t- �r 1 }_r _ _ ��.C'`4'•le<•�•Y '�`� a,.�7... r _h.. '---,<:,.„--....71',
.'1+ ; at •Y .mom: 1.,�' .�7'•rR' "� -•1• t `tir•' `V ) �G dtylt .
t • + 4 • ^ r'. • - J a ig `-,a'a•'.v _ '•• .L, ,-,...,..--• '�•'-.t ,w_.fir.".-;fr4S • If •y.... _ _ I� 6s 1_dead � i• - . ' � is;'•`.r`� .rir7f r - ..\4, .:�.•.r >A. 1 •�•}, 1 t ./,;;..! e I,- .'.s +$• ? .r'
.�;^,� =- - r1.°i ��• 'r�+•iw-t+� •' •, II r , I '+-• +c. �,(,- :
• ��'« •k' Yi�A ::t � •'�". `: ''''''' '.2'+'
S, i r. ‘4,-'‘i•-•,...-•:,
y '` .� S s i r /'-.!-i .1
-,,,,..-1_ _li:.fil .. �. 1. <), 1 1yw ..t'•-• s .r r e. d: ' `.2,r r, , i ..t. •,-'r.r.:•• • . .-•'..• ; �e e i•.
„.t�• '� .k: - ✓_ 1 Aar'"-_ - -. 1:4',e. .hS . '". . - ^•^�; _ `' y a .ir` t/I i
F _tea_ 7
I r •, --.'- • a- T" _ f'-,..+ ---7:::::-.-7..•:..:� v ... ' •4:41,4;f. S ,'}!r.;'ti-�'-, •'t •: f • r ?'
AI
l. -,,1e• .-, �xi- "ter__ s'• •.. ` - • IT�
- �-. r..r--�rs .at�<a' p--�'••T t F,'. i`~il t•••.,,•• +` ••
't.R•=�;f_ '^• •j # 1.-
E .
h •�' • 1. 71
.I� diff
•,, t{1!'} ` J �� re' #
• �.'7•-•:``� .des -.`_••^.1•.,_ryi�W P -.4 !• .....E--
R 'o • ,. _�. 4. w......,:- L.` `a_ L...•t S '7.. • '7=t1 t • ':t'�, o f L..„_"
:f:I ��E .S�,d!• i.•� ..�J..R� b;.. i 1 - - :•y�,t .t t ',;"•,•<• 4�\ "1- 4--:•:1',1.---•••;;;s7-111„5' lt,.� ,�i t1R' -[ ,•:ten t + +t x aS'"'�s- 111:
s__._.1_.-,_„„,„...._ _J--7;lt._ .-_ � •" rt ,... f t 1• 1.�4 _+*S y3'').".‘ •!k3 "„� 4
1•� .. fp: _ -+ 1 ,cl i; 0 'F-tr --':-11_
•
7."-+. .4r� li ti,. L -"'Kr _ '�°`X11- t'y�.�] ,--_. M1..•f_ '�,'µi:'c�� .,,, iS ,v ,. <•.0 ,e ... x I.',3"�• ,.-i,', _� t�_ ,.1
t t, I11,-'
4-,
.�a';j` ; 071 fst l4"''ti;1 ----.----
• _ ~"`n----..ii:.::1 ▪f • . •+ Y �` ,if^•-•-••11.,
•��� l'•. .,_ Y •~1. - .. - • ^7
JJJ 14 ,. y,.,.. ie. _ j1_ lib `
I"r �!XV... 40e0 mi..-t7•' +`".�A '�' .1 i _ __ - ' v. � •.�...a -r: _--_-_-,-=::::..1,-.,..,,
t.
i'I � � ._.... ••v..la •�, :1-1
�, }� • I .,q,-r - _`srw7 ....ZOO' ,L - . .
1:t 7�IWY r,, �1 ,fie i , �Ik. ` �. .k. ,..---..•..,,- •a t ,� `I/_' ? t '� I '
a rJR _ C._ 1 } !1•4•,,•:1, '1 ;` t■ • :,<.. ..).-
c`ba w 1:,...4•41•.,..it `
i���ji r t Alt♦OQ a/t�itl ? # 1a
1 /��s, �1Y1�,e!F r 2 i- -Y" x-n -..?„,;.+.•,-“,!.,.:,-.1-,4,-,,,,-.tea••,_.. IT'-'-ii-----1,,
T'-' - r .- • t f . 'l- ✓
Yi'Uvini itifkrt I,.•... �S'y..le„"r�J.i'V2 :� ...11V7,11,.'.1,0.!---� �.'.•,145 ,,,%.,,,... Ty.. ,�, - •
`�-•,4., W+: r •er -J i :?• rU•� :- ' -- •�_s• -d -'
I�.t 'iii'le.171 ie ti�r z•'4ff r ltTl� �1. '�..';rtrr> i�fe ,t ',! 47 • '-'5.
r s''? f _,7,��'�e
�► Century Properties GPS points gi 'c"w„ j, �, �`g� �,, f .. ''` � "J,,a. "" t � -
+•etltlfi�.�_ -.1..,-.,.•F.}7� �"�i' ,►- e.,�i. �: .+� 'T}"• -�C �t all, yi7 .T.,t ,_ ..� ���u+....(`,. _
N tit it T is >♦t� z !r,�..� r': • '�t ' !I "4"" R Y
Parcels I4•1LatitrI M147 E,V,qv,
I. �- - •, 2 , �.- _ ;'l` -.�-" , . .44.4 . tr4jyw
gr t4g.l i I Z; F1 1 �?W'• 9tpIK44i. �. t '",,-;,;'''',. .....'1„46.77,,,',..: 1
,LI 1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet Kt a ifm F.ol ct.h .. •i4,i•�k 1�,♦ H�•t. t _7 fi._�, _--4.._-1 •-.;'-','`.1,„,,_,a49,.
1 _j}yy,' .'�.
Digital Ortho photo Data Base 02008 Avlsta Utilities.All Rights Reserved. t ill 11A, �r�op41'" • ": •:,r't� Ly'Iton-r,: ,-..10.~ •ii(l-7 + :. -: a '-1 . •
~`•?� „��. :. -t ' tYl%+ •!"r rt10k:Sf`.JhY�tr +'.�' Sv!_ �� 4 '•' £``: _ `.1 S,'y���r.r� ' ,r, i . i* 'S .,il{+�r .ry�Rw," " ,"r4v' , �rn• � r'7* .t' "4.4g7•4 (L I�.z '7 t .¢d r` ,a.i'ilV"�9i 4if"" •.. .: ek-�-._-, -•. _9:9.01.1 �II4,ia•iii]IfaAHi~l 1:`7!,Wii-•11tlt, :v ri. ,1q�i - _24v-�i•.'br. d'` 1 i� 0: �.l,.;h .'•i t Ll._aa�I.- .1E�' '•i� .v.,"„!-,•.q,.,y+a.�