Loading...
2014, Dec adopted Shoreline Part 4 Public Access-end PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update December 31, 2012 (Original Draft) January 24, 2013 (Planning Commission Recommendation) March 12, 2013 (Resolution#13-001) ' '''' '14 K. +„ 1,' > tt'ori` %" T- - _ ,< M !+ L : e 3sy n f'„ i 1 IL ;,,,.,, ;"'--,-• , A oit,,.: .. .:::‘, ., , , ;.3 i.:t Ili ''.2:. r .-- . i -_. '' •,,' -4., :i. _ f-, .... .1.0 i,,•* ! - ...rte"'— _.► ..-,4,..-;.... 9'. :I's; -- :t; Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department Spokane Valley City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 Prepared by: URS Corporation 920 N. Argonne Road, Suite 300 Spokane Valley, WA 99212 URS Project Number 36310035 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. INTEGRATION WITH OTHER COMMUNITY PLANS 4 2.1 Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan 4 2.2 Washington State Parks 5 2.3 Spokane River Forum 6 2.4 Friends of the Centennial Trail 7 3. PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC USES 8 4. SHORELINE CONDITIONS 12 4.1 Segment 1— Upstream City Limits to Flora Road 12 4.2 Segment 2—Flora Road to Trent Avenue 13 4.3 Segment 3—Trent Avenue to Coyote Rock 15 4.4 Segment 4—Orchard Avenue Area 16 5. PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN 17 6. IMPLEMENTATION 20 Tables Table 3-1: Shoreline Access within the City Table 3-2: Typical Shoreline Uses within the City Table 5-1: Proposed Shoreline Access Improvements Table 5-2: Proposed Direct River Access Improvements Table 5-3: Proposed Future Shoreline Day Use Areas Figures Figure 3-1: Existing Public Access Figure 3-2 Major Use Areas Figure 5-1 Public Access Plan City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan, March 12, 2013—Accepted by Resolution No. 13-001 i Acronyms City City of Spokane Valley DNR Washington Department of Natural Resources Ecology Washington Department of Ecology GIS Geographical Information Systems OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark RCW Revised Code of Washington ROW Right-of-Way RSP Riverside State Park SCD Spokane Conservation District SMA Shoreline Management Act SMP Shoreline Master Program SRCT Spokane River Centennial Trail State Parks Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission URS URS Corporation(author) WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan, March 12, 2013—Accepted by Resolution No.13-001 ii SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Summary Shoreline public access is one of the major policies of the SMA. Public access to the shoreline includes the ability of the general public to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations. This document provides an evaluation of the existing public accesses to the City of Spokane Valley's (City) shorelines, a description of existing recreational uses, and recommendations to improve both public access and public recreational uses within the shoreline jurisdiction. This Public Access Plan is part of the City's Shoreline Master Program Update (SMP) and is supported by other elements of the SMP. This plan is intended to be a coordinated planning document that can be used to support planning efforts of other agencies responsible for recreational opportunities in the shoreline,including the City Parks Department and Washington State Parks. As described in this plan, the public currently enjoys significant access opportunities in the City due to public ownership of a large percentage of the shorelines and because of the existing recreational infrastructure within the river corridor. While existing access and recreational uses are abundant, this plan identifies opportunities to improve existing accesses for both shoreland and direct river users as well as identifies areas suitable for low intensity development of new user areas. Within the City,the public is provided with direct access to much of the Spokane River corridor which includes State Park land, the Spokane River Centennial Trail (SRCT), and the Spokane River. This plan addresses the public's ability to access to the river corridor including the SRCT, as well as direct, physical access to the Spokane River itself. Much of the land within the river corridor is owned by Washington State Parks and is classified and managed for "Resource Recreation". The Resource Recreation classification requires that recreational use and development be in balance with sustainable natural resource protection. As described below,this balance promotes public access to the shorelines but limits those opportunities to access the shoreline to planned locations to maintain the integrity of the trail and the natural surroundings. The rights of navigation and water-dependent uses are protected. Portions of the SRCT and the Spokane River Water Trail' (proposed) are located within the City's shoreline jurisdiction. Both trails are promoted as regional trails that link to adjacent jurisdictions and benefit the entire region. Protection of natural resources and the visual character of the river corridor are important to attract users to these regional trails. Shelley Lake is also within the City's shoreline jurisdiction. The lake is privately owned and surrounded by community property that is managed by the homeowners association. Public access to the shorelands and lake is available and adequate for the immediate Shelley Lake I The Spokane River Trail is a proposed water trail stretching from the headwaters of the Spokane River to its confluence with the Columbia River. The Spokane River Trail was proposed by the Spokane River Forum in 2010 to promote river use and protection. City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 Accepted by Resolution No.13-001 1 SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION community, including a paved pedestrian trail around the majority of the lake and mooring posts for non-motorized watercraft. There are no existing or potential opportunities for other public access to the Lake. The Central Pre-mix and Flora Road gravel pits identified in the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report, URS, 2010 will not be regulated as Shorelines of the State until operations cease. Potential future uses of the Sullivan Road gravel pit are discussed as they are relevant to future public access within the river corridor. Public access and uses were determined based on the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (URS, 2010), the Shoreline Advisory Group meetings, and discussions with user groups and property owners including State Parks, Spokane Canoe and Kayak Club, the Northwest Whitewater Association, Friends of the Centennial Trail, City Parks and Recreation Department, and the Spokane River Forum. Additionally, where available, staff reviewed planning documents drafted by these various organizations. Field trips were performed during the summer of 2012 to verify information about existing public access and potential access opportunities. This plan was circulated for public comment and public hearings will be held. 1.2 Statutory and Regulatory Framework The Shoreline Management Act(SMA) states that: "The public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible... " (RCW 90.58.020). Additionally,the SMA indicates that: "Alterations of the natural conditions of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for. . .development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines of the state."(RCW 90.58.020). In addition, increased public access is an important element of shoreline planning for Shorelines of Statewide Significance like the Spokane River (WAC 173-18-360; RCW 90.58.020; WAC 173-26-250). Consistent with these goals, the SMA requires local jurisdictions to include a public access element in their SMP that makes "provisions for public access to publicly owned areas" and a recreational element "for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities, including but not limited to parks, tidelands, beaches, and recreational areas;. . ." RCW 90.58.100. According to Ecology's regulations, "Public access includes the ability of the general public to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations." WAC 173-226-221(4)(a). Shoreline public access basic principles included in WAC 173-26-221(4)(b) are: City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 Accepted by Resolution No. 13-001 2 SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION • Promoting the right to access waters held in public trust while protecting property rights and public safety. • Protecting the rights of navigation and space needed for water-dependent uses. • Protecting the public's opportunity to enjoy physical and aesthetic qualities of the shorelines. • Regulating design, construction, and operation of permitted uses to minimize interference with and enhance the public's use of the water. According to Ecology's regulations, the City"should plan for an integrated shoreline area public access system that identifies specific public needs and opportunities to provide public access." The planning process "shall also comply with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations that protect private property rights." WAC 173-26-221(4)(c). This plan implements these various statutory and regulatory requirements. In addition to this plan, the City will adopt regulations governing public access. City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 Accepted by Resolution No.13-001 3 SECTION TWO INTEGRATION WITH OTHER COMMUNITY PLANS 2. INTEGRATION WITH OTHER COMMUNITY PLANS In general, public access planning guides public acquisition and development efforts in a systematic way to achieve a usable network of public access, parks, and other public sites. The following plans were reviewed to ensure that the shoreline planning process is coordinated with existing public access and recreation plans. 2.1 Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan The City Parks and Recreation Master Plan provides the foundation for the City's park and recreation programs. In summary, the Plan provides the following guidance and policies related to the Spokane River corridor. The City Parks Department adopted the current draft in April 2006 and is scheduled to update the Parks Plan starting in the fall of 2012. The current Parks Plan provides a summary of the Needs Assessment (Chapter 5) of the 2004/2005 Household Recreation Survey. The survey had several key findings related to the river corridor including: • Residents indicated that acquiring additional land along the Spokane River was very important. • The SRCT is considered to have the third highest "usage" of various recreation areas in the Valley. • 31%of the respondents stated they do not use park facilities. • When asked what projects should have priority, acquisition of riverfront property and development of a city-wide trail system were cited most often. Chapter 2 of the Parks and Recreation Plan provides key findings and policies related to the river corridor that recognize the relationship between the river as a natural resource and the recreational opportunities and seek to protect the resource while managing, maintaining, and expanding recreational opportunities. These are summarized below. "Several natural resource areas in Spokane Valley are important for recreation. These lands may be environmentally sensitive and have limited development potential,but they are often conducive to park, open space, and recreation uses. The most notable natural resource is the Spokane River and its adjoining riparian corridor and flood zone." (P&R Plan,page 2-1). • Policy 2-C: Seeks to protect or preserve significant natural resource for present and future generations. o Objective 2-C (1): Seeks to acquire riparian corridors where feasible to protect these natural resources and to offer potential sites for trail development. o Objective 2-C (2): Develop effective natural resource management plans for significant natural areas within parks and other City-owned or controlled lands to City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 Accepted by Resolution No. 13-001 4 SECTION TWO INTEGRATION WITH OTHER COMMUNITY PLANS identify management priorities and to guide development and restoration decisions. o Objective 2-C (3): Directly and/or cooperatively acquire and protect land within the flood zone of the Spokane River and other drainage corridors. Plan park and recreation facilities and public access to these areas where appropriate. Chapter 6 of the Parks and Recreation Plan provides recommendations for improvements to the City park system that includes the following elements related to the river corridor. • Develop a comprehensive trails system utilizing the SRCT along the Spokane River as the backbone element. • Sullivan Park: Provide"better access and a viewpoint to the Spokane River". • Mission Avenue Trailhead: This site should be developed into a formal trailhead including parking, staging area, and kiosk. • Myrtle Point: Develop a master plan for this park; develop an access from the south; consider a boat launch; develop a picnic area; develop a paved trail from the CT to this site. Under 6.6 Riverfront Access, the Plan states the Spokane River offers a unique recreation resource to the City. Attempts should be made to acquire additional property as it becomes available. Barker Bridge is an example of a potential site that could offer a boating access point. (P&R Plan,pg 6-43). 2.2 Riverside State Park Classification and Management Plan Washington State Parks prepared the Park Classification and Management Plan (C.A.M.P.) for Riverside State Park in March 2005. Riverside State Park is a 14,000 acre park along the Spokane and Little Spokane Rivers. The SRCT is managed by Riverside State Park staff as an extension of the park. In general, the C.A.M.P. seeks to balance recreation opportunities with ecosystem protection. Because State Parks shares management of the SRCT located outside Riverside State Park, most of the SRCT is not covered in the C.A.M.P. plan. Even though the C.A.M.P. plan does not directly address the portion of the SRCT within the City, the plan provides guidance on how this section of the SRCT will be managed. Relevant portions of the C.A.M.P. plan are summarized below. • Park-Wide Recreational Resource/Facility Issues and Management Approaches Issue (Table 5) Interpretation and environmental education(760PW-R1): Programmatic Activities: Park staff should coordinate with region staff and the agency Interpretive Supervisor to solicit cooperation of local school districts, higher education institutions, museums, and other organizations and individuals to develop and implement an enhanced environmental education and historical/cultural education program for RSP. City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 Accepted by Resolution No. 13-001 5 SECTION TWO INTEGRATION WITH OTHER COMMUNITY PLANS An Interpretive Center within RSP should be used as a hub of a linked system of interpretive signs and kiosks distributed throughout RSP and the SRCT. Such a linked system of interpretation could develop a thematic context focused on the past 12,000 years of changing land-use patterns along the Spokane River Valley. • Centennial Trail Sub-Area Issues and Management Approaches (Table 8): Protection of wildlife habitat/natural ecosystems (760CT-N2): Land Classification: Those lands outside of RSP proper and within the trail corridor itself or development areas for trailheads, parking, etc. are classified as Resource Recreation, which requires that recreational use and development be in balance with sustainable natural resource protection. • Appropriate Recreational Uses (760CT-R2): Land Classification: The trail corridor itself, outside RSP proper, including sufficient areas for development of trailheads, parking, restrooms, and other ancillary facilities as necessary is classified as a Recreation Area so as not to limit development of trail uses and amenities. Park Policy: Park planning and management should attempt to accommodate the following existing and potential uses to a level that is consistent with protection of park natural and cultural resources and provided standards for recreational experience are met: walking, cycling, in-line skating, skating, running/jogging, wheel chair use, dog walks on leash, equestrian uses (where adjacent), nature viewing, baby strolling, fishing, river access, organized events, canoe/kayak put-in, picnicking, community links (trails), comprehensive interpretive program, CT extensions. • Maintenance, Preservation, and Improvement of Facilities (760CT-R3): Park Recreational Resource Management Program: Capital Projects: 1) Resurface trail; 2) Develop trailhead at Sullivan Road; 3) Provide drinking fountains where feasible; 4) Explore the feasibility of building a parallel soft trail for equestrian use; 5) Comprehensive interpretation project for the entire trail, including potential for interpretive signs,brochures, and programs. In addition to the policies articulated in the C.A.M.P., we understand that State Parks discourages uncoordinated multiple trail access points, both formal and informal. State Parks prefers to limit access points to planned locations in order to maintain the integrity of the trail and of the natural surroundings and to facilitate the flow of traffic along the trail. State Parks has articulated this goal in conversations with City staff and has taken this position in response to specific development projects that have requested access to State Parks property or the SRCT. 2.3 Spokane River Forum The Spokane River Forum is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that creates materials, events, and activities to promote regional dialogs and partnerships for sustaining a healthy river system while meeting the needs of a growing population. The Spokane River Forum is leading the effort to create a Spokane River Water Trail that will begin at the discharge of Coeur City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 Accepted by Resolution No. 13-001 6 SECTION TWO INTEGRATION WITH OTHER COMMUNITY PLANS D'Alene Lake and extend to the confluence of the Columbia River. The Spokane River Forum has identified areas within the City shorelines as river access areas for the regional Spokane River Water Trail. The major areas identified include direct river access at Barker Road, Sullivan Road, and at the Centennial Bridge (Plantes Ferry/Coyote Rock). The Spokane River Forum identified other significant access points as part the Spokane River Water Trail including Sullivan Hole beach, Mission Avenue, and Mirabeau Point. 2.4 Friends of the Centennial Trail The Friends of the Centennial Trail promote and coordinate activities and improvements along the SRCT. Within the City, desired projects include improving the parking areas at Barker Road and Mission Avenue by paving and landscaping in order to provide more attractive and safe parking facilities and to reduce the cost of maintenance. An equestrian area and trail system on the north bank has been part of Centennial Trail planning since early in its inception but is no longer a high priority. In general, access and public use of the Centennial Trail is considered good within the city limits. Friends of the Centennial Trail indicated that it was important not to disrupt traffic flow along the trail in order to provide for safe, non-hazardous trail use. Multiple trail access points, both formal and informal, are discouraged and will need to be reviewed by State Parks early in the design process. • City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 Accepted by Resolution No. 13-001 7 SECTION THREE PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC USES 3. EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC USES A goal of the City and of the SMA is to preserve the existing levels and quality of public access in the City. Public access to the Spokane River shorelines within the City is considered good and appears to meet the needs of the majority of users. According to the most recent recreation survey of the Spokane River system2 use along the Spokane River was considered to have sufficient amenities and was reported as not crowded, even though other sources estimate a high volume of use of the river corridor associated with the SRCT3. The 2004 recreational survey evaluated the entire river system as well as Lake Coeur D'Alene and Lake Spokane and does not specifically distinguish the portion of the Spokane River in the City. However, its general conclusions are applicable to the portion of the river in the City. Additionally, the survey's assessment of the abundant recreational opportunities is reflected in information provided by several local interest groups summarized in Section 2, above. Recreational opportunities benefit from the large percentage of public ownership within the river corridor. The 2006 City Parks and Recreation Plan shows that linear parks within the City, including the SRCT, are only slightly deficient with a need for an additional 0.7 acres in 2005 and an estimated 60 acres in 2025 to meet the desired level of service of 1.36 acres per 1,000 residents4. In addition, discussions with user groups indicate that existing access is generally good, though improvements to accommodate specific user groups are needed. Important areas providing public access to the river corridor are shown in Table 3-1 and on Figure 3-1. There are many informal paths from private property that are used by residents to access the SRCT and the river that are not included in the table. In addition to these existing access points, there are two potential access points described later in the document that may be appropriate locations for development of future access to the river and the SRCT. Table 3-1 Existing Access to the River Corridor within the City Access SRCT River Spokane Parking Ownership Description Access Access River Trail Barker Yes Yes Yes Yes SP - south, Gravel parking lot on south side for Road City—north CT access. Limited parking on bridge at north side boater access. Flora Road Yes Yes, No No City/SC South side - used by neighborhood. limited North side parking limited, no signage. Mission Yes Yes, Yes Yes City Gravel right-of-way used by Avenue limited neighborhood and local/regional kayakers to access CT, river, and Sullivan Hole. Sullivan Yes Yes, Yes Yes SP/City Formal city park owned by SP/ Road limited managed by City. Access 2 Recreation Facility Inventory and User Surveys Report Spokane River Project,No.2545,prepared by Louis Berger for Avista,2004. 3 Friends of the Centennial Trail website,http://www.spokanecentennialtrail.org/ 4 City Park and Recreation Master Plan,2006 Table 5.1. City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 Accepted by Resolution No. 13-001 8 SECTION THREE PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC USES improvements planned with new bridge. Mirabeau Yes Yes, Yes Yes SP Scenic and a popular location to Point limited access the CT and river. Trent Yes No No Yes SP CT access where Trent Avenue Avenue crosses the river. Parking is informal in public ROW. Plantes Yes Yes, Yes Yes SP Parking within SC and included due Ferry limited to its importance for river access at the west end of the City. Notes: 1. SP=State Parks ownership,City=City of Spokane Valley ownership,SC=Spokane County. The paved, ADA-accessible SRCT begins at the Idaho state line and ends at Nine Mile Falls, Washington with a length of 37 miles of which 11 miles are within the City. The SRCT path generally follows the contours of the Spokane River, allowing access for many types of outdoor non-motorized recreational activities. The SRCT provides the public opportunities for walking, running, and biking and provides a means to access adjacent areas (fields and woods) that have informal trails and support activities such as birding, fishing, and quiet aesthetic enjoyment of the river corridor. Along much of its length within the City, the SRCT is separated from adjacent private properties either by vegetated buffers and/or high banks. These natural surroundings contribute to the aesthetics of the river corridor and help to screen adjacent development and uses. The natural surroundings are appropriately interrupted at a limited number of access points. Generally, most activities occur or are accessed from the south bank since access to the north bank is limited with the exception of Sullivan Park. Direct use of the river includes fishing, swimming, boating, and summertime floating. Boating and floating activities require river put-ins and take-outs in order to run the river. The Spokane River Water Trail, promoted as a regional trail, has identified put-ins and take-outs along the river from Coeur D'Alene Lake to the Columbia River. Four of these regionally important river accesses are located within the City. The Barker Road, Mission Avenue, Sullivan Road, and Mirabeau Point accesses are used for direct river access during warm weather. The Plantes Ferry access was lost when Upriver Drive was realigned and now boating use is limited downstream of Mirabeau Point. The Spokane River Forum and State Parks are in the process of acquiring funding to replace the Plantes Ferry access. Within the City are located three popular local and regional kayak park and play features known as Sullivan Hole, Mini-Climax Wave, and the Zoo Wave. Fishing occurs throughout the length of the river, but during summer the area between Sullivan Road and Mirabeau Point is popular due to cold aquifer water entering the river. Table 3-2 provides a summary of typical uses found within the river corridor. Figure 3-2 shows the location of significant use areas. City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 Accepted by Resolution No.13-001 9 SECTION THREE PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC USES Table 3-2 Existing Shoreline Uses within the City Use Location Public ADA Access Notes Access (1) CT Uses(hike,bike) Along the Good Good Trail-related activities. CT Swimming River Good Generally poor Informal, non-regulated swimming at dispersed beaches. No ADA-accessible beach,few amenities at beaches. Dispersed uses --- --- --- Protection of adjacent land uses and natural areas is important for these activities. -Fishing River Good Generally poor -Birding Wood/Fields Good Good along trail -Quiet Wood/Fields Good Good along trail Floating River Good Difficult Includes inner-tubing and recreational summer rafting. Whitewater Boating River Good Boat access improvements are needed to advance the Spokane River Water Trail including ADA access at major put-ins if possible. -Barker Road --- Good Possible Access good, parking needs to be retained and expanded at this high-use area. Improvements to boat access could make _ this site ADA compliant. -Sullivan Road --- Moderate Difficult Erosion has occurred on the slopes due to high use and no defined paths. Improvements are expected when the new Sullivan Road Bridge is constructed. -Mirabeau Point --- Good Possible River access is good for small boats. A long steep path to climb for larger boats and rafts. A dirt road exists to the river that could be used for vehicle or ADA access. -Plantes Ferry --- Poor Possible Boating activity for rafts and larger boats is limited due to no access. Currently, there is a proposal to construct a ramp near the CT parking lot. Kayak Park and Play River -Mini-Climax --- Moderate No Access is by a steep eroding bank. Better Wave path to river is needed. -Sullivan Hole --- Good No A good example of a multi-use feature on the river. Popular with floaters, boaters, swimmers, fishermen, and kayakers. Accessed from Mission Road. -Zoo Wave --- Difficult Possible The least used of the kayak park and play i spots due to lack of vehicle access. Notes: 1. ADA access is a non-technical evaluation of the possibility of adding ADA-compliant access for the various uses. Public access on the north shore is limited to public rights-of-way, the Barker Road boat put-in, and Sullivan Park. There are many old dirt roads and informal trails within the shoreline City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 Accepted by Resolution No. 13-001 10 SECTION THREE PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC USES jurisdiction that are used for hiking, mountain biking, and by fisherman to access fishing areas. Use is more limited than on the south shore, in part, because much of the adjacent land is zoned industrial and there are few user amenities such as the SRCT. Access is considered adequate along the north shore for current and anticipated future uses. While public access is generally good on the south bank,there are few user amenities to provide user services or to attract users to the river corridor beyond the SRCT and the river access uses described in Table 3-2 above. User amenities can include public facilities and services such as public bathrooms, water fountains, benches, picnic areas, and parking as well as potential commercial uses such as private bike and boat rentals, shuttle service, and restaurants. City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 Accepted by Resolution No. 13-001 11 SECTION FOUR SHORELINE CONDITIONS 4, SHORELINE CONDITIONS Shorelines included in this evaluation include the portions of the Spokane River corridor that are located within the boundaries of the City. This includes shorelines from the eastern City boundary (River Mile [RM] 91) to the western City boundary (RM 81.5), excluding the area within the Town of Millwood (RM 82.1 to RM 83.4). The evaluation is divided into the four river segments used for the Shoreline Inventory. 4.1 Segment 1 — Upstream City Limits to Flora Road Character of the River Corridor: The river corridor through this segment is a mix of residential and open space. Areas on the north side of the river include residential and industrial uses. The south side of the river is predominately single-family residential. In many areas the residential uses are separated from the public uses by high steep banks or vegetated buffers. This segment provides some isolation and urban wilderness for trail and river users. The river contains many of the whitewater rapids that make the Spokane River a popular summer float. In the residential areas, there are many informal trails used to access the SRCT and for neighborhood swimming and fishing areas. It is considered by many users as a very attractive part of the SRCT and river. Since much of the shorelines are already developed, the character of the river corridor is not expected to change substantially. Access and Use of the River Corridor: Access to the river corridor occurs predominately at Barker Road and to a lesser extent Flora Road on both the north and south sides of the river. Eden Road (closed City right-of-way) is used for neighborhood access. Recreational use is relatively heavy with access provided by the Barker Road SRCT parking area on the south bank and the Barker Road boat launch on the north bank. The existing parking appears adequate for both SRCT use and at the north bank boat launch. The Barker Road access is easily accessible from I-90 and Trent Avenue. The nearest commercial area for user services (food, drink, gas) is near the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection with additional services at Harvard Road in Liberty Lake (gas, restaurant, hotel). The KOA campground is located approximately 0.5 miles north of the Barker Road Bridge. Key Use Areas: Key use areas are: • Barker Road Bridge where the gravel SRCT parking area(south side) and the boat launch (north side) are popular destinations for users. Parking and access is adequate for current users. • Flora Road (North) - North shore area east of Flora Road is an area used by hikers and fisherman to access the river. Parking is limited. • Flora Road (South) - Direct river access at Flora Road is used as a small boat launch, for swimming, fishing, and neighborhood SRCT access. Parking is very limited. City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 Accepted by Resolution No. 13-001 12 SECTION FOUR SHORELINE CONDITIONS 4.2 Segment 2— Flora Road to Trent Avenue Character of the River Corridor: The river corridor through this segment is a mix of isolated wooded areas, expansive fields, and commercial development. This river segment is generally adjacent to large parcel mixed uses on south side and industrial uses on the north side with an area of existing residential use on the south (portion of Greenacres). Much of the land is currently undeveloped. Recreational use is heavy through this river segment and includes SRCT trail uses, fishing, boating, and floating. It is anticipated that additional commercial/mixed use development will occur adjacent to the shoreline jurisdiction. Future development will likely result in increased use of the river corridor and additional access requirements to service future developments. This segment provides some isolation and an urban wilderness experience for trail and river users but is expected to change as the area is developed and becomes more urbanized. Access and Use of the River Corridor: Access to the river corridor predominately occurs at Mission Avenue, Sullivan Park, and Mirabeau Point. Other access points include East Indiana Road, a public right-of-way near the Walt Worthy office building, Spokane Mall access, and the Trent Avenue access. Use of these access points is limited due to limited parking, little historical use, or lack of signage. Mission Avenue is an important access used by kayakers to access the popular Sullivan Hole park and play area. Sullivan Park is a formal city park located on the north side of the river. Sullivan Park is easily accessible from I-90 and Trent Avenue. Mission Avenue and Mirabeau Point are both used to access the river corridor but are more difficult to find due to lack of signage. All of these areas are close to the Spokane Valley Mall which can provide services (food and drink)to users of the river corridor. Mirabeau Point is convenient to services on Pines and Trent Avenues while Mission Avenue is convenient to the Spokane Valley Mall and the Hanson development located east of the mall. Key Use Areas: Key use areas within this segment include both river corridor access and specific high use areas. River Corridor Access: • Mission Avenue is used by the neighborhood to access the SRCT. The Mission Road access is used for direct river access for fishing and swimming and is very important to local and regional kayakers to access the Sullivan Hole play spot. Much of the nearby property is zoned mixed use. Currently (year 2012) approximately 200 apartments are being constructed on a portion of the property adjacent to this access. It is anticipated that the increased population will increase use in this area. • Sullivan Road provides access to Sullivan Park on the north side of the river and the Spokane Valley Mall on the south side of the river. Sullivan Park is a major shoreline access point used for day use (picnicking and swimming), for direct river access, and for parking to access the SRCT, located on the south side of the river requiring users to cross Sullivan Bridge. The proposed Sullivan Bridge improvements will provide safe pedestrian access and improvements for direct river access. Designated SRCT parking City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 Accepted by Resolution No. 13-001 13 SECTION FOUR SHORELINE CONDITIONS and trail signage does not exist at the Spokane Valley Mall but trail users do park there to access the SRCT. • Mirabeau Point provides an important access to the SRCT and the river. Activities at Centerplace introduce visitors to the river corridor. Parking, trail, and river access are adequate at Mirabeau Point. • The Trent Avenue access can be improved. Trent Avenue is a high traffic area and this access is minimal signed and not very attractive for users. With improvements this area could become an important area to access the SRCT. River Corridor Use Areas: • Sullivan Hole is the most popular kayak play spot on the river. Nearby is the Mini- Climax Wave used by kayakers at higher river flows. The area has seen increasing multi- use activities including fishing, swimming, and picnicking. Upstream of Sullivan Hole, on the north side of the river, is located a large sandy beach that is currently only accessible from the water or by foot. In the future, when the Sullivan Road gravel pit is closed, access to this beach may be feasible along the existing gravel pit access road. • Mission Avenue is a high-use area for river access. Development of nearby properties will bring increased use to this area. Currently, many users access the river down a steep, eroded trail right by the access. Signage and low intensity development (picnic tables, benches, and signage) at the nearby old "Lions Park" would provide an appropriate day use area. • A popular beach is located downstream of Sullivan Park on the north side of the river. This beach is accessible from Sullivan Park. Development of a trail and signage would be appropriate to direct users to this area. • The Zoo Wave is a kayak park and play area located downstream of the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge and upstream of Mirabeau Point. There is no parking and the feature is typically accessed when running the river. The south shoreline adjacent to the Zoo Wave is a large flat river bench that is suitable for day use and may be an appropriate area to construct ADA access. • Mirabeau Point is a high use area that is suitable for development of low-intensity day uses to help direct users to low impact areas. Suitable development might include better defmition of the trail system, fencing, development of an overlook, and picnic areas. Additional planning to protect these areas while maintaining uses will be required by City and State parks. • Fishing is popular between Sullivan Bridge and Mirabeau Point. Informal trails lead to the fishing areas. Future Use Areas: During this review of river corridor access and users, the following areas were noted as possible areas that could benefit access to the SRCT and the river in the future. • Completion of mining activities at the Sullivan Road gravel pit is not expected in the near future but when completed a 160-acre cold water lake will exist. This lake is a window into the Spokane aquifer and uses will need to be limited to protect the region's water supply. The combination of a large lake adjacent to the river corridor provides an City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 Accepted by Resolution No. 13-001 14 SECTION FOUR SHORELINE CONDITIONS opportunity to increase access to the north side of the river; including the large beach by Sullivan Hole and for economic development of the strip between the lake and the river. • The undeveloped land east of Mirabeau Point is zoned mixed use. Additional access close to the Union Pacific railroad Bridge should be considered when developed. A new SRCT/river access near this location would provide access to the SRCT, the Zoo Wave and adjacent day use area, and linkage to the City Millwood trail currently under design. • There is no direct SRCT access from the Pinecroft property. Depending on the type of development an additional public access point may be appropriate for users in this area to access the SRCT. 4.3 Segment 3—Trent Avenue to Coyote Rocks Character of the River Corridor: The river corridor through this segment is characterized by well vegetated, high steep bank, decreasing in elevation at Myrtle Point, Plantes Ferry, and Coyote Rock. Myrtle Point park is an undeveloped park owned by the City is located in this river segment. Through much of this segment river corridor uses are isolated from the adjacent uplands. Due to the steep banks and the Myrtle Point Park,the character of this segment is not expected to substantially change. Access and Use of the River Corridor: Through much of this segment,the City has jurisdiction on only the south bank. Land uses along this segment include the City's Myrtle Point park and the Coyote Rock residential development. Recreational use is relatively heavy at the beaches by Coyote Rock with access from the Plantes Ferry SRCT parking lot is located on the north bank (Spokane County jurisdiction). The only legal access to the south bank from within the City is at Trent Avenue. Access from the residential areas to the south is difficult due to the lack of public parking and a legal access to the SRCT and Myrtle Point. The nearest commercial area for services (food, drink, gas) is along Trent Avenue. Most users enter this area from the north side Plantes Ferry parking lot. Key Use Areas: Key use areas are: • Myrtle Point is located on the south bank of Plantes Ferry and is undeveloped. The area is used for swimming and fishing. The area should remain as a conservation area due to its connection with the highlands to the north but is appropriate for development of low- intensity day uses such as picnicking and swimming. Access to the area from neighborhoods to the south should be improved and the area has been identified as needing boat access to fill in a gap of the Spokane River Trail. • The Trent Avenue access has potential to direct users to the river corridor. Trent is a high traffic road and an inviting entrance to the river would be suitable here. City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 Accepted by Resolution No. 13-001 15 SECTION FOUR SHORELINE CONDITIONS 4.4 Segment 4—Orchard Avenue Area Character of the River Corridor: The river in this segment is impounded by Upriver Dam and is lake like. Through this segment the City has jurisdiction on only the south bank. This segment is almost entirely residential. The residential properties extend to the river and are generally fully developed to the waters edge. Access and Use of the River Corridor: Uses include swimming, fishing, and boating. This is the only shoreline within the City that is suitable for docks and motor boats. There is no public access located in this area of the City. Key Use Areas: • There are no public key use areas within this segment. City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 Accepted by Resolution No. 13-001 16 SECTION FIVE PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN 5. PROPOSED SHORELINE ACCESS AND USER IMPROVEMENTS As described above, the Spokane River corridor has significant existing public access opportunities. Based on current information, these existing access opportunities are adequate to meet demand for current and anticipated future uses. This section addresses improvements to existing access and new access areas that may be proposed. When identifying potential future access improvements, the City acknowledges the efforts of Washington State Parks and the City Parks Department to balance development of recreational opportunities against preservation of the natural environment that is important to the recreational experience. Accordingly, the City seeks to implement the preferred approach of Washington State Parks and Friends of the Centennial Trail goal of limiting proliferation of uncoordinated, multiple access points and instead focusing improvements on existing access points or developing new day use areas or access points at select, appropriate-planned locations. The proposed improvements described below have been developed from comments received at public meetings and from communications with user groups and with park managers. Proposed improvements are consistent with proposed shoreline environmental designations, existing park management plans, and the preservation of high-quality conservation areas. Improvements to existing access areas and for the development of future use areas will need to comply with the goals, policies, and regulations as adopted by the City. Figure 5-1 shows the location of these proposed improvements. Improvements to Existing Shoreland Access Access to the SRCT is good. Improvements to existing access points can include improvements to the existing parking areas to reduce maintenance, provide stormwater treatment, and provide ADA access. Additionally, improvements on existing access points can address other issues such as improved signage, ADA compliance, or construction of new amenities at appropriate locations including public bathrooms, water fountains, benches, picnic areas, and paved parking. Table 5-1 provides a summary of proposed improvements to existing access areas commonly used to access the SRCT and the land within the shoreline. Table 5-1 Proposed Shoreland Access Improvements Access Proposed Improvements Barker Road- Pave, landscape, and provide stormwater treatment for the existing gravel SRCT parking area. South Parking area and SRCT trail access are ADA accessible though the slopes to and on the trail appear to be steep. Barker Road- Increase parking for non-motorized direct river access. Purchase of additional property may be North necessary to provide sufficient parking when Barker Road is widened. Consider an ADA- compliant path to the river put-in. Mission Ave Pave, landscape, and provide additional parking, including ADA parking. Bathroom/changing room would be helpful. Sullivan Park Parking and amenities are sufficient. Provide a non-motorized,ADA-compliant river put-in/take- out when the new bridge is constructed. Due to the steepness of the bank, an ADA-compliant City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 Accepted by Resolution No. 13-001 17 SECTION FIVE PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN access to the river will be difficult to construct and maintain. Mirabeau Parking and ADA access are good. Park Trent Avenue Pave,landscape,bathroom,signage for trail access. Myrtle Point Provide public access and parking from the south side. Improvements to Existing Direct River Access Direct river access is used for river floating, fishing, swimming, and kayak park and play activities. Floating the river is a popular activity for summertime inner tubers and the whitewater community which includes kayakers, canoeists, and rafters. Existing boat accesses are not ADA compliant and it is difficult to launch larger rafts and drift boats using a trailer. The lack of a useable take-out at the west side of the City near Plantes Ferry/Coyote Rock creates an impediment to boat use on the river. Table 5-2 provides a summary of proposed non-motorized access improvements that benefit river users. Table 5-2 Proposed Direct River Access Improvements Access Proposed Improvements Barker Road - See Table 5-1 and 5-2. North Mission Ave See Table 5-1 and 5-2. Sullivan Park Access to the river is difficult and high use has resulted in erosion. Provide better access for direct river uses. Mirabeau Park Access and signage adequate for use. Myrtle Point/ Support user groups and State Parks to identify and construct a non-motorized boat launch Plantes Ferry in this area. Spokane River—Future Use Areas Trail and river use is expected to increase in the future as populations increase and vacant land is developed within or adjacent to the shoreline jurisdiction. It may become appropriate to improve public access opportunities to address any unmet demand for access or to compensate for impacts to existing access opportunities. Any development of future access areas will need to be coordinated with both City and State Parks and located and designed consistent with the City's SMP. If additional new access areas are requested,they must be designed for public access, including parking and signage. When considering potential future access improvements, the City will balance development of recreational opportunities against preservation of the natural environment that is important to the recreational experience. Consistent with Parks policies, City will limit proliferation of uncoordinated, multiple access points and seek to focus on new day use areas or access points at select, appropriate planned locations identified below. Table 5-3 includes proposed access improvements that have been identified as suitable areas to improve access to popular shoreline use areas while protecting more sensitive areas. The City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 Accepted by Resolution No. 13-001 18 SECTION FIVE PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN proposed new day use areas are located in disturbed areas or areas subject to development pressure that are suitable for development of low impact day uses. Low impact development of these sites, utilizing existing trails and dirt roads can be accomplished with little ecological impact to the shorelines. The development of these low intensity user areas will benefit the shoreline environment by directing shoreline users to areas that minimize disturbances to the shoreline vegetation. Table 5-3 Proposed Future Shoreline Day Use Areas Access Proposed Improvements Eden Road Currently used as neighborhood access. If the river bench alongside the river is developed into a day use area,opening Eden Road and providing parking is warranted. Mission Potential day use area at"Lions Park". Provide picnic tables,benches,and improve signage. Ave/Lions Park Mirabeau-East New parking and access near the Union Pacific Railroad bridge to support access to the Zoo Wave and a potential day use area located on the river bench near the Zoo Wave. Mirabeau Park Provide day use area along heavily-used rock and river,picnic tables,and benches. Pinecroft Provide public parking and public access to the SRCT at the Pinecroft subdivision if warranted by development uses. Myrtle Point Provide/stabilize beach access,provide a day use area. Spokane River—Economic Development New development along or adjacent to the river corridor such as restaurants, recreational equipment stores, and similar enterprises attracts users and provides needed services. There are limited services available near the shorelines and potential development of gathering places at or near busy road corridors (Barker Road, Sullivan Road, Mirabeau Point, or Trent Avenue) could provide services for shoreline users. The shoreline is a sensitive environment with lots of public use and oversight. Any future development within the shoreline will need to be located in appropriate areas to avoid net loss of shoreline ecological functions and any ecological impacts associated with a new development will need to be mitigated. City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 Accepted by Resolution No. 13-001 19 SECTION SIX IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 6. IMPLEMENTATION Public access improvements within the shoreline may be proposed by applicants including public agencies. These voluntary public access improvements if requested and constructed as part of a proposed development should be consistent with this plan and with the SMP and must benefit the community. New shoreline public access should be integrated into the platting and site development planning process. In general, the City chooses to implement the approach of Washington State Parks and Friends of the Centennial Trail of discouraging uncoordinated, multiple access points, and, instead, focusing any improvements on existing or planned locations identified in this document in order to maintain the integrity of the river corridor, the SRCT and its natural surroundings and to facilitate the flow of traffic along the SRCT and Spokane River. Areas identified in this plan for access and use improvements are located, in part, on public lands. Implementation of proposed access improvements will therefore require that the City coordinate with State Parks. It is expected that any planning and implementation of publically- funded improvement projects will be coordinated through each park's capital improvement plan. In addition to voluntary improvements proposed by applicants, state shoreline regulations require private projects to provide public access in certain circumstances. However, the regulations acknowledge limitations on the requirement to provide public access. First, private projects are not required to provide access on site when a public access plan supports more effective public access opportunities. As identified above, this plan identifies planned locations for future access to discourage proliferation of multiple uncoordinated accesses such that on-site access will not typically be required unless consistent with the improvements identified in this plan. Second, private projects are not required to provide access if the requirement would violate constitutional or other legal limitations. The most critical constitutional limit on development conditions requiring public access is the doctrine of"regulatory takings," which requires local government to show a"nexus"5 and "rough proportionality"6 for such conditions (also known as the "Nollan/Dolan" analysis). These principles, which originated under a federal constitutional takings analysis, have similarly been applied in a Washington constitutional context. Based on these constitutional principles, access can be required of private property owners in the 5 The City must show that an"essential nexus"exists between a legitimate state interest and the permit condition. The focus here is on the nature of the permit condition and the need to show that its nature is related to an adverse impact of the proposed development. 6 To comply with the requirement of"rough proportionality,"the City must show that the degree of the exactions demanded by the permit conditions bears the required relationship to the projected impact of the proposed development. The focus here is on the degree of the permit condition and the need to show that its degree is related to the extent of the adverse impact. 7 Public access conditions may raise other constitutional issues,such as substantive due process and equal protection,but the takings evaluation outlined above typically addresses most issues related to public access. A publication providing guidance on these and other legal issues has been produced by the Washington Attorney General's Office. Public access policies and regulations proposed by the City should be evaluated under the takings framework described in the Attorney General guidance to satisfy the requirements of RCW 36.70A.370. City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 Accepted by Resolution No. 13-001 20 SECTION SIX IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY shoreline context if demand for access exceeds current capacity8 or if existing access opportunities are impaired.9 As described earlier, it is not anticipated that development within the shoreline will create a demand that exceeds existing capacity because existing access to the shorelines within the City is generally good and current information suggests that these existing access opportunities are adequate to meet demand for current and anticipated future uses. However, if a private project proposes to remove or impact existing public access (physical or visual), then the City will typically impose a condition related to public access to mitigate this impact to a degree similar to the impact to existing public access that is created by the proposed project. 8 For example,if a private project increases the demand for public access to shorelines,then the City can typically impose a condition related to public access to mitigate this impact,again,to a degree that is proportional to the amount of increased demand. 9 For example,if a private project proposes to remove or impact existing public access(physical or visual),then the City can typically impose a condition related to public access to mitigate this impact to a degree similar to the impact to existing public access that is created by the proposed project. City of Spokane Valley Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 Accepted by Resolution No.13-001 21 FIGURES City Council Draft COSV Public Access Plan,March 12,2013 .r . .c' 'lif'' �)+'r� �,� rr'f ‘re r3 i:a � � ; .. , F.','''..''' {.(*t A j'y r :,, # - F. * 'L* ,ti ` e Y i rs ,RVA- 7,441i-":1.11,...e'�� r � • ..w.,.....,--.4- +r_ ice. ", t 4? is r a �r'fi ' '+f "yr .• c yy _r •� va i [ ._ .J � s '' :, *t'.S # '}� r } ' .* _3 r nom"' f' - I' .t • • r tl r 4 _,....,,, r ytf - F. ,;. .•/,r Pa,3 ; 4,e' °,. -�.1 {tsp. •}rT'�- -• H. ft. t'r'4 II� t ,r �`'y�rl - :P" 1 rrE ° Fral rax -orb KM.- r -,,,,,,,,,:.--;--7.-.1-- - -. j, ,1 }.f�.I�•r'�..D {411P"i "w i } I t ( y�_ s' w, r } x v } �v s; \ �� d r i 17 r =twig 4•+hlk nl n) fr, Ji •"ref'+„>',i� ' ?'E� t,,..„&-,,,.:.:,.-7--,:,‘,47,,;;,..„ 15v<j���\ ` ,1� t.. "`` _-- int # I :i.- l®a r 1'rJ !a r,l N _ #a isig, r°'"Y 1f �. l,.t- 7- t 4+ :,.. t .�r,".,p t, I! t. _II�Y ,rl.,ky,, ' 1 y }� s` ^y•c ji' J.., 4? J ffci �]]F.a ry•C �,'� .)� .. :-''f i�`�.Uf� gl" 1_ (f a 1 -1 .SZ`.1-- ",., r4 f r :- " I� 1-, t �� g��� r r' 1 t �`Ysi'!�r I r 1 w r�,rry-t _`-rtr � -`Sr$, it � r , 4.t''''' ca t...._ it ,rr i ( �.; \� • � it_, 1� - +'_'!f t,:i. ` 'f uj1 tii'r: - , .r .,i .�y 117447°-Ur { ,i•##,; ' -t 't :. 3 - 1 1 f► .'_ - ,,•, �rrve ir' ' ,-1�w,d':l - ,1. - yrs K "--....-.1..,..' r ryr.1'y� SS IC,ir:t.r� U r '^• 1klw\�`! - • �r +?-_ i r Ci{`'��ti:�.\--�° s yt� T t r_y ' t Fikoli MTH 4 :"fy K Y` kE ' s1' "4"fia^`* , i v1 t'.-i r --A-1 x P ':i ' /' , 1114r41444511-.....;., t ' r+` � r• , •/-1-/A '4- ilk i�l • --? ) �T ! 1 , s .r1 : (-�, . r . .•� ,�`'�.a."x. --t .- �` +,.. 4,%, ...'_ , :IB% ,'1 (j 1 , ,y r 'e 7 e- ',s D3r[e�,, ..,,-...-,-t,..t ' ` I1_L ,.J,....,,,,,,,,:-. ‘1 V....,... •`'i.'- .� '_ ,S ' ', y-` '"n.,'. l i1�s :0_,., . 1 ... •!'S I1,1-a 1 -- r-" to i' *. lam# a.�rr,°� r, r :;4. r. '• ;rbg+'`r. i•,f' 4..?r ,1` =_,,...4w' � -- 4,..1 ; o _.,1,..,....2,-,z----„, � „f j.. A530.1 I r�s .� f ; x �-, > 4 •Y jai ,r-,,,,,g.._; _ 3 ti t' jt - t i 53 `"aF J s K. , �,,.9t t , : i i r YIYs: ai 'F)' Vii )•• ` ' 14d11ryr: o� '' "'�'.� �1- -*1* Y" I, �al�! lr.; ° a �i4� •i a :�;:',:.• . lam�,1 lr�1�,XU{�R, d.1 ,,gt.ilt.t r`{ e E. Eta "---,v--;re-r- , ! ! .:'' I I I l e.1.,:-7./.....1.7. I aNIv II*3,j -L.--1 r____-L-3`�' 'nt�, 11 r^ - "".� , Ya.'K ti r • ' 1°41 7 i*'el '' +.-) F. fW,' t' w p, 4 A t f6 M } ;k� 1�� g_ { 9���R� '� d.: tY 1 } ..•.•<1......1:L••-••••:--i e 1. -,• i . . _ `?tl i )`N"i let �; t ,. brat vf, Dt ..r ,7 ••,,, , -- e�5 r$;`�.` twI @s3 +;.TtL1S+(>;f�'1 _� �r a 1Dr•-..›'''!'-•-•;',„,- `��6r i�r Com`. ''r's' `-• 7'3 -4 +'-��re 'S v TM t. ``?aa�,''r fik •"y hipla a +a j ,i r t ,. ��ev�t. : rt.: .•- i .�. 1 f J -4---''''',, ''J j^L �1'R' `' '- Z Y ire i- _W�7, CY3 �! fv fir- Akivr t'''-- `F .�1 s--Y- .'aai, -I' , r v ."'!::S .:---/-n' , }'� ! t - ,....,....„.„.„.. ,,.._,,,,.,,...,,...,:,•� 7 t ( t') : ''�`:' ft' "'•'� + L 11 ",."�t,'`y'�l .-f�?'r6 2�t�MT)^...,,, e r.� Jy� � 1 ��� Rail � `�-�j- t' �t �'7jf� �a• 3t �fl�� 1) !: -.15�' �" :t'�q Yrl ..,,,T,,,.,,,,,„.. ��S Y'�' S�"'P {rte �r"''J_.,�. � (. .9,.- ;Y .� �,fd •t}!�'hi y i b ',f'��a J�c�Y� 8 1N ) ' :4 ki• � „r }.1 t i� ,a i :,.•?�(1 T- ,. 4. )�/ J fl,' S „ -.,..1.,,,..,;,, C'comill. F' p_ 'N a. ':d?L ,l ] ..7.,-1-1:,,,;,4-,_,,,,,,,--,g1'• 4 T#sM'__Eq'IfPS0+r. y......."1.......2,x,--."20.....- ,3,'' i<' < f r [d�tS� c ti:k'�my• ;nE>g .s 5� !t f' r r 16k sL + 14 11 i�1G ` j11A }zr YL ;xt Y #• k/L Ti •y( j„ jrr i' V i.AA " `iri' ' 7• s i� ,.'r _aid syyg. ..N'g F r �- ' •i.{ a tiS3. i'''-,,. I.4i: ,.Sti ri♦ljl $i5 rf . F) �RC7. rX{."l i i7rTà ' ".d✓IF,tj1l s' ia. Z a -— 1Js i, - f 1 Y .�t- Y.. « a .1.r a' Jt. f ;F�,,'S�W Wr.�r .y'. :^ *'1+: rtiA K7,lt" NRN's. !-.ki-.S ` tj..r"`° � ,m � .r'" � .:� 'E3 � � t � �t j":4 :� � '`�iA� - _ ��5 .;�?3' �, ^7� f flak ;.t.�e.� qur! L�, 4iid { .(l .11,..1_1;IR ji'-'' 1 {IE t J: 3r1 t5 r r � �i`i7� ,:!!7 r..� "�•...� .. r ,.° r u-• }'r'T !i���r i'!f i. 4 y't!r r _.rr d 4`• 4.-'�::'""R., dry �: �b �tt _ 1 . ki- _�^' E f`poi $x.L;_' ,�+ A -f '`'` !3/4„..;-,* ,Orchard Avenue fF ..,,/,,, l t y" W •}'_n !!! +• .1_��.'r,y,y�{� ,� t1!��_ jlf (',..; f{h'.7:. ' 1``a ! ; f. {.�`•ard Ave d t , -. . r t1.7Y1 J .a t�.i—,fur7��r,.} S I.. r�''Y...�`rE3 - ,,:.�ti f[�• 's y• ' ,�' .�.q . 1 :1 ;4 '1if.i:. ..:i•l �' Hi9s i it ' -�.L_,�Y!'-T.i�S:lyh --} Sti7�L%u+,-' Q.Y.L.. !jF #:,iy;,r' N ," f) la-0r••" I` 'afi e . .,..(i.,-,. ,a ' i e,!i f}'+�fJ ` !''-+ :3€7' -"r,'^ ,eat�re�ixc'� f� " ' �F'7•:744"5,5„11:,;9, '' t'�7r^� R;¢ ' ,fir i;',''..1:g;:.4' •eaa efY,,�+' A M�i. a. ,.�k'R• i.` tilt" 1571' F 'r'-. "� D) ' ♦.f R TS try, 1.::t r litie.:� Lf{/f¢7•,y El :'9" r� .r. Tr.� ,1',TT 7N,`4`_+• p1C�IC j xv*3i 1 *, t f- -LLL���...,,,,,, !: • r -, X t !• 5i,- r r R,-.,`` / 1„,. . ..*::, ,,,,,,,,I.,til i r °�'�`� ��_ F �� ;•',r��•�ri• f�1�i€� �s 9a ' ��~'�.xr, F.'rf��'i• �t 1. h t'€e 15 �- nit i r? 'kt1'�+t it:�.:lrx' Y� �' 6 ''' y J , •'-'1.:`. ~.ice , #r • i.rY c'Q,• i o ) .r .t ). ,;‘,9.,..'4,:f,,-,2.7„,...--r.,, 3 - i#�} <S: i- y^ i'n,- �+ `. S.6 ) t lit .-_•.; ;� E r `�rtu,„-. { ( ..-,i1.,,,•,14,„ '`. !i � )..._!moi C,,cr , y. r `.0 �• _ �g� •tccb�1����' >'���� �84?p'9 .2L 'i {,_. �'Ti�4'%iq_�� ^ +- 'f4p�:Tjy s. t �3. �c J'�'f '.q., SNP.,,, ^ . r '1R` "` ,,,�,�.,y,�,i 4A,{. $,.i. 2 y1.i J s`'�i li ' � -. -� !+ �...AT 1 7 n4 ". - 0.'�g ,Ni7iltf sf P.,,, uP•',,+' Ing til• t °y,lo W Y1Jt It�t o 9;� '� :4- ,:**1'.,,,j,1 . C t', Y , ,y.• , •fi e! B -. • c.> c.�; "`"4`.V:24 * . r ; btk -frvi�,�^.� 7 #x.,:'.,� r• '�1.1-,-*''5' '.r R' .-'•'' 'b 71,3A1•54,'` 33 -, ,� r . ' ) 6 .`7 7• 1 ,' t ' , „w f �, 4 It aii f. r a ...7'; '0, 4 9 .J j� ..tea_, tiF i`',Q. • Legend R Figure 3-2 A Existing PuallcAccese Parcels Major Use Areas 4+, Recreational Sues SMP Juriedictiw, City Council Draft c —vim-Centennial Trey Q CIty of Spokane valley "�"'�' aY of Spokane Yak)* MarCl 711xf3 lr�aDr ra lJyOarea Y r.. ..7,:.P.7 . .ss'ar,sx a'ryi '-@St i .(f ��' ' y'` ,..-,,•4—.-..•-:-..,„y_773 -' d ~3+` ( "1"ill }Ifrr tr; { TI ,w.. '',4-6.:„'t'j !rya � y�lr ,1 r `Y$f �� Y , ��+•'+4 r1,,It , r 5, ' i,:- t t tt... ,,,,, f t I.cLLL"���'...'' � �4_,;, 4 r �;tt�i • l'i'' _ IJ L *r _i A I ', •l J t• ,,ist,ic f.7�, ,tr" - =0..- s �--�.— :�- .t 4- kit- v,,,'4 ,t c .n, l .!/'` + fi 'W` a s_ R`''+ems--_,,,-----_--4-,- 4 tea- 4 r�, •JAt:,' e N � a 4.i' � 1,, __. -.�' sr ;. _ �1�� • lr 1su..w1 ' Y.Y^;- � � G�-',� 1. �. And "0141'•a-44; .i \" 4�' ,tie`. r: s -'''. �� . bit- - ,ii,ri.[SIBGiamgfa - :zi3i, •it -:. k :.. �.a e „,• � G r z , \prryC' \ ;, rJF��6�i pa ow r----.; r �j;4.• ,�1}i. I i .r'"' -.Y 1 ."7 ttt•i' tort' , jS°/r,.= �'``' .,,,..r.;.-----:,,p•_ dLil�.{ 1 s I"Z OON1 r-.rttt tt,i,t 7'• /' .. _"�iy jr-"I '_+ F _��• .r' 'r 64� .4111t ;s'r '`�oS <E,.. f I` •u ` 4 ( Ir;: Ifi'�+ S •1 1` !, a 'i'- .4 , �5 „.,. °y r . 1'Ar1"F ` , , . i t.ei ,_ \ '+t ., Ll. s ;1�, .I,r::.r- ' —Twat r ��' , + Iii ., ! ( '. ' bi/` J1 k..:E'j1:r.-:.---;:;;:f';=--/-37. �. ,:a.- a •i rf. '� F.:v'.'�."•'; i•.� ! .`71',..9 n• sF, 4_ -....=,&L..,...4,. . 114r.4%. N .•i ��'1r' fry L. \.\��!i7A"lri " I �i•1-^7 1•1 P'r'1- jg��]! t^:�.-irl fd Nr-,r.Y 10 I if `-1. ' ••..trr,.' • 1 `+G 4 fi� a ,, .. + 11 ' I:--,, ' r'i d 1 tell, ..1e_...1..1i J lit{nic— ~ '1 r 1 rL:r ` i ala 7,, Ls l ,.,„„=„,,,,..`�L.51tr IriSF :-,.:,..,,-.....,....6.;,,,N,,,,{ r \ u*i\ I 1 ,C i 5 • U V.' T,S:.f �' y ray-'{' r 1 "..rte ,, ,,1 i', �z _ - ' r.=C '� s d �quA+�� ,'! 6S l�l�`` :Y'�at'3"y.„F •t� I'll ti.e i -� If�=' �,,X sSk�sl{f�•.•y� ', 1 Ir��.` a"`t�'=. �.r ! . „„„,,,,,,,,._.,:. s .„ .,.2.... 2,t.'• ' ,:T i•mm �yt• -\4•-:1?-,:,-,-.:!`'' ` c...-a.4 j '^ ",} S�.` 'fir l�yl yi' .V l j.L�.- I.. •.>.s, i f ♦ c. ..4';5 - .,41 �, '�=!i +,t;,n. ' , f' �,�=.�:-- • 1:44:_,, 1 - [--% y7,,, \ •,�,✓' ..Z1� 1 'xi it ',y.t.i. t y' t s ., �[j , !yftn 1 ` ---------:-4=4,-.. '� '4� r .--2 .•t ,-ri r�• �iS . . `i _ I_. , �l l " r4•c. -4;:i - it i1. d"'7,�4 k !Ll•+'k3',,,r„ eE`th'� '-'- gip•,, ,i �?;^_ ✓ T ca,- .r t • ' -- i-* r ..r ---lt, -,° 7 \\ • i. V' f. i, .1 "'""'; , iir 'i,....7.-..... ., rsx I$', ; ;',. ^' Mit ''`•” ,itlilr i-r•y 1' :.isi . ,1.:t .. !_ — " -_}moo •, i ,-..41.4, 1. � •�;;me�'qq 11,11, g t C` ,•3 n (q i,_ cb:l -,r° "''a.';i.: .a 4i ,+ Li 4,1 if 40 tiig s ,, {._rte, Yl}!tt 1!AT,',I I I I w 1 Y1 ,•-. 7i tyi,t ri �T ,1 ' Y`I ..-.r,----.1'-k- ti. F 1';�` l''s.,.„:....r" ,1;r4. �pliC�t i 'ea „g s�h ~` ' i ,.. *:- .,, ep,..n^ . _,_ - '' p .„.0..,::...-,. , , ,, ,,,, E:t s md.,+tS+3� .r}mss C !` .,tlYi +. B v ...• -t - `�•,:;. / ': ,� '1i1 I i L }y G .` '§ �syry f •_...10,_,,,i-,,,,,..,. �,�� -•"* r 3, r - ' .� �`�•r `' � ��, � ... .c�Ifi� tib � _ � ' i- � r� r��,,[ 5 r.' miaigf.'dae,vh !; ,,t p,,,- .•-,,,ii.. r .. ..,.... "" 1 r • f +t •4:$M" °,, 1,k - . yc -. 7J;�ItKt':ufn `1'a1• ''. ( P �t ".`�_ .'L•�-'i l..f4-.4 . : tr'- ' :4•,'•.- 6:.. s< r, v ✓!#`••,' 's' i Ai ' ',11,. { • _ `. 'rY -, t ' , �\r` ., - - .rte,,- anal+ ( ;, y4. S, '' 1''45..ta , ' z ,. :l 11' {4 9:, A• . ,( ��i" - ..- r', i r --- e: Tia ' ! 3...itoif r'-4ir�„••.. Ns„' e•+1'r fs -`7 pf ;1 F T • t ':Y:, + -. • i r1IJ - ••• .ts'• t,`.- `}' _ �- 4-4 ,.\ -iY..!„ f+t f j. -Rt ,f1 l�d~ti9VAA gtfl:* . r t..-• t-..I•..�lit i4'i4 t,?' `r l ,.2r 11 } r+.,�..'Vic•}•:I . !_� la, ' ii .'1 i ~fieft . rs`± 3 t} 1q�r� "e -{ ,a }. "f 'Kt: ► +, , V• -' .1 1 {, �l, ,•1S Jf'' J�,• E 3l t FA �C L41. t. ...� .. C SJ S7. T�om{�'' o� -. _4 ,- `f ' . tty �j r ensue. ,�tfpl s >r l't r 1 °` i�ldr.YF• L:_ -�' L.i` t aarq �.)` ``i� etre •y,• ' "p3" ^ `'fi, p J'. L -,r r _ 4,q,-. f'F 1 ~ ; T ifIfi wrer�Te 61 ,�°,r 9 • '91 f- ;,i t k't f l01, i94 l• ''1. I rf'K a + 'z • I ;Sc IV r ,-r,}; �. t!'. . r. ; } :ur '�l r'4�,,N� +(=r � Y,:f4`a #C 4 t^fl Y' E pn_lL+�. 'i„,,I T [,t '.4,,, ,. •s - .e , :14, . ,rt: .1 dk sati t .� �- ¢- ;Sl C1 } � rrAtlfv '�'c i-hi� tr r-"`� ,r .p-:r}`.tr " •+'+ :rr. kit), ', 3`lllf4 ... N7►1td�. '. •ir, -:s} �:,'=v,.: ift 1 ir[r! !ril� �j,.L tyl j�,S Sf � r��(' {� r,:h 7firr7 ry �_ -.a 13' .•-�. r• ,.'�B'� -. }� - ! r F 'Ir` r._ 'Ir''."..., tr 4. --' T q' ;,�t�. ,�':0,,97.r.. r7 •l •�; 1' .t,e (! i. (. _ 4' rl.'�'-71 ^�4111•`;"s'h' • • •+ -.; ( 0 ''h� }a k� ,'yl_'rl ysi °'. SF iic�{t '::l, ""Orchard Avenue`�• .,tt - i erilt+kl l':)r q r -r - `' Fnrfl"1 V_.4 -.V.r..d -•1 � 't Ey 1+15 1 .1 yWai ,rc;ard '�{i Y .1.zr „-....., �, �r awl rni t, . Pt.�» f✓ r y�-1 _ s �. *{ •" W s,N , oa 1 C fa"s` K..~ ,, -'�'~- ., . i;' ��»�r #� : On r;bylt -,,,•,:-.-�I t-. •itO?.�+ aka.P 4fi, :T,;r•: ra tLr, • -r_ tjt1•, ,p gl . s :d+r�j ' <i ` t r •� 7 C,,,,''''',. �i4"ijZ A +�rNr11. j3ot .� thy6�# y. r fri ''ts •;4(€ S ,,' r R i 1 Z % r 1 t> fi 1 'u+eH 1*'if . 45 . A s e_ 3d t.)'11-1,!P--..i f,t �e ,,. '""""""' � Jr- 'Cr 4:.%k F t14 ¢�rftCl+! 1� '�i'.• t1(r� r -r*- �'"'� a .. '�Y d ��; ,� ...4106%^. >T_ �e �' n:r,r" �i �l 2r, r�; t r' `1 r Q A 4 k �. l+Sa :�.+sr ,} = R1.,'1 'a-21.' ,2? I rI CI t”, ---e• { �< t--; .L � 'Ef l tl erro�'4t� } .�_ r. `t ?" C' F1 a n l^'Ir 1 bb's s L ', 'cr y�-S a `'� . .:D.[. S s a i F��'�'1 F p - ;V': ,. „Y 1,1'°.t'rfj , - `> F7 ▪ • 'Z?' r' -,w.sr ;F,-.e -`i- ..l-ctR f^ sut w1x»,r"``' iii • ` r'%'''" ;j.t =,:4?.;fr„•-#l_ .t- , , e-• �dnw�7r�1 "ter f y - cE l�'` Ye c• •'t3e� y' F{ kti?�f; cf1NIli I�#s � • IFS.,• ' tp � is , 4 ' 41 i ..+M.1'. t1,,.....,„..„..... }9 4 r„ k ti ,, l tS o t �5 r6f� �.cyr�_ t: S r sit;A'"r.• {jlt e;' fit a;h r _ . x;7✓, sv�, i--4 :,-,:•"----.— . • .r . >t ,P K �dY 51 11r ���. ^�-r � fif! .�' --7-i'`+, ,�,. �•'+rbf�t' �' . ifFi u.. l s. t -. rfli=?- ,' .fri•n P't,• -l�d,u.•,J � - Lilt. ! r '( •,/ a ',.} • r fF„ .t— . i/ am?'?�27: _...3,,o, �.c�.n. ° 0 5,. ..5• -'ir.'k v.'=h!1& $-x.`5,4 144 , -“tit? -1/10:74- ,..a •� ,",,bol to:' =. :.. • . � __ t - rr , Figure 5-1 Legend Public Access Plan A Future Public Access Boned... Boned...A Eeh,pPunk Acca; SW City Council Draft Access '•--Centennial Trail Pitmen, ...--n.... Pryor stolon•Valley O City al Spokane Who SAwasn•AranarPlpylna Upaana • March 12 2013 • �,.�.-y�� j ; _ .,W.,!... x '�k .n 7('Tr t'. ,a� 1 > .f•.�.,„.,1.1..g•-2 `12Vi '”, t tfx pltk Z; h Com'" � H9— ., ,.a- i .' - nT �" �,,{�, 1 ) •tip 51-..4.4 tN n. f '' .'44; # ys'kt `t,' 'si ..rR ' ,'! '��t'h :',41;,., rrr`4 a ;''.. '4�p,4f�-i� ': i$P Ti ,i-:-.4.:•!,•"';. ° it l. k'R-_ _'�_ ,s�r _ -; ..., z d J • '..,1,. 1,4,,,,,,„„„,,f.,w14 A:.:,.,,,,,,.... ` 44-it..•• __-_:Mr - - - J.S 's 1111 !1101" ,44 + 14' '_ '. ,-,•-•cs ery s..r - • - 9s 1 , yx3 't Cz tenniul j i; y t •; �.+ �• t a4'• -1 r+il/Iticcr Access ii.i. .• ''t:- = 1L + i_-, tr __7-iv,�.�t i--1% p7.a ‘.s... r„,;.......0.-,. , % X v± 3A Trent i c`St Ir ;i'.-d_ jl. �\,t[ I r*• r.� I i (- "'i..t �r:,;•'-'• ,,Ka; �.r a.' . ...��.JJ**w+,i.}t� Centennial t »_; ,. • dt.r�L-,= r ,�� I j}�7��1yi�+�fgLl�ys�F1'nT,dt ' ;�.:y�n..,._,.�y. 1, t a ..• . •.•7�N ;• 1 t,' i f Tr.ii C! ` r4 t ! }: I, 11-. :F^Y IF�I`� .'.1 i•' Y YI �.4I pia x� } . f a• 11,;: .!,/ ,, 1-'lfs d ,e, r a 11,,.,Q-F..t i �`°�--`i \rS,_ r' 'WCL i,M II L'` .:.s:..,`i '+ +,sr:. ►v ��j t� d}3- �] ., �"�'- .,y s>� it % '' y i .4::aJ ""i. -L�e ,1..��\\ \b'�- I •,t .i Fev�.'•'�r �L'_.� r '5-:, �!!i•>n`it:wei ., • ,A"-f,,,.-!, '°�' . ",pq ._IDY. p. a f i 1 rT •C t- �\. t(*ui� iF.F' ! y�•jI�!$inn .,•4 trr•.t. K-77) )i•es,., �1,-.2._-:_s4—.4,-,..7.Cc :.. .”- IL1ta7 p,i'�, 1` S.--t 1\�\ 1\A-1Q, .•I_1lir� 1 , .'.�. I1 f L-l6,, 1 1^. I L,�"..A li��-ir ,i 1 , ( _ 1' {`..•-''it �z j n (i r E#All e S h:l `zY { »_. i +( y.,..„6„.1,-„,11.?-„e, a r 3 . � • �� ''� 1'µj ,i 't'^4'`aw:G r1.j, i v�j'' I`-.&- S rjj �s .i'4 a.7? `t‘•,-,_: �Y- ..b i 1-4TJ�...,••'' �.-r•t''urr ,ter nr 'r -f \ ,, r�, r ! 1a r ' ✓- •P�t`r` :F ti _•:.•::,‘,.[N7' : c...:_ m r• •.M i1?l+ vT. < f'' r� .r.t ..7 � �.jb p •r3,� '.-.' I . ' y #;: Dtirnheau Polnt[}rc..-, t --- \ y, • 1: .a _ ..:-- .xr 0P ,L ' t ?i'4 2 6. .} �t Ccntcnnial N"L.. � z. 'Y `•. Clot \archr. ...�_.i s Barker-North'., _ Y...� r S} ,y' ."4„-.,..,0„.... ...,,,..a,-, -1. +M CCC iTr�il Access _ ,t�' • ;r',�tt' O =rj._ - nC a �''' � f• !ri'�,g' -f {Ri,r accts .y r' •( tp-";yd ?sl. ♦ ,((, •" ` 1./f:.r f. Acc ss `6' ki),er_ rc. ` Lam_ ++.1`Ji 4 (, • f ce�+i•-•-;1.,_---f., ,r, „ 1�F�7Q°' �`•.•,-•••••'-; �' i' i J i'.r• /6f �'{ i f • ! -.3 i n.tr Csz "T"; "t r' 6 .F '�tFtl' Y' 1 1 i� ..-._ _—�'\ Y, � tt�, �fp :ry ws r Innrkcr�oulhx`, '' �,,.� r` ' IIpp r •'il' n n1 - n •. .,z Centennial 'iF 7ntr•f ii • 1..- 10 '-.1- t 1 - ! N y Centennial v lit W1Utt ''.:7 --= r ~, _ 1 rd 1 r iSi.:Hta:Cf-'n 'Ir IA s t '� 1�t11.. ?F 't--x`• li 1 r-�l-- {�. W�.1 •t c c �\ �.. ,Sl i/ Ccntennt 1 V.`I �r �t1e •w -M III�'I tt-''c. {•" +, ,.�1�1�,ili � r:�r I-- 1�`\. , � r ' •7r iiceess µ '',dr%3�d,{':� �c`" �“.:e; _ r _ :..: r'�Iyy�y . ! a_�. •;.� ,. � cf ii P"./.,' �} I ��r}e•�{j'�{y�y�" fir; kilitiP'''''7r. • �(� •'` kzl ��l. f •A'`t' • NAV 1....».''.4-..7.---1,--11'•-':---. i- j5utlivnn Perk .• ISLsvinn Ase (` l �+' IYMJ $ 21"d. �'., � �tiLl4 4 K' �`�S Centcnninl Centamial 1.1„19:11]tf ,i, . i r *AV t 3 T'sl/Ri.erAccess -j f j. .rak lk:�3 �' ' ',tb+y fr r :F� ...el,5' s '���I+�idt(�fv�TJLrigf�.� s� f"r ' {�;i•uu y� �_d sr�.�TraivaherAee s r 1(£t,,,,..,;w,..,.� � d x ' •-,�. ', f c4.;;,014.1.11,- ' j1sr,',�N" +) g..' ,�',� +3� iliR 'w1�� C; .,•r 4—__-_,:r1:: ` 1: �v dry t 1r3';1• ,,-1,,t,', r' '`h..."'.4: 1542 J',Y^ "}s c.,; x,S l td�1, ,, ' a T j• __A , • ., r Wit{' i, S_k,•:_ .v> sii l �'�. "ik+7 f ln�L't M!��Ip �• .-ti v i.:' • t. •I>� � 3'i� , 'Om„ �`-1� ,'�t i`r! ..'�Y dil���',�,�1�'I?' 1111 `,..es,--14,1 t 7t .11 ' yIN. L ! • i S I' { .4.----,...„ A .-*nth -- w:►}"i`Fr J .1,.t.., • ����,i�; '14.'4"...('...l �+$ l a,'�' u ,f 'k����14F>tt<tir �d'S�Cifrsts I�r�• ..-(� ?s��. t �` .:•_,__ �i�•.�rdS,��N7i�U. �tky i•- 1 »!.^,��e:l� '�I_ t .,'q. �4$111417/9' ' •'1 u P' ,i Arr. .64 44 sial , inw r'+!�I r�TFr T:,,rt e' ,ef:y_,i0 ;x:f,-;t {•' kvr7r:Aorn!jug 1•-ow,,h i� -.e� t'> .'yZ...a +ii ti iffffl I • `� L,(�'�,Sy . ' �]� S �'`j ( • -"jZ''t,��c{/ yt�sr t{'^' 'api'�l T'r• .�11--•:-.4{ ;';�•�-��zryJ�,� Et 7r ?.r t, 'J'V, a ,'-^4, �"W� G�'•ed i _S•+. � 17/9' �'r 'trk rl :tis>^ S'S.+ia+ ',t4;s ' 11,ii, t '.. '46...a�i 1).;:1 'i' 1{e', U .ti ;. ` 1 ,.. 1 1,1 ► * ( is it i �fj ¢ ct Sip k >ili �. +i(�" ek ^ .. 4-%1.1,A3''' r - .-. 3 ' .S 1t,„; '1 ac i €,I -,rr*$ ,.. .' ti.au,'•tds' rtl:•. .rz7t 8'”` z, 1, < �+>� h � q ar 1 i �scf 1 r� t k: s� 1< h;. r J s3''' ti -•t .:O.! vs rt rcr� 4 L' ' t 3, `ps j.*w s d ct f. C "r 3 �p r > �,Cr �'£1' ! �:•xClt__''�-..�i •.n..•F;!.{ 1( f' i i r it .T3!!i�_:i' 1$S�._- dt•''w.'�' tL..•_.r� _I )!fe t _ }r.'.��rl a. ., 1 i+'.a4�ai:�`•\..� iI '-0 r �iS _`i• ( ,•+>.i��I Yit�l�° G� t i n' tl `•' `�>.'<' s '.Lv..i'��II �y- �' :{t Orchard Avenue r �-. I t�l r SA lllp tl; lib ti -` �;" ',,' 1 r;; , I 4,.:' `et a Ir f w {y�'p'p' 7 s- a !1" ,.•, tut. y(ry.� �.,r ��g{ i �+....- (� t jg�;r/ p]' +�: • '{P ;,•y� .�'[ '•Vc?_rte r �{ , Fl .e-4 f.•�.�llet e-*- • f I'.> i. i• �irjit '- _ ' ` }St1C• S - 3rim { � ��;g���tt�� 3i�'-{.. ; ;a'/�t :t?€ (It x' � �a.�. -.'yj� ...1-1 •�: gr. �} E 8 r:f '�J� .9 T i'i1n• p1.-41..,'' [dE;'lvi, Se"y)tl 1, '.1,,_w,,,,,, _* �`,• it . . 'm _ ' 7I `• it• i w•. a. .r l r8i .-d .•C r ', T' j ��r °fit �� yfx, .+ 1?nl txfvtt�'€��' x; s ' r � sIp. 'i''` ie,` 't\t ,:F f Sty 1 Wo-,i',0!,..46--. i i' ' 91' F .tom M _ - .,lt .t .t N; • �.� ,34 lY'R'nt'1 !� t•z .'pp ` n .,� k ' .,-:",-,i::: :+ h' hIE t rr 4. � 11-I.( • ( � .Ij r .,`,';''r�.-----:*,•• vA' ,r 5- 1, t:y^ �9)Fb�lr'' Y i? :::.4...::::.,,.-:::,-:::4,-.....*: P,-. ���... r'+#t 4„.. _ , },, „,-,w7,0. ,aw }� s e� n•+ ,d}J� r- l ',.1 :t?f 7"', _. t' .�� Tttt. It -7' n'�fir- ' �t7!` �,i1-iii:A�c�.•� �ns''i�i.�.� t�� 7 �'�I+J 4t �� � �� � fit�rF�''l�.my��7t,� �ni 2 '��` ��j_"(rfihgt' "okjl u`i��(�j11:,.•• " `r i . , {�y• yxiy " ....„ -icG�. '> sy* v ” �xck: Ffi ' .,+` 7 :.tp P '.i� ;: ..T_Y.I AfD1 �M �..1�' i.,, P �C., ,T!' ` 7c.. .,12,7.,-,,,..:.,,,i,, - 'j ','7.. \it ,:•",:.,^II^0s,- t F f; .r, of : J, " ' ':4 �5:,' K:v e i Legend N ! Figure 3-1 uawro n�emr.r. Existing Public Access —ceaw.mn.r City Council Draft A '77 e'w "+.t..";;E•:*:* egy NSVwm'.VOW C3 at440.0WWI it 4._ ; WxProyrem upPelnz SHORELINE RESTORATION PLAN City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 17, 2012 (Original Draft) November 8, 2012 (Planning Commission Recommendation) December 11, 2012 (Resolution#12-0012) t,'k' - I .f L{ r. - i' iyCya � J :.�I ,,yt • v ' .r p a. -_ .tic:. ....Y�..,. .=•'!.� ..{ -'',. `syr -*,:. �,.�'• *. Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department Spokane Valley City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 Prepared by: Noah Herlocker, PWS URS Corporation 111 S.W. Columbia, Suite 1500 Portland, Oregon 97201-5814 URS Project Number 36298174 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Shoreline Restoration in the SMP Update Process (Overview) 1-1 1.2 Context for the City of Spokane Valley 1-1 1.3 Required Elements of Restoration Planning for SMP Updates 1-3 Section 2 Restoration Goals and Supporting Policies 2 Section 3 Existing and Ongoing Projects and Programs 3 3.1 Summary of Limiting Factors 3-1 3.2 Existing and Ongoing Projects and Programs 3-2 3.3 Additional Projects and Programs Needed to Achieve Shoreline Restoration Goals 3-6 Section 4 Prioritization Methodology 4 Section 5 Restoration Opportunities 5 5.1 Programmatic Restoration Opportunities 5-1 5.2 Site-specific Restoration Opportunities 5-2 5.3 Conceptual Restoration Approaches 5-8 Section 6 Implementation Plan 6 6.1 Potential Restoration Partners 6-1 6.2 Potential Sources of Funding 6-3 6.3 Timeline and Benchmarks for Implementing Restoration Plan 6-5 Section 7 Monitoring, Maintenance,and Adaptive Management 7 7.1 Monitoring Plan 7-1 7.2 Maintenance Section 8 References 9 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan, Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Tables Table 1: Required Elements of Restoration Planning for SMP Updates Table 2: Summary of Factors Limiting the Proper Functioning Condition of the City's SMA-Regulated Waters. Table 3: Restoration Priority Scoring Criteria Table 4: Shoreline Restoration Opportunities Table 5: Existing Partnership Opportunities Table 6: Timeline and Benchmarks Figures Figure 1: Project Vicinity Figure 2: Shoreline Restoration Opportunity Index Map Figure 3a-3c Shoreline Restoration Opportunities Appendices Appendix A: Representative Photographs City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan, Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 ii Acronyms ALEA Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account CIP Capital Improvement Project City City of Spokane Valley DIP Detailed Implementation Plan DNR Washington Department of Natural Resources Ecology Washington Department of Ecology GIS Geographical Information Systems INLT Inland Northwest Land Trust IPM Integrated Pest Management LWD Large Woody Debris NPCC Northwest Power and Conservation Council OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark REI Recreational Equipment Incorporated ROW Right-of-Way SCD Spokane Conservation District SMA Shoreline Management Act SMP Shoreline Master Program SSP Spokane Subbasin Plan State Parks Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load URS URS Corporation(author) WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan, Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 iii SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 SHORELINE RESTORATION IN THE SMP UPDATE PROCESS (OVERVIEW) Under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), each city and county with "Shorelines of the State" must adopt a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) based on state laws and rules but tailored to the specific geographic, economic, and environmental needs of the community. The primary goal that must be addressed in an SMP update is how to achieve "no net loss of ecological shoreline functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources" (Ecology 2004). This Shoreline Restoration Plan (Plan) describes actions intended to compensate for anticipated future shoreline habitat degradation associated with development and increased land use pressure. Incorporating shoreline restoration planning into the SMP update process allows the City of Spokane Valley (City) to balance anticipated shoreline habitat degradation and enhancement in a manner that maintains the overall existing ecological condition of shorelines. Within the City, only the Spokane River shorelines meet the definition of "Shorelines of Statewide Significance." Additionally, all waters over 20 acres in area fall under the jurisdiction of the SMA as "Waters of the State." As such, all areas within 200 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Shelley Lake are also regulated under the SMA and considered in the City's SMP updates. Two active gravel mine pits have exposed the aquifer resulting in areas of water greater than 20 acres. However, as active mine pits are regulated under the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), these features are not addressed in this Plan. Updating the SMP involves several elements, including a baseline inventory of regulated shoreline areas, an assessment of key issues and opportunities for improvement within such areas, and a restoration plan to provide guidance for carrying out restoration in a comprehensive manner. The baseline characterization and the assessment of key issues and opportunities have been completed by URS Corporation (URS) in coordination with the City's Planning Department. These efforts were documented in a report titled City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update, Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report(URS 2010). This Plan establishes overall goals and objectives for city-wide shoreline restoration efforts. It addresses degraded areas and impaired ecological functions identified in the Inventory and Analysis Report, identifies and prioritizes restoration opportunities, and prescribes generalized treatment options for various restoration scenarios. The Plan also identifies current and ongoing programs that contribute to achieving these goals, as well as additional projects or programs necessary for success. Lastly, this Plan seeks to develop a draft implementation strategy including funding options, proposed timelines, an adaptive management strategy, and benchmarks. The Plan is based on the Inventory and Analysis Report and a review of other plans and assessments aimed at improving the ecological health of the Spokane River and Shelley Lake. The term "restoration" has many definitions, both scientific and regulatory. For the purpose of this Plan, restoration is defined as: The reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures, and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan, Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 1-1 SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION area to aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions. (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 173-26-020(27)). Under the SMP, the City's role in shoreline restoration includes collaborative planning, regulation, preservation of high-quality shoreline areas, and aiding community efforts to restore degraded portions of City's shorelines. A well-designed restoration plan can help local governments meet the "no net loss" standard of the SMP Guidelines. Restoration planning must, therefore, include some form of monitoring to ensure that intended restoration actions are offsetting the expected loss of function that will occur from incremental impacts sustained over time(Ecology 2010a). 1.2 CONTEXT FOR THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY This Plan provides a framework for restoration of the City's SMA-regulated shorelines. Specifically, it describes how the City plans to develop and monitor a restoration program as part of its SMP. Upon acceptance by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), the City will oversee the implementation,progress, and monitoring of this Plan. The City's role in the restoration of shorelines will focus on the fostering, coordinating, and documenting of restoration partnerships as described in Sections 6.1 and 6.3. Upon forming these partnerships, the City and its restoration partners would work together on securing restoration funding, as per Section 6.2. The City realizes the importance of implementing this Plan and will strive to attain the timelines and benchmarks described herein as funding allows. Per WAC 173-26-201(2)(f), the process to prepare a restoration plan may vary significantly among local jurisdictions depending on a variety of factors including size of the jurisdiction; extent and condition of shorelines; the availability of grants, volunteer programs, or other tools for restoration; and the nature of the ecological functions to be addressed. The City is unique in that most of the near-shore riparian habitat along the Spokane River within the city limits is managed as natural area by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (State Parks). Due to this designation, the shoreline condition is in a relatively natural and stable state compared with other urban environments. However, recreational use is projected to increase and future developments are anticipated within the shoreline jurisdiction. To balance this increased land use pressure, which has the potential to negatively affect shoreline ecological functions, implementing the restoration actions described in this Plan will help the City meet the goal of "no net loss of shoreline ecological functions." A limitation to Spokane River aquatic habitat quality is the presence of dams above and below the City. The dams limit summer flows and also create slack water at the west end of the City. Operation of the dams is a factor that is mostly beyond the control of the City. The restoration element of the City's SMP update is focused on the identification of restoration opportunities, ranking of those opportunities, and identifying partnerships, planning elements, and grant options to implement these opportunities. It should be noted that coordination between the City and State Parks will be required to further many of the restoration opportunities identified in this Plan. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan, Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 1-2 SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION 1.3 REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF RESTORATION PLANNING FOR SMP UPDATES The state guidelines (WAC 173-26-201(2)(f)) provide six necessary elements for a complete shoreline restoration plan. These elements are summarized in Table 1 with reference to the section of this report in which that element is addressed. Table 1. Required Elements of Restoration Planning for SMP Updates Shoreline Restoration Plan Elements for SMP Updates Section in this Report Identify degraded areas,impaired ecological functions,and sites with potential Section 3:Existing and Ongoing for ecological restoration. Projects and Programs • -and- Section 5:Restoration Opportunities Establish overall goals and priorities for restoration of degraded areas and Section 2:Restoration Goals and impaired ecological functions. Supporting Policies -and- Section 4:Prioritization Methodology Identify existing and ongoing projects and programs currently being Section 3:Existing and Ongoing implemented that are designed to contribute to local restoration goals(such as Projects and Programs capital improvement programs[CIPS]and watershed planning efforts). Identify additional projects and programs needed to achieve local restoration Section 3:Existing and Ongoing goals and implementation strategies,including identifying prospective funding Projects and Programs sources for those projects and programs. -and- Section 6:Implementation Plan Identify timelines and benchmarks for implementing restoration projects and Section 6:Implementation Plan programs,and achieving local restoration goals. Provide for mechanisms or strategies to ensure that restoration projects and Section 7:Monitoring and programs will be implemented according to plans and to appropriately review Maintenance the effectiveness of the projects and programs in meeting the overall restoration goals(e.g.,monitoring of restoration project sites). City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan, Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 1-3 - r - " — — .. _ LI 17 - • fi ,yam *.�� } r L:1: '��1 ' ` Boundary of WRIA 57: i ` • . t II 1 r Middle Spokane River t1a v 'r1 +i' �,i, Y, in: 11.4 _ '.1. -- x • , , / �L YI w • �� � ,, F+ - :-,.aI�^4w _ 1.1., <,::- .„ t 1 �� a 4i, , c.,... � 1 �1 - tiF9ure 2-A . r�2-Bl 4,, g _ •t • • • • us' h a -, ,.. !,,. - 1 - 1,49 a . 7. .Jl9d�9 r. r ;.,:11--r. t :>f'.'",eat . ''-- 1r.�1,� / _ ,a• _ c« �,:`�y ` Figure)-2 Cft 4: „T , !` -.�'t-1Ff - t.--1 - • y' 1 ` - ! "•„�,-�s,..>;w*.'p r > .adt a ----- -- _ --. o-.-- -- - -BTU_ r 7 • AF 1,1:2., _-j r... ' �, x R){ 1 V _ , 1 1. _ ---—1 4-'' .'x,4 , ! I 7 jam, ' i._- 4.r-1,— - ' -',' ,4; }} t ,1- Iiil !rte -.i �•- 1- - , �Lrc�rt 1+•..-.. Flgure2=Cr - "tea J,. Y, • �, _ r }�}. I ,,• (Inset) �, ii 1,lt; 1..ra-K-n ; i : �i + oc.i" „ 0., 1.P. » ,Y ti' iL A - ^M `:ill_' i�' u e,,-) T•� L,aela" i - ' A - • . fi•.", o .1 -- o f • + {� ,k --' '.1=i• { "t "r•_ , ,. -. •� — y1.+y�'}..(}}(``}} ' aaaYYY . - ,3 of _ $,.,°K,• - 4 t% ,. * S.` _.. te,, _. }t s`)*".r {, � ' ,. Ft: 41' ';1'0'•.._+''..-4 r -- "-'41.-'' Copyright.Ordo,'1I0`Na,twrf I GeographicSociety Map Features N Figure 1: Overview of City of L 1== J Spokane Valley City Limits E Spokane Valley Shorelines VIO El SMP Planning Area s City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan Q Restoration Opportunity Map Index I I I Shoreline Master Program Update Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA)#57 Miles July 2012 SECTION TWO RESTORATION GOALS AND SUPPORTING POLICIES The goals and policies of this Plan direct the course of the City's shoreline restoration efforts. This Plan's goals and policies are an expansion of the proposed SMP Restoration Element goals and policies and are tailored to address the findings and recommendations of relevant plans and assessments reviewed for this Plan. Goal SMP 6: Conservation: Preserve for the future those natural resources,including the unique,fragile,and scenic qualities of the shoreline,which cannot be replaced. Achieve no net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline. Goal SMP 7: Restoration: Restore habitat and the natural systems to improve shoreline ecological functions. Restoration Plan Policy 1: Summarize degraded shoreline areas and functions documented by previous assessments. This Plan documents areas identified as restoration opportunities by the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (URS 2010). For each restoration opportunity identified by the Inventory and Characterization Report, the Plan documents the apparent impairment (cause of degradation to shoreline ecological functions) and a conceptual restoration approach. Restoration Plan Policy 2: Prioritize restoration opportunities to identify projects with greatest benefit to shoreline areas. { In order to most effectively proceed with restoration efforts, this Plan prioritizes restoration opportunities in terms of overall benefit to the waterway. Restoration priorities are based on an assessment of limiting factors (as summarized in Section 3.1, below) in combination with the ease of project implementation (e.g., on public land) and project size. Prioritization methods are described in Section 4. Restoration Plan Policy 3: Establish an implementation strategy. As directed by WAC 173-26-201(2)(f)(iii-iv), an adequate restoration plan must identify potential restoration partners, potential funding mechanisms, timelines, and benchmarks. Together, these elements comprise an implementation strategy. This Plan includes these elements and organizes them to facilitate a workable implementation strategy. Restoration Plan Policy 4: Identify existing and prospective projects and programs that are contributing or likely to contribute towards local shoreline restoration efforts. An assortment of existing project and programs are in effect to support shoreline restoration efforts. Some are located within the City while others are regional. This Plan includes an assessment of the existing project and programs to determine where gaps exist with regard to achieving the goal of this Plan. This Plan then describes additional projects and/or programs that have the potential to fill in those gaps. { City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan,Dec. 11,2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 2-1 SECTION TWO RESTORATION GOALS AND SUPPORTING POLICIES Restoration Plan Policy 5: Work with public and private partners to encourage restoration and enhancement of Spokane Valley's shoreline areas. The City will work to establish partnerships with public and private groups on specific restoration projects and/or programs, as funding allows. Special emphasis will be placed on creating partnerships with State Parks as they own a majority of the land within the City's shoreline jurisdiction. Restoration Plan Policy 6: Monitor success of restoration activities and adapt strategies based on monitoring results. This Plan establishes a monitoring protocol to evaluate the effectiveness of the City's efforts to implement the Plan and meet the overall restoration goal. Monitoring data may be used to identify successful project designs that serve as examples for future restoration projects. In addition,where monitoring data documents failed design,the data will be used to modify the strategy for subsequent restoration design projects. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan,Dec. 11,2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 2-2 g _.IIC °w �yw _ 4. at ill $ kti • `_, ;, [q .1 ifiI r•r,- :.* ,, x.,. ••r,. N. + `+.- - Y r \ y ell• -1'I e; t. 4: ,ti,r^s eat Xy.4 •;. 'r 4'l.,•,41„ .i::I • L ,E. ,. f, 1. } it• ! e rK r (r-�a yam, i�` a }., a: g l --4,.4n t _ ,tt ... .... .y r s.4�'�>, t ,} . 61F.rS s..a ZiY�• n 1.' 1+ t �'lY_�:�i1;.' N Z f` 1 1,< { '`•� ., .T i t `'s ''1+a�r'�r - e r -. •r .4. I 5 ID 114 `� Ti'' t P Z':i .4 :11 t 1, f• ;. Z r- t ?' - I a yN f 1 CPP:#6 ,� rTP ,. 4 , bow, A// �, �: OPP..#T 41000,7 ��. // ,.., r,� `r` -14.P -:. _.- `�,}#' - ...• W.#4Ai 4 P 2C a�r ' r. Vit, ._ `i �,/' c .� !CO' t ,�l1. I • rt ` .•�Op•#21 �$ t P -'. 4P. ., Op ;#8 r• pl `, '.-4.--- 4. s A ,.„,..,,,, ii\.,, )-,--,,).-4,1r-w-7 - . ,.''t ... ' . , ' -c -: fit 1 . , FARINE tr 4 ,7 ri Yr i i �bEH�� 3 c - ma x ti p f l2� ' 1EG ,ipl 1 �" s`6 4 -t #6.= '• Y� 10'14 ''••• r°.ec=f+�`- '1,4-4,1(2--__3; s+Lf r :A'�.. i \O PP!#9 4.1 o�,�.o�r - lE3dt P, Legend Y � `, 4ip6IIe`.msar '9 &kFl�+ iici1 t �+ y # r • 'rt�t k e W' L 3 City of Spokane Valley i: t t r*� ^f i1- •t '°`P.t*i {�®�I �Eal{iIago-t ."'".�'' ', 1 3 • `, Opp•# Fs' Yi .s-.tF 4 :' a- I' l���l EAMMO�lYi�' 1 ^' 4 •F- ..2 -j•4 ... ___�Centennial Trail N Parcels at river Inside citylimits Draft Environment Designation Map I-1 W E 0 0.2 0.4 - CiCityof Spokane Valley Miles Figure 2-A Shoreline Master Program Updates ��... - - .4 S Sept.10,2012 1 N11!_____,_ w 1 I, 1r ' 1.' - ' F ` __ . .J -- t. ....._ _ ,..„, , j;, ,� ar ; /„ .,.g} _oft r 1. 1 • ._ __0 Li a -. , N�a n qt; 1' .I (. —' a l 1',4'G. +�,1 OPP:#9 i e! - 1 C+ 5.'11, • t r t_ r ,- {'\ F r--. b 1 i g,rl., A '; l'I•,• , - \ -1.'17"1-'rjL- ---\...'", :2-i:Yr- "..- - :II ;' • 1 Opp#12 r w! J, ' Opp.#29 i - _ OPp•#13>OgNV4. . y,! •R "" - f OPP#28,f, t' Opp#15 I •.i. 1 ^ ij'c Fla-- �.! `�� O1 a1�'r6` >ii' ' - • rV Opp.#26 - — 'WV"'- 0, - - _z _" . 1 , 4 iii—h_ will -44 Iwo" i ..:- .... Opp,#24 4.� G ,.,. s" - , • .44. - Opp.,#1'8� _.-,_, ; `441�,. ,1 ` e � 4*_DPP'#19.. Legend ;-' Opp.,azo _ 3-"".o #23° =n..• E: "--a,- - : 4 - ,'.7,-'071"`"..--, MI . ' #2 .Opp-#22 SPP X23 & nJGy of Spokane Valley i 22°1_ r 1 i � 7 "` r►. h �'`� q j I '�Eir 'r 3 a� '4 I- Centennial I1'.3''1.-!_ / �� — 1,k I � �-- ___-Centennial Trail N Draft Environment Designation Map =Parcels at river inside city limits W+E 0 0.2 0.4 City of Spokane Valley Y{ Miles Figure 2-B Shoreline Master Program Updates S Sept 19,2012 1) ti -t t--- 1 - , p , r •_ ! .. .� i�Tr' 3----- '� •Opp:,#32•� ►' :-,1" '` ,t-4 4. q,",'►� }� h ` is P- . > fir, t 'r^ - ^f"1- .,.._," :i r fr;:..,,..-i.,• 1,196... -( - ....._ .....:_, ., 4. t . \ ��mt IwCe:.`.fi} . ts•lir" . -+'' .,xil 1 ., ''...i • " ' 4:i/1*T), „V.---1°.'-‘07 1 i ,. ,4,,,,nitek,_''•••."1..;',1-..".c=„Y .-14.,-* - '~• "- 1 OPP:#39; iii^^^��!1i s .'. '.'41g °"t 1.�'-�00� - Opp#7 `: ��j] ,� 'timet r --y.4ry ! 1 a��- �o-143'�1rill11Il Anil'.^ 1 •. 1� 4�/: +OpP..#35a�E f 1 .r.• • ,2 ��_t. OPp-#34 y, 5 110-.1,1i4.4 r OPP.#28 Op #2.4":4" j r i' X i .�, „.,,,!,,,,,,,,,,%„....„______, `!1} 5".. ..2 I f SPP. -�- ; 4 k r4. I Sjt,i�rill ,,i -7% ,•_..1 __,g ! 6• Jl�i'Y C. r•1 c 'tom. ,. / -b ',. • ; r1Y11• F 17.9 ✓ �r OPP'.#26 _ ____ i j A^ ^. 1 t S + 4µi •r {1 rin /� 1.�'! <-'s .. t7 iq, \tY f • ' '�� Opp.#25 ''t,,-F•- ;J: 1 i .� ?1 i I' .h�(j+'.. ;'; ; ,�'r i� # S1 rr I" . J444 irr �1. ' ts .. a g�to Opp.#24 t nla' _it, r'• J', !^' '4'y •S ',51- #r q ii •11111111•1 ' •• . '_ 5I �, xI rt. • • Legend 1WtTi-` 2E ins ++ ;'_s '�' �J • -City of Spokane Valley I. s4 r.`�1R1 I � f GYiw, y 1 r t: , -------Centennial Trail JV n Parcels at river Inside city limits Draft Environment ofSpokane Valley Map W E 0 0.2 0.4 Cityramley Miles Figure 2-C Shoreline Master Program Updates S Sept.19,2012 SECTION THREE Existing and Ongoing Projects and Programs This section summarizes existing factors limiting the functionality of the shoreline ecosystem within the City. It then identifies existing ongoing projects and programs that are contributing or likely to contribute towards local shoreline restoration efforts. Lastly, this section identifies additional projects and programs that,in combination with existing projects and programs,would meet the goals of this Plan and address the limiting factors. 3.1 SUMMARY OF LIMITING FACTORS Based on shoreline observations and existing natural resource assessments and watershed plans reviewed while preparing the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (URS 2010), the following table provides a summary of limiting factors for the Spokane River and Shelley Lake shoreline ecosystems. Limiting factors are environmental variables whose presence, absence, or abundance restricts the distribution,numbers, or condition of one or more organisms (Webster 2007). These factors impair ecosystem processes and limit the capacity of ecological functions. Restoration activities should be developed to address the cause of these limiting factors,where possible. Table 2. Summary of Factors Limiting the Proper Functioning Condition of the City's SMA-Regulated Waters LIMITING FACTOR ASSUMED CAUSE(S) AFFECTED WATER Dissolved metals(toxics) Past industrial practices Spokane River High summer water temperature Lack of riparian cover,low/restricted Spokane River,Shelley Lake flows Lack of riparian cover Adjacent land management Spokane River (transportation/utility corridor right- of-way[ROW]maintenance), pedestrian degradation,non-native species establishment,urban land use (turf,concrete,etc.) Lack of lake fringe vegetation Dramatic draw-down zone on steep Shelley Lake lacustrine banks inhibits natural recruitment of permanent lakeside vegetation Presence/spread of noxious vegetation Prior introductions,funding Spokane River that displaces higher functioning insufficient to treat cause or contain native habitat existing populations,continued transport along Centennial Trail Low dissolved oxygen Eutrophication due to high-nutrient Spokane River,Shelley Lake inputs from non-point sources in WA and ID,low flow in slack water portions of river Lack of fish passage Multiple hydroelectric dams and Spokane River Spokane Falls Low summer flows Dams hold back water in Lake Coeur Spokane River,Shelley Lake d'Alene and Saltese Creek,which results in low summer flows to the I_ river and lake,respectively City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan,Dec.11,2012—Accepted by Resolution No.12-0012 3-1 SECTION THREE Existing and Ongoing Projects and Programs 3.2 EXISTING AND ONGOING PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS 3.2.1 Spokane Subbasin Plan The Spokane Subbasin Plan(SSP), contained within the larger Intermountain Subbasin Plan, was prepared by GEI Consultants Inc. for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) in 2004 (GEI Consultants Inc. 2004). The NPCC is responsible for developing a fish and wildlife program to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by hydroelectric development in the Columbia River Basin and make annual funding recommendations to the Bonneville Power Administration for projects to implement the program. The SSP assessed existing conditions within the subbasin and was developed in an open public process, incorporating feedback from a wide range of state, federal, tribal, and local managers, experts, landowners, local governments, and stakeholders. The primary purpose of the plan is to guide the design and funding of projects that protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife that have been adversely impacted by the development and operation of the Columbia River hydropower system. The construction and maintenance of dams, habitat degradation caused by agriculture and timber harvest, pollutants from point and non-point sources, sedimentation, declining stream flows, urbanization, fish barriers, and non- native fish have all contributed to the decline of native species in the Intermountain Subbasin. The SSP contains a management plan that outlines goals and objectives which prioritize implementation strategies to address the degraded fish habitat specifically within the Spokane Subbasin. The SSP evaluates the health of the major water bodies included within the Spokane Subbasin, including the Spokane River. The SSP provides province level objectives as well as specific objectives and strategies for effectively managing priority fish species within the Spokane Subbasin. Objectives and strategies within the SSP include the following: • Complete assessments of resident fish losses throughout the Spokane Subbasin resulting from dam construction and operation by year 2020. • Develop and implement projects directed at protecting, restoring, and enhancing fish habitat for both native and non-native resident fish through improvements in riparian conditions,fish passage, and aquatic conditions. • Develop and meet recovery plan goals for sensitive native resident fish species. • Conduct baseline investigations to determine native resident and resident fish stock composition, distribution, and relative abundance in the subbasin. • Protect,restore, and enhance existing terrestrial and aquatic resources in order to meet the increased demands (cultural, subsistence, and recreational) on these resources associated with the extirpation of anadromous fisheries. • Where possible, acquire priority properties that can be protected or restored to support native ecosystem/watershed function through title acquisition, conservation easements, and/or long-term leases. • Create or use existing incentive programs for private landowners to protect and/or restore habitats to support native ecosystem/watershed function. • Enhance populations of sensitive native resident fish through habitat improvements and artificial production in concert with recovery plans. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan,Dec. 11,2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 3-2 SECTION THREE Existing and Ongoing Projects and Programs 3.2.2 Spokane River Water Quality Managed Implementation Plan for Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 57 Watershed planning is being conducted in the Middle Spokane River Basin (WRIA 57)through grants from Ecology. WRIA 57 comprises the portions of the drainage basin of the Spokane River upstream of the confluence with Latah Creek to Washington State's eastern boundary, including all portions of the river within the City. Spokane County is the lead agency of a planning unit that was formed in 1999 and includes broad representation of local agencies and various interest groups in the basin. The planning unit holds monthly meetings that are open to the public. The WRIA 55 & 57 Watershed Management Plan was adopted by the Pend Oreille, Spokane, and Stevens County Commissioners on January 31, 2006. The WRIA 55 & 57 Watershed Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP) was approved by the Watershed Implementation Team on February 20, 2008. The DIP is a blueprint for coordinating and implementing 107 recommendations outlined in the Watershed Management Plan for the Little and Middle Spokane River Basins. The watershed planning effort has identified a variety of water management challenges. The recommendations fall into the following categories: • Instream flow needs • Water conservation,reclamation, and reuse • Domestic exempt wells • Water rights and claims • Strategies for base flow augmentation • Strategies for ground water recharge augmentation • Approaches to plan implementation The watershed plan and associated DIP have resulted in the various key projects being implemented within the watershed. Some future projects may occur within the City. Coordination and participation in the watershed planning unit can help implement shoreline restoration projects within the City that can help support the City's shoreline restoration goal. 3.2.3 Spokane River TMDL Management Plan The total maximum daily load (TMDL) water quality improvement report was prepared by Ecology in 2007 and revised in 2010 (Ecology 2010b). The report establishes a management plan to address the problem of low dissolved oxygen occurring in the river due to eutrophication in the Spokane River and Lake Spokane. Eutrophication is a process where excess aquatic plant growth and algal blooms occur in water due to high levels of nutrients such as phosphorus. The excessive plant growth consumes large amounts of dissolved oxygen in the water, reducing it to levels that are harmful for fish and other aquatic species. The report includes a Managed Implementation Plan. The goals of the Managed Implementation Plan are to reduce significant amounts of phosphorus in the Spokane River during the April through October season and achieve water quality standards for dissolved oxygen. The plan establishes limits for ammonia, total phosphorus, and carbonaceous biochemical oxygen City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan,Dec. 11,2012—Accepted by Resolution No.12-0012 3-3 SECTION THREE Existing and Ongoing Projects and Programs demand_ The plan focuses on strategies to reduce phosphorus because the strategies will likely result in reductions of these and other important pollutants. The plan sets limits on point sources, including the Kaiser industrial facility in the City. In addition, the plan must also assign pollutant loads to non-point sources in the watershed. Non- point sources are addressed by a Regional Non-Point Source Reduction Program and a Septic Tank Elimination Program. 3.2.4 Spokane River Hazardous Metals Cleanup Efforts As part of the Eastern Washington Clean Sites Initiative, Ecology is engaged in an effort that involves communities and other partners in shaping cleanup projects, including sites within the City. Through the initiative, Ecology is attempting to reduce toxic threats to people and the environment associated with historical mining practices in the Coeur d'Alene Basin. These historical mining practices resulted in contaminants known as heavy metals washing downstream from Idaho. The metals include lead, arsenic, zinc, and cadmium, and they have settled in soil and river sediments at certain shoreline areas along the Spokane River. Within the City, cleanup efforts are planned at four sites. In 2012, cleanup efforts will commence at the Barker Road north beach, which lies on the north side of the Spokane River east of the Barker Road Bridge. The other three beaches proposed for cleanup within the City are Islands Lagoon, Myrtle Point, and Flora Road, which are all on the south side of the Spokane River. Initial cleanup work was done at the Flora Road beach in 2009. However, heavy spring runoff in 2011 damaged portions of the protective soil cap. The new cap will be designed to minimize future erosion. Ecology and local river groups intend to plant native vegetation on the soil caps to help stabilize the banks, thus reducing future erosion concerns at cleanup sites. City coordination in these projects may help ensure that revegetation efforts are successful. 3.2.5 Riverside State Park/Centennial Trail Management Activities Through State Parks' Classification and Management Planning Project, the Riverside State Park Management Plan was created in 2005 to establish a management plan for the park that is consistent with the agency's goal to identify appropriate recreational experiences that meet the needs of the public while protecting natural, cultural, and recreational resources for future generations (State Parks 2005). The park includes several subareas. The Centennial Trail subarea is the park area found along the Spokane River in a narrow band along much of both shorelines through the City. According to the plan, there are two relevant natural resource management issues for the Centennial Trail subarea. These include noxious weed control and protection of wildlife habitat/natural ecosystems. As part of the park-wide vegetation management program, the plan directs park staff to coordinate with their Regional Stewardship Manager to solicit cooperation from local governments to enhance noxious weed control efforts along segments of the Centennial Trail for which they have management responsibility. To achieve this, park staff is expected to actively solicit volunteer participation in manual removal of noxious weeds along the Centennial Trail. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan,Dec. 11,2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 3-4 SECTION THREE Existing and Ongoing Projects and Programs The plan directs wildlife habitat and natural ecosystem protection efforts to focus on riparian planting projects. Specifically, the plans' maintenance program includes planting of appropriate native vegetation along the shoulders of the Centennial Trail to reduce noxious weed invasion and enhance slope stability. 3.2.6 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW) Habitat Mitigation Fund The WDFW issues Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permits to projects proposing construction within flowing waters. In order to issue an HPA, the WDFW must ensure that project-related impacts to fish habitat are mitigated. Using money collected through past permit violations as well as payments made in lieu of on-site compensatory mitigation from various bridge projects along the Spokane River, the WDFW created a habitat mitigation fund. The purpose of this fund is to provide dollars for fish enhancement projects within the river that offset past habitat impacts associated with the permitted projects and violations. Typically, the fund is passed on to local conservation organizations that implement specific shoreline restoration projects. Use of the fund is discontinuing as the agency is moving away from the current process, which often makes the link between project impacts and future restoration projects difficult to follow. Future bridge projects, like the Sullivan Road Bridge repair project proposed by the City, will likely need to prepare project-specific mitigation plans in order to obtain an HPA. However, remaining money in the fund may be available for shoreline restoration projects within the City. To be eligible, the restoration project must benefit fish habitat. As riparian restoration projects and shoreline stabilization/erosion control project benefit fish habitat, it is possible that these projects would be eligible for use of any remaining funds. 3.2.7 Local Volunteer Groups The City is fortunate to receive help from a variety of volunteer groups that engage in habitat restoration, often in shoreline areas. These groups include the Spokane River Forum, Friends of the Falls, the Spokane Canoe and Kayak Club, the Northwest Whitewater Association, Trout Unlimited, and the Veterans Conservation Corps among others. Recent shoreline restoration projects implemented by such groups include riparian plantings and the restoration of Mirabeau Park. This project involved debris and weed removal, a drain system to remedy shoreline erosion from stormwater runoff, and hydro-seeding with native plants to stabilize the affected shoreline area and provide native plant community support. Other recent volunteer efforts in the City include the 2012 Spokane River Cleanup. This year's event is planned to cover the University District, Sullivan Park, Barker Road, and Harvard Road in the City. Each year, the amount of litter removed from the Spokane River's shorelines grows as more volunteers show up and cover more area. A growing list of groups and organizations participate each year, including high schools, churches, whitewater groups, service clubs, and others. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan,Dec. 11,2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 3-5 SECTION THREE Existing and Ongoing Projects and Programs In addition, the Lands Council planted a mix of about 50 native shrubs at the Barker Road trailhead during the Spokane River Cleanup in 2011 and about 1,200 ponderosa pines along the Spokane River near Sullivan Park during Reforest Spokane Day in 2011. The Lands Council plans to continue these efforts in Spokane Valley during future Reforest Spokane Days and has identified high schools that may be interested in assisting with volunteer efforts. Shoreline restoration opportunities described in this Plan would be of assistance to the council as they plan for future shoreline planting projects. 3.3 ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE SHORELINE RESTORATION GOALS The following proposed additional projects and programs may augment the existing, ongoing projects and programs in a manner that addresses the limiting factors and, thereby, meets the shoreline restoration goal (Section 2.1): • Support volunteer groups engaged in shoreline restoration activities. • Coordinate with WDFW to direct wildlife mitigation funds towards shoreline enhancement projects within the City and/or develop habitat enhancement strategies to offset impacts associated with proposed bridge projects. • Work with the Ecology to incorporate revegetation into future hazardous materials cleanup activities located along the river. • Work with project managers within City government to incorporate shoreline restoration into proposed capital improvement projects located near Shoreline of the State. • Generate funding through fees to support staff availability for shoreline restoration coordination. The existing level of local interest in shoreline habitat enhancements is promising but, as a volunteer and grant funding-dependent venture, it cannot be relied upon alone to realize the goal of no net loss of ecological functions within the SMP planning area. However, grant-funded volunteer efforts have contributed greatly towards shoreline restoration efforts, as noted above, and the City should periodically check in with these volunteer organizations to see how the City can assist with planning for future shoreline restoration efforts. Regional WDFW mitigation funds have been and will continue to be provided to either the Spokane Conservation District (SCD) or Trout Unlimited to be used for implementing habitat enhancements. To tap into these, the City will need to coordinate with the SCD, Trout Unlimited, and the WDFW to create agreements for the design, permitting (as necessary), implementation, and maintenance of shoreline enhancement projects. Therefore, the City planning staff should begin to regularly coordinate with these groups to steer funds towards identified restoration priorities. Ecology's river cleanup plans currently lack robust vegetation enhancement components. Cleanup sites noted near Sullivan Road appear to involve a gravel cap with no vegetation. These Ecology cleanup efforts should be encouraged to incorporate a vegetative restoration component, preferably with input from State Parks and the City, to ensure that the projects are consistent with the Shoreline Restoration Goals of the SMP. Capital improvement projects slated within the shoreline areas have the potential to be planned and funded so as to include an element of shoreline restoration. This includes the Sullivan Road City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan,Dec. 11,2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 3-6 SECTION THREE Existing and Ongoing Projects and Programs Bridge repair project and enhanced formal river access developments described in the access management plan element of the City SMP update. When discussing justification for the spending of tax dollars on shoreline restoration elements of future capital improvement projects, this plan may be referenced as it describes the role of shoreline restoration under the SMP. Lastly, the City may modify shoreline development permit fees so that they generate sufficient income to cover the cost of staff involvement in shoreline restoration coordination. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan,Dec. 11,2012—Accepted by Resolution No.12-0012 3-7 SECTION FOUR Prioritization Methodology The prioritization methodology described in this Plan was created specifically for the shoreline conditions along the Spokane River and Shelley Lake. Prioritization of restoration areas was based on five factors that are simple to measure and greatly influence the value of shoreline enhancements. Geographical Information Systems (GIS)technology was utilized to measure and score each site. Each site is scored on a scale of 1 to 5 for each of the five factors. The sum of the scores for these five factors provided an overall priority score for each site. This score illuminates restoration opportunities that are both practical to develop and result in the greatest benefit to shoreline functions. Table 3. Restoration Priority Scoring Criteria Factor Measurement Scoring Criteria Ease of property Public ownership Public(5)or private(1). acquisition Shade benefit Aspect along stream South bank(5),west bank(3),east bank(2),or north (thermoregulation) corridor(for planting of bank(1). Sites with more than one aspect receive the woody vegetation) highest aspect score. Sites that would not produce shade are scored as 0. Scale of restoration Size(acreage) Area>2 acres(5),>— 1 but<2 acres(3),>—0.5 but <1 activity acre(2),and area smaller than 0.5 acres(1). Role within context of Habitat connectivity Creates or fills gaps in wildlife habitat corridor surrounding habitat matrix (continuous woody vegetation cover)to produce a corridor that is greater than 1000 linear feet(5),500 to 999 linear feet(3), 100 to 499 linear feet(2),or under 100 linear feet(1). Restoration opportunities that would not create shade within 100 feet of the shoreline are not applicable and receive a score of 0. Consistency with other Supports at least one other This Plan addresses SMP Goal#7(Restore habitat and SMP goals SMP goal the natural systems to improve shoreline ecological functions). For shoreline restoration actions that have the additional merit of supporting other SMP goals,such as flood hazard reduction(Goal#9)or safe public access (Goal#10),those actions will receive a score of 5 for this factor. Natural Heritage Data and Priority Habitat& Species data were also factored in the prioritization analysis but these data did not affect any one site more than the others based on a lack of known populations within the City's shoreline areas. The priority scores are ranked from highest to lowest in Table 4 of this report. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan,Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 4-1 SECTION FIVE Restoration Opportunities Restoration opportunities are discussed below as either a programmatic opportunity or as a site- specific opportunity. Site-specific opportunities draw directly from physical shoreline assessments that identified sites where degraded conditions could be restored to a properly functioning condition. These are opportunities for shoreline restoration for the City's consideration as the Plan is implemented. As restoration opportunities identified in this Plan are voluntary and subject to available funding, the City is not obligated to implement these opportunities directly. However, the City should reference these projects when reviewing shoreline development proposals or discussing shoreline projects with public agencies or interested volunteer groups. Where possible, the City should attempt to incorporate shoreline restoration into prospective projects, and track such progress, to document compliance with the shoreline restoration element of the SMP. 5.1 PROGRAMMATIC RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES Programmatic opportunities are those that can be incorporated into existing or proposed programs with the goal of restoring ecological functions to the waterways without focusing on specific sites. Programmatic opportunities include approaches like public education or regulatory policy changes. These changes do not address specific sites, but rather, modify the way in which the public generally uses and views the shoreline areas in the City. OPPORTUNITY STRATEGY 1. Public Education Examples include incorporation of stream restoration practices (planting) and stewardship opportunities (minimal water use, litter removal) into environmental education curriculum at Spokane Valley Public Schools and colleges. Also, schools can be assigned to specific shoreline reaches to foster a conservation relationship between students and their local environment. 2. Shoreline Regulations The City manages development by regulating use, setbacks, height, and Enforcement design,and other standards to reduce impacts to ecological functions. 3. Shoreline Maintenance The following are examples of ways in which the City can restore shoreline areas through City maintenance programs: a. Identify potential funding sources to support the development and implementation of shoreline maintenance and enhancement strategies and low-impact development strategies for City parks located in shoreline areas. This would apply to the following parks managed or maintained by the City Parks and Recreation Department (within SMA jurisdiction): Sullivan Park, Mirabeau Park, the Myrtle Point Natural Area, and any portions of the Centennial Trail maintained by the City. b. Develop roadside maintenance and enhancement strategies with the City Public Works Department for road ROW areas within SMA jurisdiction. Maintenance strategies can include slope City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan, Dec. 11,2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 5-1 SECTION FIVE Restoration Opportunities stabilization (seeding/planting of bare soil areas), noxious weed control, and protection of native vegetation. Representative streets include North Barker Road, North Flora Road, North Sullivan Road, South Mirabeau Parkway, and East Coyote Rock Drive. 4. Conservation Futures The City may utilize conservation futures funding to purchase private properties with high restoration potential or developments within a flood zone to enhance shoreline areas. 5. Stormwater Plan/ The City's stormwater master planning may identify ways to reduce Development Standards non-treated runoff from entering aquatic habitats. Additionally, development standards may be reviewed to determine whether updated standards would provide opportunities for reducing pollution associated with stormwater. 5.2. SITE-SPECIFIC RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES Table 4 summarizes the site-specific restoration opportunities that were identified during detailed stream assessments that occurred in 2010 as summarized in the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (URS 2010). For each opportunity, the cause of degradation (impairment), functions affected, conceptual restoration strategy, and restoration priority are provided. Photographs representative of the general impairments encountered at the restoration opportunity sites are contained in Appendix B. Opportunities are arranged by their priority score. Spokane River restoration opportunities can be seen on Figures 3a, 3b, and 3c. Shelley Lake restoration opportunities can also be seen in an inset on Figure 3c. Sites are generally numbered progressively along the waterway, beginning at the downstream extent and continuing progressively up river to the east. It should be noted that opportunities for enhancing the drawdown zone (shorelines between seasonal high and low water levels) around Shelley Lake were investigated. Little research exists on successful revegetation practices for drawdown environments. A review of historical photography indicates that vegetation did not naturally establish along the north, west, and south sides of the lake. Therefore, efforts to establish vegetation there would be better described as enhancement rather than restoration. Recent past efforts to establish vegetation were unsuccessful according to local residents. Vegetation establishment along the lake's northern, western, and southern drawdown zones would likely require either stabilizing lake water levels, benching/terracing the shoreline, or irrigation. Due to the proximity of the lake's shorelines to adjacent, developed residential properties and the frequency of human visitors on and around the lake, enhancement of the lake's steep shorelines would seem to be a low priority within the greater City. This is especially true with regard to ensuring no-net-loss of shoreline ecological functions when considering the degree of difficulty associated with water level management and/or shoreline grading around Shelley Lake. As such, the shoreline restoration opportunities identified around Shelley Lake (see Table 4) focus on the restoration of habitat along the east end of the lake and a wetland area just southeast of the lake where shorelines are more likely to support successful plantings. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan,Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 5-2 SECTION FIVE RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES Table 4. Shoreline Restoration Opportunities Site Priority Site Waterway Impairment Conceptual Restoration Approach Acres Public Nop Photo' Score Area of bank erosion due to high A combination of slope bioengineering 22 30 Spokane winter flow energy directed against combined with potential upstream fluvial River bank. Heavily rip-rapped. modifications to decrease flow energy. 0.65 YES 3-C 1 Managed access and noxious weed 20 31 Degraded habitat with large control. If off-road driving is curtailed, Spokane concentration of noxious weeds and several pine saplings will develop into River off-road vehicle traffic. productive riparian forest habitat. 2.88 YES 3-C 18 11 Spokane Fence along access road creates Create wildlife undercrossing beneath River impasse for wildlife. fenced roadway. 0.03 YES 3-B 18 24 Spokane Remnant patches of native prairie Weed control and seeding with native 3-B,3- River habitat competing with weeds. prairie species. 3.63 YES C 17 13 Spokane Break in corridor full of spotted River knapweed. Riparian plantings. 0.75 YES 3-B 17 23 Spokane Degraded habitat;clearing River associated with old road. Riparian forest plantings. 0.44 YES 3-B Managed access and noxious weed 17 33 Degraded habitat with large control. If off-road driving is curtailed, Spokane concentration of noxious weeds and several pine saplings will develop into River off-road vehicle traffic. productive riparian forest habitat. 0.60 YES 3-C 2 i Signage indicating riparian rehabilitation 16 6 Spokane Break in high quality riparian shrub to allow for passive restoration. Many River corridor. saplings here. 0.30 YES 3-A Habitat degradation due to Formal trail establishment between 16 10 Spokane , unmanaged pedestrian traffic River between parking areas and shoreline. parg areas and rock outcropping along 8.47 YES 3-B shoreline. Signage,plantings, and City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan, Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 5-3 SECTION FIVE RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES Site Priority SID Waterway Impairment Conceptual Restoration Approach Acres Public Nop Photo' Score I strategic fencing to limit dispersed travel. 16 18 Spokane Remnant patches of native prairie Riparian forest plantings along banks and River habitat competing with weeds. prairie restoration on terrace above. 2.57 YES 3-B 16 20 Spokane Disturbed/cleared area with large River spotted knapweed infestation. Riparian forest plantings. 0.11 YES 3-B 16 21 Spokane Disturbed/cleared area with large River spotted knapweed infestation. Riparian forest plantings. 0.13 YES 3-B 3 16 29 Spokane Ecology clean up area resulting in Riparian plantings and habitat features River bare gravel fill. (woody debris). 0.28 YES 3-C 4 16 36 Spokane Slope bioengineering and riparian River Erosive gully. plantings. 0.09 YES 3-C 5 Formal access combined with native 16 38 Recently burnt area with heavy foot plantings and weed control to deter Spokane traffic associated with recreation transition to post-fire cheat-grass River access. community. 2.07 YES 3-C 6 Remnants of native Rathdrum Prairie 15 5 Spokane habitat competing with noxious River weeds. Weed control. 3.94 YES 3-A 15 7 Spokane Degraded riparian slope area with River heavy foot traffic. Riparian plantings. 1.36 YES 3-A 7 Plant height appropriate shrubs along 15 16 Spokane Eroding area beneath transmission slope beneath powerline to create cover River line,break in riparian corridor. for wildlife and slope stabilization. 1.77 YES 3-B Spokane 15 26 Eroding,steep streambank beneath River trail. Support for trail and bench Slope bioengineering. 0.61 YES 3-C City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan, Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 5-4 SECTION FIVE RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES Site Priority SID Waterway Impairment Conceptual Restoration Approach Acres Public Nop Photo' Score feature are failing. Wetland functions including water filtration,temperature regulation, and 15 40 habitat complexity would be enhanced by Shelley Wetland along tributary to lake lacks planting native shrubs in upper fringe of Lake cover/shade. wetland and trees along wetland buffer. 2.25 NO 3-C 8 14 12 Spokane Sparse riparian vegetation lacks River cover/shade. Riparian plantings/underplantings. 1.41 YES 3-B Opportunity for native plant 14 32 Spokane Area historically cultivated for apple establishment and/or upland native prairie River trees. seeding. 1.48 YES 3-C 13 19 Spokane Remnant patches of native prairie Controlled burn combined with native River habitat competing with weeds. seeding and knapweed control. 0.65 YES 3-B 12 4 Spokane Area full of construction debris and Debris removal,managed access, and River disturbed by random trails. riparian plantings. 0.55 NO 3-A 12 8 Spokane Sparse riparian vegetation lacks Riparian shrub plantings and native River cover/shade. prairie enhancement. 4.59 NO 3-B 12 17 Spokane Slope erosion due to heavy foot Controlled access/stairs would allow for River traffic. passive restoration. 0.28 YES 3-B 9 11 3 Spokane River Erosion/break in corridor. Slope stabilization/plantings. 0.14 NO 3-A 11 9 Spokane River Degraded riparian habitat. Shoreline stabilization/riparian plantings. 0.30 YES 3-B 11 14 Spokane Erosion associated with heavy foot Bioengineered slope stabilization and River traffic. managed/formal access. 0.04 YES 3-B 10 C City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan, Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 5-5 SECTION FIVE RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES Site Priority Site Waterway Impairment Conceptual Restoration Approach Acres Public Map Photo' Score 11 15 Spokane Remnant patches of native prairie Weed control and seeding with native River habitat competing with weeds. prairie species. 0.50 NO 3-B 11 22 Spokane Disturbed/cleared area with large River spotted knapweed infestation. Riparian forest plantings. 0.12 YES 3-B Provide a return flow culvert to drain 11 34 Spokane flood waters that otherwise erode trail River Flood erosion undercutting trail. and adjacent habitat areas. 0.02 YES 3-C 11 37 Spokane Degraded shoreline habitat with high River spotted knapweed concentration. Riparian plantings. 1.87 NO 3-C 11 9 1 Spokane Habitat degraded by old road River resulting in break in riparian corridor Riparian plantings. 0.33 NO 3-A 9 35 Spokane Degraded shoreline habitat with high River spotted knapweed concentration. Riparian plantings. 0.25 YES 3-C 12 8 39 Shelley Reed canarygrass removal;native plant Lake Noxious weeds. establishment. 0.27 NO 3-C 7 2 Spokane River Eroded gully. Slope stabilization/plantings. 0.01 NO 3-A 7 28 Spokane Break in vegetation corridor on steep River slope. Riparian forest plantings. 0.10 NO 3-C 13 Degraded grassland habitat 6 25 Spokane dominated by non-native vegetation, River break in riparian forest corridor. Riparian plantings. 0.49 NO 3-C 3 27 Spokane Remnant patches of native prairie Selective weed control and passive River habitat competing with weeds. restoration. 0.67 NO 3-C 1Photo Numbers Refer to Appendix A. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan, Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 5-6 SECTION FIVE Restoration Opportunities 5.3 CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION APPROACHES Restoration opportunities listed in Table 4 of this Plan include conceptual restoration approaches. These approaches address the specific impairments at each restoration opportunity site. Where possible, they attempt to address the cause of the impairment to achieve long-term gains in shoreline ecological functions. The majority of the recommended restoration approaches have to do with riparian forest or scrub-shrub plantings. This is because these types of restoration projects tend to provide multiple ecological benefits that enhance various shoreline functions. According to research conducted while preparing the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (URS 2010), riparian plantings tend to provide the greatest return on investment along the Spokane River, considering the options available to the City. Plantings within areas of active river flow tend to require greater planning; these areas often require additional restoration factors to ensure that plantings are not washed out with the first high water of the season. Riparian planting projects located above the area of seasonally high water are generally much simpler to establish. This section provides generalized restoration information associated with the conceptual approaches noted in Table 4 to aid in developing site- specific restoration plans. 5.3.1 Riparian Plantings Native riparian plantings almost always enhance quality of riparian habitats. The quality of riparian habitat promotes several beneficial functions to both the terrestrial and aquatic habitat components. These include pollutant filtering, wildlife habitat (cover, food, roosting), habitat connectivity, shading/temperature control of water, and input of organic matter (e.g., leaf litter) that provides food web support to aquatic species, including support for benthic invertebrates (Covitch et. al. 1999). Benthic invertebrates, or insects that live in the river soils, are a primary food source for native fish but heavy concentrations of metals in the river substrate have negatively affected the invertebrates,thus affecting the overall food web(Ecology 2005). Planning for riparian planting projects must address the physical and ecological site conditions such as soil stability, moisture availability, and aspect (amount of sun). Successful riparian plantings require appropriate species selection for a given set of local site conditions. Some species are found more commonly on the north, dry banks of the Spokane River, while others prefer the less-exposed southern banks. Certain species grow near the river edge while others prefer the elevations slightly above the water but where roots can reach the seasonally low water table. For these reasons, a qualified ecologist with riparian planting experience should assist with developing planting plans for specific areas whenever possible. Appendix C of the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (URS 2010) includes a list of vegetation inventoried along the shoreline. Native species contained in this list provide a good starting point for the development of a restoration project plant list. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan, Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 5-7 SECTION FIVE Restoration Opportunities 5.3.2 Streambank Stabilization Streambanks often become unstable as a result of natural forces, such as increased water velocity. Where vegetation is present, the water scour energy is dissipated by the vegetation and the soils are bound by the roots, thus resulting in less erosion. However, where vegetation is absent or degraded, often in association with pedestrian foot traffic or historical clearing, soils become less stable and prone to erosion. Erosion, although a natural process, can be detrimental to aquatic organisms when the amount of loose sediments in the river (turbidity) exceeds low densities. In addition to protecting human infrastructure, such as the Centennial Trail, streambank stabilization reduces the potential for shoreline erosion. Depending on site-specific conditions, one or more actions may be appropriate to stabilize an eroding shoreline area. Riparian plantings contribute greatly to bank stabilization by binding soil in roots and acting as a buffer to water velocity and abrasive materials transported in water. Based on existing streambank conditions, stabilization may also require engineering techniques such as slope setback, terracing, soil wraps, or placement of large woody debris (LWD), to promote long-term stability. The term "bioengineering" used in Table 4 refers to the use of both engineering materials and biological materials that can grow within an engineered structure to provide structural support as well as habitat and shade functions. Examples include large rock or soil wrapped in geotextile fabric and secured with willow stakes. Streambank bioengineering in low precipitation areas often include live-stake plantings, brush or tree revetments, erosion-control straw blankets, and willow fascines(Hoag and Fripp 2002). In certain situations, more durability is needed to secure banks against high water velocity, to protect property, and stabilize eroding riparian habitat. Hard devices such as rip-rap should be specifically sized and configured to the situation by a qualified person or team. Where possible, they should incorporate plantings. Geotechnical and hydraulic considerations are important to assess on a site-specific basis. 5.3.3 Noxious Weed Control Noxious weed control is an essential component of riparian vegetation maintenance and restoration. Native vegetation, in many areas throughout the Spokane Valley, has the potential to re-establish through passive means (i.e., by itself) but competition from non-native and noxious vegetation in many areas is sufficient to prevent its successful growth. The installation of native vegetation in areas where weeds are prevalent requires careful site preparation and noxious weed maintenance. Given realistic constraints on long-term site maintenance, the best opportunity to control weeds is to select plants to install that can compete against the weed(s), and in the best-case scenario out compete (i.e., shade out) weeds. The goal should be to establish a"weed-resistant"plant community to the extent possible. An Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach to establishing favorable conditions for native plants and controlling invasive plants should be used. Several references are available on weed control and specialists with the County Noxious Weed Control Board are very knowledgeable of current control strategies. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan, Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 5-8 SECTION SIX IMPLEMENTATION PLAN This section addresses an implementation framework for the City's shoreline restoration planning as per WAC 173-26-201(2)(f)(vi). An implementation plan must include identified partners,potential funding sources,timelines, and benchmarks. 6.1 POTENTIAL RESTORATION PARTNERS The following organizations have demonstrated an interest in shoreline protection or restoration in the vicinity of Spokane Valley. These organizations may be contacted when seeking partners for restoration project funding,construction,and/or maintenance and monitoring. Table 5: Existing Partnership Opportunities Organization Summary Washington The WCC is an affiliate of the Americorps program administered by Ecology. The Conservation Corps WCC provides members the opportunity to develop skills in environmental restoration, (WCC) trail work,environmental education,and disaster response. City of Spokane Valley Water districts are involved in planning for water use within the City. They may be Water Districts interested in partnering on projects that conserve water or enhance habitat. Friends of the Falls Friends of the Falls is a non-profit organization working to implement projects identified in the Strategic Master Plan for the Spokane River area. Inland Northwest Land INLT is a local,non-profit,non-political organization with over 450 members. Trust(INLT) Through easements,acquisitions,and by working with other conservation partners, INLT works to preserve wetlands,shorelines,farmlands,and forests in eastern Washington and northern Idaho. Local Academia Three local colleges have biology programs that include riparian ecology studies. By coordinating with biology professors,the City may be able to create mutually beneficial relationships with their biology studies,particularly with graduate students studying riparian ecology. Gonzaga and Whitworth colleges have undergraduate biology programs. Eastern Washington University has undergraduate and graduate biology programs. Riverside State Park The foundation is a volunteer group that assists the efforts of State Parks staff by Foundation raising funds for the park,accomplishing specific projects,and being a helpful source for working with the community in many ways. The mission of the foundation is to preserve and protect the natural resources and inherent beauty of Riverside State Park. Sierra Club Upper The Sierra Club is a non-profit volunteer organization that has been working to protect Columbia River Group the natural environment and communities. The club is one of the largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States. Spokane Audubon The mission of the Spokane Audubon Society is to provide services to the Spokane Society region that allow natural ecosystems to become more healthy,thriving,and restorative, to nurture and protect birds and other wildlife and their habitats,and to encourage biological diversity for the benefit of people and nature in the Spokane region and the world. Spokane Canoe and The Spokane Canoe and Kayak Club is an organization of individuals who are Kayak Club enthusiastic about human-powered watercraft. In recent years,the club has participated City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan,Dec. 11,2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 6-1 SECTION SIX IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Organization Summary in joint habitat restoration projects,including the Spokane River Cleanup and tree plantings at Mirabeau Park. Spokane Conservation The Washington Conservation District Law(RCW 89.08)describes the responsibilities District(SCD) and purpose of conservation districts,which include: •Conducting education and demonstration projects. •Carrying out improvements to conserve natural resources. •Cooperating or entering into agreements with others,including other districts. •Making equipment and materials available to landowners to assist them in conserving natural resources. The mission of the SCD is to promote the sustainable use of natural resources within Spokane County. The district provides information on their available programs and services,as well as potential funding sources from outside agencies. Spokane River Forum The forum is a non-profit organization that creates materials,events,and activities that promote regional dialogs for sustaining a healthy river system while meeting the needs of a growing population. The forum has been involved in various shoreline restoration projects,including tree plantings at Mirabeau Park The Lands Council The Lands Council is a Spokane-area grassroots,non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the quality of life in the Inland Northwest. The Lands Council has protected thousands of acres of public land,and in the process worked to preserve forests,water, and wildlife. Trout Unlimited, The mission of Trout Unlimited is to conserve,protect,and restore cold water fisheries, Spokane Falls Chapter their watersheds,and ecosystems as a means of maintaining our quality of life. The Spokane Falls Chapter of Trout Unlimited does this by promoting effective fish management decisions,and by taking an active part in habitat restoration and fish production projects. Veterans Conservation The mission of the Veterans Conservation Corps is to assist veterans by providing Corps training and volunteer opportunities that help to restore and protect Washington state's natural resources. Volunteer and internship opportunities include: -Stream restoration and monitoring. •Revegetation of native plants. •Restoration of watersheds,forests,prairies,or native grasslands. -Environmental or community education. •Other protection or restoration activities. WDFW's Habitat The Restoration Division leads WDFW's efforts to restore and protect aquatic Program,Restoration ecosystems by providing scientific,engineering,and planning expertise through Division cooperative partnerships. The division's focus areas include: •Providing near-shore ecosystem assessment,strategic planning,and funding assistance to local communities. •Identifying and prioritizing needed projects to remove fish passage barriers. •Providing training and guidance to local restoration project proponents to help communities inventory fish passage and successfully restore habitat. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan, Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 6-2 SECTION SIX IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Organization Summary •Supporting aquatic habitat restoration by providing environmental engineering review,design,and technical guidance to public and private landowners and restoration entities. In addition to the partnership opportunities listed above, many others are likely. For example, local schools may be interested in supporting shoreline restoration projects. 6.2 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF FUNDING There are several sources of potential funding available to the City and potential restoration partners for shoreline restoration projects. This section summarizes the most likely and available funding sources. Potential restoration partners in the Spokane Valley area have indicated that the following grants have been, or are likely to be, used to fund previous shoreline restoration projects. Environmental Protection Agency: • Five-Star Restoration Program - This grant funds community-based wetland restoration having a strong "on-the-ground" component, with long-term ecological, educational, and/or socio-economic benefits to the community. This grant is available to citizen volunteer organizations, corporations, landowners, federal, state, tribal agencies, local government, charitable foundations, and youth groups. The grant provides $5,000- $20,000 on average. A$10,000 grant requires in-kind or cash match at 1:1. Each project ideally involves five partners. Apply in March- awards in May. For further information contact John Pai, US EPA, Wetlands Division, 202-260-8076,pai.john@epa.gov. http://vvww.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5star/ U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service: • Habitat Conservation - Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program - This program provides expert technical assistance and cost-share incentives to private landowners to restore fish and wildlife habitats. Any privately-owned land is potentially eligible. After signing a cooperative agreement with a minimum duration of 10 years, the landowner works one- on-one with a local Service biologist to develop a project plan addressing the goals and objectives of the landowner and the Service to benefit fish and wildlife species on his/her land. The landowner is reimbursed after project completion, based on the cost-sharing formula in the agreement. For further information contact Juliet Barenti, Eastern Washington Coordinator, 11103 East Montgomery #2, Spokane, WA 99206, 509-893- 8005, Juliet_Barenti@fws.gov. • Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office Recovery Program - Recovery grants are available to fund restoration, recovery, assessment, or research projects with an emphasis on well-planned "on-the-ground" projects that restore or enhance fish and wildlife and/or their habitats, benefit federally-listed/candidate species and their habitats, or improve listed species numbers. Non-profits and private landowners are eligible. There is no City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan, Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 6-3 SECTION SIX IMPLEMENTATION PLAN match requirement; however, projects with some cost share or in-kind support may be prioritized. Proposals are accepted near the beginning of each fiscal year for restoration or recovery projects to be funded during that fiscal year. For further information contact Suzanne Audet at (509) 893-8002, Juliet Barenti at (509) 893-8005, or Greg Van Stralen at (509) 665-3508 ext. 20, or by email at: suzanne_audet@fws.gov, juliet barenti@fws.gov, or greg_vanstralen@fws.gov. Washington State Department of Ecology: • Centennial Clean Water Fund - Provides funding for activities to reduce non-point pollution, comprehensive planning (sewer, storm water, watershed), and/or construction point source facilities. Available to local governments, tribes, and special purpose districts such as sewer, health, and conservation districts. The funding is capped at $250,000 for up to four years and requires a 25 percent match except for construction projects, which require a 50 percent match. Funding is awarded annually. Notice and workshops occur in December and January. Applications are due late February. For further information contact Tim Hilliard at Ecology, (360) 407-6429, thil461@ecy.wa.gov. http://www.ecv.wa.gov/fap.html. • Flood Control Assistance Account Program - This statewide, financial-assistance program funds proposal that can demonstrate a propensity for preservation, restoration,or enhancement of Endangered Species Act-listed fishery resources through planning or flood damage reduction projects. Any public entity that belongs to the National Flood Insurance Program, including towns, cities, counties, and eligible Native American tribes throughout the state are eligible. Funding is capped at $500,000 per county, per biennium and requires a 25-50 percent match, depending on the project. Applications are due in May, with funds available in September. For further information contact Ted Olson at Ecology, (509) 329-3413,tols461@ecy.wa.gov. • Non-point Source Implementation Grant (319) Program - This fund provides grants to local governments, Native American tribes, state agencies, and non-profit organizations to address identified non-point source pollution and to improve and protect water quality. Grant funds available for each state are determined by an Environmental Protection Agency-developed allocation formula. Grants are awarded annually. For further information contact Helen Bresler at Ecology, (360) 407-6180, hbre461@ecy.wa.gov. • Watershed Planning Grant Program-This program provides funds for the organizational, assessment, and planning phases of watershed related projects. The program requires a 10 percent match for Phase 4 watershed planning implementation. Eligible candidates include government agencies or tribes who wish to apply for grant funds for watershed related projects. To be eligible for Phase 4 funding, the watershed plan must have received approval from the planning unit and the county government(s). Grant amounts vary depending on which phase of planning is to be funded and whether projects involve one or more than one WRIA. Grants are funded on a fiscal year basis. Applications are due in June and awards are announced in July. For further information contact Cathy Hubbard, Grants Administrator, at Ecology, (360) 407-6491, cahu461@ecy.wa.gov. • Washington Coastal Protection Fund — Terry Husseman Water Quality Account - This account is used to fund environmental, recreational, and aesthetic restoration and City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan, Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 6-4 SECTION SIX IMPLEMENTATION PLAN enhancement projects. Funding is available to local governments, tribes, watershed planning units, nonprofits, and state agencies. Priority is given to projects that involve partnerships with local resources/volunteers. Requires Ecology partner. Total available funding is $200,000 for all projects. Match not required but given points. Applications are accepted year-round. For further information, contact Melissa Gildersleeve, Watershed Coordinator, (360)407-6548,mgi1461@ecy.wa.gov. Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office: • Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) - This grant supports the purchase, improvement, or protection of aquatic lands for public purposes, including improved accessibility. The grant is available to local governments, state agencies, and tribes. Applicants must provide at least 50 percent in matching resources. Projects must be consistent with the local SMP and must be located on lands adjoining a water body that meets the definition of "navigable." For further information contact Kim Sellers, Outdoor Grant Manager, (360)902-3082,kims@rco.wa.gov. Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR): • Restoration Funding Program - The DNR funds projects associated with its aquatic lands lease program. Funding typically comes from the ALEA, as described above under the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office. Under the ALEA, the DNR is instructed to ensure that revenue generated from state-owned aquatic land leases goes back to helping restore aquatic environments. Recently, the DNR funded a riparian restoration project at Riverwalk Park in the City of Spokane. For further information contact Monica Shoemaker at(206)799-2949,monica.shoemaker@dnr.wa.gov. Recreational Equipment Incorporated (REI): • Stewardship Grants-Every year, REI gives 3 percent of its previous year's operating profit to organizations that employees have been identified as important players in local conservation activities. In 2010, the company gave $3.7 million in grants to more than 330 groups across the country. The Spokane River Forum is one of three Spokane-area groups to receive an REI grant in 2011. The grant was used to provide improved river access and signage as well as habitat restoration at Mirabeau Park. 6.3 TIMELINE AND BENCHMARKS FOR IMPLEMENTING RESTORATION PLAN Restoration plans involve long-term goals and efforts with major developments generally occurring as funding becomes available. As per WAC 173-26-201(c), SMPs must "include planning elements that, when implemented, serve to improve the overall condition of habitat and resources within the shoreline area." To facilitate this policy, this Plan outlines five steps that the City may pursue to implement the restoration element of the updated SMP and the policies in this Plan. The first step will be to establish a restoration program within a department of city government. Within one year of the SMP's formal adoption by the City and the State of Washington,the City will begin implementing this Plan. Implementation includes the dedication of staff resources and the formation of a central shoreline restoration file that will contain all City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan,Dec. 11,2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 6-5 SECTION SIX IMPLEMENTATION PLAN documents associated with efforts to coordinate, implement, or otherwise support shoreline restoration activities. Once familiar with the goals, policies, and opportunities contained in this Plan, City staff would begin the second step, outreach activities. Outreach is likely to include efforts to form partnerships on site-specific restoration opportunities, meetings with potential restoration partners to develop inter-agency/department plans for shoreline restoration, and/or efforts to meet with public and private schools to foster shoreline education and volunteer opportunities. Once the City has identified potential restoration partners and specific programmatic or site- specific projects, the third step would involve supporting requests for funding. This would likely happen as a partnership with one of the organizations identified in Section 6.1. Applications for funding will likely target one of the sources identified in Section 6.2. The fourth step involves support throughout the construction phase of a restoration activity. Examples of City support may include, but are not limited to, provision of City resources such as material transport, site preparation, signage, or public outreach. The fifth and final step would monitor the success of the restoration program, as measured by meeting the benchmarks of this Plan, and assess the existing program based on monitoring results. The results of this assessment will document progress in implementing the restoration element of the SMP and aid in determining whether a subsequent update is necessary to the SMP, as required under RCW 90.58.080(4). While exact dates cannot be specified for these five steps due to uncertainties in the SMP update adoption schedule and funding availability, Table 6 provides a target timeline to aid in conceptualizing the process. Benchmarks associated with each implementation step were developed to provide a means of demonstrating progress and compliance with SMP restoration goals. Because of uncertain external funding sources and partnership opportunities, benchmarks for site-specific restoration projects are not the focus of this Plan. Dates associated with each benchmark are based on an estimated formal SMP update adoption date on or before December 31, 2012. A later adoption date would affect the timeline relative to the period of delay. Benchmark dates are not meant to impede any progress that might occur prior to the date given; any early shoreline restoration progress should be documented and stored in the City's files. Table 6: Timeline and Benchmarks Year Step Description Benchmark Ending 1 2013 City allocates resources for portion of one City verifies that sufficient resources have been full-time employee(10-25%)as per this allocated by 12/31/2013. City will create a Plan. shoreline restoration project file to store and track progress. 2 2014 City restoration staff has met with several City will have met with potential restoration key groups to create partnerships on partners. Meetings minutes will be documented specific shoreline restoration projects. City and stored in restoration project file. restoration staff has met with other City departments to look for shoreline restoration opportunities associated with proposed CIPs within SMP jurisdiction. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan, Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 6-6 SECTION SIX IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Step Year Description Benchmark Ending 3 2016 City,in partnership with others,will apply City will participate in one or more applications for restoration funding. for restoration funding in partnership with organizations identified through outreach activities by 12/31/2016. 4 2018 City supports funded restoration projects, City will provide support(as described in Section as able,with materials,transportation,site 63,above)for at least one restoration project by preparation,signage,engineering,etc. 12/31/2018. 5 2020 City monitors progress of program and City will monitor the progress and success of the specific opportunities. City assesses City's restoration program,as per Section 7.1 of progress,determines need for additional this report by 12/31/2020. SMP updates. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan, Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 6-7 SECTION SEVEN MONITORINGy MAINTENANCE, AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 7.1 MONITORING PLAN This section provides steps for monitoring the successful implementation of this Plan as well as a process for monitoring site-specific restoration projects. Monitoring data will be utilized for ongoing maintenance strategies, adaptive management, future grant applications, and subsequent SMP updates. 7.1.1 Monitoring of Plan Benchmarks The following monitoring methods are designed to document progress with the implementation of this Plan. Proposed monitoring activities are tied to the benchmarks established in Table 6, above. Future SMP updates will benefit from data collected in this regard. Monitoring will highlight where the City's Plan is most successful and where it may need improvement prior to the next round of SMP updates. Benchmark 1: Allocate staff resources by 2013. Monitoring Method: Review and evaluate annual restoration budget to determine if existing funding is sufficient to support implementation of restoration goals. Contingency: Request budget summary for projects with restoration element. Adaptive Management: If the City cannot allocate financing for staff to implement a restoration program, the responsibility may need to be parsed out and delegated to a variety of departments. If this is the case, it will be important to have a central shoreline restoration file to track overall progress. Benchmark 2: Meet with potential restoration partners by the end of 2014. Monitoring Method: Document that meetings have occurred or that an attempt was made to schedule meetings. Contingency: Document internal City meetings where restoration concepts were incorporated into shoreline development projects,such as new bridge work. Adaptive Management: If the City is unsuccessful at organizing a meeting with potential restoration partners, the City may delegate City's position to a restoration partner with demonstrated restoration goals that complement those of the City. Benchmark 3: Apply for funding by 2016 (with partners). Monitoring Method: Document application for restoration funding. Contingency: Document why no action was made (e.g., lack of partners, staff unavailable, etc.)and how to ensure future action. Adaptive Management: If the City is unable to partner on restoration funding applications for any reason, the City may alternately seek funding through council for programmatic restoration opportunities within the City,examples of which are provided in Section 5.1. Benchmark 4: City will participate in and provide support for a restoration project by the end of 2018. Monitoring Method: Document participation in a restoration project. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan,Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 7-1 SECTION SEVEN MONITORING MAINTENANCE, AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Contingency: Summarize attempts made to assist restoration projects and revise strategy to a method more capable of yielding results. Adaptive Management: If the City is unable for any reason to support a restoration project, the City may revise its strategy for obtaining restoration partners and implementing restoration projects. Benchmark 5: Monitor and summarize success of implementing restoration plan by 2020. Monitoring Method: City may prepare status reports documenting the City's progress toward achieving the goal and policies of this Plan, recommended adaptive management strategies, and the need for updating the Plan during the next cycle of SMP updates. Contingency: Document cause of noncompliance with SMP/failure to implement. Adaptive Management: City will revise strategy based on experience over the first five years since Plan was implemented. 7.1.2 Restoration Site Monitoring Several of the site-specific restoration activities are similar in nature. Due to this fact, it is especially important to monitor the success of individual restoration activities so that subsequent restoration projects can be modified based on the particular successes and failures of each completed project. In addition to monitoring new shoreline restoration projects, it is advisable that the City or their partner contact existing shoreline restoration project proponents to see if they are monitoring their restoration projects and, if so, if they will share their monitoring data. When applying for restoration project funding, the City and partners should include funding for follow-up monitoring in the funding application. Monitoring data can be used to direct maintenance activities and demonstrate that the City is following through on the grant-funded projects. In addition, it can ensure grantors that future grant-funded restoration projects will have the benefit of lessons learned from past projects. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program provides the following description of the process for implementing monitoring for riparian restoration projects: The general process for implementing riparian restoration and monitoring is outlined in five basic steps. These include: (1) setting goals and objectives, (2) developing a monitoring protocol, (3) designing and implementing data collection, (4) analyzing and interpreting monitoring data, and (5) assessing restoration efforts. This process is helpful for monitoring all shoreline projects described by this Plan. Additional detail for each of the five steps is provided in the literature(Guilfoyle and Fischer 2006). 7.2 MAINTENANCE Maintenance responsibilities will depend on the specific project and the dynamics of the partnership between the City and its restoration partner(s). Maintenance is an important aspect City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan, Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 7-2 SECTION SEVEN MONITORINGS MAINTENANCE, AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT of project completion. The City is already committed to maintaining various areas under its park maintenance responsibilities. Often these overlap with State Parks' maintenance responsibilities throughout Riverside State Park. Specific maintenance activities will depend on site conditions and monitoring results. For example, restoration projects proposed at sites with identified noxious vegetation will need to maintain weed population reductions. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan, Dec. 11, 2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 7-3 APPENDIX A Covich et. al. 1999. The Role of Benthic Invertebrate Species in Freshwater Ecosystems. Bioscience.Vol.49,No.2. February 1999. Ecology(Washington.State Department of Ecology).2002. Washington State Wetland Evaluation Study, Phase 2: Evaluating Success. Ecology publication#02-06-009.Lacey, Washington. Ecology. 2003. Introduction to Washington's Shoreline Management Act(RCW 90.58).Ecology Publication 99-113 (2003). Lacey, Washington 2 pp. Ecology. 2004 Restoration Planning and the 2003 Shoreline Management Guidelines. Ecology Publication#04-06-022. Lacey, Washington. 7pp. Ecology. 2005. Draft Cleanup Action Plan, Spokane River Upriver Dam PCB Site, Spokane, WA. Toxics Cleanup Program, Eastern Regional Office. Spokane, WA. Ecology. 2006. Spokane River Water Quality Managed Implementation Plan. Spokane,WA. Ecology. 2010a. Shoreline Master Program Handbook. Ecology Publication#11-06-010. Lacey, Washington. Ecology. 2010b. Spokane River and Lake Spokane Dissolved Oxygen Total Maximum Daily Load: Water Quality Improvement Report.Ecology Publication#07-10-073. Lacey, WA. GEI Consultants. 2004. Intermountain Province Subbasin Plan. Prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Spokane,Washington Hoag, C. and J. Fripp (Prepared by), for Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2002. Streambank Soil Bioengineering Field Guide for Low Precipitation Areas. USDA NRCS Plant Material Center,Aberdeen, ID. Guilfoyle and Fischer. 2006. Guidelines for establishing monitoring programs to assess the success of riparian restoration efforts in arid and semi-arid landscapes. US Army Corps of Engineers Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program. Technical Note ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-50 Spokane County Conservation District (SCCD). 2005. Spokane County Proper Functioning Condition Stream Inventory&Assessment. Spokane,WA. State Parks (Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission). 2005. Riverside State Park Management Plan. Olympia, WA. URS Corporation. 2010. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update, Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Spokane Valley, WA. Webster.2007. New MillenniumTM Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.7) Copyright©2003-2007 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan,Dec. 11,2012—Accepted by Resolution No. 12-0012 7-1 IMASAPPENDIX A: REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS SHORELINE RESTORATION PLAN Project: URS Project No. City Of Spokane Valley 36310035 Shoreline Master Program Update Photo No. Date: 1 09/21/09 Direction Photo Taken: Looking southeast at south bank of Spokane River •- ••.0.1_,C.' {r•'•', y u R • 1 i';2$ J . • " r % +sDescription: r VAP n. Typical view of Restoration ` �; ,,, J ' °�`'. t - r A , Opportunity 30 showing area of ; ,,t Yt.4, h -'r , ;, ,_ bank erosion across river. �, .. ,� ,e. . , ��{ +M• ".N', • .- , M ��,,,,,,_i ., .._;• Fns .V:1'47' —"1"..;�T' • JkM • ._"'- .' .:,..,,Ir Is. .ry +_ r..,rn...y._..... �Krl . ...• �rsJE. Photo No. Date: 4s� •' . . - 2 09/21/09 m R Direction Photo Taken: �,, ;-•" • 's Southwest,from Centennial Trail {` x " T �' , • '�j-, .• Pr 'rs,r r z ', ..,,,-,-t 1,r f'�4 rit Y. a;, r i' };* h�7aDescription: Typical view of Restoration a" ,• {;• ` t air" „1.... Opportunity 33 showing E'. � �` _ +•, ' � E, • ,t f;,,.' t , degraded habitat with large •,7`AI t '*; '' , , `' ; I'' concentration of noxious weeds. •' ;' •t" s -,i a �� y�+ 7j •}x1 ('}#'+ t I -{+t ?Ji t5 f .I ' 1 ' f ?)r 1, E1‘1017,11.:•,:. ill,.,,.'.� bt . 1•,iM.,:",1fN{_, .,•i (t. t • . rr': { _1 .,� a �, 3 >, tf � 7� +• a+• tyr � ty, l', a.J+• `i'. 'tS +* `' 1 f c rl J1 i Y, 'i 2t.t a h J "$• N'.• ' t .�`+jt 'r• '��t fr N �. ',11,i3 t (�;;,>ti t G,�'ft{'Oil, a t �fi 1 S7 .,.' . ,5. 1 ?1^ !'.' •, � 1' 44+/ fy jf.+,..11i'/i` ',' • , x`,4,, ....:•• 7,. t • ,..1.tiN"A , ct_. .' Si s (`�'.1t �i.nr' 164i'^ .. til AS'A',',"#,--' ' _i i o Photo No. , f- '. J. Date: x52 ►'1� �'�k` ~' r.' �t • ►:`.�► - �� • .3 +� 't` 3 09/21/09 i Direction Photo Taken: i. `'•;= !�, "'_, 'F`- ., I I"fr a ' .•' f , i, ; r ,; South,from north side of -" _<L �i... ° •` .;i . ` - restoration opportunity area a *h_ 1' '- - g �'� 4 -,tom.'- , ..#'•••• • $a a Description: ,,..- , - _ ejlea1 —s,,' ..`.•..K` Typical view of Restoration , _ • ` Opportunity 21 showing cleared , „ ,,- - _. <-' ��. and disturbed area. '= . 4 .. Photo No. Date: ;,4, , OF7,4_. .' e..tt j� - ,14 ; -.:.- 1 4 09/21/09 sr b C 1� i it rZ j YR l� 4^ ` �- .c. Direction Photo Taken: Y'` . z `' TM n '' .'" `.`�` '�' re t. w4 'North, from forest below r»- <. ;; i` C : „ r a% drWP , r1,- yx s � ��.Y ,.. ti. r _ •,Centennial Trail. : - � R a raj fir .1. , -. `''-' '` . + .r -•-•.”, Description: ' , ,i� r r Typical view of area near • , ra , t , '~ Restoration Opportunity 29, .. , i ' .., ), tt .E ,► i+ s t + , which is a Dept. of Ecology k .' ,r h ; � metals cleanup site that currently 41.1 ' t . i' a lacks vegetation. The cleanup 4" 4 ,`? 1 r ,,L1 v 1' , site and the area shown in this ` , i,'; ,4 f,,j ,Tltr,' 1 ''' t `' photo would both benefit from ` , �' ,• ` ),. �" ',:9- .,' '`�; 1.4 t, I. shoreline plantings to stabilize ,'' 1. 1 ' I ,'f+N •4',t''t' ' ; ' 4-.:: "'; ` ' + soil and offer habitat support i/, r' . t ''"- ,t +. ,;ice b' during high flows. ' 1!0'; ; ��,t,�� ,'. e e1 ; 11 ( tom^ 1 yLt Photo No. Date: • 5 09/21/09 , Direction Photo Taken: - t Northeast, from Centennial Trail L V ,f VA�1 4' 144 Description: ' , ,.- y - ,„ ', �. Typical view of Restoration ! � ..--,,i-.•'rte' `,�f} , ' r� " Opportunity 36 showing eroding 4.4,11.‘":.'; `' " ;.. .s' > , ti. , r. ` • gully Slopes. $4 r• jr ,▪w• ",. �',�1,',"f' rw ..` a' z rr • '.;:43.-,..A.....4,6;1* " • • 4 t:^' , it -, ., . . , ... -r'}i se `vim r.- t � ..fes!,�p���i-- �_� �q�T ti , 3 '0 i as 1 Y `iC " {LY,,r• " • "t. s e:1• -- .1` .f0 $: c.,..'':: lice ir %stik • •� • s: ...A„,-,,k--,---.sem Photo No. Date: 6 09/21/09 � J ,r 4 Direction Photo Taken: ,rt North,from edge of Spokane ,. foropp. 1 , River ;w s.:`'..,- •_ .,]` .0",-..- -, -,, , ,, f--... . ., - w. .r. i s »-� . --*--e ,4.'-..-.,-- - , 1. -"' �:•h! 1- 'f' Description: ,,►~ : Typical view of Restoration r Opportunity 38 showing _---0c�:.'.: `{ degraded habitat area due to recent fire and heavy foot traffic y;-= - -- !lin.. ` associated with recreation _ �-:' access. 4. _,:,-... -,:-..,, I,-'c'''''9.'s•:7.--,v. 4--a._ 4-.c.- 1,,,,:- .A._..-,:- ---7,---:: .' - it - i 8 °:�"' +.., - ". T.r f Photo No. Date: 7 09/21/09 Direction Photo Taken: Southeast,from top of slope •1.r Description: 1 .I t Typical view of Restoration {_ „�y: - t Opportunity 7 showing dense ,;,, ' ' s,,t',r; , non-native grasses that would 1 • be a good location for riparian +/ 1 ,, • forest plantings. u1.i .,� ; ;. , ,1,;;1 ;' i + jai P ,wi{ , 1 1 '4 I 9 ' ,.iI •1+ fr .1.111),11`0 1 {111 1t ' ' I / ,I' 1 � � � i � y' 1 If'� �1 I , •i A.4 .h I,1n .!E i 'rij+ '. r 1 y • S i V ;' •1 1g It va J'' • In 111 1'1�, ' .i A i l'�ij,,ff i•i I'':11 l'',1'l j, .,} 1 ,I t .S !L., It 4 11 '`1 Y I 11 ;l '` 6,i4 ial' 1, 'illi, +p .I;` I i11:' ' f./ I.� iiI 1 t{ ,In 1i I1s1 t 1 t, 0 r ! y 11 i.1r ,' I11 r• xl J1 tt1�4 �� ., b :I i �'1 SSI..i � l V 41i� A�r �� 1 I I • -I �i t''r I' 11 Y I I' I,Iyu ., N1 "i��� I�l i(i it jl it 1 1 1 �A1;{+r �1 ' f I ' J I ,,,,1 If ki f! 1111 I l l',' , ;, ;, I. i 1°i�r•, 1141 V,ih `,',�.jl v 1 , ;� �,!.1 ;y 1 ti ' i�. �'Ire ;;; , I�r1 .� 1 ! f. II' 1 I .' f 1 I,i, Ili V` 1r i i TIP: �( ;, it i1,•li IJ,I { I '1' ,i' I I 1/-1( i I :f ' 11 if ,�•�.i `I 1 � � 7 j I II I'j hi xti f {� q r Photo No. Date: 8 09/21/09 - Direction Photo Taken: -' -. Northeast,from pedestrian trail :: i ze,,; , ” .e Description: ,,' _ – "-.,"'"` —1 Typical view of Restoration ' , Opportunity 40 showing wetland �' - " z=�+ -�'"t with lack of vegetation i. .�. cover/shade. Saltese Creek enters the wetland area prior to - discharging into the creek. The wetland filters incoming • seasonal flows. Area would - •:k. "'`• benefit from shrubs for shade, ''` ;�, cover,food, and habitat ,, \ 'k}`r.'ji" complexity. "` ' • ' \' .: t'f t,-"' a. 47 ')t1.,. ` F l Photo No. Date: 9 09/21/09 -::. :, Direction Photo Taken: k •-•;6---41;k"' Southeast,from top of slope '• r.• ', 's'• ti r - above ,' Spokane River r ♦ 4+ ''t._.:44.1 a-p.. • A «' Y ,�� A ! Description: . ai ;i .. ` Typical view of Restoration :'"'mss s `, e , 4 r ;". - '',�C„ �,,J' Opportunity 17 showingslope T.. '•4` �-.. "`,_ ""'� ' erosion due to heavy foot traffic. > > t"' , : R '',•:,1•- r;. ' • - a K T - t ~ .. 5tbf .-,f I(4 ?'"4 '" ' 3f.'''' 4 ^4" e 4 r"fit 4,0 -_, {u'„ ,>"'€',- 4. t • 'S - Photo No. Date: -- 10 09/21/09 _:4 y �;,r,---., „ ,/- r __ Direction Photo Taken: West,from shoreline �a , , .�.yyyy_�'� vn y ae A '1• Description: ; r ►. ` • F_. ' t ‘ki ,°{s, Typical view of Restoration - . �' '""' Opportunity 14 showing erosion A, , associated with heavy foot ` ' traffic. 4 ' Photo No. Date: 11 09/21/09 y, Direction Photo Taken: 1 _ e . ', ' •y r r- F, �,,, - Southeast,from Centennial Trail " 1 rt i..', ba • r -1'em•?'-*a. Description: f� , •Typical view of Restoration -'�• s r ;ki'r � Opportunity 37 showing ;. : kP� Y ? degraded shoreline habitat with ` r ,'' ,' ,�i 1. s � r �; ,n . r; ( - high spotted knapweed ,. concentration. Os . v `' *rl"yrt w c �,;g� • ;,,rt° 4 4..4f ''i' �'`t,,,C "4. t • ^ a; •, tk ,,'�' ,)try. t' ), 1.. . 1 !1 !r y ore 5�` � rip. � �.t%{1'�s *A't�yp,#1,P, .�� yd{ i 1 �rlg+�x. � '�•I. 'l�ii # Lq � �, 4 ,V r , tj xr 'ff Wi.R'' '�,{ !..,, R5 1,4 y �'*'� trtik•a 1 1 M1 t ti --.., ,,,N14 -).,.1.4j.la1I ,,, ?3� x ,4.-.):....,,..,- � � 'fr'• t '.ik' �1►.. ` �, ~�'ron '�.ty al �.�;5./r�' '"'i� � Y 'pe: Y ' -f.-,:c., y�"�r,` 44A-1-,10 )s; Photo No. Date: ► .. .. - -- �..__ 13 09/21/09 e Pon- -, t :11i __, ' , . -_ .§4. Direction Photo Taken: ;i i.`- 1 :, •g. 10 Southeast,from top of slope �_ �~ 4 Allill'ai. ie. ` Description: - '� Typical view of Restoration . Opportunity 28 showing a break in the vegetation corridor on a 'T- steep slope. , "1; ';rte ~ + CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS (REVISED DRAFT) City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update DOE Preliminary Draft - June 3, 2013 Revised Draft - September 26, 2014 0010 { Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department Spokane Valley City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 Prepared by: URS Corporation 111 S.W. Columbia, Suite 1500 Portland, Oregon 97201-5814 URS Project Number 36298174 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Updates to Initial Draft 1 Section 2 Current Circumstances Affecting Shoreline Functions 2 2.1 Natural Processes and Shoreline Functions 3 2.2 External Factors Affecting Shorelines 3 2.3 Internal Factors Affecting Shorelines 4 2.4 Summary of Ecological Functions at Risk 4 Section 3 Estimate of Future Shoreline Developments and Uses 6 3.1 Review of Past and Current Shoreline Developments 6 3.1.1 Past Shoreline Uses 6 3.1.2 Current Shoreline Uses 7 3.2 Expectations of Growth 7 3.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development and Uses 7 Section 4 Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities 11 4.1 Protective Provisions of Proposed SMP 11 4.1.1 Shoreline Environmental Designations 11 4.1.2 Buffers and Setbacks 14 4.1.3 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation Measures 14 4.1.4 Shoreline Hardening Restrictions 15 4.1.5 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing Standards 16 4.1.6 Shoreline Critical Areas Regulations 17 4.1.7 Additional Approval Criteria for Specific Modifications 17 4.2 State and Federal Regulatory Protections 18 4.3 Spokane Valley Boating Restrictions 19 4.4 Other Activities that May Protect or Restore Shoreline Functions 19 Section 5 Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation 21 Section 6 References 33 Tables Table 2-1: Summary of Local Shoreline Ecological Functions 3 Table 2-2: Summary of Potential Impairments to Shoreline Ecological Functions 5 Table 3-1: Summary of Shoreline Permits since Incorporation 6 Table 3-2: Summary of Zoning Categories within SMP Jurisdiction 7 Table 3-3: Anticipated Development by Zoning Designation 8 Table 4-1: Shoreline Development Allowances by Environmental Designation 12 Table 5-1: Findings 23 Figures Figure 1: Spokane River Segments 9 Figure 2: Shoreline Environmental Designations 31 Figure 3: Shoreline Buffers 32 City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) Guidelines under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26-186(8)(d) state that, "To ensure no net loss of ecological functions and protection of other shoreline functions and/or uses, master programs shall contain policies, programs, and regulations that address adverse cumulative impacts and fairly allocate the burden of addressing cumulative impacts among development opportunities". Cumulative impacts are not specifically defined in the SMA; however, they generally describe the impact of an action or project in conjunction with other similar,reasonable foreseeable actions. This Cumulative Impacts Analysis is intended to develop a model of cumulative impacts on shoreline ecological functions within the City of Spokane Valley (City). The intent of this analysis is to ensure that shoreline environmental designations and proposed Shoreline Master Program (SMP) regulations will be protective of shoreline functions even when considering incremental actions that cumulatively have the potential to negatively impact those functions. Per the SMA Guidelines, the evaluation of such cumulative impacts should consider: 1. Current circumstances affecting the shorelines and relevant natural processes; 2. Reasonably foreseeable future development and use of the shoreline; and 3. Beneficial effects of any established regulatory programs under other local,state, and federal laws. Findings of this model may result in modifications to the draft SMP regulations if it is determined that cumulative impacts could result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions over time. If such changes are made to the SMP regulations as a result of this report, a brief addendum will be prepared for this report that documents those changes and updates the model results accordingly. The results of this analysis are based on a variety of inputs filtered through the draft environmental designations and their applicable level of land use restrictions. The inputs include anticipated growth, development estimates, and existing shoreline functions with particular emphasis on those that are most at risk. These are then analyzed based on the proposed protections in the updated SMP, other regulatory protections, and estimates of non- regulatory shoreline restoration. 1.2 Updates to Initial Draft Since the first Cumulative Impacts Analysis (CIA) report was drafted in 2013, the draft shoreline regulations have been amended to reflect input from the Spokane Valley Planning Commission,public comments, and the findings of the draft CIA report. As a result, this report includes an updated description of the shoreline regulations, including a new section for additional approval criteria found in the current draft of the shoreline regulations (see Section 4.1.7 below). Also, the findings of this report have been updated to reflect changes to the City ofSpokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 1 SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION estimated cumulative affects based on the updated regulations. Note that references to sections of the current draft of the shoreline regulations refer to the document dated September 9,2014. City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 2 SECTION TWO Current Circumstances Affecting Shoreline Functions 2.1 Natural Processes and Shoreline Functions As described in the shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (URS 2010), the shoreline zone within the City provides several ecological functions that the SMA seeks to protect. Influenced by watershed processes, such as erosion and deposition, the hydrologic cycle, and nutrient transport and uptake, these functions provide ecological services that are less available outside of the shoreline zone. Shoreline functions are often separated into three general functional categories for ease of assessment and description. These functional categories include habitat functions, water quantity (hydraulic) functions, and water quality functions. Table 2-1 provides an overview of commonly assessed shoreline functions provided by the Spokane River and Shelley Lake (including associated wetlands). Table 2-1: Summary of Local Shoreline Ecological Functions Habitat functions Hydrologic functions Water quality functions • Aquatic habitat for • Flow attenuation/ • Nutrient cycling invertebrates,native fish, regulation • Sediment filtering and and amphibians • Water storage stabilization • Terrestrial(riparian) • Base flow support • Cover for contaminated habitat for mammals, • Transport of water and aquatic sediment birds, invertebrates materials,including wood • Shade/thermoregulation • Support for native • Creation and maintenance • Aquifer recharge biodiversity of in-stream habitat • Toxicant removal • Production of organic complexity(pools,riffles, material gravel bars,etc.) • Creation of conditions for breeding and nesting/rearing 2.2 External Processes Affecting Shorelines There are several processes affecting shoreline ecological functions within the City that are beyond the City's ability to control. Habitat functions are affected by the spread of invasive weeds along the shoreline zone by wind, foot traffic, water flow, animal droppings, and other means. Aquatic habitat is affected by hydroelectric project management, which controls the amount of water flow moving through the City. During periods of low flow, temperatures rise and dissolved oxygen, which fish require, decreases. Water quality is affected by upstream agricultural runoff, urban runoff, limited erosion, temperature, and 303(d) contaminants associated with historical and current industry upriver. Water quantity/hydrologic functions are highly affected by upstream and downstream hydroelectric dams; natural aquifer inputs and recharge locations; and, to a lesser extent,upstream agricultural diversions. City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 3 SECTION TWO Current Circumstances Affecting Shoreline Functions 2.3 Internal Factors Affecting Shorelines Within the City, several land use activities and natural processes affect shoreline ecological functions. Unlike the external processes listed in Section 2.2, many of these land use activities and processes can be controlled by the City, in coordination with the Washington Parks and Recreation Commission (State Parks), through a combination of regulations and land management activities. Within the City, habitat, water quality, and hydrologic functions are primarily affected by development, recreation, industry, and vegetation management. Riparian habitats are affected by unmitigated land clearing and development, after which they can become especially susceptible to invasive plant species establishment and erosion, which lowers the riparian habitat value for most species. Riparian areas are also be affected by recreational uses, including foot traffic, fire, and litter as well as natural processes like infrequent flooding and slope failure. Water quality within the City is largely affected by external processes but degradation can be exacerbated by erosion from concentrated surface runoff, contamination from localized discharge of untreated stormwater, motorboat pollution, and general aquifer contamination throughout the City. Erosion from runoff into the river and lake also affects water quality and aquatic habitat. Too much runoff can result in turbid water,which is harmful for fish. Water quantity/flow management within the river and lake is primarily affected by external factors but impervious development has the potential to increase "flashy" flows and decrease summer base flows through rapid discharge of stormwater that would otherwise infiltrate and recharge the aquifer over a longer period. 2.4 Summary of Ecological Functions at Risk Much of the City's shoreline jurisdiction along the Spokane River is managed by State Parks, as part of the Riverside State Park. As a result,river shoreline functions are largely protected from development within the City relative to other cities. However, recreational uses are common, encouraged by the SMA, and provided for by the Spokane River Centennial Trail (SRCT) and various public parks along the shoreline. Heavy recreational use has the potential to degrade shoreline functions as noted in Section 2.3 above. In addition, shoreline areas above the State Park lands and adjacent areas outside of the SMP jurisdiction, particularly on the south side of the river, have the potential for development and/or redevelopment/infill based upon the land use analysis in Section 6 of the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (URS 2010). The majority of Shelley Lake is currently developed, making the potential for incremental current and future shoreline development impacts low around the lake. Table 2-2 below provides a list of potential impairments to shoreline ecological functions based on conditions within the City. City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 4 SECTION TWO Current Circumstances Affecting Shoreline Functions Table 2-2: Summary of Potential Impairments to Shoreline Ecological Functions Habitat functions Water quantity functions Water quality functions • Loss of riparian cover from • Lower stream flow due to • Increased turbidity due to development and recreation increased aquifer use erosion from foot traffic, • Degraded habitat functions from • Increased short-term flow construction spread of noxious weeds velocity after rain events • Degraded water quality • Degraded fish habitat due to due to increased impervious due to increased turbidity from erosion/sediment area/runoff contamination/nutrient loading • Lower summer base flow loading from vehicles, • Degraded aquatic habitat due to support due to lack of lawn chemicals,pet waste, untreated stormwater runoff infiltration associated with etc. • Degraded wildlife habitat due to new impervious • Wanner water edge effects(noise, light, development temperatures due to loss of human/pet presence)from new riparian cover development 1 City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 5 SECTION THREE Estimate of Future Shoreline Developments and Uses This section discusses the estimated developments and other uses that are reasonably expected within the shoreline zone over a 20-year period. 3.1 Review of Past and Current Shoreline Developments 3.1.1 Past Shoreline Uses In an effort to understand past shoreline impacts for the purpose of determining cumulative impacts of shoreline development, the preceding nine years of shoreline permits issued within the City was researched, reviewed, and summarized. Table 3-1 provides a snapshot of shoreline development over the past eight years since the City incorporated in 2003. When combined with estimates of growth, as described in Section 3.2, this provides a reasonable tool for estimating future growth as well. Table 3-1: Summary of Shoreline Permits since Incorporation Development Type COSV Permit Type No. Year In-water Grading/ Upland Pathway Subst. Cond. Permits Dock Exempt Var. Fill Utilities Structure w/Reveg. Devel. Use 2004 2 2 2 2 2 2005 0 2006 1 1 1 2007 2 1 1 2 1 2 5 7 2008 0 2009 0 2010 2 1 2 1 1 2 2011 4 4 1 6 3 9 2012 1 2 1 1 3 4 Avg./yr. 0.67 0.22 1.0 1.22 0.44 1.22 1.56 0.00 0.00 2.78 Although the short period of time since incorporation makes the City's permit history short for the purposes of prediction, there are certain trends that are clear, even with the large standard deviation between values year to year. Based on Table 3-1, upland structures appear to be the most common type of development requiring a shoreline permit. They are also the type of development most likely to require a Substantial Shoreline Development Permit under the existing SMP. Docks are allowed as an exempt shoreline development at a rate of less than one per year, which indicates that, unless regulated differently by the SMP update, several more docks are likely over the future SMP planning period of 20 years within areas zoned for residential uses. The table also indicates that infrequent in-water fill occurs, generally associated with bank stabilization following a flood. Both in-water fill projects were allowed as an exemption. Under the current SMP, conditional uses and variances have never been used to permit a shoreline development. City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 6 SECTION THREE Estimate of Future Shoreline Developments and Uses 3.1.2 Current Shoreline Uses Within the City, there are approximately 511 acres under the jurisdiction of the SMA. This accounts for approximately three percent of the 24,464 acres within City limits. Per Table 3-2, below, the majority of the shoreline zone is held in Parks/Open Space. This is followed by Industrial zoning, which is associated with the gravel pits and Kaiser Aluminum. Low Density Residential zoning is the third largest shoreline zone. A combination of other zoning categories, including Mixed Use, Commercial, and Public ROW account for less than 10 percent of the shoreline zone, combined. Shoreline areas lacking a zoning designation include 287.46 acres of open water and 20 acres of public right-of-way. Table 3-2: Summary of Zoning Categories within SMP Jurisdiction Zoning Category Acreage Parks/Open Space 201 42.4 Industrial 153 32.3 Low Density 76 16.0 Residential Mixed Use 29 6.1 Railroad ROW 8 1.7 Commercial 7 1.5 The Spokane River currently receives moderate to high in-water recreational use due to the hydraulics of the Spokane River, which provide prized floating conditions for non-motorized boats, rafts, and kayaks. Due to an abundance of public park land and access provided by the SRCT and parking at Mirabeau Park, the southern shoreland areas receive a good deal of recreational use, primarily by bicyclists and pedestrians. The northern shoreland areas receive moderate hiking and angling uses at specific, publicly accessible areas, particularly around Sullivan Park. 3.2 Expectations of Growth Per the Shoreline Use Analysis in Section 6 of the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report,the City expects an annual growth rate of approximately 1.5 percent. Developable lands that are currently listed as "vacant"in the Assessor's tax parcel database were quantified for the City by Planning Department staff in 2009 to update their comprehensive plan. Based on this effort, it was determined that there are currently 48.95 acres of developable land categorized as "Vacant"within the City's shoreline zones. 3.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development and Uses In general, shoreline areas with development potential are limited to dispersed fragments of parcels with industrial, residential, or mixed use zoning designations. Many of these lack adequate access, utilities, or are otherwise constrained in a manner that limits development City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 7 SECTION THREE Estimate of Future Shoreline Developments and Uses potential (such as by utility or railroad easements). The majority of areas under SMA jurisdiction within the City are either not developable (e.g., park land) or have already been developed. Some minor redevelopment and infill are expected within residential shoreland areas, particularly within River Segment (SR)-1 (Figure 1); however, this would be restricted from infringing upon park lands and, as such, would have little direct effect on the current state of shoreline ecosystem functions. Planners often estimate a region's ability to support additional growth by quantifying developable lands that are currently listed as "vacant" in the Assessor's tax parcel database. Such a land quantity analysis (LQA) was conducted by the City Planning Department staff in 2009 to update their comprehensive plan. Using the LQA data, there are currently 48.95 acres of land categorized as "Vacant" within the City's shoreline jurisdiction. Table 3-3 provides a summary of anticipated development within currently vacant lands, which fall into three zoning designations within SMP jurisdiction. This list is based upon conversations with City planning staff, State Parks, and Avista Corporation, a utility company with natural gas and electrical transmission within the SMP zone. Table 3-3: Anticipated Development by Zoning Designation Zoning Developable % Anticipated Development River Segment' Designation Acreage in SMP Coyote Rocks Residential SR-3 Development Trailside Residential SR-3 Development Likely short plat applications SR-1, SR-2 Residential 4.15 8 that will break large lots into smaller lots for development(not specific—estimated based on past development trends) Residential redevelopment(not SR-1, SR-2, SR- specific—estimated based on past 4, Shelley Lake development trends) Flora Road gravel pit will SR-2 Heavy Industrial 16.72 34 eventually transition into other land uses Pinecroft business and SR-2 commercial area Mixed Use Center 28.08 57 — Centennial Properties mixed use SR-2 development 'Refer to Figure 1 below for river segment reference. City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 8 SECTION THREE Estimate of Future Shoreline Developments and Uses In addition to the private and commercial developments noted in Table 3-3, there are public developments that are likely to occur, which are not specific to one zoning designation. The City Parks Plan is currently being updated. The update is in the early stages but future improvements at Sullivan or Mirabeau Park may include shoreline developments associated with improved access, as per the Public Access Plan (URS 2012). State Parks has no plans for park improvements within the foreseeable future. However, they would like to see the riprap revetment in SR-1 improved to provide enhanced visual benefits and ecological functions. �,, y. a.: -. .- c. Legend ,,i. ', a v; ' S +c _` t` ` , ED City Limits 1' e . t ^- ;, --4,::::, ;a1'. Spokane River Study Segment Boundary ..t ;4a.1 ♦ 1a' Vii" , t ' '4 'i d ' t'41';'-': shy`' • ®SMA Boundary J x -7.••', ry t f%r r a Centennial Trail f> Y ri y :'� r k4.At _ ♦ ''•ttil Tia 7,..., 34T ,,y i - - .t'Segment ! Y�; , r - •rj �' ',' ..y fit .1, i ' >.w.s..7.11l I _. _.x_ 41y z ,,- ,. ' Segment, •. �, .�,,- } - ; �� T_ 11---'1-'--74..' 1,., '.,�, yt y,36`3" * tit tij ..• ,, �f, yk w try'1�4. ^,.\'! 1`` rte'y`5�• ""� '� 4 y> " _- '" -Fid"^ t{ r e' �f- — '-- 2.�3 ii SAF.P ti, - 1 - �.j r s' ,. 3 . e 1 3r 1 t. '�... 4 t J ' aq O ': 0-r 4d'Millwood'1_,r., .:; ���i't , �:A R ' ' t ,;, 'h -'�41.,-...4,-; +,���.� ft ;,--,i.::-i--,-:5y , i f _____......i.,:.:))..1 , _ .{�.Y_s'i�- r.O{. ;,...-,-,1,_,,,,. ^ , ,dam.-�f.Lb2 t 1':� i' r e+ "` y �` o , _ h ag'. JAY # -�,' tXi ` ,- �, , .4_� 4 a �` Segment 2 i -s'�T�S+K f',''� a- �SyTk : t.i tire; 41. ','--. �'. is{ `.�' ?14 %ki'wt�g '�nq' w.'�",. ity of �� .p _ �,A� "'� i . >�k ' ,r, ``,�4 ./ •:: 1' t-I;Spo'aneVali- t. ---,,t- *-. 4 44:,, -`ii, irk. S ,. .' ,.,. #,.. 5 .- ;���,�' � � � ��M��,�,,��� � ,,�, N �t:Jgure 1:Spokane River Segments r - City of Spokane Valley ct41 T.<, 4:::).- t�' v - s 0 0.5 1 Mdes .ii Also, the City intends to replace the aging Sullivan Bridge. The bridge replacement will be similar in scale to the Barker Road Bridge Replacement. Access improvements in conjunction with the Sullivan Bridge Project are expected, including an improved pathway to the water. Additionally, Avista conducts maintenance projects and upgrade projects routinely. These include access road maintenance and repair, periodic pole replacement, tower upgrades, and buried natural gas line maintenance,repair, and replacement. Lastly, the Barker South metals cleanup site is expected to occur in the near future. This cleanup site was planned for 2012, but delays in the Barker Road Bridge project made the associated river access restrictions that would be associated with the cleanup activity unfavorable to the public. As a result,the cleanup activity is currently being re-evaluated. Much of the effect on Spokane River's shorelines is expected to come from increased recreation. Due to the presence of the SRCT and widespread public park land throughout the river corridor, increased populations within the region have direct access to the majority of the City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 9 SECTION THREE Estimate of Future Shoreline Developments and Uses river's shorelines through the City, particularly along the southern shoreline due to the SRCT. Future recreational use may increase with the establishment of the proposed Spokane River Water Trail, which is being discussed by members of the local Spokane River Forum. As currently envisioned, the Water Trail would formalize and provide improved direct river access at many of the existing access points identified in the Inventory and Characterization Report (URS 2010). City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 10 SECTION FOUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities 4.1 Protective Provisions of Proposed SMP Based upon the actions described in Section 3 above, certain shoreline uses appear to have the greatest potential to result in losses of ecological shoreline functions due to incremental actions over time. These uses are analyzed by shoreline environmental designation (SED) in Table 4-1, below, to determine whether they would be allowed outright through an exemption, allowed with a shoreline substantial development application, potentially allowed as a conditional use, or outright prohibited. In addition to the general allowances and prohibitions associated with each SED, there are several additional shoreline regulations that further protect shoreline environmental functions. These are described in Sections 4.1.2 through 4.1.6. Following this, Section 4.2 describes other state and federal regulatory programs that function to protect shoreline ecological functions. Lastly, Section 4.3 describes other activities that are expected to enhance shoreline ecological functions and, as such, should be considered together with potentially detrimental anticipated development and recreation effects to assess the potential for a net loss or gain of shoreline ecological functions. 4.1.1 Shoreline Environmental Designations The SMP currently includes five SEDs. Based on data gathered during the shoreline inventory, shoreline areas with similar characteristics are assigned a common SED that reflects unique land management goals and policies that are appropriate for the area. The SED is used during the shoreline planning review process as a zoning overlay, which provides additional land use approval considerations above those associated with the underlying zoning category. The five SED categories are Urban-Conservancy-High Quality (UC-HQ), Urban Conservancy (UC), Shoreline Residential—Waterfront (SR-W), Shoreline Residential-Upland (SR-U), and Aquatic (AQ). The AQ SED applies to those areas below the ordinary high water mark for Waters of the State. Most of the Spokane River shoreline is designated as UC, including State Park lands. The UC designation allows for conservation of near-shore habitat while allowing limited commercial and mixed use development within the outer portion of the SMP jurisdiction. Areas specifically identified as proposed conservation areas in the 2010 inventory were designated as UC-HQ. The AQ and UC-HQ designations allow for the least amount of habitat alteration and generally focus on preservation and management of existing, high-quality riparian and aquatic habitat. There are two Shoreline Residential designations. Each was developed to provide a means for allowing appropriate residential uses with regard to the proximity of the residential area to the waterline. For areas directly adjacent to the water, the SR-W designation addresses land uses along the water line that are not applicable to upland residential areas (SR- U). Further descriptions of each SED are provided in City Resolution 12-007, which was passed on November 13, 2012. City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 11 SECTION FOUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities Table 4-1: Shoreline Development Allowances by Environmental Designation 1 Shoreline Development i i with Potential to Degrade c c c ' Notes Shoreline Ecological cc Eco Z Z = u Functions a a g A om o .a J 0 v • ccvcc0 .0. 3 = c.) > ck < -12 cn Agriculture X X X X X Aquaculture X X X X X Boating Facilities N/A P C X P/C/X See note below.' Commercial Development Water-dependent X P P X C Commercial uses are allowed in the Water-related and Shoreline Residential and Urban P P P X C Conservancy Environments only if water-enjoyment the underlying zoning of the property Non water-oriented X X P X X is"Mixed Use Center." Non water-oriented uses only allowed if part of a mixed-use project Industrial Uses that includes water—dependent uses and development is separated from X X P X X river by intervening parcel or ROW. In-stream Development Fish Habitat Habitat enhancement encouraged. Enhancement N/A P P P P Dredging and Fill C C C X P/C/X See note below.' Other uses(flood protections,groins, N/A C C X C weirs) Piers and Docks P P P X P/C/X See note below.' Mining X X X X X No new gravel mines will be allowed in the SMP zone. Parking as a primary use prohibited in all SEDs.Accessory parking for Parking Facilities P P P C X mixed use/residentiallrecreational developments permitted in most non- aquatic areas. City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 12 SECTION FOUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities Public Facilities and Utilities Public facilities Includes bridge repairs,park C C C X C improvements. Utilities C C C C C A Letter of Exemption is required if Routine maintenance ofA A A P A the maintenance activity involves existing infrastructure any ground disturbing activity; always required in UC-HQ. Recreational Development Water-dependent/related P P P P P No recreational development is Non-water-oriented P P P C C prohibited outright and none is Trails and walkways P P P C P exempted outright. Residential Development/Redevelopment Single-family, including Residential structures are subject to accessory uses and A A A A X underlying zoning requirements only structures outside of Aquatic SED. Multi-family P P P X X Private docks serving N/A P P P X Private docks serving 4+residences one to three residences covered through"boating facilities." Accessory Dwelling P P P P X Includes small exterior apartments. Units Shoreline Habitat Enhancements that do not modify the Enhancements P P P P P shoreline dimensions(e.g.,plantings) (Modifications) may be allowed. In UC-HQ structural modifications Shoreline/Slope X P P PIX P/C/X are prohibited but non-structural Stabilization activities such as soil bioengineering are permitted. See note below.' Transportation Facilities New circulation routes related to permitted P P C C X shoreline activities Expansion of existing All new transportation projects will circulation systems P P P P X require permits or letters of New,reconstructed,or exemption. maintenance of bridges, P P P P P trail,or rail crossings KEY: A=Allowed/Exempt. P=Permitted. C=Conditional Use. X=Prohibited. N/A=Not Applicable. 'Note: For these uses within the Aquatic Environment,the adjacent upland environment per the City of Spokane Valley Environment Designation Map shall govern. City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 13 SECTION FOUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities 4.1.2 Buffers and Setbacks Shoreline buffers and building setbacks protect the shoreline environment by limiting development and use within a reasonable distance from the water edge and associated sensitive shoreline habitats, ensuring no further degradation of the existing shoreline environment. Shoreline buffers generally follow the vegetation conservation boundary identified in the shoreline inventory and can be seen on Figure 3 (page 32). Buffers occupy the majority of the shorelands. Buffer reductions in all SEDs may be granted by Shoreline Variance Permit; however, sites which have had buffer widths reduced or modified by any prior action are not eligible for buffer reduction. Development setbacks from the outer edge of the buffer are required within UC (10-foot) and UC-HQ (15-foot) SEDs. In residential SEDs, 15-foot setbacks are required for new subdivisions, binding site plans, and planned residential developments, but no setbacks are proposed for individual private developments. The existing Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC 19.40) requires a 20-foot setback from the property line. For most properties in the SR- U SED, this zoning setback provides a full 20-foot setback from the shoreline buffer. There are ten residential lots, only one of which is currently vacant, where the zoning setback would allow development along the edge of the shoreline buffer. The developable portion of parcels in the SR-W SED are very narrow as approved under the current SMP. To protect use of these properties,buffer setbacks are not currently proposed in this SED. The SMP allows the following developments within the building setback area when accessory to a primary structure: • Landscaping • Uncovered decks or patios • Paths,walkways, or stairs • Building overhangs, if not extending more than 18 inches into the setback area 4.1.3 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation Measures The Inventory and Characterization Report identifies the loss of riparian cover from development and recreation as a threat to shoreline habitat function (URS 2010). Shoreline vegetation plays a number of functional roles by providing bank stability, habitat and wildlife corridors, shade and cover, and wood and organic debris recruitment. Vegetation conservation measures ensure that vegetation within the shoreline jurisdiction is protected and/or restored when damaged or removed by development activities. Vegetation conservation also improves the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. The proposed SMP requires vegetation conservation measures for all projects proposing vegetation removal within the shoreline jurisdiction. For new development, expansion, or redevelopment, all clearing and grading activities must also comply with Spokane Valley City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 14 SECTION FOUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities Municipal Code (SVMC) 24.50 Land Disturbing Activities. A vegetation management plan, describing the vegetative conditions of the site and summarizing functions provided by existing vegetation, is required for all projects that propose removal of mature native trees or greater than 10 square feet of native shrubs or herbaceous vegetation. Mitigation, in the form of native vegetation replacement, may be required. If the proposed vegetation removal is within the shoreline buffer area, the Applicant will also need to demonstrate that the removal is consistent with No Net Loss standards and mitigation sequencing standards. The City may also require a performance surety as a condition of shoreline permit approval to ensure compliance with the SMP. Exceptions to proposed shoreline conservation measures include activities related to maintenance of existing yards or gardens, noxious weed removal, and dead or hazardous tree removal. Pruning and thinning of trees for maintenance, safety, forest health, and view protection are also exempt from the requirement to obtain a Shoreline Permit, if a Letter of Exemption is issued, and if conducted on or within the following areas: • Public land. • Utility corridors. • Private residential land buffer areas. Pruning and thinning for view maintenance on public and private lands are subject to conditions to ensure that pruning activities are conducted in a way that ensures the continued health and vigor of shoreline vegetation. Adherence with the Shoreline Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) regarding the application of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or other chemicals is required for all vegetation removal activities. 4.1.4 Shoreline Hardening Restrictions Bulkheads and other hard shoreline stabilization structures can disrupt natural shoreline processes and destroy shoreline habitats. The proposed SMP encourages the use of nonstructural methods (e.g., building setbacks, relocation of the threatened structure, soil bioengineering with vegetation, groundwater management, and planning and regulatory measures to avoid the need for structural stabilization) instead of shoreline hardening measures. New structural stabilization methods require a Shoreline Conditional Permit and will be permitted only under the following conditions: • Evidence shows that an existing primary structure is in danger from shoreline erosion caused by wave action and river currents. • Nonstructural measures are not feasible or not sufficient. • An engineering or scientific analysis shows that damage is caused by natural processes. • Structural stabilization will incorporate native vegetation and comply with the mitigation sequencing in Section 4.1.5. City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 15 SECTION FOUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities The SMP also includes provisions allowing for repair, maintenance, and replacement of existing shoreline stabilization structures, so long as the location and footprint of the replacement structure remain similar. New or replaced shoreline stabilization structures must comply with the requirements of the SVMC 24.50 Land Disturbing Activities and with Section 4.1.3 (Shoreline Vegetation Conservation), and require the submittal of design plans, a design narrative, and engineering or scientific reports prepared by a Qualified Professional. 4.1.5 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing Standards To achieve No Net Loss of shoreline ecological functions, Applicants proposing shoreline modifications or developments must demonstrate that the proposed project meets the City's No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing standards (SVMC 21.50.210). These standards require the Applicant to first seek opportunities to avoid impacts to sensitive shoreline areas, including the Riparian Habitat Area and shoreline CAOs. Where impacts cannot be avoided, they must be minimized to the extent practicable and remaining impacts must be mitigated. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts to sensitive shoreline areas typically includes shoreline restoration. Mitigation measures will be applied in the following order of priority: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; 5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and 6. Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures. Mitigation sequencing is required for all proposed shoreline uses and development, including uses that are exempt from a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. 4.1.6 Shoreline Critical Areas Regulations The City's shoreline CAO provides regulations for development within critical areas located within SMP jurisdiction. Designated critical areas within the shoreline jurisdiction include wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, geologically hazardous areas, and critical aquifer recharge areas. Development is generally restricted from occurring within a critical area without a site-specific analysis of potential impacts to the critical area and proposed mitigation. City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 16 SECTION FOUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities Regulation of critical areas within the shoreline jurisdiction will be administered as part of the CAO guidelines that are being developed specifically for the SMP update. All use, modification, or development proposed within the shoreline jurisdiction must comply with the CAO. 4.1.7 Additional Approval Criteria for Specific Modifications The initial cumulative analysis found that losses of shoreline ecological functions were possible based on the fact that docks and associated shoreline developments had the potential to cumulatively degrade ecological functions over time. Some of the public comments voiced similar concerns over the effects of docks on aquatic habitat and flow characteristics. To address the potential for cumulative degradation of shoreline ecological functions, aesthetics, and shared use of the river, the Planning Commission advised City planning staff to craft regulations that would require additional approval criteria for specific shoreline modifications, including docks. Their intent was to allow private property uses so long as an Applicant could demonstrate that their proposed development would not result in a loss of ecological functions. As a result, the City has updated their shoreline regulations to require additional approval criteria for specific shoreline modifications. Under SVMC 21.50.410 of the draft City shoreline regulations, additional approval criteria are required for the following activities: shoreline stabilization projects; piers and docks; dredging and fill; and shoreline habitat and natural systems enhancement projects. Prior to receiving approval from the City, Applicants seeking to modify shorelines in one of these ways will be required to submit a: 1. Site suitability analysis that justifies the project on fish and wildlife habitat and migration areas. 2. Habitat Management Plan prepared by a Qualified Professional that describes: a. The anticipated effects of the project on fish and wildlife habitat and migration areas; b. Provisions for protecting in-stream resources during construction and operation; and c. Measures to compensate for impacts to resources that cannot be avoided. 3. An engineering analysis which evaluates and addresses: a. The stability of the structure for the required design frequency; b. Changes in base flood elevation, floodplain width, and flow velocity; c. The potential for blocking or redirecting the flow which could lead to erosion of other shoreline properties or create an adverse impact to shoreline resources and uses; d. Methods for maintaining the natural transport of sediment and bedload materials; e. Protection of water quality,public access, and recreation; and f. Maintenance requirements. City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 17 SECTION FOUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities Under SVMC 21.50.430, there are additional added approval criteria specific to piers and docks. For Applicants seeking to develop piers and docks on the Spokane River east of the City of Millwood,these additional approval criteria require the following: 1. The site suitability analysis shall demonstrate that: a. The river conditions in the proposed location of the dock, including depth and flow conditions,will accommodate the proposed dock and its use; and b. Any design to address river conditions will not interfere with or adversely affect navigability. 2. The Habitat Management Plan for any such docks shall demonstrate that the proposed dock will not result in a net loss of ecological functions. Also, per SVMC 21.50.430(B)(9), new residential development of two or more dwellings within the shoreline located east of the City of Millwood, and west of the Centennial Trail Pedestrian Bridge, shall provide joint use or community dock facilities, when feasible, rather than allowing individual docks for each residence. 4.2 State and Federal Regulatory Protections Federal and state regulations also provide mechanisms that aim to avoid adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions. In addition to local regulations, several state and federal agencies have regulatory authority over resources within the City's shoreline jurisdiction. These regulations help manage potential cumulative impacts to shorelines. The following state and federal regulations may apply to activities and uses within the City's shoreline jurisdiction to avoid impacts. • Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit: Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is responsible for authorizing fill activities. • Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit: Applicants receiving a Section 404 permit from the Corps are required to obtain a Section 401 (Water Quality Certification) permit from Ecology. Water quality certification helps protect water quality by providing the state with the opportunity to evaluate aquatic impacts from federally-permitted projects. • Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA): All projects with the potential to directly or indirectly affect species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA are subject to the review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries). • National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): The Flood Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA) administer NFIP, which provides flood insurance, floodplain City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 18 SECTION FOUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities management, and flood hazard mapping. Participants in the NFIP adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage. • State Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA): Any work that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of any of the salt or fresh waters of the state requires a HPA permit from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Project Applicants must show that construction will not adversely affect fish, shellfish, and their habitats. • Washington State Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA): The WPCA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into any water of the state. Any discharge of pollutants from point sources to surface waters of the state requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). • Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission: Planning projects at Washington State Parks require completion of the Classification and Management Plan (CAMP) process. The process reflects the standards set out in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and information collected through the planning effort is used to satisfy SEPA requirements. 4.3 Spokane Valley Boating Restrictions SVMC 7.25 describes the City's Water Safety Regulations, which are enforced by the Spokane County Sherriff's Department. Under SVMC 7.25.040(B), power boat traffic is limited to a no- wake speed (5 miles per hour)within 100 feet of either shoreline. The width of the river through the City east of Millwood ranges between 220 feet and 300 feet. This gives it an average width within the City limits of 260 feet, which allows only a narrow 60-foot-wide path for motor boating above the no-wake speed in the City. 4.4 Other Activities that May Protect or Restore Shoreline Functions As noted in Table 5-1, opportunities for the restoration of shoreline ecological functions have been identified throughout the City's SMP jurisdiction. These restoration opportunities are described in the City Shoreline Restoration Plan prepared for the SMP update (URS 2012b). Implementation of these restoration projects is coordinated through the City but is dependent upon volunteer interest or mitigation obligations associated with a shoreline permit application. Local environmental advocacy groups periodically work on tree planting and weed removal activities. Two such activities occurred over the last two years, including weed and trash removal combined with tree planting at Mirabeau Park and a separate tree planting effort near Barker Road Bridge. Based on this,volunteer restoration activities are reasonably foreseeable. Future developments requiring a Substantial Shoreline Development Permit are likely to require mitigation if they involve habitat impacts that cannot be avoided. Where located near an City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 19 SECTION FOUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities identified shoreline restoration opportunity, the City is expected to work with Applicants to include an identified restoration opportunity as part of the permit approval. Other activities that are likely to protect or restore shoreline functions include ongoing weed management activities carried out by State Parks and the City as part of their routine park maintenance, which includes areas along the SRCT. Also, ongoing metals cleanup projects in and upstream of the City will improve water quality functions. City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 20 SECTION FIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation 5.1 Findings As summarized in Table 5-1 below, this SMP is generally expected to maintain existing shoreline net ecological functions through a combination of City regulations, state and federal regulations, current land ownership, land uses, and anticipated ecological restoration activities. The current shoreline regulations would closely review uses likely to have a detrimental impact on ecological functions. They establish standards to ensure compensatory mitigation of impacts to vegetation conservation areas, critical areas, and associated buffers, and they encourage restoration activities. They require building setbacks where appropriate. Additionally, since the first draft of this report was prepared, the City has included additional approval criteria for shoreline uses/modifications that were determined to have the potential for cumulative impacts that could degrade shoreline ecological functions, namely docks and associated access developments in an area with a high potential for multiple individual new residential developments. Public comments and prior lawsuits have alleged that allowing for multiple docks between the Centennial Trail Bridge and the City of Millwood have the potential to cumulatively affect native redband trout and their habitat. While the current regulations still allow docks in the SR-W SED, the potential is low for there to be numerous docks that would cumulatively degrade net shoreline ecological functions. The potential for such cumulative impacts is limited by the additional approval criteria. These additional criteria require that Applicants wishing to construct docks demonstrate site suitability, prepare a Habitat Management Plan, and provide an engineering analysis report that evaluates the stability of the structure with regard to the river conditions. Additionally, specific to piers and docks, the site suitability report required for all shoreline modifications must demonstrate that the river conditions in the proposed location of the dock, including depth and flow conditions, will accommodate the proposed dock and its use; and that any design to address river conditions will not interfere with or adversely affect navigability. The Habitat Management Plan for any such docks must demonstrate that the proposed dock will not result in a net loss of ecological functions. Approval criteria added to specifically limit the potential for multiple docks is found in SVMC 21.50.430(B)(9). This regulation requires that new residential development of two or more dwellings within the shoreline jurisdiction located east of the City of Millwood and west of the Centennial Trail Pedestrian Bridge must provide joint use or community dock facilities, when feasible, rather than allowing individual docks for each residence. What would enhance the intent of this "joint use" requirement is a means to ensure that Applicants consider this joint use of docks as part of their application process. It is recommended that the regulations be slightly amended under SVMC 21.50.430 (B)(9) to include a provision that Applicants document their efforts coordinate with neighbors regarding joint use, and have neighbors sign their applications to indicate interest in docks. If neighbors are City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 21 SECTION FIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation interested then the City can require the Applicant to demonstrate joint or community use. If uninterested, the City will have a clear record to limit future applications (and associated cumulative impacts). While it is unclear that an Applicant could demonstrate site suitability for even one dock, this additional approval step would further "prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development" (RCW 90.58.020) of the shoreline in SR-3. Concentrated losses to shoreline ecological functions from cumulative effects are anticipated to be relatively small in area and limited to a small portion of the City's shoreline jurisdiction where up to 31 new residential developments are anticipated between the Centennial Trail Bridge and the City of Millwood. In contrast,the majority of the SMP jurisdiction is made up by the UC SED, which appears likely to achieve a net increase in shoreline functions over the planning period as a result of public interest in volunteering for shoreline restoration projects, availability of shoreline restoration opportunities, and anticipated mitigation activities associated with likely shoreline developments. As a result, the overall, or net, status of shoreline ecological functions is expected to improve or at least remain at its current state within the City. As noted in Table 5-1, where ecological functions may be affected by foreseeable cumulative impacts, recommendations for minimizing functional losses are provided that may help achieve no change over the planning period. It should be noted that some of the factors that may degrade shoreline ecological factors are largely beyond the scope of the SMP, including managed flows on the river and increased recreational use of the State Parks. City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 22 SECTION FIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation Table 5-1. Findings Shoreline Environmental Existing Conditions! Expected Growth/ Effect of SMP& Expected Net Impact to Recommended Segment Designation Functions Provided! Impacts Other Regulations Ecological Functions over Next 20 Actions Ecological Rating Enhancement years Commercial and Native riparian forest/ industrial uses, significant vegetation Habitat for terrestrial removal,prohibited. wildlife,shade;bank No growth expected; Non-water-oriented Area located away from Urban stabilization;native area recommended recreational recreation hot spots and Conserve/protect for conservation None planned; SR-1 Conservancy biodiversity;woody development requires no developments existing native none needed (HQ) material provision,base Ongoing shoreline conditional use planned. Result is No riparian functions flow support erosion likely review.Requires loss. Ecological Rating: Fair- setbacks from RHAs. Good Mitigation requirements apply to any development. Primarily State Park land near shoreline/ Protects existing Native riparian forest Increased water- vegetation and limits habitat for terrestrial dependent uses floodplain development. Riparian habitat wildlife,shade;bank Minor soil,water, Vegetation restoration Encourage Requires setbacks restoration/tree Urban stabilization;native and vegetation should balance increased restoration SR-1 from RHAs.Allows planting associated Conservancy biodiversity;woody disturbance from foot traffic impacts to opportunities 30- for restoration. with voluntary material provision, increased off-trail Mitigation efforts result in no loss. 38 flood protection,base pedestrian traffic flow support! requirements apply to most development in Ecological Rating:Fair- this SED. Good City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 23 SECTION FIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation Existing Conditions/ Expected Net Impact to Shoreline Environmental Expected Growth/ Effect of SMP& Recommended Functions Provided/ Ecological Functions over Next 20 Segment Designation Actions Ecological Rating Impacts Other Regulations Enhancement years Small amount of new Development may result Single family residential Maintains buffers, in potential localized residential development, limits development in minor loss due to development,low to subdivisions and buffers,conserves increased runoff, Look for ways to vegetation,protects increased shoreline limit piecemeal medium density,on redevelopment critical areas,im Riparian lantin s, access docks and ed e Shoreline terrace above river/ expected/Increasedposesplanting g stormwater and SR-1 Residential runoff from new building setbacks, slope stability/ effects. Functional losses habitat impacts. Habitat for terrestrial provides public erosion control in are minimized by (Upland) impervious, Restoration wildlife,bank access. Underlying nearby UC SED. building setbacks, stabilization,shade/ vegetation alteration, zoning requires 20- vegetation conservation opportunity 36 habitat loss,edge (-0.06 acre) Ecological Rating:Fair- effects on wildlife foot development and buffer standards,use Good (light and noise setback from property restrictions,mitigation, lines. and possible restoration impacts) activities Native riparian forest or shrub areas with high Expected increase in Commercial and biological diversity, recreational use as industrial uses, mature vegetation,or significant vegetation Most areas located g population increases within a RHA and access Conserve/protect uncommon species and access removal,prohibited, improvements designed existing forest assemblages/ improvements Non-water-oriented P to direct recreation use areas;Place new Urban Habitat for terrestrial facilitate greater use/ recreational outside of HQ areas. park develop- SR-2 Conservancy wildlife shade bank development requires None planned Restoration activities ments in other (HQ) Potential for conditional use stabilization;nativeincreased noxious elsewhere assumed to SEDs;Restoration review.Requires biodiversity;woody weeds,fire, balance minor effects of opportunity 29 setbacks from buffers. material provision,base vegetationMitigation increased recreation (0.3 acre) flow support/ disturbance from footresulting in no loss. requirements apply to Ecological Rating:Fair- traffic, any development. Good City of Spokane Valley Cumulat impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 24 SECTION FIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation Existing Conditions/ Expected Net Impact to Shoreline Environmental Expected Growth/ Effect of SMP& Recommended Segment Designation Functions Provided/ Impacts Other Regulations Ecological Functions over Next 20 Actions Ecological Rating Enhancement years increased recreational uses and new Primarily State Parkcommercial and SMP protects existing land near shoreline withmixed-use vegetation and limits limited mixed-use, development south of floodplain commercial,and State Park lands/ development. industrial areas at outer Requires setbacks Mitigation standards edge of SMP zone/ Minor soil,water, from buffers. For large Riparian habitat should limit loss of and vegetation developments, restoration/tree functions and large area Native riparian forest disturbance from lantin associated Restoration requires Habitat planting of potential vegetation Urban habitat for increased off-trail g with voluntaryopportunities 8- SR-2 Management Plan and restoration should Conservancy terrestrial/aquatic pedestrian traffic; mitigation for habitat efforts increase shoreline 24,26-28(-27.6 wildlife,shade;bank acres) increased runoff from impacts. Dimensional Ongoing noxious functions to result in no stabilization;native new impervious standards limit size ofnet loss; potential net biodiversity;woody weed control areas;minor increase new developments. increase. material provision, in edge effects on City code and NPDES flood protection/ wildlifeli ht and � g requires stormwater Ecological Rating: Fair- noise impacts) treatment for all new Good development City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 25 SECTION FIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation Existing Conditions/ Expected Net Impact to Shoreline Environmental Expected Growth/ Effect of SMP& Recommended Segment Designation Functions Provided! impacts Other Regulations Ecological Functions over Next 20 Actions Ecological Rating Enhancement years Development may result Maintains buffers, in potential localized Small area of single- Small amount of new limits development in minor loss due to family residential residential buffers,conserves increased runoff, development,low development and vegetation,protects increased shoreline density,on terrace redevelopment critical areas,imposes Riparian plantings, access, and edge effects. Shoreline above river/ Restoration expected/Increased building setbacks, slope stability/ Functional losses are SR-2 Residential opportunity 25,26 Habitat for terrestrial runoff from new provides public erosion control in minimized by building (Upland) wildlife,bank impervious, access. Underlying nearby UC SED. setbacks,vegetation (-0.8 acres) stabilization,shade/ vegetation alteration, zoning requires 20- conservation and buffer Ecological Rating:Fair- habitat loss,edge foot development standards,use Good effects on wildlife setback from property restrictions,mitigation, lines. and possible restoration activities Native riparian shrub areas with high biological diversity and Commercial and unique riparian physical industrial uses, environment near significant vegetation Restoration Coyote Rock river Expected increase in removal,prohibited. opportunity 6 formations/ adjacent recreational Non-water-oriented Areas located within a would expand the Urban use as population recreational RHA and no HQ habitat to Habitat for terrestrial increases/ SR-3 Conservancy development requires None planned development is provide a net wildlife,shade,bank (HQ) Potential for conditional use anticipated in area increase in stabilization,native increased noxious biodiversity,flood review.Requires resulting in no loss. shoreline attenuation,woody weeds,fire setbacks from buffers. habitat/water material provision,base Mitigation quality functions. flow support/ requirements apply to any development. Ecological Rating:Fair- Good City of Spokane Valley Cumular• impacts Analysis, Revised September 26,2014 26 SECTION FIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation Existing Conditions/ Expected Net Impact to Shoreline Environmental Recommended Functions Provided/ Expected Growth/ Effect of SMP& Ecological Functions over Next 20 Segment Designation Ecological Rating Impacts Other Regulations Enhancement years Actions Small area with Primarily State Park potential for land(Myrtle Point increased recreational SMP protects existing Natural Area and uses and possible vegetation and limits SRCT)near shoreline new subdivision floodplain with limited mixed-use, and/or commercial development. commercial,and development/ Requires setbacks Mitigation standards industrial areas at outer Minor soil,water, from buffers.For large should limit loss of edge of SMP zone/ and vegetation developments, functions and large area disturbance from requires Habitat Riparian plantings, of potential vegetation Restoration Urban Native riparian forest SR-3 increased off-trail Management Plan and passive restoration, restoration should opportunities 5-7 Conservancy habitat for pedestrian traffic; mitigation for habitat erosion control increase shoreline (6.0 acres) terrestrial/aquatic increased runoff from impacts.Dimensional functions to result in no wildlife,shade;bank new impervious standards limit size of loss; potential stabilization;flood areas;minor increase new developments. increases. attenuation,native biodiversity;woody in edge effects on City code and NPDES wildlife from new requires stormwater material provision/ residential treatment for all new Ecological Rating:Fair- community(incl. development Good pets) City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 27 SECTION FIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation Existing Conditions/ Expected Net Impact to Shoreline • Environmental Expected Growth/ Effect of SMP& Recommended Segment Designation Functions Provided/ Impacts Other Regulations Ecological Functions over Next 20 Actions Ecological Rating Enhancement years Approval of multiple Thirty-one new SMP maintains shoreline modifications Add a formal residential buffers, limits may result in potential process to the Area currently vacant developments development in localized minor loss due approval criteria but cleared and platted expected. buffers,conserves to increased runoff, to ensure that for new single family, Applications for new vegetation,and increased shoreline nearby residents waterfront development homes,dock protects critical areas. access/habitat that may want behind a 75-foot developments and Docks costing<820K Riparian fragmentation,dock docks in the Shoreline vegetated shoreline associated pathways allowed by letter of enhancement on- access,and edge effects. future are SR-3 Residential setback/ anticipated/ exemption;larger site or in nearby Functional losses are considered in the (Waterfront) Habitat for terrestrial Increased runoff from docks require UC SED. minimized by building approval process wildlife,bank new impervious, shoreline permit. setbacks,vegetation for individual stabilization,shade/ change to stream Either way Applicant conservation and buffer private dock Ecological Rating:Fair- flow,vegetation must prepare a site standards,use applications. Good alteration,habitat suitability analysis, restrictions,additional Restoration loss,edge effects on HMP,and engineering approval criteria, opportunities 1-4 wildlife analysis.No setbacks. mitigation,and possible (1.0 acre) restoration activities. Development may result Small area platted for Maintains buffers, in potential localized single-family residential limits development in minor loss due to development but New single family RHA,conserves increased runoff, Look for ways to currently vacant and residential vegetation,protects increased shoreline limit piecemeal Shoreline covered with young development/ critical areas,imposes Riparian plantings, access,docks,and edge stormwater and SR-3 Residential pine trees/ Increased runoff from building setbacks, slope stability/ effects.Functional losses habitat impacts. (Upland) Habitat for terrestrial new impervious, provides public erosion control in are minimized by vegetation alteration, access. Underlying nearby UC SED. building setbacks, Has potential for wildlife,bank habitat loss,edge zoning requires 20- vegetation conservation passive stabilization,shade/ effects on wildlife foot development and buffer standards,use restoration. Ecological Rating:Fair- setback from property restrictions,mitigation, Good lines and possible restoration activities. City of Spokane Valley Cumulativa Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 28 SECTION FIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation Existing Conditions/ Expected Net Impact to Shoreline Environmental Expected Growth/ Effect of SMP& Recommended Segment Designation Functions Provided/ Impacts Other Regulations Ecological Functions over Next 20 Actions Ecological Rating Enhancement years Fully developed residential area along slack water waterfront Standards for density, behind upriver dam.No lot coverage limits, Require native shoreline stabilization, public access.Many Residential landscaping as Shoreline vegetation No change to docks;shoreline heavily development, partial mitigation SR-4 Residential conservation,critical current ecological No change anticipated. (Waterfront) armored/ recreational uses, for any new area protection,and condition expected Shade from public access water quality to assure substantial landscaping/ no net loss of developments. ecological function. Ecological Condition: Poor-Fair Spokane River below the ordinary high water Barker south line/ metals cleanup site Prevents most will reduce metals Aquatic habitat for development, contamination. motobit/limit native fish,amphibians, facilitates in-stream Increased motorboats, benthic invertebrates; habitat restoration, stormwater Decreased flows likely. design docks to support for sensitiveRedu Increased recreation TMDL&NPDES treatment standards allow light SR(All) Aquatic ppI ced trout through decks, aquatic species ;aquifer and additional docks restrict pollution and likely to limit water populations likely with limit recharge;transport of provide for cleanup quality increase human use. post signs river use during materials;nutrient plan,state/federal degradation. peak trout cycling;contaminated permits required for Riparian sediment cover most in-water work. enhancements will spawning periods Ecological Condition: provide shade, Fair-Good organic matter. 'Aquatic environment contains Priority Species. City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 29 SECTION FIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation Existing Conditions/ Expected Net Impact to Shoreline Environmental Expected Growth/ Effect of SMP& Recommended Functions Provided/ Ecological Functions over Next 20 Segment Designation Actions Ecological Rating Impacts Other Regulations Enhancement years Large private lot containing native riparian habitat and used by local Limited growth in community as a nature adjacent residential SMP Establishes RHA Possible noxious No change likely. With Restoration Shelley Urban trail/ areas will bring with limited weed control and restoration,may see a opportunities 39, Lake Conservancy Habitat for terrestrial additional foot traffic development allowed. revegetation slight increase. 40(2.6 acres) wildlife,shade,organic along existing trail material for lake/ Ecological condition: good Single-and multifamily residential development Most of lake is already above an existing paved New single-and SMP Maintains developed along multi-family buffers and setbacks, Work with local shoreline in this zone. trail around majority of Shoreline lake/ residential conserves vegetation, conservation Efforts to provide native Shelley development/ protects critical areas, district to establish plants along shoreline Residential p Lake Minor shade for lake, limits lot coverage. vegetation along expected to maintain (Upland) roosting habitat for Additional water use, State and federal lake's draw-down existing functions as birds/ lawn chemicals,and permits regulate in- zone recreational use runoff. water work increases resulting in no Ecological condition: poor-fair change. City of Spokane Valley Cumulati"Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 30 SECTION FIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation _ _ — _ — . . ,1 '. �. .: , menta!Designation > , - Shoreline Environ fl ! ss�' = +•Vc • /}r' categoryli ! *• t Shoreline Residential-Upland '"',' Shoreline Residential-waterfront 1 , _t .� • '- - a Urban Conservancy r - , ¢; Urban Conservancy HO 1.•4 - ; n _ a _ - t a' - r 4' 4 IIF ->_ t X_„..._ a. i �°+rn J r s h • u Si niine4f(nser` '�ti *•� f { r}'.. .I M. Y'�. 4. s 1. _ _ • _ r4 t — • -I'1_ ser. }4S i y iI.7 4, i''#..4` �ty..17 ,• }`yew�4„ 'r *•— a, , . "... L . -...-.� } +'��- i1II iihe • ". _rbdk3w5 ) .rid"` IJka?T - !ti� '.i: ,r• �� Y, r • . ma 1, a - - '_ -''-.' I Map Features ........N Figure 2 j Spokane Valley City Limits 10'A&4 Shoreline Environmental Designations �� City of Spokane Valley I 1 ! Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report 0 0.5 1 Shoreline Master Pr ram Update I II Maes tibY 2013 I City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 31 SECTION FIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation .�'t. ^ ^'•"`�T' , I�� r.• wp—,,: ,s;,,:y.• ter,. i ' + a c y l ti r y , A . ,, ^ _ 47 I1 ;+ ti - IIIII. 'ati - 7 n. y mss; "'y. • r : _.. �� i I61Y 4 • -F , , . ! f + •-•••,-. } -. ` a4 — y r u ti 'i--‘' b4 :iSi 'S' }4, i'.!=C � j ?'6;',1,3'1r _ ms's s9 fy4. "y� �, ' '`s,.� „-•41„,,..,:;;:rr., ,ti7 '` , ''g, .'', •fes ,! Y y 1 {I F «.. -. - .,. w-„ ^.Fa' . ,.. '4t. -41 . 47, •Y{AEe- - ' .. Map Features N Figure 3 • _j Spokane Valley City Limits w— OM E Shoreline Buffers Shoreline Jurisdiction(SMP) City Impacts Spokane Valley s Cumulative Analysis Report ® Shoreline Buffer 0 0�5 Shoreline Master Pro ramV Update aVa Miles May 2013 City of Spokane Valley Cumulat%' ` impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 32 SECTION SIX References URS Corporation. 2010. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update, Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Spokane Valley, WA. URS Corporation. 2012. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update, Public Access Plan. Spokane Valley, WA. URS Corporation. 2012b. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update, Restoration Plan. Portland, OR City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis,Revised September 26,2014 33 NO NET LOSS REPORT DOE Preliminary Draft City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update May 31, 2013 Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department Spokane Valley City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 Prepared by: URS Corporation 111 S.W. Columbia, Suite 1500 Portland, Oregon 97201-5814 URS Project Number 36298174 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 Introduction 1 Section 2 Summary of SMP Update Elements 2 2.1 Inventory and Characterization Report 2 2.2 Shoreline Environmental Designations 3 2.3 Shoreline Policies and Regulations 4 2.4 Cumulative Impacts Analysis... 5 2.5 Shoreline Restoration Plan 5 Section 3 Conclusion 6 Section 4 References 7 City of Spokane Valley No Net Loss Report-DOE Preliminary Draft-May 31,2013 1 SECTION ONE Introduction Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26-186(8) directs that shoreline master programs (SMPs) include policies and regulations designed to achieve no "net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline". Generally, ecological functions of the shoreline include interrelated fish and wildlife habitat,water quality, and hydrologic (water/flood storage) functions. This No Net Loss report demonstrates how the updated City of Spokane Valley (City) SMP will meet this no net loss of ecological functions (NNL) requirement within shoreline areas under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). Within the City municipal boundary,this includes the shorelines of the Spokane River and Shelley Lake (Error! Reference source not found. 1). This report is intended to summarize the following documents prepared throughout the current SMP update process to demonstrate how each supporting element combines to achieve NNL: • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization • Shoreline Use Analysis • Shoreline Environmental Designations • SMP policies,regulations, and their protection strategies • Restoration Plan • Cumulative Impacts Analysis As a summary of these supporting documents, this report also provides a general chronology of the update with regard to the SMP checklist. City of Spokane Valley No Net Loss Report—DOE Preliminary Draft-May 31, 2013 1 SECTION ONE Introduction Legend �� ,�_ k.-? Rl� ,f^ (--..-s▪ a 7 -,fit + ' Q City of Spokane Valley City Limits -,,,i,' s " `� die {,^4 .•`: '? A',. �F • au i' r{1J i s`.4 -f, t Aw'.+.��.i•:-:.`...y..1,;,,.,;:,, Shoreline Master Program Areas cu c i' y-1 . ''''•1`1',."."-'''.'"meq'-i1"..'1'.''- -:.'— '...'..\1..-',"?.� - 1 ;r Note_Aeriel imagery source is USDA NNP 2011 a ;N ��y �a a Y' fi � f :v, - ., -' ,.�y . Spokane Riven �' z �` ..+cam�#. ky �h% $6 '?^+.2'r N .�-�•, ' _if�. f '^• 3 :r'� `" 1. ^'r. },tom,/. '', ',i', — 4, : • , +i � . . . • :',...-'1',.:.''"...-;. _s;.C.-.- •• = - ,»:,irk =,-. f.'. i. —_",-"�c'�y }r'�:t•«':�. '•fr:. '_�':.s.. .{s:i'a',':-''i,--t4,i^ -, 4✓ ; • •-r',0 •Sa•: . t .• �;� F.rrlf!': �•- yfi %�! -�-'t '' � {�S.. i:.•.is.y[ y�;.„, 3�_ f, .l } . • i r ' ,,! �� �', a1▪?'. ` z rc':'..:05,`�4„1.:,...,:.,::;4,,t .=. .^.7.-11:4‘...,'1.41"p.-17 _ 1 - ' ti ! --',:. „4`r P;� .�` ; . r4 ,< � r k .,: Shelley Lake -:-..,i-.3.,.: :, � 4 •'t''' 1-... .- 7r l,iP w ,f "�re,,�'v, as y •.... ” ••• .. ' p� y 4�' ",- 7C}ti k: +^y1 ,,.' -.�....� S�Fti.4; r\`2,,.LL{ �{ y. !j. -v ' :*.N.:?:-.1,1,,..(pA --,i..-:•:.--!..,--., ,,C..' ' - .8 , , _ ,,,_ ,.,., l � � k , C :• 4.� f ' ''� . 47 ”-,--.2t,"1.,+, "?; r br.- a .' "... RY '#t ►- . f±!+ r _f • " C/ty� 4sw� . r � te „w jProgram Jurisdiction 4''' re--'4'.;‘ ;'.:''''' . '.i, , - ''± 'e L °' Y Y 1 Shoreline Mastert4 'C ,T f of Spokane Valley i ow'' i e }, .a rt}.!! '•,, 4 : ,1g f ,0 ."4:::'. 5 S 0 1 2 Aides URS City of Spokane Valley No Net Loss Report—DOE Preliminary Draft-May 31,2013 2 SECTION TWO Summary of SMP Update Elements 2.1 INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION REPORT For the SMP update, existing conditions are considered the baseline for measuring no net loss of ecological functions over the future, 20-year planning period. The Inventory and Characterization Report(URS 2010) describes the existing condition of shoreline areas along the Spokane River and Shelley Lake within City limits. The report divides the Spokane River into four study segments within the City based on unique factors including surrounding land uses, ecological characteristics, aquifer characteristics (gaining vs. losing), hydraulics, and substrate characteristics (Figure 2). Within each segment, the report provides a detailed characterization of the land use, the physical and biological condition, as well as the ecological condition, stressors, and opportunities for restoration or conservation. To assess the current condition of shoreline ecological functions within each river segment and around Shelley Lake, information was gathered on rare plants, fish, impervious areas, degraded habitats, existing land uses, critical areas, soils, cultural/historic resources, sediment transport,vegetation,wildlife, and Priority Habitat and Species data. in= 1 �r l . 0 1�1L Legend '17 ma �. ' t P i — ."— `, `_ Spokane River Study Segment Boundary _._ 11 _= ', • Q City Limits --da =� �`- n 1 wale SMA Boundary r - _. Ta k t � 0 _"r !��' �' - .'%•'� t am Centennial Trail Segment 4�' 1`X iiii rentw ,�l �o " � �1 4 I Segment 3 �1 grilltemiw.....,---.Itillint+� r=y":TIS' d" Par ,..; ■ � a.G �---- r. t, i \ • ■C=C t 6 11:, <�,�� �- __,0rr � ...ow � 1,......,---..aog,>rr/ Segment 1 Of riuiil11 ti '�o '� 10614 1 \ j,;�-,e��Millwood I ..� Inland 4 ,,f1KANE J/ .. , U !Chari j►� i V k I� III1ii�- 54111.=�_��u; t. Segment 2 \' -j. E ij�G�i��sia 1� a sr-ark• , City,of ":,. r " — naar-� s y� rt,r�lli I•it+'��1 r,�wSpokane Valley� '������� ,L�1 int �---�— r Spokane River Study Segments Witniiiihathir_���// ij'rt�wim tl• City of Spokane Valley I-1;: .:...�,! .trPfi� 1 \'+.�.�_._ �illlll:+ar 5 0� 0�5 1 MiesURS I Ecological condition was assessed for each shoreline study area and recommendations to achieve NNL were provided based on localized conditions. The ecological condition was based upon data gathered through literature review, communications with local experts, discussions with agency biologists, and field assessments conducted by URS in 2009 and 2010. City of Spokanc Valley No Net Loss Report—DOE Preliminary Draft-May 31,2013 3 SECTION TWO Summary of SMP Update Elements Shoreline Use Analysis The Inventory and Characterization Report also contains the Shoreline Use Analysis. This analysis discusses current shoreline uses within SMP jurisdictional areas. It estimates future demand for shoreline space, identifies potential land use conflicts, and provides management recommendations for the shoreline areas. The analysis also discusses the preferred shoreline uses (Water Dependent, Water Related, Water Enjoyment) identified in the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26-201(2)(d)). Based on the estimate of projected shoreline uses and current land availability, the analysis concludes that the City should be able to accommodate future demand for shoreline development and recreational uses. In addition, because of the widespread state park land along the inner riparian areas, it appears that a balance of shoreline land uses (including recreation, residential, mixed use, and industrial) are adequate to meet current and future demands while maintaining valuable shoreline ecosystem functions. A balance between future uses and ecological functions would occur by issuing shoreline substantial development or conditional use permits. Shoreline permits must meet SMP regulations designed to assure NNL and can impose conditions requiring native plant establishment or other ecological function enhancements. Similarly, future capital improvement projects undertaken by the City in shoreline zones can be tailored to fit the goals of public access,restoration of degraded shoreline habitats, and avoidance of high-quality riparian areas. Finally, the Shoreline Use Analysis provides a discussion and recommendations for implementing the"preferential uses"for shorelines as outlined in RCW 90.58.020. 2.2 SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNATIONS Based on data gathered during the shoreline inventory, shoreline areas with similar characteristics are assigned a common Shoreline Environmental Designation (SED) that reflects unique land management goals and policies that are appropriate for the area. The SED is used during the shoreline planning review process as a zoning overlay, which provides additional land use approval considerations above those associated with the underlying zoning category. The five SED categories are Urban-Conservancy-High Quality (UC-HQ), Urban Conservancy (UC), Shoreline Residential—Waterfront (SR-W), Shoreline Residential-Upland (SR-U), and Aquatic (AQ). The AQ SED applies to those areas below the ordinary high water mark for Waters of the State. Most of the Spokane River shoreline is designated as UC, including state park lands. The UC designation allows for conservation of near-shore habitat while allowing limited commercial and mixed use development within the outer portion of the SMP jurisdiction. Areas specifically identified as proposed conservation areas in the 2010 inventory were designated as UC-HQ. The AQ and UC-HQ designations allow for the least amount of habitat City of Spokane Valley No Net Loss Report—DOE Preliminary Draft-May 31,2013 4 SECTION TWO Summary of SMP Update Elements alteration and generally focus on preservation and management of existing, high-quality riparian and aquatic habitat. There are two Shoreline Residential designations. Each was developed to provide a means for allowing appropriate residential uses with regard to the proximity of the residential area to the waterline. For areas directly adjacent to the water, the SR-W designation addresses land uses along the water line that are not applicable to upland residential areas(SR-U). These five SEDs protect, maintain, or restore ecological functions in higher quality shoreline habitat areas, while allowing certain appropriate uses in other shoreline areas. 2.3 SHORELINE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS The updated SMP will include new shoreline policies and regulations that allow for a combination of appropriate development, conservation, and restoration activities. The SEDs would allow development at the outer periphery of the SMP jurisdiction within the Urban Conservancy and Residential SEDs while promoting the maintenance and enhancement of shoreline ecological functions within the inner, more sensitive shoreline areas in these SEDs, and within all areas designated as UC-HQ or AQ. Shoreline regulations are in addition to other state and federal environmental protection laws and locally adopted ordinances and rules, including the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual, as amended. Where conflicts exist between local regulations, those that provide more substantive protection to the shoreline area shall apply. Updated SMP regulations include the following protections to shoreline ecological functions: Shoreline Critical Areas Regulations — Additional regulations for uses and development within wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, and geologically hazardous areas provide protection over especially sensitive/vulnerable areas. Mitigation Sequencing — Measures to avoid, minimize and, lastly, to mitigate impacts must be demonstrated prior to approval of a shoreline use. Shoreline Vegetation Conservation Measures—For most projects proposing vegetation removal, vegetation conservation measures ensure that vegetation within the shoreline jurisdiction is protected and/or restored when damaged or removed by development activities. Buffers and Setbacks — Shoreline buffers protect the shoreline environment by limiting development and use within a reasonable distance from the shoreline, ensuring no further degradation of the existing shoreline environment. Shoreline buffers are synonymous with the vegetation conservation boundary identified in the shoreline inventory. As such, building setbacks ensure that impacts to riparian habitat functions associated with development and maintenance activities near the vegetation conservation boundary are minimal. City of Spokane Valley No Net Loss Report—DOE Preliminary Draft-May 31,2013 5 SECTION TWO Summary of SMP Update Elements Restrictions on Shoreline Stabilization Measures — Proposed regulations encourage the use of nonstructural shoreline stabilization measures instead of structural shoreline stabilization measures. New structural stabilization measures require a Shoreline Conditional Permit. 2.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS The intent of the Cumulative Impacts Analysis was to ensure that SEDs and proposed SMP regulations are protective of shoreline functions even when considering incremental actions that cumulatively have the potential to negatively impact those functions. The initial draft of the analysis determined that draft regulations were generally protective of net shoreline ecological functions, but that opportunities for minor changes to the regulations would help ensure NNL of functions. As a result, the regulations were slightly altered to ensure adequate protections and the cumulative impacts analysis conclusions were revised to document NNL of ecological functions due to cumulative impacts. 2.5 SHORELINE RESTORATION PLAN Based on shoreline observations, existing natural resource assessments, and watershed plans, a list of"limiting factors" were identified in the City's shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report(URS 2010). Limiting factors are variables that impair ecosystem processes and limit the capacity of ecological functions. Limiting factors within the City include dissolved metals (contamination), high summer water temperature, areas lacking riparian cover, lack of lake- fringe vegetation, presence/spread of noxious vegetation, low dissolved oxygen, lack of fish passage, and low summer flows. The Shoreline Restoration Plan (URS 2012) describes existing and ongoing projects and programs that can guide or support restoration efforts in the City to address these limiting factors and improve ecological functions. Additionally, 40 site-specific restoration opportunities were identified in the City's shoreline areas. These restoration opportunities have the potential to increase ecological functions in specific shoreline areas. A priority scoring criteria was established and rated each restoration opportunity site on a scale from 0 to 25. The score illuminates restoration opportunities that are both practical to develop and result in the greatest benefit to shoreline functions. Each site's impairments are also identified and a conceptual restoration approach is offered to correct the impairment. The plan identifies many local organizations that could act as potential restoration partners to assist with restoration project funding, construction, and/or maintenance and monitoring. The plan also presents an implementation plan, which offers several potential funding sources, a timeline with benchmarks, as well as a monitoring and maintenance plan. City of Spokane Valley No Net Loss Report—DOE Preliminary Draft-May 31,2013 6 SECTION THREE Conclusion Upon review of the baseline conditions and ecological issues identified in the Inventory and Characterization Report, the current and projected future uses described in the Shoreline Use Analysis, the proposed shoreline environmental designations and protective regulations, and the opportunities for ecological improvements presented in the Restoration Plan, the City is expected to achieve NNL of ecological function in their SMP jurisdictional areas. Measuring NNL in future years may be accomplished by focusing on specific factors that currently limit shoreline ecological functions, per the Inventory and Characterization Report and the Shoreline Restoration Plan. An example of metrics that can be used to monitor change is provided in Table 1 below. Table 1: Metrics for Measuring No Net Loss Limiting Factor Data Source Measurement Various dissolved metal Dissolved metals Water quality sample data concentrations at fixed locations, from ongoing water testing especially known"hot spots"over time High summer water Change in monthly average or temperature Temperature/stream gauge maximum temperature over time or increases in riparian cover Riparian cover measurements on Areas lacking GIS mapping from Inventory aerial photographs relative to the riparian cover and Characterization current riparian area map layer Currently majority of lake draw-down zone is sparsely vegetated or un- vegetated so ocular estimates of cover Lack of lake-fringe Aerial photos/direct in future years,from direct vegetation estimates observation or aerial photo review, can be used to note increased cover over time Due to a lack of percent cover data for baseline conditions, cover and spread Presence/spread of of noxious weeds can be estimated noxious weeds Weed maintenance records based upon the regularity of ongoing routine maintenance. Decreased efforts may infer an increase. City of Spokane Valley No Net Loss Report—DOE Preliminary Draft-May 31,2013 7 SECTION FOUR References Spokane County Conservation District (SCCD). 2005. Spokane County Proper Functioning Condition Stream Inventory&Assessment. Spokane, WA. URS Corporation. 2010. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update, Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Spokane Valley, WA. URS Corporation. 2012. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update, Shoreline Restoration Plan. Spokane Valley, WA. City of Spokane Valley No Net Loss Report—DOE Preliminary Draft-May 31,2013 8