The URL can be used to link to this page

Ordinance 14-020 Adopts Shoreline Program Appendix -end City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Appendix Wildlife and Bird Information Spokane River Habitat and Ornithology In an effort to increase the public involvement and to obtain more data on the ecological importance of the Spokane River to native plants and wildlife, URS and the City of Spokane Valley have sought the involvement of the Spokane Chapter of the Audubon Society (Spokane Audubon). Spokane Audubon has graciously provided the following information for inclusion in the Spokane Valley SMP. Spokane Audubon Shoreline Notes provided by: Norma Trefry, Sylvia Wilson, Fran Haywood, and Katie Krauss. All habitats along the shoreline of the Spokane River, through the valley, are important. Some locations receive less stress from noise and development and are large enough to provide food, nesting sites, and allow for protection from predators. These areas are the most important to protect and keep in their natural state. The Spokane River and the Centennial Trail are great assets to the City of Spokane Valley as they provide open space where all Spokane Valley residents can enjoy the river and associated wildlife. The following narrative divides the Centennial Trail into sections beginning from a trailhead or easy access point. East of Barker Road to the City Limits This stretch of river provides some of the best habitat for birds. The residential development along the southern shore is set back enough from the river that a buffer has been established. This buffer consists of a grassy area with scattered shrubs and small trees between the development and the river. The area between the Centennial Trail and the river provides for a good mixed habitat. This area consists of grassy areas interspersed with shrubs, young and mature trees, as well as large woody debris. Noxious weeds and non-native trees and shrubs are not yet a problem. Several species of birds, such as: Yellow Warblers, Gray Catbirds, Eastern Kingbirds, and Cedar Waxwings use this area to raise their young. This area has also benefitted in that the residential development along the north shoreline has mainly adhered to the 200-foot shoreline buffer. This allows both sides of the river to be used by birds. Island Trailhead on Upriver Drive,East of Plantes Ferry Park. The mature deciduous trees and thick underbrush provide excellent bird habitat. Grassy places with scattered young and mature Pine Trees are located east of the pedestrian bridge. The large rock outcrops in the river are scenic and provide quiet places for waterfowl to rest. Spotted Towhees, Yellow Warblers, Orioles, and Chickadees, as well as others, are abundant in this location. This year a Northern Shrike is using this area as a wintering ground. The pedestrian bridge provides a great place to view this beautiful stretch of river. Mission Trailhead to Barker Road The evergreen and deciduous trees, as well as the fruit bearing shrubs offer excellent bird habitat. Bullock's Orioles, Black-headed Grosbeaks, Yellow Warblers, and Gray Catbirds, among others, are found in this area. Cliff Swallows nested under the old Barker Road Bridge and will hopefully nest under the new bridge. The bridge construction may be impacting an excellent habitat close to the bridge on the western side. Mirabeau Park East Toward Sullivan Road The habitat along the shoreline through this stretch of river is impacted by the number of people using the Centennial Trail and the park. Homeless people also camp in this area during warmer weather. Quail and migrating Sparrows, such as White-crowned Sparrows, can be found in the open spaces despite all the activity. Gray Catbirds, Cedar Waxwings, Yellow Warblers, Song Sparrows, and others use the shrubs along the river for food, shelter, and nesting. Common Mergansers nest in the trees in this area, and an Osprey nested across the river last summer. Nesting Meadowlarks can be found in the field to the south. This is one of the few places left where they can be found along the river. Bird activity decreases nearer to the Spokane Valley Mall. This is probably due to the noise and activity associated with the mall. Mira beau Park Headed West The shoreline area near the waterfall provides attractive habitat in warmer weather. The uninterrupted open space between the river and Centerplace Park to the south and west allows movement between the shoreline and upland habitats. Woodpeckers, Pygmy and Red-breasted Nuthatches, and Chickadees utilize this connected open space. The steep bank further east is scattered with shrubs, Pine Trees, and deciduous trees. Mourning Doves like this area. Sullivan Road East towards the Mission Trailhead Habitat along this part of the shoreline is affected by its proximity to the roads, commercial development, and the Spokane Valley Mall to the south. The quality of the habitat increases to the east as the tree density increases, as does the bird activity. Summary The Spokane River and associated shorelines are important to Eagles, Osprey, Great Blue Heron, Spotted Sandpipers, and Swallows who use it for food, nesting, and perching. Migrating birds use the river corridor as a resting place during the fall and spring in route to their winter and summer territories. These birds include: Varied Thrushes, Yellow- rumped Warblers, White-crowned Sparrows, and Flycatchers among many others. The shoreline of the Spokane River is still in its natural state in many areas and is a treasure for the City of Spokane Valley and its residents. The Audubon Society of Spokane Birds of the Spokane River within the City of Spokane Valley Includes habitat within 200 feet of the shoreline Common(should see in proper habitat) C Uncommon(usually present in proper habitat, but might miss) U Occasional(usually a few reports each year,sometimes irruptive, may be local) 0 Rare(not seen most years, but more than 10 records for period since 1980) R Vagrant(fewer than 10 records since 1980) V Nests N Season Species Spring/Fall Summer Winter Nests American Coot 0 0 R American Crow C C C N American Gold Finch C C V American Kestrel 0 0 0 American Robin C C U N American Tree Sparrow R American Wigeons R R Bald Eagle U 0 Bank Swallow 0 0 Barrow's Goldeneye 0 R Belted Kingfisher 0 0 0 Bewick's Wren R R Black-billed Magpie C C C N Black-capped Chickadee 0 0 U Black-chinned Hummingbird U Black-headed Grosbeak U U U N Bohemian Waxwing 0 Brown Creeper 0 0 0 Brown-headed Cowbird U U N Bufflehead U U U Bullock's Oriole U U N California Quail C C C N Calliope Hummingbird 0 Canada Goose C C C N Cassin's Finch R Cedar Waxwing U U U N Cliff Swallow U U N Common Goldeneye 0 U Common Merganser U U C N Common Raven U U U Common Redpoll R Common Yellowthroat V Cooper's Hawk 0 0 0 Dark-eyed Junco U U U N Double-crested Cormorant 0 0 0 Downy Woodpecker U U U N Eastern Kingbird U U N European Starling C C C N Evening Grosbeak 0 0 Golden-crowned Kinglet 0 U Season Species Spring/Fall Summer Winter Nests Gray Catbird U U N Great Blue Herron U U U Great Horned Owl U U U N Hairy Woodpecker 0 0 0 Hooded Merganser 0 0 House Finch C C C N House Sparrow C C C N House Wren 0 0 MacGilliuray's Warbler V Mallard C C C N Merlin 0 Mountain Chickadee 0 0 U Mourning Dove C C C N Nashville Warbler V _ Norhtern Goshawk V Norhtern Rough-winged Swallow U 0 Northern Flicker C C C N Northern Shrike R Orange-crowned Warbler V Osprey U U N Pied Bill Grebe 0 0 U Pine Siskin 0 Pygmy Nuthatch C C C N Red Crossbill U 0 U Red-breasted Nuthatch U U U N Red-tailed Hawk C C C N Red-winged Blackbird U C N Ring-billed Gull C C U Ring-necked Duck 0 R Ring-necked Pheasant U U U N Rock Pigeon C C C Ruby-crowned Kinglet R Rufous Hummingbird U U Saw Whet Owl R Sharp-shinned Hawk U U U Snow Goose V Song Sparrow U U U N Spotted Sandpiper U U N Spotted Towhee 0 0 N Townsend's Solitaire R 0 Tree Swallow U U Turkey Vulture R Varied Thrush R R Violet-green Swallow C C Western Wood Peewee U U White-breasted Nuthatch R 0 White-crowned Sparrow 0 R Wild Turkey R R R Willow Flycatcher 0 0 Winter Wren R Wood Duck 0 0 Yellow Warbler U U N Spokane River Ornithology: Birds of the Spokane River in the Spokane Valley Shoreline habitat along the Spokane River is very important to birds. At least 107 different species of birds have been observed along the Spokane River over the years. Some species nest here, some winter here, and some rest and feed here during migration. While all habitats are important, the best areas are those that are large enough to provide room to feed, nest, and shelter from predators. Black-headed Grosbeak* - .. / 111;111)14"....., r.,--k 1' 411 14a,Brnwr_CLO Habitat The Black-headed Grosbeak breeds in a variety of deciduous and mixed forest habitats. Food Insects, seeds,and fruits. Nesting A loose, open cup of twigs, plant stems, rootlets, and pine needles, lined with fine stems, rootlets, hair, string, and some green material.Nests are placed in outer branches of small trees or shrubs, often near a stream. Bullock's Oriole* 3nan �_Small Habitat Bullock's Orioles prefer riparian and open woodlands or woodlots with tall trees, including parklands. Winter habitat includes riparian woodlands and woodland edges, with some in pine,pine-oak, or fir forests. Food Caterpillars, fruits, insects, spiders,and nectar. Nesting Neatly woven hanging nests. Nests are placed in isolated trees, at edges of woodlands, along watercourses, in shelterbelts, and in urban parks, often near water. Cedar Waxwing* nor toe. ve 1 044d` Habitat Cedar Waxwings inhabit deciduous, coniferous, and mixed woodlands, particularly areas along streams. In winter, Cedar Waxwings are most abundant around fruiting plants in open woodlands,parks, gardens,forest edges,and second-growth forests. Food Fruits and insects. Nesting Female waxwings do almost all the nest building; males may do some construction for the second nest of a season. The female weaves twigs, grasses, cattail down, blossoms, string, horsehair, and similar materials into a bulky cup about 5 inches across and 3 inches high. Common Merganser* 1W_:Errm E.Sim.1 Habitat The Common Merganser breeds along lakes and rivers bordered by forests, and winters on large lakes, rivers, coastal bays, and estuaries. Food Small fish, insects, mollusks, crustaceans, worms, frogs, small mammals, birds, and plants. Nesting Nest in tree cavity or nest box, lined with downy feathers from chest of female. Populations are declining due to a lack of large trees along the river(Spokane Audubon). Eastern Kingbird* ,-.1(P i^7 Habitat The Eastern Kingbird breeds in open environments with scattered perches, such as fields, orchards, shelterbelts,and forest edges, and winters in riparian habitats. Food Flying insects,fruits especially in winter. Gray Catbird* Habitat Gray Catbirds live amid dense shrubs, vine tangles, and thickets of young trees in both summer and winter. The Gray Catbird is only found along the river in the Spokane Valley due to lack of habitat elsewhere along the river. Food In summer, Gray Catbirds eat mainly ants, beetles, grasshoppers, midges, caterpillars, and moths. When fruits are available, they also eat holly berries, cherries, elderberries, poison ivy, greenbrier, bay, and blackberries. Nesting Nests are a bulky, open cup made of twigs, straw, bark, mud, and sometimes pieces of trash. It has a finely woven inner lining of grass, hair, rootlets, and pine needles. Yellow Warbler* Y.J • ' Habitat The Yellow Warbler breeds in wet, deciduous thickets, especially in willows, as well as shrubby areas and old fields. Food Insects and other arthropods, occasionally fruit. Nesting Nests are deep cup of grasses and bark that are placed in upright forks of shrubs or trees. Northern Saw-whet Owl* orWrir;;00,00,rd .. : .. ,„ .„. , ,,.., ,i.,,,,,. ,, . ,..t: Ot.ty , , . .4.. y4.' ' `rf Habitat The Northern Saw-whet Owl breeds in all types of forests within its range, and winters in a variety of habitats with dense vegetation for roosting. Food Woodland mice. Occasionally some small birds and large insects. Nesting Nests in tree cavity, usually old woodpecker holes, and also uses nest boxes. White-crowned Sparrow* , Iff .;4.„ .:,.,.. t !,• yrs.. c,,,.: iff Habitat White-crowned Sparrows breed in open or shrubby habitats. Patches of bare ground and grasses are important characteristics. During winter and on migration, these birds frequent thickets,weedy fields, agricultural fields,roadsides, and backyards. Food Seeds, grains, berries, and insects. Nesting Females build nests out of twigs, coarse grasses, pine needles, moss, bark, and dead leaves. They line the nest cup with fine grasses and hairs. The finished product is about 5 inches across and 2 inches deep. Great Blue Heron* ii Vi',' £ 1. , ; ir'' Habitat Found along calm freshwater and seacoasts. Usually nests in trees near water, but colonies can be found away from water. Food Fish, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and small mammals. Nesting Great Blue Herons nest in colonies, or sometimes as a lone pair. Nests are a large platform of sticks placed high in trees, or occasionally on the ground. *Source: allaboutbirds.org—The Cornell Lab of Ornithology Gravel Pit Habitat and Ornithology: Species Summary The Central Pre-Mix ponds provide an interesting place for bird watching due to the variety of waterfowl and raptors that use the ponds and surrounding land. The central location of the ponds allows for an easy drive; however, viewing the birds is challenging due to the perimeter fence. Parts of the ponds are also difficult to view from the road. People are interested in viewing and photographing the birds in the ponds due to the presence of several rare birds for the area. A way to view the ponds from a place off the road and above the height of the fence would be greatly appreciated. (Spokane Audubon) The surface mining of gravel throughout the Spokane Valley has created urban water bodies. These water bodies and associated shorelines provide habitat for at least 45 different bird species during winter and fall migrations. The most numerous in quantity are waterfowl. Most of these species of waterfowl are shallow divers and feed on aquatic flora and fauna. These various species of birds use the gravel pits as summer and winter habitat, as well as for refuge during migration. The greatest varieties of non-waterfowl species are present along the gravel pits during the summer months according to the bird count supplied by the Spokane Audubon Society. The most numerous and common bird species present at the gravel pits are as follows: Ring-billed Gulls o The Spokane Valley is not included in the winter range for the Ring-billed Gull. However,they can be found at the gravel pits year-round. This is likely due to the availability of food in the parking lots of restaurants and stores (Spokane Audubon). The Ring-billed Gull is most abundant during the summer months after returning from their traditional coastal wintering grounds. Mallard o The Mallard is the most common species of duck. Mallards are present in the Spokane Valley gravel pits year-round. They are most numerous during the winter months. American Coot o The American Coot is most numerous during the winter months. The summer months see a drastic decline in numbers as they move to their summer habitat to the north and east. Canada Goose o The Spokane Valley is listed as being year-round habitat for the Canada Goose. Their presence at the gravel pits is most numerous during the winter. Double-crested Cormorant o While the Spokane Valley is along the migratory path of the Double-crested Cormorant, they are present at the gravel pits year-round. The Double-crested Cormorant typically migrates south or to the Pacific Coast. The Double-crested Cormorant primarily eats fish. Common Merganser o The Spokane Valley is listed as year-round habitat for the Common Merganser. They are most abundant during the winter months. The Common Merganser feeds predominately on aquatic fauna. All information on particular bird species was obtained from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology website, allaboutbirds.org. The bird count data for the Spokane Valley gravel pits in the following table was collected and provided by Norma Trefy of the Spokane Chapter of the Audubon Society. Note that in some instances, Norma used a quantity of "many" in her count. To provide a numerical estimate within the table, a value of 35 was provided for each occurrence of "many". The species for which this occurs has been noted. Spokane Valley Gravel Pit Bird Counts Data supplied by Norma Trefry(Spokane Audubon: Year 2007 2008 2009 Species Season Winter Spring Winter Spring Summer Winter Spring Summer Fall American Coot' 9 0 198 75 23 245 47 0 21 American Crow 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 American Kestrel 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 American Robin 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 American Wigeons 0 0 9 9 2 16 16 2 0 Bufflehead 0 0 9 12 8 10 6 4 0 California Gull 0 0 0 39 14 0 9 14 9 Canada Goose' 13 18 131 123 34 102 28 74 10 Caspian Tern 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Cedar Waxwing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Cinnamon Teal 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 Common Goldeneye 2 6 9 7 0 15 5 0 1 Common Loon 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Common Merganser 2 0 30 8 7 24 9 8 4 Double-crested Cormorant 0 3 9 14 18 16 18 35 59 Duck(sp) 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eared Grebes 0 0 0 0 11 _ 0 0 11 0 Gadwall 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Great Blue Herron 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green-winged Teal 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 4 0 Gull(sp) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Herring Gull 0 0 0 0 _ 7 5 0 10 0 Horned Grebe 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 0 House Finch 0 0 0 7 0 0 21 0 0 House Sparrow" 0 0 0 0 36 0 21 36 0 Killdeer 0 0 1 2 6 0 0 13 2 LesserScaup 0 0 0 2 6 2 2 6 0 Mallard" 43 0 109 51 5 256 26 24 25 Mourning Dove 0 0 0 1 12 5 5 37 2 Northern Flicker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Northern Pintail 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 Northern Shoveler 0 14 0 2 12 0 0 10 0 Osprey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Pied Bill Grebe 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Redhead 7 0 8 6 5 4 0 5 0 Red-necked Grebe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Red-tailed Hawk 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Red-winged Blackbird 0 0 0 0 1 4 4 1 0 Ring-billed Gull' 0 35 192 182 244 89 131 244 73 Ring-necked Duck 4 0 19 15 4 1 1 2 0 Ruddy Duck 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 Snow Goose 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Song Sparrow 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Starling' 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 36 0 Swallow(spy' 0 0 0 0 35 0 35 35 0 Tree Swallow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Violet-green Swallow' 0 0 0 26 0 0 70 1 0 Western Grebe 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 2 0 'Value"many"used in count Appendix 0: Degree of Association Between Focal Wildlife Species and Focal Habitats for Breeding Appendix D-1 Degree of association (* = close, o =general) for breeding between focal wildlife species and focal habitats of the Intermountain Province _ I I Cliff Wetland Ripn Step e1Shrub-step Upland Forest I Common Name I Scientific Name I Rock irpr l It I mc _ ci w, I cw 1 Ns M'J I w•tc I mm I dim 1 In I PP f gra Amphibians Coeur d'Alene salamander I Plctheden randrkci idaharr,su I I • I '- I. - II C;Iumbtaspotted frog I 149111149111iwetrentr,s I _ • • , i I f• i Long-toed salamander :irrrbrsroutamacrodauvimu I • • • I • jf Northern leopard frog Rasta ospreys I I • • I • I I I 1 Rough-skmncd newt 11•ancha granulosa I l • ( • ` • T I Westcm toad i Bata bereas I • i • i • • l I I Wood frog !Ram srlt•anca I - • I • �.....I • i i i I Birds Ainencut.row C-uriumbrachrrhrncos - I I l I Amcnean dipper i C,,, 1us nresuanus • I • 1 Amencan kestrel 'Falco spat-versus I ; i Aillerteari 1ti11Ie pel7ear• ;Agawam rrt•/lrro,lrrrrchas • I , Amer Waft wltleo11 !.Inas americana • I I Raid eagle I Ifabaceurs ku ncephulas I�1 _ f ' T ( • Barred oaf I Sim Yana • Black tern 1 Cid:doa,us attar s I I I i Black-hacked woodpecker I Prcntdas ar.^rrcus I - I I 1 a • Black-capped chickadee I Pocr,k arricanrllus I I I I 1 Blue arouse I Dendr,gapus alxscursa } I • I I -. I •• I • ' • Boreal owl i:Icgalias funerrns ! f I I I 1 California quail I calhaepia californica I I E I Canada goose I Bronco canadcnsrs I Chuks• i.Ilccran's chsrkar I • i • i Common lam I Gatia inrn,r,• • I I I i _ Common merganser I.ticrgur merganser • _ I I • I f 1 i uhlc-cresteJ cormorant I Phalacrocroraxaurums • I I I1 I 1 I Downy woodpecker I Ptcordespubrseens ( I l • Ferruginous hawk I Bused regalis c, • • I I Flammaiatedowl 1Orruflarn+ncalm __ I I I • _ .. Golden angle i Aquila ch,rsamas • I _ I - i 1 Grasshopper sparrow I.an,modran,us sat•annanun I • • 1 I I Gras-panridae I Pcrdix per I I I I Great blue heron I..Irdca hetvchas i • I I I ( I 1 Great arm owl i S:rrs deb:dour I I I I • l • I Green winged scat I:Max cncca • I I I Harlequin duck I ffistrraaicru hua:anrcus I • Ii _I I Killdeer I C haradrr,uroams I ` Lew•+a•woctdpxckc: !.t/rlanerprs fetus j ._ - 1 .1 _ { I Appendix 0-2 Cliff Wetland Rlpn Steppe/Shrub-step I Upland Forest Common Name Scicntife Name Rock irpr h I mc ci we 1 du ss wj I wk I mm I vim I in I pp I ua I Loggerhead shrike Lwuustudovwwnus 1 . 1 • • I 1 1 i I I manard Aims !unrhvn1 cas • • I ' I ! I I htarsh wren Ctstothorus vat:istrts • I I I 1 I ! { 1 Merhn I Fa&o colwnbar:s I ! 'htoumtne.love Zcnazda inacroura I •• I J Northern uoshawk dcctpncrecnrdis : T T • • I • I 1 Northern twenty owl Glum-dim puma : .. . . I i •• • 1 I 1 Northern rnu_h-wined swallow Srrtgidaptens scrrpeants - • i • I I I { Olive-sided flycatcher Catmints cooper: i1 i •• I •• •• I I I Osprey Paruhou hahactus • I ., I I I L 1 I Pcre_rmc falcon Falcope.regr,aus • I I f Heated woodpecker I Dn'uroptrs Occults I •- - I I 1 Pygmy.nuthatch Sirta Ps'gnatea I I •• _ 1 • i Redhead !dwino americana • l Rtng•bdicd gull !Larus delawareasis • I . 1 `` I Rina-necked pheasant I Phasta nus col:/ucas I • I • I I S I Rudthduck I Oxvura rwnuicc+rsts • ! i Rutted_rause I&masa tonheUcrtar •• I I • I I Rufous hummingbird '.'Iasphorru runts ! I I I I I Sale arouse Centroccrcus urophasw1 nus t • • I I i 1 1 Sa_c sparrow .'in:plasm_a beth r 1 •• I 1 1 .Sage thrasher Oreoscgptes man:anus I I • I ; I S;ndhdi crane urns carra:tensts • I v I I { { I •Sha,+tailed„oust I fans maims,hasttmcllas '. • I • i + , Statued b;tndpiper I.Loos rna.u1:rrtrr • I Spruce_crouse Dcndragap+ts cu.= I ,' I Se.ainsnn's hawk Buten swains • • ( I lluec-toed woadand'.ecker Pica:des trattoriasI I • , Tundra! swan (Cygnus colunrbtanus 1 Upland sandpiper I Lrartranua longrcaudaI • I _ { Vaux's swill I C haetura Tatrxr ( i i i _ Western burrowing owl _dthcne cwtic:darva C • • ( I I\Westernarebc dechrnophonaocc:denrahs • • 1 I 1 I Western meadowlark Sturnella neg/ceta I I • I • • I • - I 1 Western tanager Ptranga ludavicwna i I_ , . - 1 I I to • • • ( 1 White-headed woodpecker Pt'eo+des albolarvutus I 1 1 1 • I i 1Vildtur'kev Meleagrisgallopasa l 1 I !• _ 1 1 Willow flycatcher Emptdonal wallaI ` _ I • I I I 1 - 1 Pillow warbler I Dendrotca paech+u 1 I _ ; • I . 1 1 r 1 I t 1 Appendix 0-3 I Mammals American badger er 'Padenwits1 • I • I I i American beaver 'C'asturcctnadensrs • • I • 1 f I I American marten Moms americana i I I • I • ( • I 1 l3tahornsheep OVIAClinrrdenrrx - 1 IIII I I Blink t>,::u Ursus ancrrcanrke ! I Bobcattuts ruliu - California mvotrs I.11t'oi s calrforurcus - • • ! Canada lynx Lynx eanadensts - • • i Cougar Feltsconcalor _ i • ,Cuvutc I Cords hurunsI I Fisher I Marks pennant, • • i im L Frcd mousI.thous dams/odes - i - Grav wolf Cants lupus - i I Gnzxly bear Uesits areioa I T I 1 Lund cared my oris Thais cionsI - - - I Long-Icaccd mutts Mynas t'olans _ I • • i • • 1 • Mariam'.>hrow Soresnxrriam: i I • I I \hnkMilsteinrasion I • I • I I I Moose I.-does aloes I I ! I I I Mountain goat Oreanutos americana - I ! I I I I c Mule dear Odocadeur lrcnrianrrs henrruara• I .. I .: 1 1 • .. I - I - 1 . Muskrat Ondaaa:iberluca i • • I • 1 1 I I Northern boa lemming i Srnapsonn:r borealis • i Northam flying squirrel I Glaucumtssabrrnur _ - - • •• •• . I Pvgniv rabbit !&•adniugas alahoeasrs I 1t • Pvemv shrew I.[dicrasures howI I • 5 Raccoon ProcronIotar • i I .. I M Ricer inter Luria canadcnsis • • • I_ I I Rocks Mt.elk I Coma elapluu aclsont .. .. y I Snowshoe hare I Leptis americana • • • •• I •• Townsend's bra-eared bar I Cort•hurhinus lou nscndu I i Pale Townsends s bre caroti bat C.t.pedIescti to t Washington ground squirrel SpermOphthcs wasiunerom 1 I 1 1 • • I 1 1 Western small-Tooted mvotts I Wrods cdtolabrun: I • 1 • • I • I Whae•uded deer I Odocaileus ii:'intrtmu I i • 1 I ' White-tailed jackrabbit 1 Leftist tatursendii •• I 1 i 1 Wo(tennt Gula gado I - 1 I I I 1 1 I Woodland caribou I Rangt&r tarmtdus I I I ' I , I Yuma mous •Mons rtmranensts I 1 • I • 1 I t • Appendix D-4 'Reptiles Noimail alhcatu:112.41+1 1 Io,',a .i'talea I I 1 - i i J 1 1 i Rrn_r•.ccl:snake 1 IAalfrafphrs runuualres 1 - f�_� 1 1 I f i Stn›..N.1ui+1 snake Ilnsrrcouhrs ra nrr+rus I r I i Cliff or Rock Outcrop: Wetland: Irpr=lake,river,pond,and reservoir:h=herbaceous:mc=montane coniferous. Riparian: ei=eastside(interior)riparian-wetland. Steppe or Shrub-steppe: wg=westside grassland:eig=eastside(interior)grassland:ss=-shrub-steppe. Upland Forest:: wj=western juniper and/or mountain mahogany:wlc=westside lowland conifer-hardwood:mm=montane mixed conifer;elm= eastside(interior)mixed conifer, Ip=lodgepole pine;pp=ponderosa pine:ua=upland aspen. (Source:Adapted from Johnson and O'Neil 2001) Appendix 0-5 BirdWeb-Species of Special Concern Page 1 of 5 \*1 \_,I0. , y�"` 1 1 d \X/e D4., f_. }► t'h ' .0,4eaiLuc he-.,4 % i-'1,:41.° ^ ei1 .1.??, ". i ' ' '",',"P.,',11,C; i ' trds of Wasittn.,,gtun Suite -f�.�4:hp —'..1 }• ,': + "` S )ft �ucJ(xtt�. Jfty� tom s-!,01. �+1.- - .. .,1*. 1 I, ‘ J.* i a 1 r . -,;a. g,_�.s:c{ ,wr..ar. tyn R1'Y' � ' ."..„1„.',1...41....../ ..:'...i........` Species of Special Concern f4any birds in Washington are showing signs of decline due to habitat loss and other environmental threats. Some of these species are still relatively common and widespread while others have all but disappeared from the state.After careful scientific monitoring, various government agencies and non-governmental organizations formally designate those species deemed most at risk,placing them on special lists in order to provide protection and call attention to their status. Designations from four of the most important lists are compiled in the table below: the federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species(U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service),the Audubon/American Bird Conservancy Watch List, the state Species of Concern list(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife),and the Audubon Washington Vulnerable Birds list.Click on the links at the left far further details about each list,or on a species'name on the table to go to its BirdWeb account. 1 http://www.birdweb.orgibirdweb/special_concern.aspx 12/1/2009 Bird Web -Species of Special Concern Page 2 of 5 f Federal State Audubon Endangered Endangered Washington Bird Endangered Species List Conservancy Watch List Species list Vulnerable Birds Ust Brant '_ .. -- Early Warning Cackling Goose -- — Monitored Early Warning (Aleutian subspecies) Trumpeter Swan -- Yellow List -- High Concern Canvasback -- -. -- Early Warning Redhead " -- -- Early Warning Mariequm Duck -- -- -- Early Warning Barrow's Gakleveeye -- -- -- Early Warning Hooded Merganser -- -- -- Early Warning Greater Sage-Grouse Candidate Yellow List Threatened Immediate Concern Sooty Grouse - Rad List -- Early Warning Sharp tailed Grouse -- -- Threatened Immediate Concern Mountain Quail -- Yellow List -- Early Warning Common Loon -- %- Sensitive Early Warning Yellow-billed Loon -- Yellow Ust -- -- Horned Grebe -- -- Monitored -- Red-necked Grebe •- -- Monitored -- Western Grebe -- -- Candidate High Concern Clark's Grebe -- Yellow List Monitored Early Warning Laysan Albatross -- Red List -- -- Black-footed Albatross -- Red List -- Early Warning Short-tailed Albatross Endangered Red List Candidate -- Pink-footed Shearwater -- Red List -- Early Warning Buller's Shearwater -- Yellow Ust -- -- Sooty Shearwater -- Yellow List -- -- American White Pelican -- -- Endangered Early Warning Brown Pelican Endangered -- Endangered Early Warning Brandt's Cormorant -- -- Candidate Early Warning Pelagic Cormorant -- -- -- Early Warning -- — -- Immediate American Bittern Concern Great Blue Heron -- -- Monitored -- Great Egret -- -- Monitored -- Green Heron -- -- Monitored •- Black-crowned Night-Heron -- Monitored -- Turkey Vulture -- -- Monitored -- 1 http://www.birdweb.org/birdweb/special_concern.aspx 12/1/2009 Bird Web-Species of Special Concern Page 3 of S I Osprey -- -• Monitored -- Bald Eagle Delisted- -- Sensit€ve Early Warning Recovered Cooper's Hawk -- -- -- Early Warning -- -- Candidate Immediate Northern Goshawk Concern Swainsonn's tiawk -- Yellow Ust Monitored Early Warning Ferruginous Hawk -- -- Threatened Immediate Concern Golden Eagle -- -- Candidate High Concern Merlin -- -- Candidate Early Warning Gyrfalcon -- -- Monitored -- Peregrine Falcon Delisted- .- Sensitive Early Warning Recovered Prairfe Falcon -- -- Monitored High Concern Sandhiii Crane -- -- Endangered Early Warning American Golden-Plover -- Yellow List — -- Snowy Plover Threatened Yellow List Endangered Immediate (Western subspecies) Concern Black Oystercatcher -- -- Monitored Early Warning Black-necked Stilt -- -- Monitored -- Wandering Tattler -- Yellow List -- -- Upland Sandpiper -- -- Endangered -- Whimbref -- -- Early Warning Long-i7EElec Curlew -- Yellow List Monitored Immediate Concern Bar-tailed Godwit -- Yellow List .- -- Marbled Godwit — Yellow List -- Early Warning Ruddy Turnstone -- -- -- Early Warning Black Turnstone -- Yellow List -- Early Warning Surtbird -- Yellow List -- Early Warning Red Knot -- Yellow Ust -- Immediate Concern Sanderling -- Yellow List -- Early Warning Semipatmated Sandpiper -- Yellow Ust -- -- Western Sandpiper -- Yellow Ust -- -- Rock Sandpiper — Red List -- Early Warning Stilt Sandpiper -- Yellow List -- -- Buff-breasted Sandpiper -- Red List -- -- Short-billed Dowitcher -- -- -- Early Warning Wilson's Phalarope -- -- -- Early Warning Heermann's Gull -- Yellow List -- Early Warning -- Yellow Ust -- -- http://www.birdweb.org/birdweb/special_concem.aspx 12/1/2009 BirdWeb -Species of Special Concern Page 4 of 5 1 Thayer's Gull Western Guit -- _ T Early Warning Caspian Tern -- -- Monitored High Concern Black Tern -- -- Monitored Early Warning Arctic Tern -- -- Monitored Early Warning Forster's Tern -- — Monitored -- Elegant Tern -- Yellow list -- -- Common Murre -- -- Candidate Early Warning Marbled Murrelet Threatened Yellow List 'Threatened Immediate Concern Ancient Murrelet -- Yellow List .. -- Cassia's Aukiet -- -- Candidate Early Warning Tufted Puffin — .., Candidate Early Warning Band-tailed Pigeon -- -- -- High Concern Yellow-billed Cuckoo Candidate Candidate -- (Western population) Flammulated Owl - Yellow List Candidate High Concern Snowy Owl -- Monitored -- Burrowing Owl -- -- Candidate High Concern Spotted Owl Threatened Red List Endangered Immediate (Northern subspecies) Concern •Great Gray Owl — P_ Monitored Early Warning Short-eared Owl -- Yellow List -- High Concern Boreal Owl -- -- Monitored -- (hack Swift -- Yellow List Monitored Immediate Concern Vaux's Swift — -- Candidate Early Warning White-throated Swift -- -- Early Warning Black-chinned Hummingbird -- -- -- Early Warning Calliope Hummingbird -- Yellow List -- Early Warning Rufous Hummingbird -- -- -- Early Warning Lewis's Woodpecker -- Rad List Candidate High Concern Acorn Woodpecker -- -- Monitored -- Williamson's Sapsucker -- Yellow List -- Early Warning Red-naped Sapsucker -- -- •- Early Warning Red-breasted Sapsucker -- -- -- Early Warning White headed Woodpecker -- Yellow List Candidate Immediate Concern American Three-toed Woodpecker -- -- Monitored -- Black-backed Woodpecker -- -- Candidate Early Warning Pileated Woodpecker -- — Candidate Early Warning l http://www.birdweb.org/birdweb/special_concern.aspx 12/1/2009 Bird Web - Species of Special Concern Page 5 of 5 Olive-sided Flycatcher Yeilow List - Immediate Concern Willow Flycatcher — Yellow Ust -- Early Warning Hammond's Flycatcher -- e. Early Warning Gray Flycatcher -- -- Monitored Dusky Flycatcher -- -- -- Early Warning Pacific-slope Flycatcher -- -- -- Early Warning Ash-throated Flycatcher -- -- Monitored -- Loggerhead Shrike -- -- Candidate Immediate Concern Cassin's Vireo -- -- -- Early Warning Horned Lark Candidate -- Endangered Immediate (Streaked subspecies) Concern Purple Martin -- -- Candidate High Concern Boreal Chickadee -- -- Monitored -- White-breasted Nuthatch -- -- Candidate Early Warning (Slender-billed subspecies) Pygmy Nuthatch -- -- Monitored Early Warning Western aiuebird -- •- Monitored Early Warning Varied Thrush -- Yellow List -- -- Gray Catbird -- -- Early Warning Sage Thrasher -- -- Candidate High Concern Yellow Warbler -- -- -- Early Warning Black-throated Gray Warbler _ _ -- Early Warning Hermit Warbler -- Yellow Ust §- Early Warning Northern Waterthrush -- -- Monitored -- MacGiilivray's Warbler -- -- -- Early Warning Yellow-breasted Chat -- -- -- Early Warning Green-tailed Towhee -a -- Monitored -- Chipping Sparrow -- -- -- Early Warning Brewer's Sparrow -- Yellow List -- High Concern Vesper Sparrow -- — Candidate Immediate (Oregon subspecies) Concern Sage Sparrow -- Yellow Ust Candidate High Concern Grasshopper Sparrow -- n_ Monitored -- Lazuli Bunting -- -- -- Early Warning Bobolink -- -- Monitored -- Rusty Blackbird -- Yellow List -- -- Lesser Goldfinch -- -- Monitored -- V2005-2008 Seattle Audubon Society Cred http://www.birdweb.org/birdweb/special_concern.aspx 12/1/2009 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Appendix E Technical Review Group Comments 17: fiyy 14e STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 2315 N Discovery Place•Spokane Valley, Washington 99216-1566•(509)892-1001 FAX(509)921-2440 March 10,2010 City of Spokane Valley Attn: Scott Kuhta 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 SUBJECT: Comments regarding the Technical Review Draft of Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report Dear Mr. Kuhta: The State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the draft version of the City of Spokane Valley's Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report February 2010. The inventory and characterization is very thorough; we have only a few comments on the Report that highlight minor inconsistencies and ecosystem characterization gaps. Chapter 3,Regional Characterization:The shoreline analysis in this chapter is a comprehensive inventory of ecosystem-wide processes and ecological functions in habitats within shoreline jurisdiction in the City of Spokane Valley.However, the inventory of species and habitats in Section 3.2 Spokane River Biological Resources does not include all state listed species related to or affected by shoreline planning. In Spokane County, amphibians, such as western toad,also depend on freshwater shoreline habitat in the county. The following link will take you to WDFW's Priority Habitat and Species website http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm. County Specific Lists of Species and Habitats are also available at this site under Related Links on the left hand side of the page. The characterization does not include species that are Sensitive or Candidates for listing and therefore vulnerable of becoming Endangered or Threatened without removal of threats. We have enclosed a list of priority species found in the WDFW priority habitats and species database for Spokane County(http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phspage.htm). We recommend including these species in your characterization report to inform policies and regulations that will adequately protect the existing habitat functions upon which these species depend. Additional Comments on the Species List: Osprey,while included as a species of Local Importance in Spokane County, is no longer included as a priority species and is not included on the State Monitor list. Section 3.2: References to Rainbow trout as well as Redband trout. WDFW has conducted genetics work under the Joint Stock Assessement Program and the redband trout have been found to be genetically distinct, wild fish. It is redundant to have both redband and rainbow trout listed. Columbia River redband trout(Onchorynchus mykiss gairdneri) are a subspecies of rainbow trout(0.mykiss) (Behnke 1992). A genetic inventory of rainbow indicates we have a virtually pure population of Columbia River redband trout in the Spokane River(Small et al 2007). For more information and to further improve the accuracy of the Characterization Report, please refer to the specific comments provided by Jason McLellan, WDFW Fisheries Biologist, forwarded through Doug Pineo, Ecology. Section 3.5 Regional Processes,Stressors and Opportunites for Improvement: Erosion (Spokane River): The Spokane River,particularly the upper reaches is not a wood controlled system nor in the past is it believed to have been wood controlled. The upper reaches of the river look much the same today as the reaches look historically indicating a system that is somewhat stable overtime. WDFW looks at the movement of bedload and channel changes that may occur with high flow conditions as a positive change. The embedded conditions that exist in the Spokane are not indicative of a natural river condition. It takes extreme high flow events (1996/1997)to move the bedload. The HEDs on the river do alter the natural flow regimes, restrict flows,and limit gravel recruitment downstream. The limited sources of gravel feeder bluffs and the operation of HEDs has resulted in a gravel starved system. This lack of gravel recruitment is believed to be one of the limiting factors effecting trout production in this reach. Flooding: WDFW does not look at flooding as negative, but rather as a natural river process. Streams and rivers are supposed to be allowed floodplain connectivity and natural channel migration. It is the process of shoreline development and a controlled system that has resulted in flood control and resulted in altered natural shoreline and riverine processes. Solarization: The main temperature issue in the upper Spokane is due to the operation of the HED upstream in Post Falls. Temperature is considered to be a factor in reduced survival of juvenile salmonids. The warmer water also supports the non-native smallmouth bass. Fish and Wildlife: Fish: While the upper river habitat structure could be ranked as fair to good, the water quality parameters,particularly instream flow and temperature, force the ranking under Condition to be Poor. WDFW is quite concerned with the population decline of native redband trout in the Spokane River and as described above,this is likely linked with reduced spawning material, increased temperature, low recruitment success,and predation. Wildlife: Provide a source for the rankings. While some areas might have suitable habitat, development limits the functional use of the river by some wildlife species. The railroad,highway,residential, and commercial development have all limited the habitat available for species. WDFW suggests adding Residential Development as a process so that docks, danger tree removal, private boat ramps, shoreline armoring,trails,riparian impacts, loss up upland habitat and connectivity are all examples that can be included. Homeless encampments are also an issue along the river within the City. Poaching is another Stressor on the native trout resources. WDFW has recently increased enforcement patrols to try to get control of the increased illegal fishing taking place on the already stressed population. Activity includes angling out of season,not practicing catch and release, and illegal use of bait in baitless/barbless area. 5.0 Local Characterization: Fish: Include Redside shiner and sculpin spp. in the list of fish species found in the Spokane River system. Bull trout, Chinook salmon, and northern pike could also be added to the list of species that are occasionally noted—though all are entrained from the Couer d'Alene system. Critical Areas: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas extend above the OHWL. For example,the WDFW recommended riparian habitat width is 250 ft. This extends well above the OHWL. Stating"below the OHWL" may cause confusion. Shoreline Modifications: The City has an opportunity to address cumulative shoreline impacts under this update process. Addressing cumulative shoreline impacts is a requirement under the Ecology's SMA and relying on WDFW to address these impacts under the hydraulic code is problematic at best. WDFW does not have the authority to address cumulative impacts from individual applications and can only deny projects on the basis of impacts to fish life. WDFW encourages the City to take this opportunity seriously and set an appropriate standard for future shoreline developments. Sources: WDFW would like suggest that the following sources be considered for best available science: A. Management Recommendations: WDFW produces management recommendations supported by best available science. Management recommendations are most appropriate to inform protection standards, but may also inform shoreline analysis recommendations. Sources include: 1. The updated PHS list includes electronic links to PHS management recommendations and single-page recommendations, recovery plans, living with wildlife program, and NatureServe Species Reports for all priority species. (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phsrecs.htm). Management recommendations most commonly applied to SMP updates are: a. Washington's Priority Habitats:Riparian(1997), http://wdfw.wa.aov/hab/ripxsum.htm 2. Trout Recovery: A sampling of agency recommendations include: a. Aquatic Habitat Guidelines, http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/ahg/, covering a number of topics related to shoreline protection and restoration. b. WDFW Wild Salmonid Policy(1997): http://wdfw.wa.vov/fish/wsp/wsp.htrn c. WDFW, Ecology, and DOT.Alternative Mitigation Policy Guidance: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/aha/altmtatn.pdf d. Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout(Knight 2009); http://wdfw.wa.gov/habitat/plannersQuide/index.htmI Again we thank you for providing an opportunity to comment on the Report and are impressed with the thorough inventory and characterization. With the inclusion of all WDFW priority habitats and species, we believe this report provides a good foundation for your Shoreline Master Program policies and regulations. We look forward to providing additional technical assistance throughout your update process. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or requests for additional information. I look forward to continuing to work with the City of Spokane Valley on this Shoreline Master Program Update. Sincerely, ') Karin A. Divens Kad: KAD Cc: Mark Wachtel, RHPM Jennifer Davis, Environmental Services Coordinator Doug Pineo, Department of Ecology From:Person,Randy(PARKS)[mailto:Randy.Person@PARKS.WA.GOV] Sent:Thursday,March 11,2010 3:17 PM To:Lori Barlow Cc:Parsons,Christine(PARKS);Person,Randy(PARKS);Schulz,Mark(PARKS);Guidotti,Chris(PARKS); Fraser,Bill(PARKS);Scott,Kathryn(PARKS);Harris,Jim(PARKS); Koss, Bill(PARKS) Subject:Response to Spokane Valley SMP inventory report Thank you for making the Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report available for comment. It contains a great deal of information,and should make a good basis for future discussions. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has a few comments for you to consider. Spokane River Centennial Trail—the document routinely refers to the trail developed by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission,and maintained through an interagency agreement,as simply"Centennial Trail." We recommend that the more complete reference "Spokane River Centennial Trail (SRCT)" be used. Although it's not a bad reference in context, there were several other"Centennial Trails"constructed in Washington at about that time,and using the full reference will make it easier in the future,especially for digital search engines. The SRCT is mentioned often as an important feature. At times it is a landmark,at other times its presence as a barrier is noted. Unfortunately,only the map in figure 5-4 on page 42 actually shows the alignment of the trail within the shoreline zone. Wherever possible, please show the actual trail alignment. We can help with this—GIS data is available for the asking,that shows State Park ownership, as well as the trail alignment. Please contact Kathryn Scott at Kathrvn.Scott@parks.wa.eov, or(360)902-8691 to work out the details. In a similar vein,the text is full of landmarks and other geographic references,which some of us are unfamiliar with. Categorically, maps showing the locations of all the referenced items should be included. It is difficult to fully understand the written information without some idea of the physical relationships being discussed. The second paragraph on page 69 discusses potential for non-motorized watercraft access near Coyote Rock,"just west of Mirabeau Point." Is this correct? Our reading of the maps shows the Coyote Rocks area lying just westerly of Myrtle Point,with Mirabeau further upstream. Speaking of development, please consider the ongoing need for public access to the shoreline during discussions of shoreline designations, appropriate uses,and development regulations. This report describes a number of areas with social trails leading to the water edge. The demand to reach this special area is high,and the need to protect the shoreline is also high. We recognize that often the best solution is appropriate development of designated facilities such as paths,viewing platforms,and hand carried watercraft launch and retrieval facilities. Providing carefully designed convenient access facilities directs use,and helps protect adjacent fragile natural areas. To be able to provide useful public access facilities and thereby limit impacts,it is important that public access facilities be shown as "permitted uses" in publically owned shoreline areas,and especially those lands that contain the SRCT. Appropriate development regulations will then help assure that facilities are well designed and strike a good balance between public access and preserving most of the shoreline's existing natural character. Please add the address local.government@parks.wa.gov to your mailing list. This site is monitored regularly. Sending there will assure a timely response that is not dependent on one individual. Thank you. We look forward to continuing to work with the City of Spokane Valley as you work towards a new revised Shoreline Master Program. Randy Person,Park Planner Washington State Parks randy.person@parks.wa.gov Phone 360-902-8655 Fax 360-586-0207 Snail mail PO Box 42650,Olympia,WA 98504 Street 1111 Israel Road SE,Olympia,WA 98504 Hi,Scott. We're always happy to review when someone actually pays attention to our comments. Your newly available suite of maps is very helpful. The Shorelines by Section map certainly shows the SRCT very accurately. Those same maps could be made more useful with just a little more label work. Some examples: • E-5i shows the Sullivan Road area,with several parking areas near the river. I might presume the one west of Sullivan,closest to the river on the north bank, is public recreational parking,and the others are business related. A short label in these relatively clear areas would clarify things. If the parking on the north side is intended for access to the SRCT,by walking across the bridge,that could even be stated. • E-5o could easily label Myrtle Point. • E-5j shows an unidentified railroad bridge In general,take the attitude of an ignorant(though intelligent) person viewing the area for the first time through your maps. Don't crowd them with so many notes that you can no longer see the features, but the scale used allows a lot of room for helpful labels. And speaking of scales.. . Even here at the office, my print default came up at 8 Y2 x 11. If I was an interested citizen viewing these from home, I may well have a printer that could not produce 11 x 17. Especially today,when digital output is so controllable by the end user,it is important to have a scale that works. The text 1"=200'does not. It should be replaced (or augmented) with a graphic scale,which was well done on E-4. No matter what size the output,one can then accurately determine distances. I'm still not sure that I could pick out each area in the Audubon report, but I have a much better idea of the site conditions with the draft inventory maps. Although a day in the field exploring the river would be great, I'm probably destined to help coordinate our responses from Olympia, so the printable product is very important for me. Cheers, Randy Person To: Scott Kuhta From: Walt Edelen CC: Shoreline Inventory Comments Date: 4/6/2010 Re: Characterization Report Comments: 1. Page 5. It should state Spokane County Conservation District, not Service 2. Page 11. 3`d paragraph. It should read,According to Spokane County Conservation District's, 3. Page 11. 3`d paragraph states that the PFC rates the Spokane River as poor to fair ecologically. This is inaccurate. The PFC states that the Spokane River, ecologically, is fair to good. The PFC reported 24%as Good, 55%Fair,and only 21%as poor. 4. Scientific names of plants should be italicized on page 13. 5. Your water quality section is rather sparse. I would have expected a lengthy section with all the TMDL efforts and data collected over the years. 6. Page 14. NPS. Your first sentence needs restructuring. It reads as though you are promoting decreased use of urban runoff and fertilizers. 7. Shelley Lake. Might want to add something about the large waterline fluctuation of Shelley Lake due to the spring runoff. There is a significant drop by summer without the pumping. 8. Would one of your issues(page 17)be instream flows? What about impacts of Post Falls dam? 9. Page 21.2"d paragraph. Ends with relatively recently. Change that to recently. 10. Page 21. Shelley Lake section. No mention of slaughterhouse history & use. Dumping of carcasses in Lake? Probably not needed. 11. Page 24. It may be important to enhance the riparian corridor, but there are areas that need to be protected from development encroachment. High quality areas that need restrictions likely greater than the SMA or local ordinances. 12. It would be helpful to have the River Miles stated for the Study Segments in the documents. I could line up other things with that information. 13. Page 31. I think this area is a Rosgen channel type C2 or C3. Not sure it matches up with PFC work. 1 14. Table 5.5. I realize the one plant association comes out to 0%, but it just doesn't look good to the general reader. 15. I do like the fact that you researched the amount of impervious surfaces within the riparian zone. Great data. 16. I was a little confused as to how you have 144.6 acres of plant associations within your 88.5 acres of Segment 1. Is this due to that the 88.5 is just the amount under jurisdiction? 17. Page 41. The statement regarding the SCCD report and adequate riparian vegetation of greater than 60 ft. I think this interpretation is not entirely accurate. The SCCD report indicates that this area had a riparian width similar to the previous reach(in the report—reach 4). It actually states an average riparian width of 0-50 ft and that it the reach was dominated by discontinuous narrow bands of vegetation. Overall,the reach is fair to good on habitat. 18. I do like the paragraph on page 41 where it states that more trees need to be added for restoration efforts. 19. Page 43. Coyote Development. Who has determined that a 75' buffer is adequate? What types of access are they trying to get with permits? 20. SR-4 — areas behind upriver dam are subject to wake action due to boating activities. Local residents complain of this regularly. Lots without adequate vegetation are suffering streambank erosion issues. 21. The trail around Shelley Lake has mooring areas for non-motorized boats? I didn't see any last year. 22. The east side of Shelley Lake has a nice High quality area including the granite rock, Ponderosa Pine community and some alder communities. 23. General comment: There should be better spacing between some of the text and the figures in the document. It may be a formatting issue. 24. Page 65. Last paragraph. Misspelled word(t). the word"it"is missing the"i" 25. I do not think dock permitting should occur within the Spokane River at the Coyote Development site. This is not protection of the shoreline and preserving its natural character. Don't allow this activity to degrade a great City asset. 26. Your Recommendations section does not include any restoration plans for the shorelines. Why not? You could work with local agencies,especially the SCCD to accomplish this. 27. Overall, I think you have a done a good job on the inventory section. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding my comments Regards, Walt Edelen Water Resources Program Manager Spokane County Conservation District •Page 2 Comment Response Form Document Reviewed: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory&Characterization Report(Tech.Review Group Draft) Subject: Shoreline Planning Commenter: Doug Pinneo and Comment 3-12-2010 Response 4-5-2010 Jeremy Sikes,Ecology Date: Date: No. Ref. Comment Response Provided by 1. Section 1.0,4"'pgh [DAPI)I think this is supposed to be a heading Remnant sentence,removed JCP ]DAP2]:When referring to functions it's probably good to specify ecological functions.Also these three bullets mix up the following sequence a little bit: I)Conduct a shoreline inventory; 2)Analyze inventory data and information to: -characterize ecological functions including biodiversity,native plant Sec.1.1 Purpose of and animal community integrity,etc.,so as to achieve a"meaningful understanding of shoreline ecological functions; 2. the Revised paragraph to address comment. JCP Characterization -identify elements of natural character,shoreline habitats and ecosystems and related attributes which should not be disturbed, damaged or destroyed because they can't be restored or replicated within the time horizon of the SMP(10-12 years); -identify opportunities for restoration of shoreline resources and ecological function; -characterize reasonably foreseeable uses and developments in the shorelines as the basis for assessing potential cumulative impacts. ]DAP3]:SMP jurisdiction MUST be extended to include the delineated boundary of all associated wetlands.Local governments MAY choose to extend SMP jurisdiction to include the buffers necessary to protect wetlands as they are critical areas as defined in the Growth Management Act. Sec.1.2 SMA All critical areas(as defined in the GMA)within SMP jurisdiction shall Revised per comment and added a reference to the latest 3' Jurisdiction be managed with the comprehensively updated SMP after it is approved SMP amendment. JCP by the Department of Ecology and becomes part of the statewide Shoreline Master Program.This was clarified earlier this week by the legislature in its most recent amendments to the SMA and GMA.This legislation has been informally labeled the"Anacortes Fix"during the 2010 legislative session. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 1 of 6 No. Ref, Comment Response Provided by [DAMThe technical advisory committee might also benefit from Many groups have been contacted(Audubon,IEFFC, Sec.2.0 Methods, participation by experts in riparian ecology and stream ecology at SFF,TU,Native Plant Society)and involved with data 4' last bullet(Tribe) Eastern Washington University and from other local experts not gathering. Some have been more responsive than JCP affiliated with government. others. The inventory is available on the website and public notice has been published. 2.1-Field [jjs5[:Was there some kind of gap analysis document that was prepared Revised slightly. App.A includes a listing of data 5. Inventory,last for the City?If so,this section should at least refer to it and include it as sources and an evaluation of missing information that JCP paragraph a reference.If not,this 3 sentence paragraph describing gaps does not was needed for the inventory. really tell the tale.Either way this section requires some expansion. Comment[DAP6j:The SMA requires"protecting against adverse Agreed. Reaches are given detailed assessment of all impacts to the land,its vegetation and wildlife,and the waters of the veg.commuinities for this reason. Also,Sec.3.2,under state and their aquatic life.Thus,riparian and associatedupland the Biological Resources heading,addresses not only vegetation and native plant communities are thus given equal protection the importance of riparian habitat but of the importance of the ecotone between the riparian habitat and the 6. under the SMA.It's fine to call out the special importance and NH ecological functions riparian areas have in the landscape,but this adjacent upland communities. Some redundancy is discussion should be revised to better emphasize the relevance of upland inherent in the outline of the document so the vegetation plant communities in SMA jurisdiction.This need is better born out in is described in general regional terms(Sec.3),historic terms(Sec.4),and study segment-specific terms(Sec. 2.2.1 Veg.Survey the actual descriptions of reaches in Section 5. 5). Protocol Rex Crawford's associations best matched the observed Comment[DAPI]:Since Rex Crawford's work encompassed only the plant associations along the river(surprisingly!). So as Columbia Basin and not the surrounding highlands,like the northern tier to minimize reinventing the wheel,the most applicable 7 of eastern Washington,the Spokane area,the Palouse and the riparian vegetation management guide was used,which NH and floodplain plant associations of the Blue Mountain counties(Asotin, happened to be RC's. It should be mentioned that Garfield,Columbia,and Walla Walla),why did you not develop or Kovalchick et.al.and the SCCD's PFC study were also assign your own plant associations or use those identified by others referenced for various wildlife habitat values as including Kovalchik? presented in Table 5-1. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 2 of 6 No. Ref. Comment Response Provided by [DAPS[:From our Spokane River and Aquifer expert John Covert: On page ten they have a graphic that shows gaining.and losing reaches along the river.The most up-to-date version of this map can be found in the 2009 Update addition of the SVRP Aquifer Atlas I am attaching a screen capture of a portion of page 14 of the atlas that shows the most current understanding of the relationships.It is slightly different than the one in the draft SMP inventory.The aquifer boundary was updated in 2007(Bi state study)which isn't used on the image on page 10 Revised section to address comments. COSV is In the third paragraph from the bottom of page 20 they say"Sometime acquiring the latest aquifer GIS information. Mapping between 1910 and 1925 the Spokane Valley Irrigation District will be revised I this or the final draft depending on constructed a canal to divert water from the river for irrigation near the when the information can be acquired. state line." .r the top of page 21 is this patine;apir A review of the historic documentation indicates that the Spokane River The intent of this paragraph was to indicate that 8. 3.1-SVRP Aquifer did not play a large role in the development of the valley did not impact the river to a JCP development of the Spokane Valley.Early land development is great extent. Irrigation from the river,lakes,and aquifer generally associated with irrigation from certainly played a major role in development but the the surrounding lakes and later with pumping from the Spokane- immediate river valley was not a significant factor in Rathdrum Aquifer.The river was not shaping the valley as evidenced by no roads or utility heavily used until relatively recently. corridors along the river as occurs in many other areas. l'he Spokane Valley Farms Canal at Post Falls(USGS gage 12418500; Section revised. diverted hundreds of cis from the Spokane River and irrigated thousands of acres from the 1920s into the 1960s.That surface water was replaced with groundwater wells in the late 1960s USBR project drilled 34 wells m the aquifer to replace the surface water divcrsionl ery little surface ater is actually used any more Almost all water users withdraw front '11e paragraph 21 needs to bell ' 3.1-SVRP 9. Aquifer,4i" IDAP9I:These two sentences contradict each other. Revised JCP paragraph [DAP10I:The Proper Functioning Condition assessment conducted by the Spokane County Conservation District did in fact include some limited annotation about ecological function,but significantly Section 3 presents a general,regional overview of SMP 3.2-Spokane River understates the ecological function s made evident elsewhere in this waters within the City. More detailed assessments of 10. (last paragraph) Inventory.Also,the river banks in much of the river reaches flowing geomorphic conditions and ecological functions are NH through Spokane Valley are self armored and frequently characterized presented in Section 5;at the local assessment scale. by large boulders and cobbles distributed by much larger flow regimes than occur today.This section needs to be rewritten. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 3 of 6 No. Ref. Comment Response Provided by ]DAP11]:This discussion does not tell us anything about,or introduce future discussion of the spatial and temporal occurances and distribution of these groups in the shorelines of the Spokane River.The SMP guidelines tell us how to use local expertise but use of anecdotal Again,this is meant to provide a regional description to 11. 3.2-Bio Resources observations of wildlife abundance must be carefully placed in context showcase the matrix within the COSV shorelines fit NH Even the PFC assessment is a one-day"fly by"of only very limited into. value in the inventory discussion. This introductory discussion also makes no mention of aquatic or terrestrial macro-invertebrates,though they are briefly mentioned later. _ ]DAP12]:Redundant.Red band are the native rainbow trout which include both resident non-migratory populations and also the region's anadromous steehead trout which do not reach into Spokane Valley. Per WDFW comments,a new table(Table 3-2)was Also,many other priority species have been observed in Spokane Valley added to the report to include all priority species within 3.2-Bio Resources, over the years,and while a discussion of the Priority Species has a the county. Section 5 then links the life forms to 12. limited place in the SMP update Inventory,the SMA and SMP available habitats and describes their use potential in JCP/NH trout bullets Guidelines require equal protective management for all species in Table 5-1. This is meant to provide a surrogate for the shoreline environments.This is one of the areas in which the SMA and shoreline's potential to support these species and, the GMA standards for Critical Areas differs significantly.The SMA thereby,highlight areas for conservation or restoration. standard for protecting wildlife and their aquatic and terrestrial habitats is higher in the SMA than in the GMA. 3.2-Bio Resources IDAP13]:Thurow is in error with respect to the status of red-band trout Revised to incorporate the findings of Small's 2007 13. 4's paragraph in the Spokane and its tributaries.See Jason McLellan's more thorough genetics study. JCP/NH comments circulated separately. I assume you are describing the"Vegetation"section. Again,this is meant to provide a general/regional overview of vegetation patterns along the river. By ]DAP141:This a vague,general and deficient discussion which doesn't describing the general bands of vegetation and 14. 3.2 plants add anything to our"meaningful understanding"of native plants along corresponding geomorphic positions,lay readers are NH the spokane River in Spokane Valley. more readily able to visualize the shoreline environment and understand the differences within a varying habitat collectively referred to as"riparian". Further detail provided in Section 5. 15. 3.3-Shelley Lake liis151:Has this"work"been referenced already elsewhere? No. Reference expanded. JCP 16. 3.4-Gravel Pits ]iis16]:Reference a figure here Added a reference to Figure I-I JCP 17. 4.1-historic veg. Conspicuous?Meaning they"stand out"less? Yes. I have changed conspicuous to"common"for NH clarity. 18. 4.1 shoreline ]iis18]:They have a water right for discharge?Should this refer to an Revised—added reference to NPDES permit for JCP alterations effluent discharge permit? discharge. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 4 of 6 No. Ref. Comment Response Provided by 19. 4.1 Ijjs19j:The riparian impacts from the initial trail construction bear a Revised after discussions with Ecology. Please review JCP little more description here.What type of vegetation?was it intact and comment. riparian?How much?To what effect? IDAP201:In a number of locations in Spokane Valley,where no previous roadbed existed,the trail was constructed through remnant intact patches of native Rathdrum Prairie and through riparian 20. 4.1 vegetation,for example west of Barker Road,over 30 acres of native Revised,see response in No. 19. JCP plant associations were permanently lost.The trail also introduced noxious weeds to areas previously not invaded.Trail maintenance has included routine use of herbicides to control the weeds,also affecting adjacent remaining native vegetation. 1115211:this implies that there was once much more water in the lake.Is Hard to say,since past information is hard to come by, 21. 4.2 that true?Miniature hydroplane races sound awesome. but we know that supplemental water was pumped into JCP the lake from the aquifer until recently. I jjs22j:SI there any more information on how this conversion will take Thereareapp roved DNR reclamationplans for each of 22. 4.3-gravel pits place?Will they actively restore the area to maximize habitat or just quit the pits. JCP mining and let nature take it's course? "Rare"as used in the report includes listed(T&E), "Sensitive",and"Tracking"status plants. No records Comment IDAP231:More significant in many ways than rare plants are of any rare plants or rare plant associations were 23. 5.1-rare plants the relative abundance and association of plant species which are not yet documented within the SMP areas. Overlapping rare NH listed. plant associations were noted at the old Inland Empire Zoo(Mirabeau Park)but not within the SMP during fieldwork. IDAP241:This is not true.The river channel is characterized by a diverse channel morphology and fish species exploit different habitats within the wetted perimeter.Temperature and dissolved oxygen also This section was updated to address cold water refugia strongly affect the distribution of different species in the river.Small per McLellen&O'Connor(WDFW)2008 and 2009. 24. 5.1-fish mouth bass are as yet not widespread in the lower river below Monroe Further detail on spawning areas and local abundances NH Street Dam in Spokane,as they are in the upper river in Spokane Valley. provided I the study segment subsections. Contact WDFW for more recent surveys of fish in the upper Spokane River. 25. 5.1-Critical areas IDAP251:Need to add geohazards According to the City GIS information no geohazards JCP have been identified along the Spokane River. 5.1-sediment Ujs261:refer to figure;this is a little confusing.be more specific;what 26. transport natural areas?where are the corridors?how important are they Revised,added additional detail. JCP regionally City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 5 of 6 No. Ref. Comment Response Provided by [jjs271:I understand what you are getting at here,but I'm not sure about the use of the word"buffer",Implies that it is providing more ecological 27. 5.1.1.1-recreation benefit than the trail actually does.The presence of the trial in the buffer Revised, JCP actually degrades it's function over even a pervious dirt road and certainly over a vegetated riparian corridor.Maybe"physical separation"? _ 28. 5.1.1.1-recreation ijjs28]:Is this informal parking causing or likely to cause any kind of No. Parking is along a paved road. JCP shoreline degradation? 29. 5.1.1.1-trans Ws291:This sounds interesting;can you give a quick summary of the No. See www.bndeinethevalley.org,I emailed you the JCP project? link. DAP30-Need to characterize velocities better than to say the 30. 5.1.3.1-recreation "Backwater...is present." Especially at higher flows,there is significant Revised to better reflect conditions. JCP current at this reach _ [DAP31]:This issue is far from over and it is Ecology's carefully Revised by adding discussion on permitting and 5.1.3.1-Shoreline evaluated position that docks should be prohibited in this reach,both 31. Modifications because of impacts on the river and public user,but also due to potential effects,including cumulative impacts. Note JCP cumulative impacts to shoreline plant communities and habitat that all agencies review letters commented on this. 5.1.3.2-phys. [DAP32]:This is a good characterization and is a good standard for 32. characterization other SMPs.It represents a significant improvement over the City of thanks NH/JCP Spokane Inventory. [DAP33]:This is a well-intended effort to characterize areas which Within the COSV,the areas described as high quality should not be disturbed,but is not tied to distinct metrics.The broad conservations areas are attributed to healthy,mature, category of"high quality"also was applied to popular recreational areas 5.1.3.3-High intact bands of native riparian forest. I've documented 33. Quality Cons. regardless of their ecological function,and was also applied to large this in the report to make sure it is clear that this NH monotypical stands of large,introduced European white willow and Areas golden willow trees in the vicinity of the confluence of the Spokane and description is related to habitat conditions(rather than Little Spokane rivers.Remove this reference while retaining the recreation,etc.). This rationale seems relevant to the description of these important areas.A better terminology is needed. shoreline characterization so I've left it in for now. 34. Throughout Minor text edits made in track changes through document Incorporated NH/JCP 35. 36. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 6 of 6 itiRS Comment Response Form Document Reviewed: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory&Characterization Report(Tech.Review Group Draft) r Subject: Shoreline Planning Commenter. Bill Gothman,COSY Comment 2-27-2010 Response 4/5/2010 Date: Date: No. Ref. Comment Response Expanded Section 6.4.3 a bit to address comments. We have spoken with Central Premix and the City about potential future uses. Please review and comment and if I thought the discussion about the aggregate mines(gravel pits)was there are additional ideas we can address prior to thoughtful and accurate,and for the most part thorough.However,some completion of the final document. discussion of the future of these water bodies is warranted.There is a general tendency to think they should forever be closed off from public use because they expose the aquifer,but stepping back to realize that this is what most naturally formed lakes also do often produces a calming effect.Very high quality fisheries can be sustained in lakes of this size and bathymetry,with the high water quality.Experience in 5.3 and 6.4.3- other parts of the US demonstrate that recreational use of lacustrine 1. future use of water bodies which form critical elements of major municipal and JCP/NHB gravel pits regional water supplies can be successfully managed to protect water quality. A discussion of the future of the Park Rd.and Sullivan Rd.lakes is warranted in the sections on opportunities for ecological restoration and the Use Analysis.For process purposes,another discussion series is warranted with the owner-operators of the current active surface mines,to explore options for the future beyond the active economic lives of these mines. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 1 of 2 No. Ref. Comment Response 2.Water Trail—Some of you attended at least parts of this week's Spokane River Forum,so you know discussion of public access and recreation needs to be expanded to address more in-depth analysis of the diversity and scope of current and reasonably foreseeable future Added reference to the water trail. public use of Spokane River shorelines within the city.The very recent Section 6.2- emergence of a Water Trail proposal for the entire river in Spokane Additional detail County(and perhaps into Kootenai County to the east)should be a 2. on projected I would like to add that I appreciate these comments;they JCP specific area of discussion,since it involves elements of public access, have helped us focus on an important element of the use recreation recreation,and protecting shoreline ecological functions.Unlike the analysis that had not been addressed previously and is not unrealized promises and potential of the Centennial Trail to date,the very clearly defined in WAC 173-26. Thanks Water Trail also encompasses possibilities for interpreting the natural and cultural history of the river and the landscape through which it flows.These are all purposes within the scope of the SMA and local SMPs,so should be addressed. 3.Whitewater—At least five sites have been identified or proposed for Section 6.2- whitewater parks along the Spokane River,all located in reaches and on Additional detail top of channel forms which are critical to native fishes and the aquatic Reviewed the REP initial siting study done in 2005,none 3. on projected macro-invertebrates upon which they feed.Several of these are located of the sites are within the COSV. However,there is a JCP whitewater within the corporate limits of Spokane Valley,so are a"reasonably short discussion on enhancements of the entire reachbetween Barker and Sullivan that has been included. recreation foreseeable use"which should be specifically addressed in the Use Analysis. 4.Bridges—both conventional transportation bridges and those envisioned for recreational purposes are significant perturbations on The reference to the pedestrian bridge is in the City of 4 Section 6.2- river channels and shorelands.At least one proposal for a recreational Liberty Lake. Added a short discussion on bridges in JCP Future Bridges bridge across the Spokane River in the Spokane Valley has been general. published in the Spokesman Review.These need to be addressed in the Use Analysis. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 2 of 2 URSComment Response Form Document Reviewed: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory&Characterization Report(Tech.Review Group Draft) Jason McLellen, Comment Response Subject: Shoreline Planning Commenter: Ecology Date: 2-19-2010 Date: 4/5/2010 1 No. Ref. Comment Response Redundant having both rainbow and redband trout listed. Columbia River redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri)are a subspecies of rainbow trout(Oncorhynchus 1 Page 12, mykiss) (Behnke 1992). A genetic inventory of rainbow Text updated NBH/JCP Comment 1 trout indicated we have a virtually pure population of Columbia River redband tout in the Spokane River(Small et al.2007). This statement is not accurate. Steel head are the Page 12, anadromous life history form of rainbow trout. Thus, 2. rainbow trout,including steelhead,native to the Columbia Text updated NBH/JCP Comment 2 River drainage east of the Cascade Mountains are Columbia River redband trout(Behnke 1992). Page 12, Only in areas where the anadromous life history form has be 3. Comment 3 Removed NBH/JCP eliminated. This is not accurate for the Spokane River. A genetic inventory showed little hybridization between hatchery a. Page 12, (coastal origin,O.m.irideus)stocks of rainbow trout and Removed NBH/JCP I Comment 4 redband trout in the Spokane River drainage(Small et al. 2007). City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 1 of 1 rf- f � 'i, Comment Response Form Document Reviewed: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory&Characterization Report(Tech.Review Group Draft) Subject: Shoreline Planning Commenter: Karin Divens,WDFW Comment 3/10/2010 Response 4/5/2010 Date: Date: No. Ref. Comment Response The shoreline analysis in this chapter is a comprehensive inventory of ecosystem-wide processes and ecological functions in habitats within shoreline jurisdiction in the City of Spokane Valley.However,the inventory of species and habitats in Section 3.2 Spokane River Biological Resources does not include all state listed species related to A complete list of Priority Species was added as Table or affected by shoreline planning.In Spokane County,amphibians,such 3-2 in the revised report NBH as western toad,also depend on freshwater shoreline habitat in the county. The following link will take you to WDFW's Priority Habitat Chapter 3,Regional and Species website hun:.'/wdlw wa.sov/hab/nhslist.htm. County Characterization Specific Lists of Species and Habitats are also available at this site under Related Links on the left hand side of the page. The characterization does not include species that are Sensitive or Candidates for listing and therefore vulnerable of becoming Endangered or Threatened without removal of threats.We have enclosed a list of 2. priority species found in the WDFW priority habitats and species See above NBH database for Spokane County(http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phspage.htm). We recommend including these species in your characterization report to inform policies and regulations that will adequately protect the existing habitat functions upon which these species depend. Osprey,while included as a species of Local Importance in Spokane Additional Comments County,is no longer included as a priority species and is not included on the Species List on the State Monitor list. 3. Osprey reference removed. NBH City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 1 of 4 No. Ref. Comment Response Section 3.2: References to Rainbow trout as well as Redband trout WDFW has conducted genetics work under the Joint Stock Assessement Program and the redband trout have been found to be genetically distinct,wild fish. It is redundant to have both redband and rainbow trout listed. Columbia River redband trout(Onchorynchus 4. mykiss gairdneri)are a subspecies of rainbow trout O.mykiss) Updated per Jason McLellen's comments NBH (Behnke 1992). A genetic inventory of rainbow indicates we have a virtually pure population of Columbia River redband trout in the Spokane River(Small et al 2007). For more information and to further improve the accuracy of the Characterization Report,please refer to the specific comments provided by Jason McLellan,WDFW Fisheries Biologist,forwarded through Doug Pineo,Ecology. Erosion:The Spokane River,particularly the upper reaches is not a wood controlled system nor in the past is it believed to have been wood controlled. The upper reaches of the river look much the same today as the reaches look historically indicating a system that is somewhat stable overtime, WDFW looks at the movement of bedload and channel Section 3.5 Regional changes that may occur with high flow conditions as a positive change. 5 Processes,Stressors The embedded conditions that exist in the Spokane are not indicative of Table 3-3 changed to reflect this information. NBH and Opportunites for a natural river condition. It takes extreme high flow events(1996/1997) Improvement to move the bedload. The HEDs on the river do alter the natural flow regimes,restrict flows,and limit gravel recruitment downstream. The limited sources of gravel feeder bluffs and the operation of HEDs has resulted in a gravel starved system. This lack of gravel recruitment is believed to be one of the limiting factors effecting trout production in this reach. Flooding: WDFW does not look at flooding as negative,but rather as a natural river process. Streams and rivers are supposed to be allowed Agreed;table changed to describe flooding as a natural 6. floodplain connectivity and natural channel migration. It is the process process that has been affected by HEDs and has resulted NBH of shoreline development and a controlled system that has resulted in in altered fluvial processes,including those described in flood control and resulted in altered natural shoreline and riverine the above comment. processes. Solarization: The main temperature issue in the upper Spokane is due Table updated to reflect the relative importance of cold to the operation of the HED upstream in Post Falls. Temperature is 7. considered to be a factor in reduced survival of juvenile salmonids. The water input from the aquifer rather than merely focusing NBH warmer water also supports the non-native smallmouth bass. on shade from vegetation. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 2 of 4 No. Ref. Comment Response Fish:While the upper river habitat structure could be ranked as fair to good,the water quality parameters,particularly instream flow and temperature,force the ranking under Condition to be Poor. WDFW is quite concerned with the population decline of native redband trout in 8. the Spokane River and as described above,this is likely linked with Table updated accordingly NBH reduced spawning material,increased temperature,low recruitment success,and predation. Wildlife:Provide a source for the rankings. While some areas might have suitable habitat,development limits the functional use of the river 9. by some wildlife species. The railroad,highway,residential,and Additional detail provided for condition findings. NBH commercial development have all limited the habitat available for species. Other:WDFW suggests adding Residential Development as a process so that docks,danger tree removal,private boat ramps,shoreline 10. armoring,trails,riparian impacts,loss up upland habitat and Added to Table 3-3 NBH connectivity are all examples that can be included. Homeless encampments are also an issue along the river within the City. Other:Poaching is another Stressor on the native trout resources. WDFW has recently increased enforcement patrols to try to get control 11. of the increased illegal fishing taking place on the already stressed Noted under stressors to Fish in Table 3-3 NBH population. Activity includes angling out of season,not practicing catch and release,and illegal use of bait in baitless/barbless area. Fish: Include Redside shiner and sculpin spp.in the list of fish species 5.0 Local found in the Spokane River system. Bull trout,Chinook salmon,and 12. Characterization: northern pike could also be added to the list of species that are Added. NBH occasionally noted—though all are entrained from the Couer d'Alene system. The current critical areas ordinance for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas is related to the WDFW Critical Areas: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas extend priority habitats. As you know,these are being updated above the OHWL. For example,the WDFW recommended riparian and the current"Urban Natural Open Space"category is 13. habitat width is 250 ft This extends well above the OHWL. Stating being removed. Thus the future designation will likely NBH "below the OHWL"may cause confusion. be one for"Fish Habitat Conservation Area"(below the OHWM)and a separate designation for"Riparian Habitat Area",which I have described as areas within up to 250 feet from the OHWM on page 26. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 3 of 4 No. Ref. Comment Response Shoreline Modifications: The City has an opportunity to address cumulative shoreline impacts under this update process. Addressing cumulative shoreline impacts is a requirement under the Ecology's SMA and relying on WDFW to address these impacts under the Cumulative impacts will be addressed specifically 14. hydraulic code is problematic at best.WDFW does not have the under the next element of the SMP update process. NBH authority to address cumulative impacts from individual applications and can only deny projects on the basis of impacts to fish life. WDFW encourages the City to take this opportunity seriously and set an appropriate standard for future shoreline developments. WDFW produces management recommendations supported by best available science.Management recommendations are most appropriate to informprotection standards,but mayalso inform shoreline analysis Thank you for summarizing and providing links to all of y these guidance documents! The existing recommendations.Sources include: characterization repeatedly recommends riparian enhancements,which I believe is consistent with the 1. The updated PHS list includes electronic links to PHS management riparian priority habitat guidance. This will be further recommendations and single-page recommendations,recovery elaborated upon in the forthcoming shoreline restoration plans,living with wildlife program,and NatureServe Species plan,which is a separate element of the SMP update Reports for all priority species. process. (Imp:;'wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phsrecs.htrn).Management recommendations most commonly applied to SMP updates are: Per our conversations,most of the limiting factors YY Priority Habitats: Riparian , related to trout recovery have to do with factors outside a. Washington's Priority ts:.iparian(1997), of the City's boundaries and beyond their control(e.g. ntp_,t dtw.wa.eov/hab/ripxsum.htm HED flow controls). I have tried to acknowledge the Management 15. issues present within the City and focus on shoreline NBH Recommendations 2. Trout Recovery: A sampling of agency recommendations include: planning activities that are within the control of the a. Aquatic Habitat Guidelines,hut) dRv.wa.Sov/hablahe City. These include protecting the cold water refugia covering a number of topics related to shoreline protection west of Sullivan Rd,wherethe stream is recharged by the aquifer. McLellen reports that this area is where and restoration. most of their fish were captured during stock surveys b. WDFW Wild Salmonid Policy(1997): conducted between the state line and Plantes Ferry park http://wdfw.wa.govitish/wspiwsp.htm so I've tried to highlight thermal protection of this habitat as a priority. Please let me know if there are c. WDFW,Ecology,and DOT.Alternative Mitigation Policy other WDFW recommendations that apply to trout Guidance:http:!/wdfiv wagovihah'ah,zialtmtatn.pdf recovery,which are within the City's ability to d. Land Use Planning for Salmon,Steelhead and Trout implement and that I have not already addressed. (Knight 2009); http://wdfw.wa.eov/habitat/plannerseuide/index.html Thank you very much for your comments! City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 4 of 4 THISComment Response Form Document Reviewed: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory&Characterization Report(Tech.Review Group Draft) Walt Edelen Subject: Shoreline Planning Commenter: ,SCCD Comment Response 4/5/2010 COSV Date: Date: No. Ref. Comment Response It should state Spokane County Conservation District,not Service 1. Page 5 Corrected JCP It should read,According to Spokane County Conservation District's, Page 11, 3"1 2. paragraph Corrected JCP Page 11.3"' States that the PFC rates the Spokane River as poor to fair ecologically. This is Checked the GIS database,revised to 3. paragraph inaccurate. The PFCstatesthat the Spokane River,ecologically,is fair to good. state fair to good. JCP The PFC reported 24%as Good,55/u Fair,and only 21/o as poor Scientific names of plants should be italicized on. 4. page 13 Corrected NBH Appreciate the comment;we tried to summarize the water quality issues that might affect the planning efforts within Your water quality section is rather sparse. 1 would have expected a lengthy section with the City of Spokane Valley. Metals, all the TMDL efforts and data collected over the years. PCBs,PBDEs are the contaminants listed 5. for the waters within the COSV. Non- JCP/NBH Point nutrient sources are also an important management issue for the P. TMDL. Some additional text was provided regarding temperature and DO issues. Your first sentence needs restructuring. It reads as though you are promoting decreased 6. Page 14. NPS use of urban runoff and fertilizers. Revised JCP Might want to add something about the large waterline fluctuation of Shelley Lake 7. Shelley Lake due to the spring runoff. There is a significant drop by summer without the Added jcp pumping. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 1 of 3 Would one of your issues be instream flows? What about impacts of Post Falls dam? 8. page 17 Agreed—Added to table NBI-UJCP 9. Page 21.2 a Ends with relatively recently. Change that to recently Thanks—revised that paragraph JCP paragraph extensively. I have heard about the slaughterhouse Page 21.Shelley No mention of slaughterhouse history&use. Dumping of carcasses in Lake? history and carcass dumping but have not 10. Lake section Probably not needed. been able to find any written JCP documentation to reference,little impact on current management practices. Agreed,out of scope for SMP. For It may be important to enhance the riparian corridor,but there are areas that need to be example,the Steen Road Gravel pit protected from development encroachment. High quality areas that need restrictions should be protected as an overflow for 11. Page 24. likely greater than the SMA or local ordinances. Shelley Lake. There are also areas of JCP intact prairie as well as wooded areas that should be recognized in the GMA critical areas. It would be helpful to have the River Miles stated for the Study Segments in the 12. Agreed,RMs added JCP documents. I could line up other things with that information 13. Page 31 I think this area is a Rosgen channel type C2 or C3. Not sure it matches up with Yes,C3 likely(cobble sub). Text added. NBH PFC work 14. Table 5.5 I realize the one plant association comes out to 0%,but it just doesn't look good to Changed to"<1%" NBH the general reader I do like the fact that you researched the amount of impervious surfaces within the Thanks,hopefully it can be used in the 15. riparian zone. Great data future as an element to address JCP cumulative impacts and no net loss. I was a little confused as to how you have 144.6 acres of plant associations within your The total is 114.6 acres of plant 88.5 acres of Segment I. Is this due to that the 88.5 is just the amount under jurisdiction? associations(not 144.6). This includes 16. 88.5 acres above the OHWL(shorelands) NBH and 26.1 acres below the OHWL (frequently flooded willows). The statement regarding the SCCD report and adequate riparian vegetation of greater than 60 ft. I think this interpretation is not entirely accurate. The SCCD 17. Page 41 report indicates that this area had a riparian width similar to the previous reach(in Removed statement. JCP the report—reach 4). It actually states an average riparian width of 0-50 ft and that it the reach was dominated by discontinuous narrow bands of vegetation. Overall, the reach is fair to good on habitat. I do like the paragraph where it states that more trees need to be added for restoration 18. page 41 efforts. Thanks NBH City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 2 of 3 Believe that the buffer was set under the previous(existing SMP)guidelines. Coyote Development. Who has determined that a 75'buffer is adequate? What COSV adopted Spokane County's. It is 19. Page 43 types of access are they trying to get with permits? an interesting situation that has had many JCP comments. We assume that as lots are developed the homeowners will work towards direct river access from each lot. Thanks,comment added. From the SR-4—areas behind upriver dam are subject to wake action due to boating activities. public meetings we have received 20. 5.1.4 Local residents complain of this regularly. Lots without adequate vegetation are comments about erosion due to wave JCP suffering streambank erosion issues action and also a request to remove the "no wake zone"requirement. The trail around Shelley Lake has mooring areas for non-motorized boats? I didn't see There are a few posts driven into the 21. 5.2 any last year. banks so that non-motorized boats can be JCP moored. 22. 5 2 The east side of Shelley Lake has a nice High quality area including the granite Agreed—this area is included in the JCP rock,Ponderosa Pine community and some alder communities inventory. 23. General comment There should be better spacing between some of the text and the figures in the Agreed,will try to catch them all. JCP document. It may be a formatting issue 24. Page 65. Last Misspelled word(t). the word"it"is missing the"i" Corrected. JCP paragraph Agency and public comments have been 5.1.3.3& I do not think dock permitting should occur within the Spokane River at the Coyote received about this. Since the 25. Development site. This is not protection of the shoreline and preserving its natural development was platted under the old JCP Section 6.3 character.Don't allow this activity to degrade a great City asset. SMP guidelines not sure what the outcome is going to be at this time. Your Recommendations section does not include any restoration plans for the shorelines. A separate Restoration Plan will be Why not? You could work with local agencies,especially the SCCD to accomplish this. developed,similar to the City of 26. 6.4 Spokane's. We look forward to working JCP/NBH with the SCCD and other agencies and user groups on this element of the SMP. Overall,I think you have a done a good job on the inventory section Please contact me if 27. General you have any questions regarding my comments Thank you JCP/NBH City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 3 of 3 URSComment Response Form Document Reviewed: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory&Characterization Report(Tech.Review Group Draft) Comment 3-11-2010&3- Response Subject: Shoreline Planning Commenter: Randy Person,WSPRC Date: 22-2010 Date: 4/5/2010 INo. Ref. Comment Response Spokane River Centennial Trail—the document routinely refers to the trail developed by the Washington State Parks and Recreation General- Commission,and maintained through an interagency agreement,as "Centennial Trail" simply"Centennial Trail."We recommend that the more complete vs.Spokane River reference"Spokane River Centennial Trail(SRCT)"be used.Although References changed to SRCT. NBH Centennial Trail it's not a bad reference in context,there were several other"Centennial Trails"constructed in Washington at about that time,and using the full reference will make it easier in the future,especially for digital search engines. The SRCT is mentioned often as an important feature.At times it is a landmark,at other times its presence as a barrier is noted. To improve the clarity of maps,the SRCT was generally Unfortunately,only the map in figure 5-4 on page 42 actually shows not shown in the small graphics contained within the report. General-SRCT the alignment of the trail within the shoreline zone.Wherever possible, Because the trail crossing over the river in SR-3 is 2. boundary on maps please show the actual trail alignment We can help with this—GIS described in detail as a point where parks ownership,and NBH data is available for the asking,that shows State Park ownership,as the natural buffer it provides,ceases to exist to the west,it well as the trail alignment.Please contact Kathryn Scott at was shown on Figure 5-4.However,the trail boundary is or(360)902-8691 to work out the shown on maps in Appendix E. details. In a similar vein,the text is full of landmarks and other geographic references,which some of us are unfamiliar with.Categorically,maps showing the locations of all the referenced items should Appendix E was later provided to WSPRC. Maps within 3. Landmarks/Maps NBH be included.It is difficult to fully understand the written information Appendix E shows the location of these landmarks. without some idea of the physical relationships being discussed. Incorrect The second paragraph on page 69 discusses potential for non- landmark motorized watercraft access near Coyote Rock,"just west of Mirabeau 4' description,page Point"Is this correct?Our reading of the maps shows the Coyote Good catch,Myrtle Point is correct JCP 69 Rocks area lying just westerly of Myrtle Point,with Mirabeau further upstream. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 1 of 3 No. Ref. Comment Response — Speaking of development,please consider the ongoing need for public access to the shoreline during discussions of shoreline designations, appropriate uses,and development regulations.This report describes a number of areas with social trails leading to the water edge.The Shoreline demand to reach this special area is high,and the need to protect the This will be addressed in policies goals and development 5. designations regulations. We have had discussions with Chris Guidotti, JCP shoreline is also high.We recognize that often the best solution is versus access appropriate development of designated facilities such as paths, Riverside State Park Manager about this topic. viewing platforms,and hand carried watercraft launch and retrieval facilities.Providing carefully designed convenient access facilities directs use,and helps protect adjacent fragile natural areas. To be able to provide useful public access facilities and thereby limit impacts,it is important that public access facilities be shown as Shoreline "permitted uses"in publically owned shoreline areas,and especially 6. designations those lands that contain the SRCT.Appropriate development See response to comment 5. JCP versus access regulations will then help assure that facilities are well designed and strike a good balance between public access and preserving most of the shoreline's existing natural character. Contact Please add the address_ to your 7. info./mailing list mailing list.This site is monitored regularly.Sending there will assure City has added this email address to the mailing list. COSV request a timely response that is not dependent on one individual. Note:the following comments were provided separately on March 22,2010: The Shorelines by Section map certainly shows the SRCT very accurately.Those same maps could be made more useful with just a little more label work.Some examples: E-5i shows the Sullivan Road area,with several parking areas near The City of Spokane Valley is preparing the map portfolio NBH/ Appendix E; the river.I might presume the one west of Sullivan,closest to the river (Appendix E of the Technical Review Draft). Comments 8- 8. various map on the north bank,is public recreational parking,and the others are DN(COSV) panels business related.A short label in these relatively clear areas would I 1 have been forwarded to the City and will be addressed clarify things.If the parking on the north side is intended for access to by Dan Neyman,GIS specialist with the COSV. the SRCT,by walking across the bridge,that could even be stated. • E-5o could easily label Myrtle Point. • .E-5j shows an unidentified railroad bridge In general,take the attitude of an ignorant(though intelligent)person 9 General mapping viewing the area for the first time through your maps.Don't crowd note them with so many notes that you can no longer see the features,but the scale used allows a lot of room for helpful labels. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 2 of 3 No. Ref. Comment Response And speaking of scales...Even here at the office,my print default came up at 8 V2 x 11.If I was an interested citizen viewing these from home,I may well have a printer that could not produce 11 x 17. 10. Mapping-page Especially today,when digital output is so controllable by the end user, size issue it is important to have a scale that works.The text I"=200'does not. It should be replaced(or augmented)with a graphic scale,which was well done on E-4.No matter what size the output,one can then accurately determine distances. I'm still not sure that I could pick out each area in the Audubon report, General mapping but I have a much better idea of the site conditions with the draft 11, comment pp g inventory maps.Although a day in the field exploring the river would be great,I'm probably destined to help coordinate our responses from Olympia,so the printable product is very important for me. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 3 of 3 URfiComment Response Form Document Reviewed: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory&Characterization Report(Tech.Review Group Draft) Subject: Shoreline Planning Commenter: Bill Gothman,COSV Comment 2-27-2010 Response 4/5/2010 Date: Date: No. Ref. Comment Response • P14,"Municipal 1. Wastewater" 1st line,Coeur d'Alene misspelled Thanks—fixed JCP paragraph Would you want to mention that the Barker Bridge project 2. P30,6"' involves removing several old piers from the 1910 bridge and Revised slightly, ood comment. JCP paragraph constructing a bridge with fewer piers than the 1935(?)bridge? g Abbreviations not defined(also in other tables of the document) 3. P32,Table5-5 Abbreviations thrown out-plant names spelled out. NH "tunnel our walkway"should it be"tunnel or walkway"?? 4. P41,bottom line Thanks-fixed JCp 5 P44,3`d would you want to mention the action to remove and analyze Revised to indicate that initial studies are being JCP paragraph concrete dust to see if it has a use in capping land fills? done. 6. P65,3rd pgh,first change"the primary affect"to"the primary effect" Thanks—fixed JCP line 7. P65 4"'line from chg"t"to"it" Thanks-Fixed JCP bottom 8. 9. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 1 of 1 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Appendix F Map Portfolio • . ,i-;< r ti i �� WELLESLEY AV 1 • cc Z 1 z 1 Q O ce cc t T/Z' cc a Fig F-5r MAR O0 ! COsQ, 0�5� EUCLID AV :.. Euclid Av u. EUCLID AV EIJCLICiAV Ci u � eR PV 1 Fig F-5d//� het te' • lCZ BUCKEYE AV �,.j / /J/� / /� /// -ma''`r MoiFig F-5e Fig /F-5c /7�//! ce • KNOX AV ---f/////7// . ' / ,/,,,,;( /Aj rn j / 1 "-a 1• —�� ,,. ./ MISSION AV ! a MISSION AV I N 1- w o • 0 a cc 1 ir ore W W W _ Z Q 2 v" BROADWAY AV BfroAn y iAvii . `��i_ - Q V / "� % :� �r/Fig-t ^ A VALLEY WAY AV 0 /FigF-5u r / pPQ • r xj W _ �� FT- 4TH AV • .'r 1 j' ♦ 1 Rt ♦ 1 I 8TH A13 ETH AV 1• ` ' 1..w I le lie, 1 1 1 N Figure F-5a:Shoreline Inventory Arterials Index —1—ERailroads Lakes/Rivers raw Umber'Confi Cantr —••--•-� Iva(OrigiMenn 725de,rldcgm, City of Spokane Valley Orighl.1125Jcgms I.,w...,s City of Spokane Valley $ 1 Shoreline Master Program Updates � �,�„ February 2010 -"L. ' • ''''• - •?. • .•-.".-+ •. .,7- - • -1/40 '•-0.-7117k. ` " ''.... i. r •' _ '•'t"tti�' � .! Merin : ? �,.F r , v ea..� jr, _ Alitii-Too {� ., rF., ,, Ili ;Ilk . 4111.1. f: .wairi-.,-- "At -(14.7111 . ,,,,,* ,A,-•' - i . • • < . .,. - -..,* -- 1st 5111;<-,,..„14.4Vi .. pig. �,.."carr :it -, ',•... -4.-. -:71101S. -111611#0.1 ' ` _ -�+lo•°'it " . *'*. •.1 6._ wr.r y, i ", _,-ri"` i , i-.3' V 3- S,. 0 I A 4.;to r' i. >F; ti . ' !•'ye,. �,,r • ewr' ,.1 tqr RarMit '' `.. J r,x # ..e 4, rr _ pAr ��,,a �•a.i 3. • iw 4:0„..,'', ,, „ . , • , -Ay,.*NI;G"`", ii y+,,, " �y �r IyyY��.ft.,F t ,;" R 1p rte . KM }� ' P ?r"f` + � 711 , (( i" ` aia �� ,e N Fig F-Sb:Shoreline Inventory SMP Inventory Physical Features URS HR Hetet inventory —High Water tine Pubfn/Open Space Spolune River Study sego ut I EROSION 0 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary n Parcell city ofSpokaoe Volley,Washington TIL UTY —Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration .ter River Study Segmenta j-:.j City of Spokane Valley __ Impervious Surface „rt....,Features • USGS River Miles r lei... ""'"r""� „rt...., City of Spokane Valley I _I Centennial Trail o loo w, ., Shoreline Master Program Updates Ir.r, February 2070 , „_,,,,, , .. . ..‘",-.,e, . ...„.::::j. -, -------7.t„t-lisf-- - . , .-4,1- Ift.... )it4, , VIE . , .. .. ,... • f Et - y; '` aka - 14`k •er`' :rk ..ri•vp 's dr 5 .. \-.• ` .. ve., . liiii 44,, - 31" ..r. d - y, -r.•.�''/ iA� q �, :a ' r-•.oT• ; Jackson f ,.. ov,.. '" \ tlid ';t'''",. . e „ y t+ _. \,. .. ilinak .4r;t f +�~• ,.• .) • ,. rni moi` J i. M ---,.5 t” , lig Illi VA 1,11 _ '1::' .• .� .iY - 1. py t /...t.: t MontgomoN It 1 I ,�. « .A P_.._ I •"Mansfield �_ .4 . ��.. E . -�,`* c P �.;y a • !x^'!. L • ,V� r elm r rr� j\4 �4Ilah ��h�' 4Lt+ .fy� I' im 1. i s w cif-'1-r g : , _ Y t, Se u q Knox °lila If 1 • . I �t a I illiiiii[;1 Fill! - '' -..'-' - ' 4 kr•rr-'.- ' i �" l N Fig F-Se:Shoreline Ikventury SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory - tl (Mater Line Pubta/Open Space Spokane River Seedy Segment I EROSION 0 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary] I Parcels City of Spokane Valky,Washington UTILITY -Pipes.Culverts.Fences Potential Restoration ••••••River Study Segments City of Spokane Valley Impervious Surface Q Area Features USGS River Miles `r„ n City of Spokane Valley ' ' Centennial Trail .' ab tee.. February,010 am Updates _ „Euclid r• . .0.0001• ill - r _ r'r .e' 111. ' �� rte , mac...- "° Y ..-F \ r r 1:104,. .. \ ,::-. .,. 1 , .. . I ,, , a� .., ,�J •+•,. J' .' ,_ r -.44,.."d+t.`' at r. l NounWl�Vl, 4 _43* ..-:,‘,....„. _ _.... r fi a it r r f r �t t f' �''' Graca s1651111,[1,!1..E ;.4 . 1 It ' • o !� y ^ gimme t OP • • •- ♦ . , , <' • is t" k s ` •' 1y 1 r' a is `� ! R ,�♦ 7{ • \ r . sy " e ss . T a )} P , 1.: ! ., / ._. ,.,14 q•4. tt,').:,,,.A..s , td F'+ 1 7iii% .�. 1 '• — A��, ( ` 1 'es' \: •e 1.1 II P-Sal:Shoreline Inventory SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory -High Water Line Public/Open Space Spokane River Study Segment I 0 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential Conservelbn city orSpokaoe valley.Washlegtoa EROSIONShoreline Management Program Boundary n Parcels UTILITY -Pipes.Culverts.Fences Potential Restoration i ii..e River Study Segments I..a ....d°City of Spokane Valley Impervious Surface 0 Ares Features a USGS Rlver Mlles awdaw.w...rn.rnlom reline r__ ay.093.1.1.0 City of Spokane Valley ShL_7 Centennial Trail ,ao °°°,.... February 2010er Program Updates 1 '1"kkIL'A'lit . N,..: N . A , ' ' -..,;.1% , . ....... . i it It.% t:..,,e;,4. ,..• .., .. • • a' ver. e� -6% ya`l' s, / fr r �.. .r ° 0 1, % 1112 tot c• iia ,..-i .os "'r. .t _ 11 *, r_ l M. a` t „r\ -ern m�.r - 4��1Apti '! a L.4 �. �'R �Y- E § 1.t.‘• y` ' los- '644.-3°' " r:. •�' �.,..:4 t�i �' 3,a t a - t 1 a .t, � JY',mvnv � 4.r ).i.1 r • R 1 I la'-.E 1 0111 try ift .. I it, ,41_ ,, ..„0:: ,,,,, , , ., 44 - n r •-1:4;4-4,1,-%-f ."-;',, ^, ,�r� _ a1 - RM. _ ```- y....... •F'"s`6- Buis .1'g Ma., .*- ______ife F...-.., e {� ��- ra N Flg P-5e:Shoreline Inventory SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory -High Water tine Public/Open Space Spokane River Study Segment I EROSION 0 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential Conservation Sholellne Management Program Boundary(1 Pantile cay of Spokane valley,Washington UTILITY -Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration a River Study Segments :,:.Jj City of Spokane Wiley Impervious Surface rr--��Area Featuresn...+,.....;n,i�,t,,., �J USGS River Mlles ,+v nv,b,,,l City of Spokane Valley IICentennialTrag "' •',.. February20t0Master Program Updates /, �. ••••N ,...: /:01,..)6),/"....., • ,J trti;5 l.� �„ sh _�� r///tk'" ,a^1t • i I L / Ini ' *e,. 4. L.. . ,ur . i , ,., ...... rr ,,. _.., -------„....,------------- __... ,‘ .:4'?:1,-: ,i'1 . , , - t t „ r` ; '.} F. r' 11 LL �� `` 5� /1 y K LL f/ • t' N Flg F-51':Shoreline In Inventory SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory —High Water Line Public/Open Space Spokane Plver Stony Segment I EROSION 0 Monuments.Wells,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary n Parcels City arspotu■e vmlef,w■mt■gr■■ UTILITY —Pipes.Culverts.Fences Potential Restoration .......River Study Segments .—. `City of Spokane Valley t.._.J rrmc u.rLe� Impervious Surface 1 Area Features • USGS River Mlles �' ..'es�ap'b"'ir. City of Spokane Valley Centennial Trail i k.. February 2010erP GF am wares A r - noIM1 .. .. __ ilf i. " .. • x," . ,:...4. ..: : j,,,4. w,' r. illiel ri.. j t t / �:. . , s • r' -' / i:. - - { - • ITY All .r. -- .0'''. s. ass "a i K .aE ` /� / r:1, '-.2.. , .. . X4_1.> Mission Ii' y 1r } -mss„ ,;:i.--„_,. i 4 ', ,-ii f: •e; ' i• 4 '-'4":,44--" K_'.o.!;,' ""..-...---;"--- i. •` , :r. 4, ,LY • now -.:5�{'... L NFig P-5g;Shoreline Inventory SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory -High Water Una Public/Open Space Spokane River Study Segment t EROSION 0 Monuments,Woks,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary nm Parcels city of Spokane Vdley,W•whtngton UTILITY Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration ovv.River Study Segments ..... City ofSpokane Valley i..�.J Awnr,rslA Impervious Surface ®Area FeaturesUSGS River Mard.r y,rrw Miles „y"'„t,,,n,�'"'° City of Spokane Valley !Centennial hail , _ -- h., February 20 eer Program Uptlarea 1 ir rr - _ ./ /mo i . e �, _-_ .______ p,:-.."'''''',•...,„,..._......._... ~� �.'�V.'_�1a"d� �t1��ra P( ' •t„ (-^—f^F • '( ',.i ..------W-,--A4- ren1U:T 1ill0T,2`} '.' _:¢,w` , •w, �� .,,.... , ,. -.,,. . :7.. ,:.-,.- ,..,--,Ji . .4744 ., rL f .t. rPo `4 . .�d�.,.. jI N Fig F-Sh;Shoreline Inventory SMP Inventory Physical Features URS HR Field Inventory -High Water Une Public/Open Space Spokane wre,st.aySegment a City or Spokane Vdley,Washington EROSION 0 Monuments,Wells,Pile Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary Parcels ��rty Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration .�RNer Study Segments 1y_,�City of Spokane Valley _ Impervious Surface n Area Features • USGS River Mlles ,fir'," t',s,'`''"rte CV or Spokane ValleyCentennial Trail ' m4 _. , Februalry 2010 er Program Updates .aarr sV v • o t•* �' ''''''',/,,,,,i. L - . R .R4 • ",_i l R a.4 _ _S'�1',.:' :. .--e. _- �' -, y miri'sit .s ,,,P. ,. l fit -or. t �`�'�r,,, �,* .t'°� `�;e; ,``� -y �, `a I',kip 't ,. 4 , .•- ks erNiit. • �` q... j��_.�` r I, ^ , syr +{, y 4 n T ry •''' GY ,s �'..} r}ok) i "4. r..4t l ,',- ' , - ...2, • i , 4 . y i:1. Gl.• .*: .s 11 't �- e 1 , Dunu T `4..., p/t tor R. Yi 'ftp i`�_ ,y \ * .. 1� •�r \ r div e r ��6y w ��:i --„ 4 '"I - ` -t >t' s i �t \ . SAA .' ',;� - t.r,;. • ° Y .% t; � t5 I', Y , ie. ,.,, t_a ��1t! •J a•�y„� je '�' `,'}+. 1,1 Fig F-SI:Shoreline Inventory SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory ---High Water Line Public/Open Space Spokane River Study segment I EROSION 0 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary n Parcels City of Spokane Valley,Washington UTILITY —Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration —Rhrer Study Segments City orSpokane Valley E-1 Area Features i""d 4 na.0 rt,,,,.., Impervious Surlaca USGS River Mlles y� Clty of Spokane Valley ! Shoreline Master Program Update. IOC 203 ' ,__j Centennial Trait , e„, Fobruary 2010 - _ ' t t�` al.. ^,,.c—� qa- ` • awl.'.,, • •- r & II .— - sr0.ucn0.E .+87 r J FENCEO psi a Cj. -a6. # . a� • R 11 Nti t X4a I , ilr . }4 %k1141% / VIK% XIN '. L°It'.#14:itNit .4 t•e 01 . 1 ktAil ' 11 • A A ' j4 Ilk CHANNEL j.). • s,,i * '1 ,..x'1 ;4. 4,.yz` ,� '1t0. �.. � �. i t c y •'3r„r +tri ....., I. •• si , Nil N Fig P-SI:Shoreline Inventory SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory —High Water Line Public/Open Space Spokane ItlreeStady Segmrnt I air atSpokanVdiey.Wahingtoo EROSION 0 Monuments,tfells,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary Parcels —"4"'''' UTILITY —Pipes.Culverts.Fences Potent al Restore`:or, •••+Wier Study Segments :.J City of Spokane Valley Impervious Surface Area Features ♦ ...u• ”i4 is,`.: Valley 0 USGS River Miles Ja+a.. CV el Spoline kane ICentennialTrail Fe ruary2010��9�mates ! ( 1 , iiritr t y, i �w + -,k .-it. ...,.., it tO.:i‘14 2." ti. 1. 1 r tr. titt.Jr o' °! 0°rna�:UL +b t as . \� • jOk • `• •:, h -C' -° a.-ice • � • Ili ! ii °��. e 'till h? `� eo+ "� a.a°°.a a—r -- 4 rat* %I.4 Iblk -4Z-it.;,---''' • i :411111"i 0100V 1 ,‘N,tit 1Ttg+" ----_.._ '''P. ii .4.) ,4 , '' - IS ` ' krittit t,. hv 'A . ' *• 1711-Nti--: %‘1%*4- 41- .-1".".--:--_,_„_,... ' — an 1;f1—,1 tviii :•. R � R , �t i `LeMans_flok Mansllolil \ Ago , � . t....a 44. . �S! a%its! t N Mg F-5k:Shoreline Inventory SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory —High Water Une PubtelOpen Space Spokane Steer Study Segment I Chy of Spokane Valley.wa,hingtoa EROSION 0 Monuments,Wets.Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary_Parcels UTILITY —Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration a....Rivar Study Segments 1:::i City of Spokane Valley Impervious Surface 1 fires Features C:++ + +,... USGS Rhrer Miles ry„+I Oda City al Spokane Valley L_1 Centennial Trail ° Shoreline Master Program Updates P. FeaNary 2010 1 - Mtraooa� a*I“y \ _ \a UTILITY S s S \ 3 J •w *is,,... w.r.,`, \ •` ori I '' '~ *1 ..• �. „ r .., I '" `.o 4,6 ,' • X` era 1 a \ I_. y , ' . \ irS. y~' do • ' } \\ w* _ _ I .. :- - _ �` lit , *I kt,, 4'., 1 t i l yy, \ II 2 \ 3110., 1[ nt , Air NA, -*e;.\ ;,- It - t•,t,.v. Avsti:t. e , } t‘civtit tik, ,litp. ., . k , , ,, , A , ..,.('' ° , ,A. , \ , ,-— i/a tqli? ''.. ' ' i‘,\ . '''t •\.,i .4__ 1 _ \\, \., N \ • ()4 :: Al, :yam . 1� , ,: I a ti` e.Iii � \ f p - p G`..+..: r •P`, '� 1 1n ?� .s,').‘1:4 1‘.i\''y 46., \-ik—*:.1, . ;;tsg%*46) :It, st• * It WELL ,, ktIlk-7:441‘ • !t , ...: ''''` 4\4. wk tt, .. "4 ‘ 4. 36‘ a r ;. i�a, , ..Y',*iq ''' ik 'X.\lb, kkkl!l tts 1 . • tib �,. i ; , 1., 1441t*.' VI 1 ‘. NI..., 't ,J,,, 't/I, it,V, ‘. i ..„, , ,...,-1 ,o... ilist: -,..,,'it\l,Istvitic..:71. 4,,,,„‘b x , , , _ IT , ,; ,. .v. r, *i 'b.. - ` l'81:14,,,‘41‘' \N4t, . Nti. t , It ,. . ,, , ., .4,,,,,I, ,,,, ,,,,i(4„e. \tiLv. via . • , i, • 4 N Flg F-51:Shoreline Inventory SMP Inventory Physical Features URS MR Field Inventory -High Water Line Public/Open Space Spokane Inver Stun ySegromt I City orSpohane Valley.Washington EROSION 0 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary Parcels UTILITY P-P-�1 Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration River Study Segments �.�City of Spokane Valley __ L mperviitousC.01.014(MI Surface LJ Area Features • USGS RHer Mlles "a"a„ .11,110... Gry of Spokane Valley I Cenlennlat Trail tos m Shamans Master Program Updates 1 I•.. February 2171D .- � tr ri3` 1.,.....'"........."'....'"."''''.."......"'"', rtrT * ., fes+ • b 'mss * -4 __'._ 1 ►� '_ c� 'T � 1 fit �,� • wf_J"�- Tun' �� = r +El. . ,,P: _,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, � s a=ir �,-.-' ,I _ . .. .. ....,,,, ,......,, 13 EA 4. �y i . .. * a c .l a a • F\\\\ .......„:„.......„\\,.. . : - - ,v‘ , , , Nike 041, * , N Fig Faro:Shoreline inventory SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory —High Water Line Public/Open Space Spokane Riper Study Segment I EROSION 0 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary Q Parcels CkyofSpokane valley,Washington UTILITY —Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration o�Rhrer Study Segments 1"."-:City of Spokane Valley Area Features 1.•_.l rn.r' x..i.,,.`� Impervious Surface 1 1 USGS River Mlles Pe owN.onry... ShyeneMesVarey e ,m ao an Shoreline Mester Program Updates Centennial Trail r.n fe6rvery 2010 I -• . \>0..,'''N-7 ., ')1°11PH. ', :litiPAIr, L.1111.. - I • sC . \.._...2- _.,..n..--..—z. ' "Ili _ •'. t \p• -; ,R• _ r L fi pax• � \71. �t' rr ,;,!-. IS " car car .,,,,,.....E...- 4,,.. .. ., • �u4_. Pie r F. S v. Y •t ,....!\.V. .. t- 4} E� - pYrig* 1 Q Iii s� 1 a* �• _ ! I�, f aF ''l •. ,i'• ?' \illktilliPki 41 - '�l1 Pon'.Tl "Li'.-' - w+'2; � "l LP'''.'-:::.-,-. - *, - liti. •-•:.''''.VII ' 41' . -14:10k1411 aM04:11 N Flg F-Sn:Shoreline Inventory SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory -High Water Line PublldOpen Space Spokane River Study Segment I EROSION 0 Monuments,Walla,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary El Parcels Cay of Spokane vatky,washmgma UTILfY -Pipes.CuNerls,Fences Potential Restoration ae River Study Segments :.9 City of Spokane Valley Impervious Surface r----I Area Features er,+" .rra.+i�in}'w41�°,ka`,,. I + USGS River Mlles °„.„n p,,,, City oISpokane Valley Centennial Trail ° " "0 �0:,,, FebruShoreline ary 207Oer Program Upderea A 4 {4 i�( 4j:1 S Y• s. , �,u l it L '� �� inn ::4:4.10.71,10:40.0:tirt:i V {a • i'' ,}4fr i rJ° r °''-G• rp S s.. - 6 �F ij1r •e{'Y 4i1. x.1,.5,; { .,r"lisi feu, c- {,:..„...... ; e t __ „.r, S �r, r r jIA •.: ,RYA . .- � ,! 'rr •„ g r 1 . G' s. 1 *}.;aTa� r � 1� r, 'yr `- r �"a.T r r ar #i '.. I'll.f l� ry,T_' yr. �.-.: + .Z ri; * �}�” 'AO A• t • • yam e" ;�fl"'� `. -74\., '*"T• � s .e,''A�Ae.! `e�1,,4F, I x..,- �n""mac` Y� `-' �4f. ' �Itr ' � *' 4 •427 o:r' 1 s r si r.Wl.� t.- r... .„./..7.".1.-�., _ , ___,..i'•,`" f■Y r� f .�.' F 1 i xr ,mak ti, y .^''6.`-R..'` s -, r. ',,..0,46.,•-°-4aa+' —.•"; I ".!..*,..-..!...0. ' _ , 1 t. = y} a N. tK� , �, ; _ F e ' #.fit t' . r. 7 a 14 r �arnuc unci �A^ e; e s i 'T YA. ' � . # rW �' 6 � .rye. 'F`�e� isK" .' r �d'� --ocoas �.-, N Flg F•So:Shoreline Inventory 0 SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory -High Water Une Publ c/Open Space Spohme IUver Stray Segment 1 4 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential ConservetIon Shoreline Mena ementP Chy WSpoWne VWley,wabtngtoa EROSION g rogram Boundary r�Parcels UTILITY --Pipes,Cuhrerts,Fences Potential Restoration +r River Study Segments y �..t City o9 Spokane VaAey __ Im rvloua Surfaoo n Pres Features USGS River Milos '""'"""""''rdr+"•" rse.r.ru•m•.. CV line Mast Valley Centennial Trail . 1.,L �Wuery200f0erProgramUpdates 7),•-.:11 Y r/� 2...---('I , . i ' ./. 10. „ ... a.tlay - fit ' , /'/ �.*.-Y N. tG it _ . i .., . ,..,f..t.,_ri'-31,*,,,.;:,.-I:,'''::: ,.,'.-'._. ....,..„.....,..":V ;,-,7 p/f } 4 r., / ,.,•.a. * r W h e! x,.�' -.T . a^ iiill Illii!ii EmP ., ;...S , MONUMENT,. 4,1,.., ,,,..._.....,,,,alit - .:0,i . . . _ ,... • ...... • .....4,.._..r. yli..,„,:i.,..: ....... 1,..,ar...1 ii„, -:- , ...for • `4'it.. .... 'l'AIR .itc,::'.4'....:400. .:..-:-•-. .-- — ' !N:44.---‘ N Fig F-5p:Shoreline Inventory SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory —High Water Line Public/Open Space Spokane Rhv Sn,er segmrnr l EROSION 0 Monuments,wens,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary f)Parcels Cly of Spokane Wallq,wafhington UT1UTY Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration .�River Study Segments 1—..:—. CIty of Spokane Valley impervious Surface Area Features USGS River Mlles `"""rte.,br '' City o1 Spokane Valley I-1 Centennial Trail o wo Shoredne Master Program Updates 1w. February2010 it 411 ii fp *mit - t *' 5a ti tit �� ''.0 ' ' 114 14/1/ _....._ . . . . . 1,01 1 lam: ','3-.'t%. ' NI? k liik� „ ..r • fit- y�1 T Iil 'lE^' ,.A `J`. ___ ecne. `\\ MF ”- , ..;,,,2,,,...."7,,..' 1 _w"+ X t,, 4-..,%„ '�* •41 1. �{' ~ ,y yyj j' - `'' 6 oto R 1. 4-',-: ..•;.,..*‘' ' y1��' *. '" ►r' y trot - �+ •...._;;.- GoY. - prig ti4 ,ry r'ytr _,i, '--P- \ e'* , 4 � '�•�- • ..dei"fir- t - , + r _ i - y ri: 1.1111111111-.r '''... .'r.:4'.;:A.4.....::':::::',;';,,,s.:L'.--',--'.0': ....".!,.' ...:...: :•.':.1 r,%‘3.:417—saiiisav otti.,,rit,,,e L ,,,,.. c.-- ' 0 S . , , 11.; 45 *04 ' . 1. 1611 .4t• : *Wr 0111111111111 1,- � y 1. `� `i ...Poi •A .. r, � .0 `• . ., r# ► •feslik N Fig Me:Shoreline Inventory SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Held Inventory —High Water Une PubhNOpen Space Spokane River Study Segment I V 0 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential Conservation City ofSpawx Volley,Washington EROSIONShoreline Management Program Boundary n Parcels UTILITY —Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration tee^River Study Segments "i City at Spokane Valley no,... .,1..rr,,. `� . City d Spokane VeAeyIra impervious Surfers ®Area Features ® USGS Rlver Mlles 0,.r el... ,m m .„ Shorefne Master Program Updates 1 Centennial Trail o ,. Peorvary 2010 a 'r+ �a'ilIC' :47-r,-u -.,&..4-'''''' 1 fi It I a • .. _tet t+ -• �V - -4 ..-z �,�' ,'+„} 10:�"� "� III. „, , r., IA ,p.:4e.. - -. ,. �� _ oi l.fi es ter 4' , . t iii MN , ,ill r . •r ,“ 04, ,,,.• _ da } P L all ilkk...„-1-,,.'.... 1 t4 i P Kiernan ^+ 'r _3 CO :_ _. - ,w _EN w I. ' Ill -. . gillryMI 111113113116111 �j Fig P-Sr:Shornlhe Ismetory SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory -High Water Line PubtstOpen Space Spow.e River Study Segment I Cay ofSpokane V.tky,W.ehl.gto. EROSION 0 Monuments,Wells.Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary n parcels UTILITY �-Pipes,CuWaM1s,Fences Patanual Restoration .�River Study Segments 1 „!C1Fy of Spokane Valley Impervious Surface fires Features USGS River Miles `"""""'” "^� oy.nowt... Gty 0 I of Spokane Va71by ( (Centennial Trail as .om February2Or0� ram Updates ...,,_ 0. 4th - 41y-: t '- i -may.,.y.zig 6 F �.- 0.t` �' �_ 4 yo,•,„ s�.r ,. r ,� ' • - • 7,-,,., _ 4tig Nib. . 4k I. { axe iso9c d-g'* - _.e-- ! , _. s . a _ex.: f E �F` G' � '.5 •J ,, 'u/r ,� , • '� z f illei rP•4111p `�s i>t s a`. '`.'•' - - j4. S'4•v4 a•'' ` ` • r am 3, t� 9-• t` ✓ f- - y fie, * '�1 .1 ii, i, , , Ic : J a c `t ° • �` A , �� "fir W'� ?. • ; s ' d. .. f^ r - _! ^ gym.umune,> �` ' . M...IP ' -+y ' ,t`.�.' 'Y % ' �S` Ven oso / ii `' J �**11+ ' fir •. ♦\ . S ` ! �'s i 411 - ' I'ge'Ai • Y • 40 fiti • . ,it,-,.- ,_ _ ' _._a>_, _ rd^ r 9\ `l a. i '! TFC •4`13' al, { W-411#101 , . 1, r-^. ~...'�1. �", ', � ' 4.. 1 'n .4 a t'6 .4* ,,,, ..' - '--, / #\ ' C114.1....t. .. ' 'L''''.... ..--::......---- 0.....gt .- wy 4 p N Fig F-5,t Shoreline Inventory SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory -High 1Nater Line Pub11oJOpen Space Spokane River Stony Segment I EROSION 0 Monuments,Mils,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary n Parcels City MSpdune Valley.Washington UTILITY --Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration ••••••RNerStudy Segments 1.„ Cityof Spokane Valley L mpervious Surface [�Area Features USGS River Mlles ''"""""""�"^""" pry of Spokane Van ey 0,4.1/2/4/0.44.1.1/2/4/0.44.1n Centennial Trail s Mr«, FebSlio 2 010 erProgram(Wares ad _ „" � FI G L r ....., ,.),. . . .. • .,.. ,.. ,,, e , , .. .. .....„ .111Vrilfz:l' I y+' 1'�90 A. f 90 E256 OFF 9•p- ^eX 6'r n,ort ., ..% t r• 14. ted .• +1 ' �., r • C'Z Y :4 y /".0"-{L-__: , ''.' 1 ,..-047', ,..,., -.--. -.0,1t, . r -,_ :` ' e .rte- - • rti .01 E `Y.ot,en �c`f .1 - i ,Main, \ y - 7�....—.e. 1 A N Fig P-S1:Shordlne Inventory SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory -High Water Uno Public/Open Space -.J4- Spokane Weer Study Segment I CSy of Spokane Valley,Washington EROSION 0 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary n Parcels UTILITY --Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration tom.River Study Segments 2."...."2 City of Spokane Wiley '',1= __ Impervious Surface n Area Features • USGS River Mlles ``0;",;,',r,,°jCity of Spokane Valley Shoreline Centennial Trail "' "' wr.e February 2010� mm Updates ; f4r.cli, .Z.14, i - . ..-,, / 4-.-- . - rr • 3 (a5 I -- Valloyway J. _ i d Nlxo �L M1�� l c . - • II 11 Idr flo . . , . - r.4111•• r • ._.,.,_. , 1..eituummoia.:___ .. 1..r.s.:" — ,i.Ase-_-.,_,. Iii.A.- . : .. ,M.. ., Ar. .x k {..I .1r T i fig', ,-. i j .� -'4!%><*'1-i..,»t1r 7tR-r1+�.e--.b»t'Y ,-8 irm r 1. ,+;✓ + I 1 •3 �1 I "s'i ' -k zV• s - " - .. - - .. ~ i - -7 Sprague N Fig F-Su:Shoreline Inventory SMP Inventory Physical Features URS NR Field Inventory —High Water tine Public/Open Space Spokane ether Study Segment I Cry ofSpokaer Valla.WarhIngron EROSION 0 Monuments,Wells,Pits Potential Conservation Shoreline Management Program Boundary n Parcels UTILITY —Pipes,Culverts,Fences Potential Restoration sm....River Study Segments _.J City of Spokane Valley __ Impervious Surface Q Area Features USGS River Miles `"""'""a"""r"'"" pe ar.rx+.... City of Spokane Valley Centennial Trail - �e ,'i.. February 2010er Program Updates City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Appendix G Centennial Property Management - Shoreline Assessment /1 '� fTowey Ecological Services if, + 24211 S. Harmony Rd. _�.�, �► Cheney, WA 99004 509-939-5203 Mr. Scott Kuhta City of Spokane Valley RE: Centennial Property Shoreline Assessment Scott- Attached you will find the shoreline assessment which was authorized by Centennial Property Management to determine the current ecological condition of three separate properties (Trentwood, Mirabeau and Mission Flora) located on the Spokane River. I understand from our last discussions that the information contained within this report will serve as supplementary information to the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Plan Update-Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (SMP). As you know, the shoreline assessment was conducted to determine opportunities for shoreline rehabilitation or other mitigation options (within the context of a long-term shoreline plan, property development plan, shoreline access opportunities, wildlife viewing stations and educational signage)and ecological condition and connectivity to adjacent properties. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. William T. Towey Shoreline Assessment Spokane River Trentwood, Mirabeau and Mission/Flora Properties August 6,2010 Prepared for Centennial Property Management Prepared by: Towey Ecological Services �124211 S. Harmony Rd. �11Cheney, WA 99004 509-939-5203 Introduction This Shoreline Assessment was authorized by Centennial Property Management to determine the current ecological condition of three separate properties (Trentwood, Mirabeau and Mission Flora) located on the Spokane River (see attached location and parcel map). The information contained within this report will serve as supplementary information to the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Plan Update-Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (SMP). The information contained within the SMP, for the segments assessed in this report, was accurate and is consistent with the field observations. In addition, the shoreline assessment was conducted to determine opportunities for shoreline rehabilitation or other mitigation options (within the context of a long-term shoreline plan, property development plan,shoreline access opportunities, wildlife viewing stations and educational signage) and ecological condition and connectivity to adjacent properties. It should be noted that additional site specific assessments (engineering, geo-technical, etc.) may be required for the properties in the course of developing future site plans. The specific shoreline assessments were conducted within the Spokane River Study Segment 2(SR-2)-identified in the SMP. The field assessments were conducted in May 7 and 11, 2010. The primary investigator was William T.Towey, a qualified biologist with Towey Ecological Services. Methods The field investigation consisted of assessing the current conditions within each of the three identified properties. Information was collected by traversing the shoreline of each property-documenting: 1) existing vegetative communities; 2)relative distances of intact riparian habitat areas; 3) potential for habitat restoration opportunities; and 4) general recommendations relative to the protection of shoreline function and values. In addition to the field assessment, the investigation was guided by the use of aerial photographs, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey (see attachment), the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Plan Update and the Spokane County Shoreline Master Plan Update. Field data points were taken using a hip chain and a Garmin GPSmap-60. Data points were downloaded to a USGS topographic map(see attachment). 1 Results and Discussion Site Description/Analvsis M.IRABEAU This specific reach of the Spokane River is adjacent to the Centennial Trail(trail). The shoreline is located on the left bank of the Spokane River. The riparian area waterward of the trail is contiguous and intact,whereas the area upland of the riparian area consists of fragmented habitat and disturbed habitat-including the trail. The area is heavily utilized for recreational purposes such as biking,walking,jogging and rollerblading. The majority of the shoreline habitat is protected by moderately steep topography and vegetated upland areas. Location 1- This area is immediately east of the Centennial trailhead and is accessible to the Spokane River.The area is relatively flat with steeper topography to the east. The intact buffer width in this area is approximately 125'. The shoreline habitat structure is diverse with large woody debris, side-channels and boulders. The dominate vegetation within this area is cottonwood(Populus balsamifera), serviceberry(Amelanchier alnifolia), Oregon grape(Mahonia spp.),dogwood(Cornus stolonifera)and wild rose (Rosa spp.). The riparian area transitions to upland grasses,serviceberry and the trail. Habitat above the trail(south)consists of open field habitat with sparse pine, serviceberry, and juniper, This area has potential for restoration through native plant(or other appropriate species that provides proper function and value)installation. Location 2-This area is characterized by steep shoreline topography. The dominate vegetation includes a continuation of Location 1 and pine tree(Pinus ponderosa), snowberry(Symphoricarpos albus),hawthorn(Crataegus douglasii),choke cherry (Prunus virginiana)and juniper(Prunus virginiana). The riparian area transitions to upland grasses,serviceberry,pine trees and the trail. Habitat above the trail(south)consists of open field habitat with sparse pine, serviceberry, and juniper. This shoreline area has potential for habitat restoration. Location 3-This area is characterized by a continuation of vegetation found in locations 1 and 2 with the addition of douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii). The riparian buffer area waterward of the trail is greatly reduced to 59'. The shoreline slopes are fairly steep and lacks the diversity of downstream shoreline. The riparian area transitions to upland grasses,serviceberry and the trail. Habitat above the trail (south)consists of open field habitat with sparse pine, serviceberry, and juniper. This shoreline area has potential for habitat restoration. 2 Location 4- The riparian area is bisected by the trail in this location. This location is the end of the contiguous band of cottonwood. The vegetation is a continuation of locations 1,2 and 3 with an increased presence of currant(Ribes spp.)and lupine(lupinus spp.). The shoreline topography is steep with the upland above the trail relatively flat. Location 5- This location marks the beginning of pine trees,upland grasses and arrow- leaved balsamroot(Balsamorhiza sagittata) above the trail. The riparian vegetation is similar to location 4. The shoreline topography is steep with the upland above the trail relatively flat. Location 6-This marks the location of a transition from steep topography to moderately steep topography. Location 7- This area is characterized by relatively flat topography with the presence of a walking trail. This area has restoration potential due to its sparse habitat and human disturbance(trail). Restoration measures would include native plant(or other appropriate species that provides proper function and value)installation and reclamation of the trail footprint. Location 8- This marks the end of the potential restoration area and relatively flat topography. The shoreline area upstream transitions to steep topography. Location 9- This marks the beginning of a narrower band of shoreline riparian next to the trail. This area requires greater protection due to the narrow buffer and proximity to the trail. Location 10-This marks the end of the assessment and the train trestle. There is a restoration opportunity southwest of the trestle-south of the trail. This area is sparsely vegetated with pine and is optimal for habitat restoration measures. Location 11-This marks the beginning of thick pine trees,juniper,mullein(Verbascum thapsus), serviceberry and wild rose. This area requires thinning of pine tree for forest health. Location 12- End of thick stand of pine trees. Summary- This shoreline segment is characterized by contiguous riparian vegetation in close proximity to high recreational use. Due to the varying widths of riparian habitat in this segment relative to the Centennial trail-and the potential areas for habitat restoration-the opportunity to maximize protection of the shoreline function and value through a buffer management plan exists. The dominant soils in the river segment consist of Garrison very stony loam which is conducive to native plant(or other appropriate species that provides proper function and value)restoration efforts. A combination of plant restoration,pine tree thinning,buffer averaging(no net loss of riparian habitat buffer protection)and establishment of a future buffer width would 3 preserve and protect the integrity of the shoreline habitat. Protection of the existing habitat-including plant restoration when necessary-is critical to the maintenance of a Properly Functioning Condition' designation for this segment. Due to the fragmentation of wildlife corridors by commercial development to the southwest,heavy recreational use, Centennial Trail,and the train trestle to the east,the riparian area is mostly benefiting localized populations of wildlife-including waterfowl breeding. MISSION/FLORA This specific reach of the Spokane River is adjacent to the Centennial Trail(trail). The shoreline is located on the left bank of the Spokane River. The riparian area waterward of the trail is contiguous and intact,whereas the area upland of the riparian area consists of fragmented habitat and disturbed habitat-including the trail. The area is heavily utilized for recreational purposes such as biking, walking,jogging and rollerblading. The majority of the shoreline riparian habitat is at least 250' from the ordinary high water mark. Location 1- This shoreline area is characterized by large boulders,large wood debris and flat topography adjacent to the Spokane River. The dominant vegetation consists of willow(Salix spp.),pine trees, currant, dogwood,oregon grape and serviceberry. The intact riparian area is approximately 360' in width from the ordinary high water mark to a disturbed area(parking lot and commercial building). The riparian area is protected from the development by a berm vegetated with serviceberry,pine,wild rose and mock orange (Philadelphus lewisii)The Centennial trail is approximately 240' from the ordinary high water mark. Location 2-This marks the end of the boulder-large woody debris complex. The area is devoid of adequate vegetation and is a potential habitat restoration area(17,400 sq.ft). The habitat consists of serviceberry,pine,hawthorn,Oregon grape and lomatium (Lomatium spp.). The shoreline riparian area is at least 250' wide at this location. Location 3-This marks the end of the potential habitat restoration area. Location 4- This marks the end of dense pine and riparian vegetation. Shoreline habitat is contiguous with locations 1 and 2. South of the Centennial trail the habitat opens up to pine,lupine and serviceberry. The shoreline riparian area is intact for 250' from the ordinary high water mark to the property boundary fencing(Location 5). Properly Functioning Condition-When adequate vegetation,landform,or large woody debris is present to:dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflow,thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality;filter sediments,captures bedload,and aids in floodplain development;improve flood-water retention and ground-water recharge;develop root masses that stabilize strcambanks against cutting action; develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth,duration and temperature necessary for fish production,waterfowl breeding,and other uses;and supports greater biodiversity. 4 Location 6-The shoreline habitat area begins to become steeper in this area and closer to the Centennial trail. The upland areas have potential for habitat restoration and currently consist of sparse vegetation(pine trees,knapweed(Centaurea maculosa) and mullein (Verbascum thapsus)). Location 7-This marks the end of the potential habitat restoration area. Location 8-This marks the area adjacent to a house with thinned vegetation immediately upland of the riparian area. The Centennial trail is very close to the Spokane River in this location. Very little habitat restoration potential given the residence/trail located near the riparian area. Location 9-This marks the end of the thinned area-start of riparian vegetation. Summary- This shoreline segment is characterized by contiguous riparian vegetation in close proximity to high recreational-residential and commercial use. Due to the varying widths of riparian habitat in this segment relative to the Centennial trail-and the potential areas for habitat restoration-the opportunity to maximize protection of the shoreline function and value through a buffer management plan exists. The dominant soils in this river segment is riverwash which is conducive to native plant restoration efforts. A combination of habitat restoration,buffer averaging(no net loss of riparian habitat buffer protection)and future establishment of the required riparian habitat area would preserve and protect the integrity of the shoreline habitat. The majority of intact riparian habitat is less than the required riparian buffer area and would need to include portions of the upland areas. Protection of the existing habitat-including habitat restoration when necessary-is critical to the maintenance of a Properly Functioning Condition designation for this segment. Due to the fragmentation of wildlife corridors by commercial development to the southwest,heavy recreational use, Centennial Trail, and single family dwellings,the riparian area is mostly benefiting localized populations of wildlife-including waterfowl breeding. There is connectivity of intact shoreline habitat(wildlife corridor)along the left bank of the Spokane River that provides access to migrating wildlife. TRENTWOOD The shoreline is located on the right bank of the Spokane River. The riparian area waterward of the trail is contiguous and intact-but is very narrow in width. The upland area is moderately sloped devoid of habitat diversity. The dominant vegetation in the upland areas are knapweed,arrow-leaved balsamroot,lilac(Syringa spp,). The width of the riparian habitat in this shoreline segment ranges between 50'-60'. Location 1- This portion of the shoreline is immediately adjacent to a train trestle which provides a distinct fragmentation of the shoreline habitat. The relatively narrow width of 5 the shoreline habitat consists of spirea(Spiraea douglasii), cottonwood,hawthorn, dogwood and snowberry(Symphoricarpos albus). Potential for habitat restoration exists in the upland areas. Location 2- This marks the beginning of pine trees,Oregon grape and currant-along with the vegetation described in location I-in the riparian habitat area. The shoreline is moderately steep with a narrow riparian area(55'). Potential for habitat restoration exists in the upland areas. Location 3- This location is a potential habitat restoration area(approximately 3,000 sq. ft.). The area has been previously disturbed and the vegetation removed. The shoreline area is dominated by knapweed and has very strong potential for restoration to provide for habitat continuity with the shoreline segment. Potential for habitat restoration also exists in the upland areas. Location 4-This marks the beginning of a relatively dense stand of cottonwoods for the remainder of the shoreline segment(to end of assessment at location 5). The shoreline topography gets noticeably steeper in for the remainder of the shoreline segment. Potential for habitat restoration exists in the upland areas. Location 5- End of assessment. Summary- This shoreline segment is characterized by a narrow band of contiguous riparian vegetation. The dominant soil type is a Garrison gravelly loam/riverwash which is conducive to shoreline restoration work. Due to the varying steepness of the topography-it is probable that a buffer averaging plan-which would include habitat restoration-would provide the necessary protection of the functions and values of the shoreline environment. The upland areas, immediately adjacent to the outer extent of the riparian vegetation,are conducive for native plant(or other appropriate species that provides proper function and value)restoration. Protection of the existing habitat and increasing the width of the overall riparian habitat areas through habitat restoration is necessary to the maintenance of a Properly Functioning Condition designation for this segment. Large woody debris recruitment and wildlife use would increase with the development of a much wider riparian habitat area. Due to the fragmentation of wildlife corridors by a train trestle to the west,lack of habitat to the north and fencing to the east,the riparian area is mostly benefiting localized populations of wildlife-including waterfowl breeding. • 6 PROJECT MAP nn ��T SRN r,- _ _ `.!'- !i` '�,' P _;,;. •> FM=-:::7,34,44 ,i • . ��y r1/4100T a�' ater Tank ,•�� r`"�� r - ��r•�!�r,�y r: h ' ' C . � ••.. n. --4-----4Y Grav= .C�. iY.:':{4 • IR' `•, S :ar , .-• I: �TRENTWOOD . ;•> •• 993 ?. • t' `+; %•. ; i r ' f _ (t `'•' - ' • s PROPERTY `` .._ Gp_ / ?>:.74.�y. -r",+ I. rte,Substation • .••i:• -:••"` ! ' ---- .rrr:•:r •..••y+Lrn• � •• 1 ` ', ({ �;! IYYJt ' �1. W' , GJ_,4 , ,� ' ' i N-03:3.0 �kii iL , •:''::5: ..Y..w�+•.•t[rl •w T l'.. 1 �' s \�. 1 •/f `r.: •: ' s * �•• '_ -.••••Via; 1 ow INLAND EM'PIR �� `' r� �'i �y ..:•!r' r J a ZO • 1 •-'' 2 '� ` C , —� III .�`f`-‘. -411�1! ✓ Borrow 4i, •ti i k j'1.------"-j tkt-_7\ - -----.-"-------.-.44.-.-I:.:'i 4 ltN. 44911 } '.'::...---s. '3'.....--''..- -'....-..-'.-."....'"//,'-::; •,� g-it • �_:— ..,a �M1SSION•FLORA ,7 ,9s4 NaL �Q Borrow , C,.• / i • MIRABEAU INr�RNa�;°�' p,t" `y._._i `PROPERTY :/ 1 ...'—i-4.' PROPERTY ! O - _� +�. r1voGTON . 'n ,r,,--•"-..N 4Sultnraa• -•�-,_ 'I /: •i rev _ _ 1' ll, 9 ••e • • n p • • • • 1 -•......_.... • i r . • ni 11.....,1L-...--:4It'.--..-.-:1__'•----- ----11.?....!!•.!.......'..-,.. 1,'• Well j6� •V ,� 1. J - .; .I •• -i, 'i _rte—•-- �_ I� '— _.. 7 s 2': f 5 J3. '1tc AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH Page 1 of 1 r..„:.... -v4 f t1 ''t ; ,i,it n, CI yi i+ r� .•.{ #"1a �-' Illi M 111,..*— 1 " A 1.er+�7- n:,. iof . , �.. 5 1 i, nA:� , .'4":-..‘1115111}i'." :7:111.1.:44-4°. ; } c^, �, ' e t• _ e ex. ;1•. ..s.:' Cil' • . \ ,..14.%(..es. . ..>4.- - --..r le,,- ....ii( . , qtr . �,.Iii- .. R"�- •t .A•,a' • �• '�' � .- ' L. tom_ 1,111.,, . �, r C • 1 1 . ,,, v. �r ' s t I AA r.. . ,..,r �, ✓ .e ..„ `, c , d L. r rf r IC j� I1 i/ C r ? .. _if- —! fie ,.' '� 1l, ,�, y 1a •�1_ .-4 .;;:,4,-f_L'siV mit,,,,r -..÷ ' 4.:'''. ' '"" . 1, # r 4./1 t i 444111114.i •i �1# �r � t a; +. � 0. 34 I ., — T,So^ori`` . -� 7 ,' �tit t� L 4".i, � �ti , w �.I not 4 -.,, . '..- ? ii; Cl zti- A 1� �' " .e i .. A r I r t, 1 �'.ti „-N- -- ; _ -AV r-.h r 1. y �. 1..i-$ 4. 7 'S} • II' i i \ ' '{ •r. yyKrbb AYk _ N. . om- w ty . • ,t1 ± rIr„Ait. , � if e, , t 't . - - ( , , - %., `.:7.- „I b i il Rpt1 ^1 rte ' y ,•jr:,•—•.;-:74,7,441.7-------744.t..._____,-- _____, / +.,` •-•:%•• .. oig. ` Ala t "'1~K , PIT' ' .a `gy �r =+ - ,_-.-+.� \: . "=• . ( tlaarifl Ve .•.;i i ti- ct>8 I --.:7---------_,-. 1. r� SrN Ave I 1 i .(-,_ `-'r:',;.,pi 1 ' .v •i • .., -i• e k , f. a. }' YRa,.t�r .. ;+±,; • ' ' J.4 S^arc,Ark-In}, .•l.urp Avee, ' \°��' 5.. •I �, EfoLvi*, .-..j...., S .;X'1. -3,- �a,�\ - •r .8c}u rArk R FM+q�. i $7 f300e'd-AVd x, t ti `� 'G �� "+ ' 'w. t 16,,..-11:" .. r _ Oeamat Ave•', .k. . .'i a" c. S \ . z eS?rat Ayr.T. .1.•p M"", w _ r v.". 1 .r; ...' ,% .. . i � I, ,1' iQ .t 1 r« - -••Cata'ao A. `- p X ' , r! "*n. .. •I._...,_.,.,'t , . ; . J -.r FtVekM.IZC:. .y 4p.� .? ' ttr x �T gze. a., i C:af3C)Ave_i r S f� A. I D .. 1 . ,. -.4., •utetaorkCi f - i . 'C. 3Y iv•:a $,1 ; '�4•Ir ,1 ' ,,•,, `r r.k.- .,. 1 .. . •6ta:an Ave 1r! . e Oita.; t, i d . , ' 0 1935ft _. . sroac�ray aYs.•+•ha =.i"al - - • ... _ ,...:x17` n _e - b . 1 , http://websoi lsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/imsoutput/WssNavigate_salen-uip008v32922224215... 4/27/2010 NRCS SOIL SURVEY • Soil Map-Spokane....Jnty,Washington (Centennial Properties) n T 'Cr 482500 483000 443500 48.7000 484500 485000 485500 486000 485500 487000 47.41'45 v .v a 3,- +e 290 State Hwy ..______-.:=1.4_ qtr CP4 _ ..r y ,..---- .-V ,---r7� .. 7 'S ii_1 lj 1 MIMI =Wen 7N rN 1 —' ?rem user trim 21."1.181 Aimil -lit; - I- le! — omoidomme! . �,. _ Ni, ,, ~ 1j F i #. Jd` yl .! • _ r r 1' rN •1 } 1c.x7 • `RIIr } 1 . ..ap a'S• N Y , s.b PL 1 Wk i ,+fit, 4' / I t• •Yt^ .-'7iY WF m •, },17. i . . ]] �� } 1 i - k . s/r b _ ..� ` j J � M N VI _ s.3 ,I4 a 0u1j }' • "if t4 +•" - , . - — — — E Mission Ave' '- a; �►, ,. y , i « j - •i f r9 J tt "s7.r w - $s} •'� _Iyam .a .• t�' ry 1 - ., { i ?. a a'- fes„ F, 9 .s. Iglit �,.,, �•F -? -- y. - C',. •,,n 7:7°: S. +"'�'.-"'may,=�,. • ,„--43.:--,•— �:. : Soil Map-Spokane County,Washington Centennial Properties Map Unit Legend Spokane County,Washington(WA063) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AO1 GgA Garrison gravelly loam,0 to 5 percent 2,187.0 68.4% slopes GgB Garrison gravelly loam,5 to 20 percent 248.5 7.8% slopes GnB Garrison very stony loam,0 to 20 499.6 15.8% percent slopes Pits Pits 27.4 0.9% Rh Rivenvash 55.3 1.7% Ro Rock outcrop 3.9 0.1% SIC Spokane very rocky complex,0 to 30 25.7 0.8% percent slopes SuE Spokane extremely rocky complex,20 74.8 2.4% to 70 percent slope s W Water 64.1 2.0% Totals for Area of Interest 3,166.1 100.0% Pitt Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/27/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Soil Map—Spokane County,Washington (Centennial Properties) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(Aol) �P Very Stony Spot Map Scale:1:25.600 if printed on A size(8.5"x 11 )sheet. Area of Interest(AOi) Wet Spot The soil surveys that comprise your AOl were mapped at 1:20.000. soils A Other Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map Soil Map units measurements. special Line Features Special Point Features Gully Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service ,.t Blowout Web Soil Survey URL: http:Ffwebsoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Short Steep Slope Coordinate System: UTM Zone 1IN NAD83 ® Borrow Pit Other This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of �; Clay Spot Political Features the version date(s)listed below. • Closed Depression Cities Soil Survey Area: Spokane County.Washington Gravel Pit Water Features Survey Area Data: Version 2.Jun 9,2009 .. Gravelly Spot Oceans Date(s)aerial images were photographed: 7/2/2006 Landfill Streams and Canals The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Lava Flow Transportation compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Rafts imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting ,. Marsh or swamp of map unit boundaries may be evident. K Mine or Quarry . Interstate Highways , Miscellaneous Water US Routes p Perennial Water Major Roads Rock Outcrop iv Local Roads + Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot p Sinkhole i' Slide or Slip O Sodic Spot Spoil Area • Stony Spot t.Sn,\ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/27/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 .irkers Name: 634 Short Name: 634 Coordinates: 047° 40'15.10" N, 117° 10'51.73"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 11:32:11 AM Name:616 Short Name:616 Coordinates: 047°40'53.61" N, 117° 13' 12.87"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 8:39:55AM Name: 617 Short Name: 617 Coordinates: 047°40'50.89" N, 117° 13' 10.35"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:08:27AM Name:618 Short Name: 618 Coordinates: 047°40'49.79" N, 117° 13'07.54"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:15:16AM Name: 619 Short Name: 619 Coordinates: 047°40'48.0T' N, 117° 13'04.53"W r Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:19:04AM Name: 620 Short Name: 620 Coordinates: 047°40'46.39" N, 117° 12'59.03"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:23:19AM Name: 621 Short Name: 621 Coordinates: 047°40'43.09" N, 117° 12'45.44"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:30:07AM Name: 622 Short Name: 622 Coordinates: 047°40'42.75" N, 117° 12'42.38"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:31:33AM Name: 623 Short Name: 623 Coordinates: 047°40'42.71" N, 117° 12' 32.42"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:40:06AM Name: 624 Short Name:624 Coordinates: 047°40'41.80" N, 117° 12'23.89"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:44:43AM Name: 625 Short Name: 625 Coordinates: 047°40' 38.72" N, 117° 12' 16.20"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:48:04AM Name:626 Short Name: 626 Coordinates: 047°40'40.01"N, 117° 12'20.78"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:51:15AM Name:627 Short Name: 627 Coordinates: 047°40'39.89" N, 117° 12' 38.74"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 9:59:05AM Name:628 Short Name: 628 Coordinates: 047° 40'42.26"N, 117° 12'45.74"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 10:03:11 AM Name: 629 Short Name: 629 Coordinates: 047°40'45.88"N, 117° 12'59.99"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 10:14:31AM Name:630 tI Short Name: 630 Coordinates: 047°40' 14.69"N, 117° 11'08.33"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 11:01:08AM Name:631 Short Name: 631 Coordinates: 047°40' 14.65"N, 117° 11'02.90"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 11:12:09AM Name: 632 Short Name: 632 Coordinates: 047°40' 12.73" N, 117° 11,02.60"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 11:19:11 AM Name: 633 Short Name: 633 Coordinates: 047°40' 12.89" N, 117° 10' 56.99"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 11:22:54AM Name:634 Short Name: 634 Coordinates: 047°40' 15.10" N, 117° 10'51.73"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 11:32:11 AM Name: 635 Short Name:635 Coordinates: 047°40' 19.99" N, 117° 10'48.45"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 11:39:02AM Name: 636 Short Name: 636 Coordinates: 047°40'20.69" N, 117° 10'47.63"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 11:40:58AM Name: 637 Short Name: 637 Coordinates: 047°40'24.20" N, 117° 10'47.03"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 11:43:46AM Name: 638 Short Name: 638 Coordinates: 047°40'27.61" N, 117° 10'46.46"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 11:45:50AM Name: 639 Short Name: 639 Coordinates: 047°41'25.12"N, 117° 13'48.55"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 12:44:58PM Name: 640 Short Name: 640 Coordinates: 047°41'23.03" N, 117° 13'40.04"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 12:52:10PM Name: 641 Short Name: 641 Coordinates: 047°41'21.68" N, 117° 13'37.11" W Comment 11-MAY-10 12:54:25PM Name: 642 Short Name: 642 Coordinates: 047°41'18.77" N, 117° 13'30.19"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 12:59:47PM Name: 643 Short Name: 643 Coordinates: 047°41' 12.33" N, 117° 13'21.55"W Comment: 11-MAY-10 1:10:49PM w r ly . j .... •Y Lew I • _ _ �lr ..., a++:n :• �p,.I 1L:_•.. r 3? 3t t3- ,,-,-,_.:14.--.50" ;•� �� fh+ l.`v .�.� _ 1,17:-....t-�� yy,.ys•..- -=T�'� S'�.-` 1� r•• ��; � I .,�;11 I '+.r N �"•.Q.�tn I�, 1•••••4044v. � 4,,,,.., .fir '-'''4....-!.:i.',.`:'�.�"'�..G..._ w_.- :N:-- tet+ Ns �.� _lf .b �'- "may_ !1 P--_ • ••:::;.- - /•' 11 t ^- • ��R�i.ia;C-•-�ae�+_+ i?i j7 ii +a --�•,& • 'r` �, /` ., �....,sq+.� '.`^.IFjw,.",`rr ` ..',,-;74v r4 - 7 jt i I f:' to t.=,.,.1 i_.�ti.� rff" y. d a <.._,,,j.cjec,!*. • • I{ • • r. ''t4 r .. ,1,7 j' '-4 ,�, -. Fes.-- �' •`-,..,,,,_„,„_._,2,;:t , '(•: i j , L� 9, V.. • f-:.:''j � P• vi''` +`•J • , '°� : •:...:,...._____-1----- -- l', !! r" ,,•,F .,_ i r aTy -• •_-,, ,t' "1 rk..-�. ,..t- Sr.r �r rM,� I 4 Lc.- ,-,..,:, '\ t,,al ;y,y;,, _ •j''''._.: - j I tr y .l!>.a.7.�'FY.l :-..3 fth`:•1 .-_r... 1'�•YY it • iii it, -,. - :. t • a ' ', . t, ' .trT ..--1, -. a"t;..i.G..+,�r. it ��11 ,.- '[ 411, 5. •_.....• -- "� i'S 1�� -lilt �S .f _•1 xr N-,-r .M�.i o r • ;s t -• ,;, -i. _ ,,,,,, , �' +p-- ;r•, i,. yla Y t,. afFrili q �.•11J. ilim e !T.F tit 04`QA�" ,ir + I,i'; ..L,-,....-,,...„..1,` [?,*,air er= - ' v.•�y-'»� S "'04-r ] r, (�`g �r+:ett 'f 7 E 111�;i,y,A,f•-'' _.`.vgisifi_ _:-i__:_ ..._...,�'�- ,,i• - ,_ .'r:'r _ //{.�A-t,. -.�r.`,yS. \ - 1-.•;44",-.47- '_' ' +4 ti.• r. q,,4 - ed h'1.4‘-.1;4-rt.' •'''.•••••,741 � lye a•.. •4. T 77•w w••4.•. -,*-`1 7 7 Ij. _ TMy- •r wig,• _ _.iM1:- �t -. C• • raj I' `4,,- x - � •-` �1 l,t" , 1t• •� _Y � _' Vii• A !I 1 s I' s{' ^.�'Y tom' +Vi�gL i .lt�pl4Li. + .. .z. 1'� . ;T,A 'W'' rp, ,''s `1, {. Yi ,r . •�.ry _ eK��`1 t•j' 1:,:-,-1.•,:•.7,7,.„.., ';.fiifi �1��.�I,S - ,►iS'II, 6- + �' t-ib j_`i';ry" ti \ � •-•,••4 "al "•'' - ,r mit i,_ ♦ til• J lit. _• w:`Y ,•-,r 'y y iV 0 l• a t ..14•~1 4 `. is u:S:�a .r al IV ' ik^+ _ - i t .. V 'Fe.s• •• `� 1 , 1 ;•;".'t•- . . . ..r ▪-:::n ft ti,' . f� i._.�'�'F ,1.'.e1YiL.•, .4-.•",:.-- -' ' `yt5 '�`y`'^ �e •!4 s� rc (, .tj ::.-•=1.- 'l. h ' L `^`" g--�. sat £..: t Vii. .- . ;• i• _...1.7..L I,�4 < �r �"'*i ; �. ,•-•7ty.. ._ r '• t•-'''itlit 11 t _r _ .tit17Mt • mow �`S. P'1��0 - ��-�..%:_.m.7.-4.; ♦ ...........------.......---,...,.......01Pltl� ".,.{�}e-� ' • q y tk- w, �,,, .,t et _ _ sg yy f • t� ` --T-1,4144 N. •• •j. • t . • _ ,..i- Y. ,. 11,11 1 (I;, r l•• r",'415., i� ,,i. 11; .4 i .-, s r. a t'.;,it ;. T -^ ,__ , ..4,_-.1... '..4,: 'S" ,. ." 1 . t _ i I ' . ',�iik.y, T".0 '* 70 7 [�A } r h. r4 __ - :4-r �,V' '`l' I1i Ali b• r• Y I 'FTIN..,} T..A [ ¢�rq+cam��. r 'Al"-' ,/,';'..c.4., ♦? t y i' !F�^ ,j _ act �~ : i - i .L�•j .r - `L - ' $•,,.IL�{ .4� •t S F'¢�,. * ,1 { , \ � ,� y • ..i.,_____, E r t l+� _t �1i`z+ '>. ,, -r, < s9Li-• i°.ma xi " -%e7','-.-4 .' . x '. ." 'x }r j . i `4 K I_ .K I y S „,re ..3 s iS.'{{,,1 Jtiter ,ti.t., k .. y, 4 j '' r 37+�� t t ' r�trT '' ' y ,/r3`M .y N.E i +r,_ '111• r v ` .- i1 + i ;�ri}'�'."�i._�t , - . �'• a'+• . e, T_y w, -fk 4-14•4.-.-,:- ' , Z� ,7'...=1` I a� 'Iirf-! !• ?t% .vrrlr� f �t-_r t � ;a. ':t':c{t;,>T l l_ - - .,, F' .,4z ` iL..,, , !'. - 'T', :,: .. ed ,• %',&•..;tT ?9.. ...,''�1'., •• •e +��'i.,"- � P. Y� y _F i,.? 'el'j: , ' r. n d 4�'1, .tt .' •q3 -"l •1. ............. - .'""744.4.:_,..-V "---"•' 417 „.!.. , �]',, .t' �� t.. -rT t „..,-;11 t .wr'C"4 � r' ' �"y.., !'.t r; 1;`" K�/ - }▪ .,��.''• , J 1 ��n11` 'i.: • t a- tl i -.iv_ •`.,4 M LF.12 .•t- �r 1 }_r _ _ ��.C'`4'•le<•�•Y '�`� a,.�7... r _h.. '---,<:,.„--....71', .'1+ ; at •Y .mom: 1.,�' .�7'•rR' "� -•1• t `tir•' `V ) �G dtylt . t • + 4 • ^ r'. • - J a ig `-,a'a•'.v _ '•• .L, ,-,...,..--• '�•'-.t ,w_.fir.".-;fr4S • If •y.... _ _ I� 6s 1_dead � i• - . ' � is;'•`.r`� .rir7f r - ..\4, .:�.•.r >A. 1 •�•}, 1 t ./,;;..! e I,- .'.s +$• ? .r' .�;^,� =- - r1.°i ��• 'r�+•iw-t+� •' •, II r , I '+-• +c. �,(,- : • ��'« •k' Yi�A ::t � •'�". `: ''''''' '.2'+' S, i r. ‘4,-'‘i•-•,...-•:, y '` .� S s i r /'-.!-i .1 -,,,,..-1_ _li:.fil .. �. 1. <), 1 1yw ..t'•-• s .r r e. d: ' `.2,r r, , i ..t. •,-'r.r.:•• • . .-•'..• ; �e e i•. „.t�• '� .k: - ✓_ 1 Aar'"-_ - -. 1:4',e. .hS . '". . - ^•^�; _ `' y a .ir` t/I i F _tea_ 7 I r •, --.'- • a- T" _ f'-,..+ ---7:::::-.-7..•:..:� v ... ' •4:41,4;f. S ,'}!r.;'ti-�'-, •'t •: f • r ?' AI l. -,,1e• .-, �xi- "ter__ s'• •.. ` - • IT� - �-. r..r--�rs .at�<a' p--�'••T t F,'. i`~il t•••.,,•• +` •• 't.R•=�;f_ '^• •j # 1.- E . h •�' • 1. 71 .I� diff •,, t{1!'} ` J �� re' # • �.'7•-•:``� .des -.`_••^.1•.,_ryi�W P -.4 !• .....E-- R 'o • ,. _�. 4. w......,:- L.` `a_ L...•t S '7.. • '7=t1 t • ':t'�, o f L..„_" :f:I ��E .S�,d!• i.•� ..�J..R� b;.. i 1 - - :•y�,t .t t ',;"•,•<• 4�\ "1- 4--:•:1',1.---•••;;;s7-111„5' lt,.� ,�i t1R' -[ ,•:ten t + +t x aS'"'�s- 111: s__._.1_.-,_„„,„...._ _J--7;lt._ .-_ � •" rt ,... f t 1• 1.�4 _+*S y3'').".‘ •!k3 "„� 4 1•� .. fp: _ -+ 1 ,cl i; 0 'F-tr --':-11_ • 7."-+. .4r� li ti,. L -"'Kr _ '�°`X11- t'y�.�] ,--_. M1..•f_ '�,'µi:'c�� .,,, iS ,v ,. <•.0 ,e ... x I.',3"�• ,.-i,', _� t�_ ,.1 t t, I11,-' 4-, .�a';j` ; 071 fst l4"''ti;1 ----.---- • _ ~"`n----..ii:.::1 ▪f • . •+ Y �` ,if^•-•-••11., •�� l'•. .,_ Y •~1. - .. - • ^7 JJJ 14 ,. y,.,.. ie. _ j1_ lib ` I"r �!XV... 40e0 mi..-t7•' +`".�A '�' .1 i _ __ - ' v. � •.�...a -r: _--_-_-,-=::::..1,-.,..,, t. i'I � � ._.... ••v..la •�, :1-1 �, }� • I .,q,-r - _`srw7 ....ZOO' ,L - . . 1:t 7�IWY r,, �1 ,fie i , �Ik. ` �. .k. ,..---..•..,,- •a t ,� `I/_' ? t '� I ' a rJR _ C._ 1 } !1•4•,,•:1, '1 ;` t■ • :,<.. ..).- c`ba w 1:,...4•41•.,..it ` i��ji r t Alt♦OQ a/t�itl ? # 1a 1 /��s, �1Y1�,e!F r 2 i- -Y" x-n -..?„,;.+.•,-“,!.,.:,-.1-,4,-,,,,-.tea••,_.. IT'-'-ii-----1,, T'-' - r .- • t f . 'l- ✓ Yi'Uvini itifkrt I,.•... �S'y..le„"r�J.i'V2 :� ...11V7,11,.'.1,0.!---� �.'.•,145 ,,,%.,,,... Ty.. ,�, - • `�-•,4., W+: r •er -J i :?• rU•� :- ' -- •�_s• -d -' I�.t 'iii'le.171 ie ti�r z•'4ff r ltTl� �1. '�..';rtrr> i�fe ,t ',! 47 • '-'5. r s''? f _,7,��'�e �► Century Properties GPS points gi 'c"w„ j, �, �`g� �,, f .. ''` � "J,,a. "" t � - +•etltlfi�.�_ -.1..,-.,.•F.}7� �"�i' ,►- e.,�i. �: .+� 'T}"• -�C �t all, yi7 .T.,t ,_ ..� ��u+....(`,. _ N tit it T is >♦t� z !r,�..� r': • '�t ' !I "4"" R Y Parcels I4•1LatitrI M147 E,V,qv, I. �- - •, 2 , �.- _ ;'l` -.�-" , . .44.4 . tr4jyw gr t4g.l i I Z; F1 1 �?W'• 9tpIK44i. �. t '",,-;,;'''',. .....'1„46.77,,,',..: 1 ,LI 1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet Kt a ifm F.ol ct.h .. •i4,i•�k 1�,♦ H�•t. t _7 fi._�, _--4.._-1 •-.;'-','`.1,„,,_,a49,. 1 _j}yy,' .'�. Digital Ortho photo Data Base 02008 Avlsta Utilities.All Rights Reserved. t ill 11A, �r�op41'" • ": •:,r't� Ly'Iton-r,: ,-..10.~ •ii(l-7 + :. -: a '-1 . • ~`•?� „��. :. -t ' tYl%+ •!"r rt10k:Sf`.JhY�tr +'.�' Sv!_ �� 4 '•' £``: _ `.1 S,'y��r.r� ' ,r, i . i* 'S .,il{+�r .ry�Rw," " ,"r4v' , �rn• � r'7* .t' "4.4g7•4 (L I�.z '7 t .¢d r` ,a.i'ilV"�9i 4if"" •.. .: ek-�-._-, -•. _9:9.01.1 �II4,ia•iii]IfaAHi~l 1:`7!,Wii-•11tlt, :v ri. ,1q�i - _24v-�i•.'br. d'` 1 i� 0: �.l,.;h .'•i t Ll._aa�I.- .1E�' '•i� .v.,"„!-,•.q,.,y+a.� CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION REPORT Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 • r:r.. —-t.* . '; ,:•-,e.,..-' tea,- ., ,,' =��a'.8"-� . 74t'';.:—"'`,R. 7 ''P ,i.-•- .v'(-4'"X.:,..., :4'. ''.'...'.('4.,%k.:..'1-',,y,....t1- . „._ _. - F' SL. — ._ _ . __ - :__:15.,„...7,,,,;...J....p.___,• . _ .._ ___..;::_ }J--Ci ,ec_ g ..p '+ta.s-Iti._ t'.^• ._ • r; 4. ..-Z..,--*,..„" z�..-.... . �® 'IfM'..sa . uG,^,Z...�5-�f.�wsa+' r ~.��. '•R. _ — City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Prepared April 4,2010 Amended on September 7,2010 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION REPORT City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department 11707 East Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Prepared by Mi 920 North Argonne Rd. Spokane,Washington 99212 in association with Jim Kolva Associates and Michael Folsom City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND GOALS OF THE INVENTORY&CHARACTERIZATION REPORT 1 1.2 SMA JURISDICTION WITHIN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 2 2.0 METHODOLOGY 5 2.1 INITIAL DATA COLLECTION AND GAP ANALYSIS 5 2.2 FIELD INVENTORY 6 2.2.1 Vegetation Survey Protocol 7 2.3 ANALYSIS OF COLLECTED DATA 7 3.0 REGIONAL CHARACTERIZATION 9 3.1 SPOKANE VALLEY-RATHDRUM PRAIRIE AQUIFER 9 3.2 SPOKANE RIVER 10 3.3 SHELLEY LAKE 17 3.4 GRAVEL PITS 18 3.5 REGIONAL PROCESSES,STRESSORS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 18 4.0 HISTORICAL ANALYSIS 22 4.1 SPOKANE RIVER 22 4.2 SHELLEY LAKE 25 4.3 PARK ROAD AND SULLIVAN ROAD GRAVEL PITS 25 5.0 LOCAL CHARACTERIZATION 26 5.1 SPOKANE RIVER 26 5.1.1 Spokane River Study Segment 1-Eastern City Limits to Flora Road 30 5.1.1.1 SR-1 Land Use Summary 31 5.1.12 SR-1 Physical and Biological Characterization 34 5.1.13 SR-1 Ecological Condition,Stressors,and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation 36 5.1.2 Spokane River Study Segment 2—Flora Road to Trent Avenue 38 5.121 SR-2 Land Use Summary 38 5.122 SR-2 Physical and Biological Characterization 42 5.123 SR-2 Ecological Condition,Stressors,and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation 44 5.1.3 Spokane River Study Segment 3-Trent Avenue to Millwood Town Limits 45 5.13.1 SR-3 Land Use Summary 46 5.132 SR-3 Physical and Biological Characterization 48 5.133 SR-3 Ecological Condition,Stressors,and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation 50 5.1.4 Segment 4-Millwood City Limits to Spokane City Limits 51 5.1.4.1 SR-4 Land Use Summary 52 5.1.42 SR-4 Physical,Biological,and Archeological Characterization 53 5.1.43 SR-4 Ecological Condition,Stressors,and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation 54 5.2 SHELLEY LAKE 55 5.2.1 Land Use Summary 55 521.1 Shelley Lake Physical and Biological Characterization 57 5212 Shelley Lake Ecological Condition,Stressors,and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation 59 5.3 PARK ROAD AND SULLIVAN ROAD GRAVEL PITS 61 5.3.1 Park Road Pit 62 53.1.1 Park Road Pit Land Use Summary 62 53.12 Park Road Pit Physical and Biological Characterization 63 53.13 Park Road Pit Ecological Condition,Stressors,and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation 64 5.3.2 Sullivan Road Pit 64 5321 Sullivan Road Pit Land Use Summary 64 5322 Sullivan Road Pit Physical and Biological Characterization 65 53.2.3 Sullivan Road Pit Ecological Condition,Stressors,and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation 66 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 6.0 SHORELINE USE ANALYSIS 67 6.1 CURRENT SHORELINE USE 67 6.2 PROJECTED SHORELINE USE 68 6.3 POTENTIAL CONFLICTS 70 6.4 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 71 6.4.1 Recommendations for the Spokane River 72 6.4.2 Shelley Lake _ 74 6.4.3 Gravel Pits 75 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 76 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 77 FIGURES* Figure 1-1: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Areas Figure 3-1: Spokane River and the SVRP Aquifer Figure 4-3 Shelley Lake Drainage Basin Figure 5-1: City of Spokane Valley Spokane River Study Segments Figure 5-2: Spokane River Study Segment 1 Figure 5-3: Spokane River Study Segment 2 Figure 5-4: Spokane River Study Segment 3 Figure 5-5: Spokane River Study Segment 4 Figure 5-6: Overview of Shelley Lake *Note that additional maps are provided in Appendix F(Map Portfolio) TABLES Table 1-1: Shoreline Master Program Jurisdiction Table 3-1: Spokane WSO Airport,Washington(457938) Table 3-2: WDFW Priority Species Listed in Spokane County Table 3-3: Summary of Ecosystem-Wide Processed Analysis Table 5-1: Plant Association Use Analysis Table 5-2 Land Use SR-1 Table 5-3: Zoning SR-1 Table 5-4: Built Environment SR-1 Table 5-5: Habitat Analysis SR-1 Table 5-6: Summary of Ecological Issues SR-1 Table 5-7: Land User SR-2 Table 5-8: Zoning SR-2 Table 5-9: Built Environment SR-2 Table 5-10: Habitat Analysis SR-2 Table 5-11: Summary of Ecological Issues SR-2 Table 5-12: Land Use—SR-3 Table 5-13: Zoning SR-3 Table 5-14: Built Environment SR-3 Table 5-15: Habitat Analysis SR-3 Table 5-16: Summary of Ecological Issues SR-3 Table 5-17: Land Use SR-4 Table 5-18: Zoning SR-4 Table 5-19: Built Environment SR-4 Table 5-20: Summary of Ecological Issues SR-4 Table 5-21: Land Use Shelley Lake ii City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Table 5-22: Zoning Shelley Lake Table 5-23: Built Environment Shelley Lake Table 5-24: Shelley Lake Water Quality Data Table 5-25: Summary of Ecological Issues SheIIey Lake APPENDICES Appendix A: Data Inventory List Appendix B: Spokane River Inventory Data Tables Appendix C: Vegetation Inventory Appendix D: Wildlife and Bird Information Appendix E Technical Review Group Comments Appendix F: Map Portfolio Appendix G: Centennial Property Management—Shoreline Assessment iii City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 LIST OF ACRONYMS BNSF Burlington Northern-Santa Fe cfs cubic feet per second COSV City of Spokane Valley SRCT Spokane River SRCT DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources DO dissolved oxygen Ecology State of Washington Department of Ecology EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GIS Geographical Information System HED Hydroelectric Dam HOA Homeowners' Association LWD large woody debris MSL mean sea level NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark pH Measure of acidity or alkalinity of a solution PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls PFC Proper functioning condition PHS Priority Habitat and Species QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan RCW Revised Code of Washington RHA Riparian habitat areas RM River Mile ROW Right-of-Way SCCD Spokane County Conservation District SMA The State of Washington Shoreline Management Act SMP shoreline master programs SRHD Spokane Regional Health District SVRP Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load USGS United States Geological Survey USTs underground storage tanks WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDOH Washington Department of Health WRIA Water Resources Inventory Area WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation WTP Wastewater Treatment Plant iv City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 1.O INTRODUCTION The State of Washington Shoreline Management Act(SMA), adopted in 1972, includes guidelines,goals, and policies to protect ecological function, foster reasonable use, and maintain the public right of navigation for shorelines of the State. Shorelines of the State include marine shores, shorelines of streams with a mean annual flow greater than 20 cubic feet per second (cfs), and the shorelines of water bodies greater than 20 acres. In order to implement the SMA, local jurisdictions containing Shorelines of the State are required to prepare a Shoreline Master Program(SMP)and review and update them every seven years (RCW 90.58.080 (4). For communities in Spokane County, the SMP update is required by December 1,2013. The next review and update will be required in 2020. In 2003, the Washington Department of Ecology(Ecology) adopted new SMP guidelines (WAC 173-26) that outline a "comprehensive process to prepare or amend shoreline master programs" in accordance with the SMA (RCW 90.58). The State considers shorelines as among the most valuable and fragile of the state's natural resources, and their appropriate utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation is important. Many ecological functions of river and stream corridors depend both on continuity and connectivity along the length of the shoreline, and on the conditions of the surrounding lands on either side of the river channel. Environmental degradation such as loss of vegetation or alteration of runoff quality and quantity along the corridor resulting from incremental development can impair ecological functions. Improper or ineffective shoreline planning and regulation can result in shoreline areas that are inhospitable for priority fish and wildlife species and increase susceptibly to flooding, droughts, landslides,and channel changes. These conditions can threaten human health,safety,and property. Section 8.5 of the City's July 2008 Comprehensive Plan, "Shoreline Master Program," references use of the 1975 Spokane County Shoreline Master Program as the City's interim SMP. The Comprehensive Plan states that "It is the intent of the City to prepare a shoreline master plan consistent with applicable state law (RCW 90.58) and the adopted policies in this Plan as part of the implementation of the comprehensive plan." This inventory and characterization report is part of the City of Spokane Valley's SMP update. It establishes the baseline for "no net loss" of ecological conditions, provides supporting information for development of environmental designations, and identifies degraded areas and opportunities for protection. This information provides the background for the required Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Restoration Plan and the development of shoreline regulations. 1.1 Purpose and Goals of the Inventory & Characterization Report This Shoreline Inventory and Characterization report meets the requirements of WAC 173-26-201 (3) (c) and (d) and generally follows the requirements of Chapter 7—Inventory and Characterization of the draft SMP Handbook, dated August 26, 2009. The following provides a summary of the information included with this report. Goals of the Inventory • Summarize regional context • Identify and map areas influencing SMA shorelines • Identify management issues of concern • Map shoreline physical,biological and cultural features • Determine river study segment boundaries • Detail indicators of ecological function by reach • Summarize ecological functions and uses City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 • Summarize shoreline characterization • Summarize and map protection/restoration opportunities Purpose of the Characterization • characterize ecological functions including biodiversity,native plant and animal community integrity, etc., so as to achieve a"meaningful"understanding of shoreline ecological functions; • identify elements of natural character,shoreline habitats and ecosystems and related attributes which should not be disturbed,damaged or destroyed because they can't be restored or replicated within the time horizon of the SMP(10-12 years); • identify opportunities for restoration of shoreline resources and ecological function; • characterize reasonably foreseeable uses and developments in the shorelines as the basis for assessing potential cumulative impacts. 1.2 SMA Jurisdiction within the City of Spokane Valley Shorelines of Statewide Significance and Shorelines of the State fall within the jurisdiction of the SMA. Shorelines of Statewide Significance are described in RCW 90.58.030. For rivers east of the Cascade Mountain Range crest, a Shoreline of Statewide Significance is defined as "those natural rivers or segments thereof where the mean annual flow is two hundred cubic feet per second (cfs) or more; or the portion of the rivers downstream from the first three hundred square miles of drainage area, whichever is less." The Spokane River is designated a Shoreline of Statewide Significance(WAC 173-18-360). The SMA directs local governments to manage shoreline uses along Shorelines of Statewide Significance (Spokane River)in the following order of preference: • Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest; • Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; • Result in long-term over short-term benefit; • Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; • Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; • Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; and • Provide for any other element deemed appropriate or necessary as defined by the SMA (RCW 90.58.020;WAC 173-26-250). Shorelines of the State include all streams or rivers having a mean annual flow of 20 cfs or greater and waterbodies greater than 20 acres in size. Shorelines of the State within the City of Spokane Valley include the Spokane River, Shelley Lake, and the Park Road and Sullivan Road Gravel Pits. The general state policies for Shorelines of the State are to protect ecological functions while fostering reasonable utilization and maintaining the public right of navigation. The SMA provides the following policy goals: • The utilization of shorelines for economically productive uses that are particularly dependent on shoreline location or use. • The utilization of shorelines and the waters they encompass for public access and recreation. • Protection and restoration of the ecological functions of shoreline natural resources. • Protection of the public right of navigation and corollary uses of waters of the state. • The protection and restoration of buildings and sites having historical, cultural, and educational use. • Planning for public facilities and utilities correlated with other shoreline uses. • Prevention and minimization of flood damages. 2 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 • Recognize and protect private property rights. • Preferential accommodation of single family uses. • Coordination of shoreline management with other relevant local,state,and federal programs. Shorelines included in this analysis include the portions of the Spokane River that are located within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley. 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), which is intending to adopt Spokane County's SMP. City shorelines also include the shorelines of Shelley Lake and the shorelines within the Park Road and the Sullivan Road Gravel Pits owned by Central Premix. Figure 1-1 shows the shorelines within the City at the time the inventory was completed (2009). Continuing gravel extraction operations are expected to increase the open water area at the Sullivan Road Pit. The shoreline jurisdiction for the Spokane River is based on evidence of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) determined by field observations that were used in conjunction with high quality aerial photography to digitize an approximate OHWM. The OHWM was then offset 200-feet landward to determine the City's shoreline jurisdiction. Existing GIS data layers for wetlands and critical areas were then evaluated to identify associated wetlands and to determine if the shoreline jurisdiction would be extended to include any critical areas (fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas). Upstream of Flora Road, at approximate RM 89.1 and 89.6 the FEMA 100 year flood plain is located outside the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction on portions of the north bank and upstream of Barker Road on the south bank. The three areas were reviewed and in part based on local knowledge of the river system and evidence of woody debris on the shore, it was decided that these areas were not frequently flooded and, so,were not included in the SMP jurisdiction. As the shoreline jurisdiction is relative to the OHWM boundary, this SMP development effort is based on an OHWM that is considered fairly accurate but not exact. Development proposals working near the identified shoreline jurisdiction are advised to delineate and survey the OHWM for permitting purposes. The OHWM is identified by examining the bed and banks of the water along the shore to determine where action of the water has created a distinct mark upon the soil with respect to upland vegetation. The SMP boundary would then be based on the best available survey information and, so, may change from the boundaries shown herein where surveyed OHWM data is available. The OHWM and proposed shoreline jurisdiction from the 2009 inventory for the City of Spokane Valley is included in Appendix F, Map Portfolio. Table 1-1 includes physical data from the shoreline jurisdiction. Shorelines include both the open water portion of a water body and its adjacent shorelands'. Shorelands encompass the area 200-feet horizontally landward from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)of a Water of the State. Shorelands are areas that contain resources such as riparian vegetation and floodplains,which are important to the protection of the waterway. The shoreline jurisdiction can extend beyond the 200-foot limit if floodways and associated wetlands are present(RCW 90.58.030(2)(f)). A recent legal decision (Samuel's Furniture, Jaffa Holdings, and City of Ferndale vs. Ecology(Washington Court of Appeals Division I, 105 Wn. App. at 290),has indicated that readily available Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)floodways are not sufficient to define SMP jurisdiction. The shoreline jurisdiction must extend to the landward edge of associated wetlands that are defined as wetlands that physically extend into the shoreline jurisdiction, or wetlands that are functionally related to the shoreline jurisdiction through surface water connection and/or other factors such as wildlife habitat. All critical areas (as defined in the Growth Management Act (GMA)) within SMP jurisdiction shall be managed with the comprehensively updated SMP after it is approved by the Department of Ecology and becomes part of the statewide Shoreline Master Program. This was clarified 3 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 in March 2010 by the legislature in its most recent amendments to the SMA and GMA (EBB 1653, March 18,2010). Table 1-1 Shoreline Master Pro'ram Jurisdiction Shoreline Shorelands Wetlands Total Area within Water Length' Water within within SMA within SMA Shoreline Buffer (miles) SMA(acres) (acres) (acres)2 (acres) Spokane 7.96 205 121 0 326 River Shelley 0.92 20.9 13.2 2.3 36.4 Lake Park Road 1.70 58 36 0 94 Pit Sullivan 1.81 25 30 0 55 Road Pit3 1 Shoreline Length=linear measurement following the center of the river. 2 Based on City GIS database and field investigations. s The SMA boundary for the Sullivan Road Pit overlaps with the SMA boundary for the Spokane River. The land area provided for the Sullivan Road Pit does not include the overlap area. Legend ©City of Spokane Valley City Limits Shoreline Master Program Areas Note:Aerial imagery source is USDA,NAIP 2004 Sullivan Road Pit Spokane River to • 4 Park Road Pit Shelley Lake • N Figure 1-1:City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Areas 1 s 0 1 2 titles ilits 4 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 2.0 METHODOLOGY URS and the City worked collaboratively to acquire relevant baseline data for the purpose of establishing an inventory of available shoreline reference material(shoreline inventory). This included geospatial/GIS data, reports, and input from local experts. In conjunction with the inventory effort, URS and City worked to determine additional data that could benefit the SMP update process (gap analysis). This resulted in a field inventory of shoreline areas under the jurisdiction of SMA. During the field inventory, existing data was verified and augmented with direct observations from an ecologist and an engineer working to document natural resources and the condition of the built environment, respectively. To augment the shoreline inventory, URS and the City requested input from a Technical Review Group (TRG) and the public. Meetings were held with TRG representatives at the beginning of the SMP update project and their input was solicited during and after the shoreline inventory effort. Public input was gathered through personal interaction during the field inventory and at an open house held at City Hall on November 5,2009 and February 4,2010. The TRG is comprised of state and local agencies that have information related to the City Shorelines. The TRG committee includes the following agencies: • Washington Department of Fish&Wildlife, • Washington Department of Ecology, • Washington Department of Natural Resources, • Washington State Parks and Recreation • City of Spokane Valley Parks Department • Spokane County Conservation District • Spokane County Division of Utilities/Water Resources • Spokane Tribe • Coeur d'Alene Tribe The gathered information was analyzed through review of existing reports, aerial photography, and geospatial assessment using GIS software. The following description of the shoreline inventory and characterization methods is presented. 2.1 Initial Data Collection and Gap Analysis WAC 173-26-201(3)(c) addresses the requirements of a shoreline inventory conducted for a new or amended SMP. The rule specifies that the local government collect the following information provided it is relevant and reasonably available: • Shoreline,adjacent land use patterns,transportation and utility facilities: • Extent of existing structures, • Impervious surfaces, • Vegetation and shoreline modifications, • Water-oriented uses. • Critical areas: • Wetlands, • Aquifer recharge areas, • Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, • Geologically hazardous areas. • Frequently flooded areas. • Degraded areas and sites with ecological restoration potential. • Areas of special interest: 5 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 • Priority habitats, • Developing or redeveloping harbors and waterfronts, • Previously identified toxic or hazardous material clean-up sites, • Dredged material disposal sites, • Eroding shorelines. • Conditions and regulations in shoreland and adjacent areas that affect shorelines: • Surface water management, • Land use regulations. • Existing and potential shoreline public access sites: • Public access sites, • Public rights-of-way, • Utility corridors. • Channel migration zones and floodplains. • Data gaps. • Land use changes relative to cumulative impacts. • Archaeological and historic resources. To support the acquisition,review, and processing of the above data,URS developed a Quality Assurance Project Plan(QAPP)that outlined a process for locating and reviewing relevant data sources, determining the adequacy of previously collected data,and collecting new data. URS was able to collect most of the data identified above via geospatial (GIS) sources, input from local agencies, input from local experts, and existing reports. After reviewing reports,base maps created from existing data,and speaking with local agencies and experts,URS identified several areas where additional fieldwork was needed. The additional fieldwork needed included a precise demarcation of the OHWM, information on the vegetation communities present, areas affected by noxious weeds, areas of high wildlife use, areas suitable for restoration or preservation, and an inventory of the built environment. A summary of the documentation reviewed and the additional fieldwork needed is included in Appendix A of this report. 2.2 Field Inventory To address the identified data gaps, verify existing information, and familiarize the team with the City's shorelines, URS and the City prepared for and conducted a field inventory. This included the following steps: • Prepare a safe work plan(URS) • Prepare a fieldwork plan(URS) • Create map books for use during field data collection(COSV) • Complete field reconnaissance activities to fill data gaps(URS) • Prepare working digital maps of field-collected data(URS &COSV) Inventory elements not adequately addressed in existing data resources were identified for field data collection. Two teams were assigned to data collection. The first team focused on Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) identifiers, unique shoreline features, wetlands, riparian vegetation, upland vegetation, and shoreline habitat. The second team focused on the built environment, including eroded banks, shore protection such as bank armoring, combined sewer outfalls, shoreline infrastructure likely to require significant redevelopment, hard engineering structures affecting fluvial stream dynamics, and other 6 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 elements that may affect shoreline planning. Field data was digitized and imported into the existing project geodatabase. Digitized data met the specifications required by the City and Ecology. 2.2.1 Vegetation Survey Protocol Existing riparian vegetation conditions are a key factor in the evaluation of proper management actions for shoreline areas. Riparian vegetation characteristics indicate what types of wildlife are likely to use the shoreline areas. These characteristics also indicate the quality of riparian corridors for the migration of wildlife through the city. Wildlife often use riparian corridors because they provide cover, food, and water. Proper documentation of the riparian vegetation was conducted to inform the SMP update but also to set a benchmark for the future evaluation of"no net loss of shoreline ecological function." URS and Mike Folsom, PhD, a local wetland specialist and a professor of geography at Eastern Washington University, developed a vegetation monitoring protocol to quantify and classify the various types of vegetation communities, or plant associations, within the shoreline areas. The goals of the inventory were to document the dominant vegetation according to species name,percent cover,floodplain position, and native/introduced status. The Spokane River and Shelley Lake were examined on foot and from the water, but the gravel pits could not be examined in the field and are inventoried from aerial photograph examination only. The shoreline vegetation was classified into distinct stands,each with a characteristic dominant vegetation structure and species mix (plant association). Each stand was given an identifying letter, A through W and was described on a field data sheet at a representative site or"data point." Each data point was given an identifying number. Each stand was documented with least one data point; larger stands have as many as five data points. Photographs were taken at each data point. The stands identified in this task essentially follow the plant associations described by Crawford(2003) and elaborated as plant associations in the Spokane County PFC Assessment (2005); however the Crawford study did not include the Spokane River drainage so it does not include all of the stand types encountered in this inventory. Three fluvial/floodplain positions were documented at each data point along the shoreline. This information was recorded to classify how much of the vegetation is frequently flooded, how much is water dependent/transitional, and how much upland is within the shoreline zone that is otherwise indistinguishable from adjacent upland areas. The three floodplain zones are described as follows: • Zone A-the frequently flooded lower elevation nearest the water, • Zone B-the riparian transition area, and • Zone C-the adjacent upland. 2.3 Analysis of Collected Data Documents and geographical information system (GIS) data were selected for review from the comprehensive list of resources that addressed specific inventory elements. A review of each significant resource was completed and relevant data was summarized in the following sections. Spatial (GIS) data was clipped by river study segment and analyzed based on relative cover within that study segment, where appropriate. For example, the amount of impervious area is characterized by study segment to highlight differences in land use patterns and potential stormwater issues along the river, Shelley Lake, and the gravel pits. This analysis generally highlighted trends specific to each study segment,which were then summarized in Section 5. Data analysis included an interpretation of findings with regard to historic conditions and disturbances as well as regional processes to determine which shoreline factors are controllable at the local level and which are the result of a historic alteration or regional process that are not under local control. For example, dams are a historic alteration beyond the control of reach-specific planning. The Rathdrum 7 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 aquifer depth, flow rate, and other characteristics are also beyond the control of reach-specific planning. However, a wetland, noxious weed population, recreational access need, or wildlife habitat areas are relevant to reach-specific planning. The combination of existing data reviewed and summarized herein,together with additional data collected through field inventory and review of historic reference materials, adequately addressed each inventory element. 8 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 3.0 REGIONAL CHARACTERIZATION Identifying ecosystem-wide processes that affect the shoreline is part of the comprehensive process of amending a shoreline master program. WAC 176-26-201(3)(c)(i) defines the processes that must be identified and assessed to determine their relationship to ecological functions present within the SMP jurisdiction. WAC 176-26-201(3)(c)(i)(II) defines the scope of identification and assessment to be used. It states: "This characterization of ecosystem-wide processes and the impact upon the functions of specific habitats and human health and safety objectives may be of a generalized nature." The following elements are provided to meet the requirements of WAC 176-26-201(3)(c)(i). 3.1 Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer All Shorelines of the State within the City of Spokane Valley are located within and influenced hydrologically by the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie (SVRP) Aquifer. From the source of the Spokane River at Lake Coeur d'Alene to its confluence with Latah Creek west of the City, there are no permanent tributaries providing input to the river system. There is considerable interaction, however, between the aquifer and the river. The aquifer begins in Idaho between Spirit Lake and the south end of Lake Pend Oreille. The aquifer flows south until it reaches the middle of the Rathdrum Prairie, where it turns west and flows through the Spokane Valley. Most of the flow turns north near the City of Spokane and flows through the Hillyard Trough discharging into the Little Spokane River. The EPA designated the aquifer as a"Sole Source Aquifer"in 1978 meaning that it is the sole or principal source of drinking water for an area. The aquifer was the second in the nation to receive this designation, providing the framework to develop special management practices by local jurisdictions. The highly permeable gravels of the Spokane Valley make the aquifer highly susceptible to contamination from the surface and much effort has been put into developing regulations and other mechanisms to protect the area's water supply. The Spokane River is the only watercourse over the aquifer that remains on the surface for an extended distance. This provides for interaction between the Spokane River and the SVRP aquifer. The section of the Spokane River between Lake Coeur d'Alene and Flora Road is a losing reach, discharging water to the aquifer. Between Flora Road and the Greene Street Bridge the river is a gaining reach where the aquifer discharges to the Spokane River. During the summer months, much of the water in the Spokane River downstream of Flora Road is discharged from the aquifer. It is estimated that due to the river- aquifer exchange between the Idaho-Washington border and the Sullivan Road Bridge, stream flow losses of about 100 cfs occur during low-flow conditions and about 570 cfs during high-flow conditions. Between the Trent and Greene Street Bridges, stream flow gains range from 260 cfs in November to 450 cfs in July (Gearhart 2001). These gains and losses affect stream flow, water temperature, and water quality. On an annual basis,the Spokane River accounts for 48 percent of the SVRP aquifer recharge(the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Atlas—2009 Update,City of Spokane,2009). Shelley Lake does not appear to be a surface manifestation of the SVRP Aquifer. According to conversations with Ecology staff, the bottom of Shelley Lake is perched above the level of the aquifer. Exfiltration from the lake bottom does discharge to the aquifer. The Park Road and the Sullivan Road gravel pits have been excavated deep enough to intersect the aquifer, extending approximately 150 feet into the aquifer. Current mining operations are closely regulated in order to avoid contamination. The DNR approved reclamation plans address potential contamination by providing for limited public access and protection through use as conservation and wildlife habitat areas when mining operations cease and the pits are reclaimed. 9 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 3.2 Spokane River The Spokane River begins at Coeur D'Alene Lake,Idaho and flows west to Spokane where it turns north and then west to its confluence with the Columbia River. The majority of the river bed is comprised of large cobbles,boulders,and bedrock. The stream channel was formed during the Pleistocene catastrophic glacial outburst floods and has not been significantly altered because the permeable character of the surrounding landscape does not promote surface drainage(USGS 2002). The drainage basin or watershed east of Spokane is about 4,200-square miles, and includes the Coeur d'Alene, St. Joe, and St. Maries Rivers. Flows vary seasonally reaching over 25,000 cfs in the spring to less than 1,000 cfs during the summer, (USGS gauge 12422500). The highest recorded daily mean flow was 49,000 cfs and the lowest was 50 cfs. Six dams are located on the Spokane River. Post Falls Dam downstream from Coeur d'Alene Lake located in Idaho, controls Spokane River flows for approximately six months during the summer and fall when flows are less than 5,000 cfs. Figure 3-1 shows the Spokane River drainage basin. Legend fl (1 ��-^^� ...� mu '„. Upper Spokane River Subbasin(USGS) - -.0 1�City of Spokane Valley City Limits Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer ! !f'' ,.) Spokane River Aquifer Exchange: Ilt SPalcine "'`.L State Park ) 6'3Highly Gaining Reach h ®Gaining Reach f , Losing Reach 44 No Interchange r4 Iprslhatt RatMrum s:k . .a /‘• WASHINGTON ID 2OHaydn `�f :.--- ' ` SSih/i��,,``-''''. take :+ t �d- qt' ds.East ..._ '� to/,,c„.4 ' d ltmmtry . F3tms Pat „r-`.. f .?T/. " oma 77`` Fact •P � e .is _ Cat+ "�giene� AP / ....Cr' t y .1..... KootCnal County r J r � . AWRY ' ^,Ok- e _ Opportunity • *' i r} ''iies � Ah s p• •tslul�r n Isr tt Coeur D'Alene Sp'franc Lake 1 Medical N Figure 3-1:Spokane River and the SVRP Aquifer Pk. City of Spokane Valley w 411>E i 1 t t l t t t l URS s 0 1 2 4 6 8 Mles Table 3-1 provides meteorological data from the weather station at the Spokane Airport for the 1/1/1890 to 12/31/2005 period of record. Spokane Valley is slightly wetter and warmer than at the airport,which is located on the high plateau west of Spokane. Table 3-1 SPOKANE WSO AIRPORT,WASHINGTON(457938) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg Max. 33.0 39.1 48.2 58.2 67.0 74.3 83.9 82.7 72.4 59.2 42.9 34.7 58.0 Temp. (F) _ Avg Min. 21.7 25.1 30.5 36.5 43.7 50.1 55.8 54.6 46.6 37.6 29.9 24.3 38.0 Temp. (F) Average Total 1.99 1.54 1.39 1.11 1.42 1.20 0.55 0.63 0.80 1.17 2.08 2.20 16.08 Precip. (in.) 10 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Land use within the basin includes mining in the upper reaches of the Coeur d'Alene River watershed; forest and related forestry practices along the St Joe River; agriculture and grazing activity throughout the region; and urbanization along much of the length of the Spokane River. The Spokane River has only a few tributaries. Streams that flow north or south into the Spokane Valley generally drain into the gravels that form the SVRP Sole Source Aquifer before reaching the river. The Spokane River corridor is developed with a variety of residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational land uses. The majority of the shoreline is easily accessible and dispersed use is relatively intense due to adjacent residential development and the Spokane River Centennial Trail (SRCT). Transportation and major utility corridors are generally located away from the river but both do cross the river at a number of locations. Large areas of the shoreline are publicly owned and managed, primarily by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. According to the Spokane County Conservation District's Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Assessment, prepared in 2005, the Spokane River is hydrologically stable. It is moderately to highly- entrenched,with little floodplain development. The shorelines of the Spokane River are characterized by small to medium-sized gravel banks with a few small sandy beaches. The Upper Spokane has moderate to well-vegetated river banks, containing a variety of native and non-native plant species. The PFC assessment generally rates the ecological condition of the Upper Spokane River as fair to good. Geology and Soils The geology of the Upper Spokane River study area is dominated by late Pleistocene glacial outburst flood gravels that comprise the Spokane Valley. The river flows in a shallow incised inner valley within the wider valley floor. These flood gravels constitute the matrix of the SVRP Aquifer. According to the NRCS soil maps,the majority of the soils within the shoreline jurisdiction are Garrison gravelly loam and Garrison very stony loam, similar to much of the rest of the valley soils. These are gravelly, medium texture somewhat excessively drained soils with a typical topsoil depth of between 0 and 15 inches. The ability to retain water is low ranging between 0.08 to 0.16 inches per inch of soil. The NRCS rates the stony loam as difficult to establish vegetation on with a fairly easy rating for the gravelly loam. Neither soil is considered highly erosive. Vegetation Within the shoreland area(200 feet from the river's edge)there are generally three distinct, linear bands of vegetation. These include a thin band of frequently wetted, willow-dominated shrubs and herbs along the immediate edge of the river. Above this is generally a strip of riparian shrub or forest habitat along the river banks. The dominant riparian trees are black cottonwood and ponderosa pine. The most common riparian shrubs include willows, serviceberry, black hawthorn, and common chokecherry. Above the river banks, the riparian vegetation generally transitions to a band of upland vegetation that is not distinct from vegetation beyond the shoreland areas. Upland areas generally consist of Ponderosa pine and Douglas fir with grasses and shrubs. Upland areas include remnant patches of the historic Rathdrum prairie, which is now characterized by bluegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, balsam root, buckwheat, and other native herbs. Much of the remnant prairie vegetation is heavily disturbed and the majority has been replaced by quackgrass,tall oatgrass, and/or spotted knapweed. 11 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Biological Resources All undeveloped shoreline habitat areas along the Spokane River in Spokane Valley are important to local fish and wildlife. The Spokane River and the non-developed areas adjacent to the shoreline provide open space and habitat for wildlife. Important wildlife communities found along the Spokane River include bats,neotropical birds, aquatic mammals and waterfowl according to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Wildlife observed during the Spokane County Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) study (SCCD 2005) included red-winged blackbirds, mallards, common mergansers, dipper, Canada geese, mourning doves, gold finch, magpies, red-tailed hawks, coyote, and beaver activity. Residents along the river have reported seeing bald eagles, osprey,pheasant,deer,moose,rabbits,beaver, mink, river otters, and many seasonal and year-round bird populations. Many of the wildlife populations appear to be declining according to undocumented resident sightings. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife publishes a Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) List. The PHS List is a catalog of habitats and species considered to be priorities for conservation and management. Priority species require protective measure for their survival due to their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational, commercial, or tribal importance. Priority species include State Endangered, threatened, Sensitive, and Candidate species; animal aggregations (e.g., heron colonies, bat colonies) considered vulnerable; and species of recreational, commercial, or tribal importance that are vulnerable. Priority habitats are habitat types or elements with unique or significant value to a diverse assemblage of species. A priority habitat may consist of a unique vegetation type(e.g., shrub-steppe) or dominant plant species )e.g., juniper savannah), a described successional stage (e.g., old-growth forest), or a specific habitat feature(e.g.,cliffs). There are 20 habitat types, 152 vertebrate species, 41 invertebrate species, and 10 species groups currently in the PHS List. These constitute about 17 percent of Washington's approximately 1,000 vertebrate species and a fraction of the state's invertebrate fauna. Regionally significant PHS mapping includes a variety of terrestrial and aquatic habitats and species. In Spokane County, this includes many different amphibians, songbirds, raptors, neotropical migrants, and mammals that are dependent upon shoreline or riparian/wetland habitats. Some of these species are on the current federal and/or state threatened,endangered,and sensitive species lists. Table 3-2: WDFW Priority Species Distribution in Spokane County Life Form Species Fish Kokanee Rainbow Trout/Steelhead/Inland Redband Trout Westslope Cutthroat Amphibian Columbia Spotted Frog Northern Leopard Frog Western Toad Birds American White Pelican Western grebe 12 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Life Form Species E WA breeding concentrations of Grebes,Cormorants E WA breeding:Terns Great Blue Heron Cavity-nesting ducks:Wood Duck,Barrow's Goldeneye,Common Goldeneye,Bufflehead,Hooded Tundra Swan Waterfowl Concentrations Bald Eagle Golden Eagle Merlin Northern Goshawk Peregrine Falcon Prairie Falcon Dusky Grouse Sandhill Crane Upland Sandpiper E WA breeding occurrences of:Phalaropes, Stilts and Avocets Yellow-billed Cuckoo Burrowing Owl Flammulated Owl Vaux's Swift Black-backed Woodpecker Lewis' Woodpecker Pileated Woodpecker White-headed Woodpecker Sage Thrasher Mammals Merriam's Shrew Preble's Shrew Roosting Concentrations of:Big-brown Bat,Myotis bats,Pallid Bat Townsend's Big-eared Bat White-tailed Jackrabbit Marten Wolverine Moose Northwest White-tailed Deer _ �_ 13 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Life Form Species Elk Rocky Mountain Mule Deer Invertebrates Giant Columbia River Limpet Great Columbia River Spire Snail California Floater Silver-bordered Fritillary The Spokane River contains fisheries and spawning areas that are important for maintaining and protecting unique or locally significant populations including interior redband trout, cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish. Other species found in the river include, brown trout, suckers, and smallmouth bass. The smallmouth bass have reportedly entered the river system from Coeur d'Alene Lake and are considered to be damaging the cold-water salmonid fishery. Spawning areas for redband were identified in the 2003 Avista studies at Sullivan Road and the SRCT Bridge. The gaining reach of the river below Sullivan Bridge is considered critically important for the survival of salmonids in the river system. Interior redband trout occur as both non-anadromous (resident) and anadromous(steelhead) forms(Small et al, 2007). Since the installation of dams on the Spokane River in the 1900s, the anadromous forms have been eliminated from the river system. In 2007 the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife performed genetic DNA testing to investigate the genetic structure of the resident rainbow trout population. This study was done to determine the influence of past fish stocking efforts on the native population. The genetic inventory showed little hybridization between hatchery (coastal origin, O. m. irideus) stocks of rainbow trout and redband trout in the Spokane River drainage indicating a virtually pure population of Columbia River redband trout in the Spokane River (Small et al. 2007). However, redband trout populations have been degraded by urbanization, which has resulted in increased stream temperatures, hydraulic modifications, and lowered dissolved oxygen. Additionally, it appears that peak flows are occurring earlier in the year and combined with reduction of flows at Post Falls Dam, an increase in stranding of the redds is occurring. Poaching and predation by smallmouth bass introduced from Lake Coeur d'Alene have also reduced populations as has the hydraulic regime of the river where flows needed for spawning can be reduced at the Avista Corporation's Post Falls dam to fill Lake Coeur d'Alene. For these reasons, interior redband trout have become a focal species within the Spokane River. Avista Corporation's new FERC operating license provides for higher minimum river flows and also establishes a regime for spawning flows. Additional fishery studies are underway and it is anticipated that adaptive management techniques will be used to protect the resident fisheries. Protection of core areas critical to native stock persistence and restoration of productive habitats will be necessary to ensure the full expression of phenotypic and genotypic diversity in interior redband trout(Thurow,et.al.2007) The "Baseline Study to Determine the Water Quality and the Primary and Secondary Producers of the Spokane River" was published in 1984 (DOE Publication 84-e06). This study provided baseline information prior to the construction of the Liberty Lake Treatment Plant. It does not appear that any formal work was done on algae and macroinvertebrate populations since. The study indicated that macroinvertebrate populations were dominated by insects of the orders of Ephemeroptera (mayfly), Trichoptera(caddisfly), and Diptera. The report noted that species diversity was low possibly as a result of high zinc concentrations in the river. Plant associations provide unique food and cover values for different species. The Upper Spokane River generally runs from east to west From Idaho to its confluence with Latah(Hangman)Creek. Because the south-facing river banks receive more afternoon sun,this results in different microclimates and associated 14 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 plant associations on each side of the river. Deciduous riparian communities are similar along the frequently flooded portions of both banks but,above this;the north side of the river tends to contain more dry-tolerant vegetation than the southern side. The south side of the river retains moisture somewhat better and vegetation is typically somewhat denser providing better cover for wildlife and birds. Some of the most beneficial riparian plant associations for a wide variety of fish and wildlife in the region include those containing: • Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides); •Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii); • Common chokecherry(Prunus virginiana); •Black cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa); • Common snowberry(Symphoricarpos albus); •Ponderosa pine(Pinus ponderosa); • Water birch(Betula occidentalis); • Saskatoon serviceberry(Amelanchier •Various willows(Salix spp.); alnifolia). Adjacent to the riparian corridor is the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie,which is characterized by xeric (dry-tolerant)bunchgrass grasslands with scattered shrubs. The prairie has been almost entirely converted from native to non-native vegetation. The meeting point of the riparian and prairie vegetation communities provides unique habitat for species that use the riparian corridor for cover, nesting, or roosting and the prairie habitat for hunting/foraging. Additionally, various plants benefit from the partial shade provided along the edge of the riparian corridor, which can result in a higher diversity of plants within the upland portions of the shoreline zone relative to surrounding upland areas. Water Quality Water quality in the Spokane River is a result of natural influences such as the aquifer interchange as well as upstream influences such as mining and logging, point source effluents, combined sewer overflows, and stormwater inputs associated with roads and urbanization activities. The Spokane River is on the State of Washington Impaired Waters list, or Federal 303(d) list, for total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and 2,3,7,8 TCDD(dioxin). These contaminant listings are limited to portions of the river below Kaiser Aluminum and both listings are associated with accumulation in fish tissue. Additional parameters included on the 305(b) list include temperature, pH, lead, and zinc. The primary stressors affecting regional water quality include: • Metals contamination from mining activities in the upper watershed; • PCB contamination from industry; • Municipal wastewater from upstream dischargers; • Non-point source contributions including septic tank effluent and urban stormwater runoff. The Spokane River also has issues with dissolved oxygen due to low summer flows in various reaches and excessive nutrients(phosphorus)within the river. Through collaboration with local governments, public interest groups,and NPEDS/Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality permit holders along the river,the Washington Department of Ecology has established a Water Quality Managed Implementation Plan for dissolved oxygen(2006). This plan concentrates on ways to reduce the amount of phosphorus concentrations in the river. The WRIA 55/57 instream flow work group is also collaborating on instream flow recommendations for the entire Spokane River. These recommendations will be based on recent studies,studies completed in 2004,and studies conducted in association with the Avista FERC re- licensing process(Ecology 2008). Metal Contamination Sediments in much of the Upper Spokane River are contaminated with metals from mining and milling activities in the Coeur d'Alene Basin. Spokane River sediments have high concentrations of arsenic(As), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn). Metal concentrations in the river water generally increase during high spring flows (USGS 1998). Metal contamination impacts public use of the river and its shorelines. The Washington Department of Health(WDOH)and the Spokane Regional Health District (SRHD)have issued an advisory to reduce recreational exposure to shoreline sediments along portions of 15 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 the River within the study area(Barker Road and Flora Road access points)due to the presence of arsenic and lead at concentrations that pose a human health risk. The Department of Ecology(Ecology)and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are involved in developing cleanup plans to establish formal public recreational access sites free of contamination. Future development of shoreline recreational access sites should be coordinated with ongoing efforts to remove or sequester contaminants so that neither public access,nor human or environmental health is compromised. PCB Contamination Sediments and fish tissue found within the study area contain PCBs. PCBs are a group of man-made chemicals historically used as insulating fluids or coolants and lubricants in transformers, capacitors, and other electrical equipment. They have also been used in hydraulic oils,fluorescent lights, inks,carbonless paper, and other uses. Manufacture of PCBs stopped in the U.S. in 1977 (Ecology 2005). There is currently an advisory issued by the WDOH and the SRHD to avoid consumption of fish in specific reaches of the Spokane River, including some within the City of Spokane valley due to elevated PCB levels. Ecology is in the process of cleaning up historical sources and developing a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) allocation for PCBs in the Spokane River. Kaiser Aluminum at Trentwood and the Industrial Park were historical sources of PCB contamination in the river. In 2006 capping of PCB sediments behind Upriver Dam,and cleanup of contaminated sediments at Donkey Island occurred. Municipal Wastewater Municipal discharges from Liberty Lake, Hayden, Post Falls, and Coeur d'Alene add nutrients and other pollutants to the river. The major impact to the river at this time is the phosphorous loading coming from both point and non-point sources. Phosphorous is the limiting nutrient in the river and promotes algae growth and low dissolved oxygen. Kaiser Aluminum and Inland Empire Paper also discharge to the Spokane River. Non-Point Sources Non-point sources impacting water quality include lawn maintenance and septic systems. There are efforts underway to promote decreased use of lawn fertilizers in order to reduce nutrients in urban runoff. The Spokane County sewering of Spokane Valley is almost complete with the Greenacres area scheduled to be sewered in 2010 and 2011. Urbanization results in increased impervious cover, resulting in increased stormwater runoff and generation of pollutants. Within the Spokane/Rathdrum Valley, stormwater runoff is typically discharged into bio-infiltration (208) swales and drywells and has little direct impact on the river or shoreline. Land Use,Transportation,and Utility Corridors Land Use,Urbanization,and Population Growth There is increasing interest in development along the shoreline and adjacent areas. Within the City, major developments recently constructed or proposed near the Spokane River include the development of residential housing upstream of the Barker Road Bridge (Riverwalk PUD); the Hanson Development and Centennial Properties land located between Flora and Sullivan Roads;Mirabeau Point;and Coyote Rocks. Other large areas along the shorelines that are undeveloped include the north bank upstream of Flora Road and almost the entire north bank downstream of Sullivan Road, including the Kaiser Aluminum property. Much of the immediate shoreline is owned by Washington State Parks with private ownership near the 200 foot shoreline boundary. Shoreline development has the potential to alter public open space,vegetation,and views,resulting in increased need for utility and transportation services and urban runoff. Transportation and Utilities Transportation and utility corridors are generally located away from the immediate shoreline. Exceptions to this include the AT&T communication line located in the SRCT right of way and a short segment of Union Pacific 16 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 track located on the shoreline downstream of Barker Road. Utilities and road and railroad bridges cross the river at various points within the study area. Transportation and utility corridors intersecting the shoreline area have impacts on the shoreline during construction,operation,and maintenance. As a result of traffic,roads and bridges generate noise and pollutants and require periodic maintenance;they also result in disruption of the natural environment. In an urban setting, with appropriate design and location, roads and bridges can provide a means to limit significant adverse environmental impacts while providing needed transportation and utility functions. Utilities located in the shoreline include water, sanitary sewer, storm drains, natural gas, and electric and other transmission and distribution lines. Recreation The majority of the Spokane River is easily accessible. Dispersed use is relatively intense due to adjacent residential development and the SRCT. Common recreational shoreline uses include jogging/walking and sightseeing, biking, picnicking, and swimming according to the Avista Recreation Facility Inventory and User Surveys Report, April 2004. Other common uses include angling, birding, and canoeing/kayaking. During warm weather the Spokane River from Harvard Road to Plante's Ferry is heavily used for float trips. The Barker Road Bridge is one of the most used Spokane River access point for float trips. According to discussions with local anglers,angling use of the river has decreased in recent years due to a reduction in fish populations. An exception to this is angling use below Sullivan Road is still quite high during the summer when cold water species migrate to this location. 3.3 Shelley Lake The following information has been acquired from the 2009 Saltese Flats Wetland Restoration project,the 1994 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the development, the Shelley Lake Homeowners Association (HOA), SCCD, WDFW, Spokane County, Ecology, local residents familiar with the lake's history and a site visit performed by URS in September 2009. Figure 3-2 shows the Shelley Lake area. -VIT 3i�q�:w g► j,1�3+c/��...oi�• ,3' °"."4: 1 xM2�- _ .'`=�.f- �i•-•-•---_-, _ f..i•_ .. - r-- • ,...1.4)50u,'' ..„..,-.4-iiigitil., ..AiLligh.r:.,...„. c.7,.....:-- cs___. 1F41.44, s, I t,;,,,•:.7, e ,, ;.,:,.. ) ,I 1 ti''..-1-1-, Pi:gilt:4 2,11 . fliaa.:54 MN •,,p1 ' //:-."Y.'t.i \,..., ------ •k t- ( _mem" Agifirr;T,% Ilr-miall-Minims p , ,...... .1.-C.:-L-- ,)1-1 4i; vz,e.T;',:•.,,::-f tgoli ligi=n td 1 i .• .1, 1 iii .1ktl:/ V 4 - , ."1- " i=j . 1 .-„..-S_4 , JliglitiMreAtl''cliirc r-•'' 1 11 • / 1 °lc t __ ,,I, 17., , I-.. .., • Is.1 ' ,,,,, . ..= art' .- stl i el. j _.r `;Y .� , 1pt % '* ti 1 -„ , ./ ,,CI �: 1' 1 . ._.T T r Y, - -4 j. i' J s.:, 't . ,t p r ; - •% 1. - Il S • � ib. -f Y i♦ lit, Lj- , -, �'�7" (----Th __ ,., ` ', . ', :y ,r'i' -..'4. ` �iy -,- ' : <ILli Legend ,� , i -IT - , ;_,MO Ir.�t. - /.,ri �`�. }. { •r..4,1 1 .-17 '.I \ .'.1r "' -` ',,fit ib SMA Boudary _ z N Figure 3-2:Shelley Lake Drainage Basin £3 Sattese Creek Watershed(HUC 12) • ,evy City of Spokane Valley IN ii GI Spokane Valley City Limits 1 s o s nae: 17 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Shelley Lake is a discharge point for surface water from the Saltese Flats drainage basin. The Saltese Flats drainage basin covers approximately 14,000 acres and includes Washington's Mica Peak and Saltese Flats (PBS&J, 2009). The entire drainage basin is within Washington State. Saltese Flats includes land that functions as a wetland and also land that was historically a lake/wetland system that has been drained and used for agriculture and ranching. Recent residential land development has occurred in the Saltese area. Drainage from Saltese Flats flows to Saltese Creek and then to Shelley Lake. Shelley Lake has no outlet and water in the lake evaporates and infiltrates into the SVRP aquifer. Water flow in Saltese Creek is seasonal and Shelley Lake's water level fluctuates approximate sixteen feet through the year. In 1948, heavy rains and melting snow caused flooding in Saltese Flats and Shelley Lake. Spokane County excavated an overflow path to the Steen Road gravel pit. At that time it was reported that the gravel pit discharged the water as fast as it flowed into it (PBS&J, 2009). This diversionary drainage channel remains to route springtime flood waters into the Steen Road gravel pit. Shelley Lake water levels had, until the past few years, been maintained during the summer by pumping from an onsite well. This practice has been discontinued due to water rights issues with the well(PBS&J,2009). Spokane County, as part of the work being done on the Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA)57 work, is evaluating restoration of wetlands within Saltese Flats. The primary intent of this work is to retain water in Saltese Flats and, by doing so, increase infiltration into the aquifer during the summer months. The evaluation includes using reclaimed water from the proposed Spokane County treatment plant and the Liberty Lake treatment plant to supplement the hydrological regime. Additional studies are planned, and if the county wetland restoration project is implemented Shelley Lake may have a different flow regime than it does now. 3.4 Gravel Pits Of the many gravel pit operations located within the City,two meet the definition of a surface water area of the State, per WAC 173-20, because they contain greater than 20 acres of open water. These include the Sullivan Road and Park Road Gravel Pits. The location of these gravel pits is shown on Figure 1-1. These pits are isolated excavations that have exposed the SVRP aquifer in the process of excavating gravel deposits. The shorelines have been created by industry and are not the result of natural regional processes. Regional influences are a combination of economic drivers (gravel needs) and the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie geological and soil characteristics described above. Both gravel pits included in the shoreline jurisdiction have approved reclamation plans that require slope stabilization, planting of vegetation and a final use as a wildlife habitat and conservation area. As reported by the Audubon Society the gravel pits are heavily used by waterfowl. 3.5 Regional Processes, Stressors and Opportunities for Improvement Per WAC 173-26-020-12, Ecosystem wide processes"...are the suite of naturally occurring physical and geologic processes of erosion, transport, delivery, and deposition; and specific chemical processes that shape landforms within a specific shoreline ecosystem and determine both the types of habitat and the associated ecological functions." Understanding what ecosystem wide processes are at play helps shoreline planners understand how shorelines function within the context of regional forces. The following table provides a summary of regional processes, including human-induced processes, which affect the functions provided by shorelines within the City. 18 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Table 3-3: Analysis of Ecosystem-Wide Processes _ Process(Applicable Issues Condition Stressors Recommendations Waters) (General) Erosion(Spokane River) Sediment/gravel Fair-erosion is largely High flows, Bioengineering to support fluvial (bedload)transport, diminished by HED flow HEDs,lack of processes that redirect river energy Impacts to controls and a stable gravel feeder away from areas where erosion infrastructure channel form„including bluffs could threaten public natural bank armoring. infrastructure. Plant vegetation on Erosion is limited to coarse,loose sediments on banks. specific locations. Low erosion has resulted in gravel&sediment "starved"reaches that are noted as a limiting factor affecting trout production. Flooding(Spokane Infrastructure and Good-flooding limited by Channel Restrict development in 100-year River) property damage natural lake outlet and confinement, floodplain. Increase flood storage due to inappropriate incised channel;rarely natural episodic where available to offset periodic development,water floods outside of existing rain-on-snow flood damage. quality channel events Solarization&Aquifer Warm water Poor in river above Low flows, Plant shade-producing vegetation Interchange(all waters) temperature is a Sullivan Road due to low losing river along bare shoreline areas. Focus factor in the reduced summer flows and being a reach to aquifer, on southern exposures that receive survival of juvenile "losing reach." Below areas of minimal more solar input. Work with native trout Sullivan Road is a riparian cover Avista to ensure proper water populations. "gaining reach"and river releases during summer months Warmer water also temps are colder due to supports the non- aquifer recharge. native smallmouth bass that compete All SMP waters,including with the native fish the river at the west end of in the river. town,provide unfrozen habitat for wintering waterfowl in most years. Vegetation Growth(all Habitat,visual Good(trees and shrubs) Non-native and Preserve high quality riparian waters) aesthetics, invasive weeds, forest corridors,restore forest in thermoregulation, Poor(herbs) development, gaps,Increase riparian buffer shoreline land conversion width where too thin,control stabilization, spread of non-native vegetation, nutrients,support support native vegetation for local plant restoration projects. 19 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Process(Applicable Issues Condition Stressors Recommendations Waters) (General) Water Quality Nutrient,sediment, Poor-303(d)-listed for Mining in upper Work with regional governments Degradation(All waters) and toxicant loading fecal coliform,DO, watershed, to forward watershed temperature,PCBs,and CSOs,point implementation plan. Includes zinc source pollution, control of stormwater,point source non-point pollution,and discouraging use of source pollution, products that contain elements stormwater harmful to water quality. Fish&Wildlife In-stream habitat Fish:Good habitat HEDs limiting Work with Avista to maintain migration,foraging,and quality,riparian structure but poor habitat fish migration minimum flow in Spokane River, rearing(all waters) buffer quality and condition due to high and disrupting allow woody debris in river,also widths,conflicting water temperatures and riparian see recommendations for water shoreline uses. low summer flows. corridors,lack quality,vegetation growth,and of LWD in solarization above. Lack of Wildlife:generally good streams,water connectivity with vegetation cover along quality, upland areas. shorelines allows development, east/west migration recreation through the City. Recreation(Spokane Fishing,boating, Fair-Good Limited Access, Provide parking and access to River,Shelley Lake) walking,biking,etc. HEDs, specific locations along the river incompatible with high recreation use, ecological goals encourage recreation that is (wildlife/fish sensitive to shoreline habitats habitat (discourage motorboats,atvs,etc.). protection priorities). Industrial development Tax revenue, Fair-limited to specific Conflicting Create a reserve of water- (Spokane River) employment industrial-zoned portions shoreline goals dependent industrial-zoned land to of the river and priorities support future growth. Place in (water quality, areas with least conflict to sensitive recreation and ecological habitats,public preservation/or enhancement. access,etc.) Residential Development Habitat losses Fair-Good:State park land Danger tree Ensure that activities authorized including loss of generally provides a removal,private within shorelands evaluate direct, open space,loss of buffer between residential boat ramps& indirect,and cumulative impacts to riparian vegetation, development and the docks,shoreline riparian and instream habitat. and loss of habitat river;however,in areas armoring,trails, connectivity where the park land is riparian impacts, Support WDFW's efforts to reduce absent,the shorelines are &poaching poaching on the Spokane River susceptible to habitat (out of season angling,illegal use degradation. of bait/barbs,and keeping"release only"fish). 20 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Process(Applicable Issues Condition Stressors I Recommendations Waters) (General) Instream Flows Maintaining Poor-summertime base HED flow Participate in Instream work sufficient flow flows are insufficient to controls, groups currently working to volumes to support maintain cool water Attempts to establish instream flows for the resident fish temperatures. Portions of maintain high Spokane River. The west end of a the river dry out during water elevations long,losing reach(where river the summer resulting in during summer water infiltrates into the aquifer fish passage barriers. for recreation resulting in lower river volume) and lakefront comes into the east end of the City. development on This area is a summertime fish Coeur D'Alene migration barrier that should Lake highlighted in the efforts to establish instream flows. 21 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 4.0 HISTORICAL ANALYSIS To the extent practicable,the historic conditions of shoreline areas in Spokane Valley were researched to provide the following summary information. Historic conditions relate to several aspects of shoreline management,from protecting historic resources to establishing restoration targets. 4.1 Spokane River Historic Flow Regime Prior to the construction of the Post Falls hydroelectric dam (BED) in 1906 on the Spokane River, river flows were controlled by the water levels in Coeur d'Alene Lake at the natural outlet in Coeur d'Alene. Modeling done by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. in June 2003, as part of Avista's hydroelectric dam relicensing effort,provided an estimate of the historic flow regime for the Spokane River. Modeling results indicate that the effect of the Post Falls BED on river discharge is minimal during the months of December to April. However, generally between mid June and mid September the lake is held at an artificially high elevation, reducing discharge from the Post Falls HED relative to historic flow conditions. According to the simulation, this has resulted in decreasing average monthly summer river flows, measured at the Post Falls USGS gauge by approximately 1,200 cfs. According to the model regulated flows measured at Post Falls are 2040 cfs and 680 cfs while unregulated flows are 3480 cfs and 1290 cfs for July and August, respectively. In the fall, flows increase over natural conditions by approximately 1,000 cfs due to drawdown of the lake. According to the studies done during the Avista FERC relicensing, the influence of current operations at the Post Falls BED on water quality is considered minimal. The modeling shows similar influences for the regulated and unregulated flows for temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH. A slightly higher river temperature is attributed mainly to increased temperatures in the lake for the current BED operations. (HDR, 2005 Spokane River Hydroelectric Project — Current Operations Water Quality Report). The current operation of the dam does have an impact on fisheries, mostly attributed to reduction of river flows during spawning during low snowpack years and for in-river river recreation, where the minimum flow for boating is considered 1350 cfs. Historic Vegetation Current plant associations along the banks of the Spokane River are predominantly native and are likely similar to historic vegetation conditions in the shrub and tree strata,minus the increased frequency of non native woody vegetation, such as box elder(Acer negundo), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia). The herbaceous stratum is the area most affected by settlement. The majority of the native herbaceous vegetation has been converted to non native and/or invasive herbaceous vegetation in both grassland areas and beneath forest/shrub canopies. The SVRP was presumably bunchgrass grassland during pre-settlement times, although its native vegetation is little studied and not well understood. The historic prairie is 5-15 miles wide and extends northeast from Spokane for approximately 50 miles. Nearly all of the historic prairie vegetation has been converted to agriculture, residential, or urban uses. One small remnant of native herb-rich SVRP grassland was found in 1990 during an endangered plant survey associated with a pipeline project(Taylor et al. 1990). This small remnant was used to estimate native vegetation of the SVRP by Lichthardt and Moseley(1997). Lichthardt and Moseley(1997) characterize the native SVRP plant association as Rough fescue(Festuca scabrella) and Idaho fescue (F. idahoensis) co-dominating a community that includes a high diversity of forbs. The SVRP is similar to the Palouse Prairie of northern Idaho. The prominence of F. scabrella is 22 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 one of the main differences between the SVRP and the Palouse Prairie. Also, shrubs appear to have been less c^mnlon in the SVRP than in the Palouse Prairie. Other characteristic plants found in the SVRP association include Koelaria(Koelaria cristata), sticky geranium(Geranium viscosissimum),and graceful cinquefoil(Potentillagracilis). Cultural Heritage and Settlement The 57-square mile Spokane Valley is a lowland plain that contains many cultural and historic sites. The aboriginal territory of the Upper Spokane and the Coeur d'Alene tribes included the Spokane River within the City of Spokane Valley. Tribal culture was deeply rooted in the river as it provided a bountiful source of food. The Spokane River once teemed with salmon and other native fish, while the riparian areas provided game, berries,and edible plants. The history of pioneer settlement in the Spokane Valley predates that of the City of Spokane. The first permanent settler in the Spokane Valley was Antoine Plante in 1849. The French Canadian trapper maintained a Hudson's Bay Company trading post near the Spokane River at what is now known as Plante's Ferry. The United States government commissioned Captain John Mullan to survey and construct a road in 1859. The Mullan Road was the most important road along the Spokane Valley shorelines providing access across the River at Plante's Ferry and then later at the community of Spokane Bridge, located near the Idaho State Iine. There is reference to Schneblys Bridge constructed in 1867 across the river that appears to have been located immediately downstream of the current Sullivan Road Bridge at the Daschenboeb cabin. Both are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Northern Pacific Railroad began laying tracks through the Spokane Valley in 1881. The first railroad bridge across the river near Trent was constructed in 1890. Remnants of the foundation remain. The International Portland Cement Company constructed the cement plant across from Plante's Ferry in 1910. According to the documentation, the cement plant covered much of the area with cement dust when in operation. The plant was shut down in the early 1970s. The agricultural history of Spokane Valley began in 1895 with the first attempts to supply irrigation from the nearby lakes. In 1899, the Spokane Valley Land and Water Company built a canal from Liberty Lake to irrigate the Greenacres area with water from Liberty Lake. The Spokane Canal company built a canal in 1905 to irrigate Otis Orchards with water from Newman Lake. Sometime between 1910 and 1925 the Spokane Valley Irrigation District constructed a canal to divert water from the river for irrigation near the state line. The Modern Irrigation and Land Company was the first to utilize the aquifer to irrigate the township of Opportunity in 1905. Within 20 years 30,000 acres of dry land had been converted to farmland. The population of the Spokane Valley increased from 1,000 in 1900 to nearly 10,000 in 1922 due to the availability of irrigated land. The Spokane Valley was chosen in 1942 as a site for an inland naval supply depot. The Naval Supply Depot opened in 1944 and is now the Spokane Industrial Park. The U.S. government also constructed an aluminum plant in Spokane Valley to support the war effort. The Trentwood Aluminum Rolling Mill opened in 1942 with 450 employees. The aluminum plant facilities included a pump station to provide river water for cooling, a wastewater treatment facility,and a river discharge. In the 1920s, Inland Empire Paper Company acquired most of the land along the river corridor from the Argonne Bridge to the Idaho state line. In 1979, Spokane County Parks proposed a bicycle/pedestrian pathway along the river. This idea was nurtured by the Parks and Recreation Committee of the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce in 1984 as they explored recreational opportunities along the river. In 1986, they proposed a 10-1/2 mile trail to be built in conjunction with the Washington Centennial in 23 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 1989. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission traded other Spokane County land holdings to Inland Empire Paper for their valley riverfront property. The Spokane River Centennial Trail (SRCT)was constructed on part of these properties. A review of the historic documentation indicates that shoreline use of the Spokane River did not play a large role in the development of the Spokane Valley. Transportation and utility systems did not need to follow the river corridor. Early land development is generally associated with irrigation from surrounding lakes and from the Spokane Valley Farms Canal that diverted water from the Spokane River at Post Falls, and later with pumping from the Spokane-Rathdrum Aquifer. Wastewater from residential developments were typically treated and disposed of by individual septic systems. Within the City of Spokane Valley limits the Industrial Park and Kaiser Aluminum discharged wastewater to the river starting in the 1940's. Wastewater from the Industrial Park is now conveyed to Spokane's wastewater treatment plant. Historic Shoreline Alterations The most significant affect on the Spokane River's flow regime was the construction of six hydroelectric dams (HEDs). The HEDs have had an effect on historical fish migration. The most upstream of the six dams is the Post Falls BED (River Mile [RM] 102). This BED is located in Idaho approximately nine miles downstream of the Spokane River source at Coeur d'Alene Lake. Downstream from the City of Spokane Valley is the City of Spokane's Upriver BED located at RM 80.2. Following this are Avista's Upper Falls HED (RM 74.2), Monroe Street HED (RM 74), Nine Mile HED (RM 58), and Long Lake HED (RM 34). The City of Spokane Valley is most affected by the Post Falls HED,which regulates flow into the City, and the Upriver BED, which creates slack water at the City's west end, in the Orchard Avenue area. The shorelines have also been altered by several bridge crossings, parks development, and industrial, residential, and commercial developments. Much of this development is outside of the immediate shoreline area but has altered the prairie adjacent to the shoreline. Bridges in the City include, from east to west, the Barker Road Bridge, Sullivan Road Bridge, the Union Pacific and the Burlington Northern railroad bridges, and Trent Avenue Bridge. Kaiser Aluminum has a water right for process water and a discharge under an NPDES permit. One of the larger recent impacts to the shoreline is the SRCT, providing a continuous paved recreation corridor through most of the City east of Millwood. The trail was constructed along existing primitive roads where they existed and through areas of relatively untouched upland and riparian vegetation where there were no roads. Approximately 30 acres of intact native plant associations, including intact patches of native Rathdrum Prairie were lost in the Spokane Valley for the construction of the trail. The SRCT has increased recreational activities along the shoreline but has introduced noxious weeds and areas of shoreline erosion. Downstream of Barker Road portions of the trail have been damaged by high water and have required shoreline alterations to minimize damage to the trail during high water events. Trail maintenance includes activities associated with shoreline erosion, occasional asphalt patching, and use of herbicides for weed control. Residential development has had an impact within the shoreline jurisdiction but only a fairly minor impact on the immediate shorelines, with the exception of the shoreline area west of Millwood. In this area the shoreline has been almost completely converted to residential landscaping, including docks and concrete bulkheads at the shoreline for some properties. Commercial development has mostly affected the shoreline areas near the Spokane Valley Mall with the construction of stormwater treatment basins within the shoreline jurisdiction just south of SRCT. 24 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 4.2 Shelley Lake Shelley Lake is named for John Francis Shelley, who homesteaded the area in 1881. In the late 1950's the Rice family purchased a portion of the property, including the lake. The property was used for cattle grazing and a meat packing operation. According to the 1994 EIS most of the native vegetation near the lake had been destroyed by cattle grazing and the water quality in the lake was poor. When the Rice family owned the lake ice skating and miniature hydroplane races occurred. The property was sold for residential development and in the 1990's the 1st Addition of Shelley Lake Estates, a single family residential development,was constructed. The 5th Addition is currently being constructed. Historic modifications made to the shorelines are difficult to determine since there is little information available on historical shoreline conditions. A 1914 photo contained in the History of the Spokane Valley by Florence Boutwell, 2003 shows a few buildings near the lake with very little shoreline vegetation. Recent modifications include residential development, the asphalt paved trail around the perimeter of the lake, and the culvert crossing for the trail at the inlet end of the lake. In addition to the shoreline modifications along the lake, a gravel access road and related fill material have been constructed along the west side of a wetland area around Saltese Creek near the confluence of the creek and the lake. The Shelley Lake HOA has been working to establish native vegetation around the perimeter of the lake with mixed success. High lake levels are controlled by a constructed channel located upstream of the lake that directs excess flows to the Steen Road pit. 4.3 Park Road and Sullivan Road Gravel Pits The Garrison series of soils that underlay the Spokane Valley are ideal for sand and gravel mining. There are a number of gravel pits in the Spokane Valley, some of which have reached the end of their extraction life. The Park Road and the Sullivan Road pits have both grown in area to the point of exceeding 20 acres and are now under SMP jurisdiction. Both gravel pits are currently owned by Central Pre-Mix. Much of the information contained in this section was provided by the mine operator permit application, reclamation/closure plan,and conversations with Central Pre-Mix. The exposure of the SVRP aquifer by mining activities brought the gravel pits under the jurisdiction of the Spokane County Shoreline Program's "Shoreline Management Act of 1971." This required that a substantial development and conditional use permit be obtained. Conditions of this permit require a Hydraulic Project Approval permit and a water quality standards modification permit. It also binds the owner to preservation of archaeological sites, and enforces the reclamation plan. Initially the pits were supposed to be backfilled with clean fill. In 1989 Ecology prohibited backfilling with anything other than clean and natural material. This led to a revision of reclamation plans. The reclamation plans now leave the pits as lakes and provides for plantings and irrigation to provide areas for wildlife and bird habitat. Based on information from the local chapter of the Audubon Society the vacated gravel pits provide superb habitat for a variety of water fowl. 25 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 5.0 LOCAL CHARACTERIZATION This section provides a detailed characterization of the land use, physical, biological, and ecological shoreline characteristics within the City. The primary sources of information for the following characterization include the Spokane County Proper Functioning Condition Stream Inventory & Assessment Report (SCCD 2005), Avista BED relicensing studies, direct observation by URS, consultation with state resource agencies,and input from the Technical Review Group. 5.1 Spokane River Detailed analysis was conducted for four separate study segments along the Spokane River through the City. However,the following information is relative to all portions of the Spokane River: Rare Plants The Washington Natural Heritage Program, which tracks the location and status of rare plants, has no current rare plant records within the City's shoreline areas. This was confirmed by a rare plant survey that was conducted through the City's shoreline areas in 2003 for the Avista Dam Relicensing studies, which found no rare plants documented in the City(Parametrix 2003a). Fish No federally-listed Threatened or Endangered fish species are present within the Spokane River. However, Red-band trout are a Washington State Priority Species (WDFW 2010) listed within the river system. The location of trout spawning areas (redds)varies by river reach but, in general trout spawn in clean, small to medium gravels at river margins and riffle crests. The Spokane River contains the following fish species: Rainbow trout, brown trout, cutthroat trout, northern pikeminnow, mountain whitefish, small-mouth bass, and large-scale sucker fish, Redside shiner, and sculpin species (SCCD 2005,Parametrix 2003b). The river channel is characterized by diverse channel morphology and different fish species exploit different habitats. Temperature and dissolved oxygen also strongly affect the distribution of different species in the river. Of local importance is the fact that the majority of redband trout captured during a stock status of redband trout in the upper Spokane River were found in the lower 5 km of the study area, which spanned from Idaho to Plante's Ferry Park. This is attributed to the cold water thermal refugia available within the City,generally west of Flora Road. Priority Habitats&Species Within the City, the entire Spokane River and adjacent riparian corridor are classified as "Riparian Habitat Area." See Section 3.2, Biological Resources for further information regarding the Priority Habitats&Species database. Critical Areas Within the City,the entire Spokane River corridor contains the following critical areas: • Fish habitat conservation area(within OHWM of river) • Riparian habitat areas(areas within up to 250 feet from the OHWM) • Critical aquifer recharge area(entire river segment) • Special flood hazard area(100-year floodplain) Soils The Garrison soil series is the dominant soil type throughout the river's shorelines within the City of Spokane Valley. This association occurs on both sides of the Spokane River throughout the City. The topography is nearly level to gently sloping. The Garrison soils are nearly black, are gravelly and medium textured, and are somewhat excessively drained. Garrison soil phases within the City include: Garrison very stony loam(0 to 20% slopes), and Garrison gravelly loam(0 to 5% slopes). Garrison very stony loam is reported by the NRCS as not being a good soil to establish vegetation in. 26 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 A portion of this river also contains the Riverwash soil series. This soil type is found in low-lying terraces along perennial and intermittent streams. It consists of gravel,cobbles, and stones with very little fines. Riverwash provides stream substrate and functions to limit channel migration. Cultural/Historic Resources The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) maintains a state- wide database of previously-recorded cultural resource sites, historic register properties, and completed inventories. The locations of the cultural resource sites (e.g., archaeological sites) are managed as restricted access information. The locations of historic register properties (e.g., buildings and structures listed on the state or national register)are non-restricted information. A records search was conducted at Olympia in July 2009, and updated via the online DAHP Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database, in November 2009. This restricted-access, searchable GIS database depicts locations of: previously- recorded archaeological sites, cultural resource surveys conducted after 1995,historic register properties, and cemeteries. Recorded sites are noted throughout the Spokane River Corridor within the City. The greatest density of recorded sites is located between the Sullivan Bridge and the SRCT Bridge in SR-2 and SR-3. However, the entire river corridor is considered to have a high probability for the presence of historic and cultural resources. Sediment Transport In part due to the Post Falls HED, the lack of tributaries, and the gravelly soils, the river is sediment starved east of the Trent Street Bridge. Sedimentation is reliant on active bank erosion, which is minor within the City due to the gravelly soils which provide a degree of natural armoring. West of the Trent Street Bridge the flow rate is greatly reduced by the hydraulic impoundment of the Upriver Dam,located just west of the City. Sediment carried downstream by rapid flows begins to settle out near the Trent Street Bridge. The river bed near the west end of the City is covered with a layer of fines that will continue to accrete. Vegetation and Wildlife Natural areas and north/south-oriented wildlife migration corridors including Beacon Hill,Plante's Ferry, and Antoine Peak exist east and west of the City. These areas provide some connection to the river for wildlife that resides to the north. Due to urbanization of the valley it has become more difficult for wildlife to move between natural areas. Within the City, migration corridors occur primarily west and east along the vegetated riparian corridor of the Spokane River. In conversations with WDFW, enhancement of the riparian corridor was noted as the best way to improve the ecological baseline. Improvement to the vegetated river corridor would provide cover and food for wildlife. URS and Mike Folsom, an independent consulting ecologist and professor at Eastern Washington University, conducted a detailed inventory of the existing plant associations within the City's shoreline areas to augment the near-shore work done by SCCD in 2005. Table 5-1 identifies the relationship of the observed plant associations with the fish and wildlife that use them. This table is referenced in the following subsections of this chapter to indicate potential wildlife use within the shoreline study areas. 27 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Table 5-1 Plant Association Use Anal sis Plant Association Plant Association Wildlife Use Analysis Abbreviation • PIPO/AMAL • Ponderosa pine/serviceberry • Fair food value for ungulates, good food value for upland birds and small (Pinus ponderosa/Amalanchier alnifolia) mammals • PIPO/CRDO • Ponderosa pine/black hawthorn • Fair-good cover value for all fish and wildlife (P.ponderosa/Crataegus douglasii) • Good shade potential, good shoreline stabilization, good source material for in- • PIPO/SAEX • Ponderosa pine/coyote willow stream wood. (P.ponderosa/Salix exigua) • Important habitat for upland birds • PIPO/JUOC • Ponderosa pine/western juniper(P. ponderosa/Juniperus occidentalis.) ▪ POBA/PRVI • Black cottonwood/common chokecherry • Poor-fair food value for ungulates,good food value for upland birds and small (Populus balsamifera/Prunus virginiana) mammals, • POBA/CRDO • Black cottonwood/black hawthorn • Good cover value for all fish and wildlife, (P. balsamifera/C. douglasil) . Good shade potential,good shoreline stabilization,good source material for in- • POBA/PREM • Black cottonwood/bitter cherry stream wood. (P. balsamifer/P. emarginata) • Strong invertebrate production; supports fisheries • POBA/Salix • Black cottonwood/willows(P. • Poor food value for ungulates and waterfowl,good food value for upland birds balsamifera/Salix spp.) and small mammals, • POBA • Black cottonwood(no understory) • Fair-good cover value for all fish and wildlife • Good shade potential,good shoreline stabilization,good source material for in- stream wood. Non-Native Grassland Non-native grassland with scattered • Poor-fair food value for ungulates,fair food value for neotropical songbirds, serviceberry and black hawthore. Dominant good food value for raptors,no food value for fish or waterfowl grasses are tall oatgrass(Arrhenatherum • Poor to no cover value for fish and macrofauna elatius) and/or quackrass(Agropyron repens) • Fair cover value for neotropical songbirds and small mammals • Good shoreline stabilization 78 City of C .ane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Plant Association Plant Association Wildlife Use Analysis Abbreviation Native bunchgrass Bluebunch wheatgrass(Pseudoroegneria • Poor-fair food value for native ungulates,fair food value for neotropical prairie spicata)and fescue(Festuca sp.)with songbirds, good food value for raptors,no food value for fish or waterfowl balsamroot(Balsamorhizza sp.)and • Poor to no cover value for fish and macrofauna buckwheat(Eriogonum sp.) • Fair cover value for neotropical songbirds and small mammals • Good shoreline stabilization • Remnant habitat important for protecting local heterogeneity in herbaceous stratum,which may have value to various bird species. SAEX Coyote Willow(Salix exigua) • Fair food value for native ungulates, good food value for upland birds and small mammals, fair food value for waterfowl • Fair to good cover value for ungulates, good cover value for upland birds, waterfowl,and small mammals • Good shoreline stabilization and buffer against erosive hydraulic forces • Moderate shade potential • PHLE/RHGL Mock orange-smooth sumac • Not reported in literature but likely to provide fair to good food value and fair to (Philadelphus Lewisii/Rhus glabra) good cover value for ungulates, small mammals,and upland birds • CRDO-AMAL- Black hawthorne, serviceberry,mallow nin- • Likely to provide poor to fair cover and food values for waterfowl and fish PHMA bark(Crataegus douglasii/A. • These shrub habitats correlate with areas of notably high songbird use during alnifolia/Physocarpus malvaceus) field surveys. The Audubon society noted these habitats as"high value bird habitat." Note:Estimates based on values for similar shrub species in Kovalchik, 2004. PSME/PREM Douglas fir/bitter cherry • Good food value for upland game birds,fair food value for native ungulates and (Pseudotsuga menziesii/Prunus emarginata) small mammals, and poor food value for waterfowl and small nongame birds. • Good cover value for ungulates, upland birds, and mammals • Poor cover value for waterfowl • Good shade potential,good shoreline stabilization,good source material for in- stream wood. 29 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Spokane River Study Segments The Spokane River was divided into four distinct study segments based on unique factors including surrounding land uses, ecological characteristics, aquifer characteristics (gaining vs. losing), hydraulics, and substrate characteristics. The unique characteristics within each study area provide the basis for assigning environmental designations that are used for planning purposes. Figure 5-1 below provides an overview of the four river segments. River segment 1 is contains primarily residential land uses and the river recharges the aquifer in this segment resulting in low summer flows, warmer water, and relatively rapid streamflow. River segment 2 contains commercial and primarily industrial land uses. At the confluence of Segments 1 and 2 the river becomes a gaining reach as the aquifer begins to flow back into the river resulting in deeper and cooler water. River segment 3 contains rapidly developing shoreline areas and open space. Stream flow becomes slower and deeper in Segment 3. River segment 4 is completely developed residential area. The river is a slow, deep slack water in this segment due to the Upriver HED. el f I. 4 i h''''• , ' -4.4 i 1 - ikAtitfii ----- ,, `i?j,..t - ' ' I 41-'. - J ' R �i , Segment 4 --S.E t ( � ire"°.'---qt,►S -J t r 1 a )-r 'Segment 3 . -1111.. -f..- 1 • ' 1 G. `. p. .04_Tack !l ' `int f �♦flail _ �_- - 1` ii _ w A U t ��Kp: =_- _ ;r. _'� —..a Segment 1 �r+ R_- v ~ � f� Segment 2 k f •-.Vts.. VJ �..11 -' j -tai— �WNW 1 y` •.,, M� �/t � . t 110- gq r 1°11.'4Y.1.01 �_ , fr 1 77 rl,i t 1 _ ,_Li...4' P - 114 11111i14 V'-e PPP' ig`i P - cii _ale -2.14-: -il 1 - 77 14_1 vim s ,... 110H ddg Legend L,„ ix:u�irmuMsluenIVimiImamma$:A L p.SMA Boundary fir,, vit , I-4 ig Mama , N Figure 5-1:Spokane River Study Segments Q City Limits 1 0 t 1' "1"<;)°- E City of Spokane Valley i• '1 `liii wmierat [ River Segments =", E gni s t 2 MiesURS I-._., . . { .^-.mi %nu •.�1,� 5.1.1 Spokane River Study Segment 1- Eastern City Limits to Flora Road Spokane River Study Segment 1 (SR-1) includes both sides of the River between the eastern city limits (RM 91.0) and Flora Road (RM 89.1) to the west. Segment 1 is approximately 1.9 miles long and includes a total area of 88.4 acres of shoreland area within the SMP jurisdiction. This portion of the river is characterized by low to medium density residential land uses, a losing aquifer, and relatively fast, shallow river flows. The stream bed is primarily composed of cobble and large gravels in long riffles with few pools. 30 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted�+ � by Resolution No. 10-014 °i __�. {_ +!.1.Iggeilcl ----.5'.--- _ Gslvr._a. _ '� :,r:substation •• .• - - i` •• + %\"---;►411[' • • eh ••• Austt 4.''r_.--.�`1 _L t�.\`f-:1••••Y.- tJ_. f 4� II ,� • J :1190• � '.�•a ..f• ° i ,' f/ /' ca • X .� t '4-L--11': 'ail , f J `` 1.�.T-- -1-_ �i° —• _ ,, , RW91: I)ittli -7~ ,tof j e`'` PI .� t: -_ Par *J 11 1 1/_ - e{.Mbnt•outer ° ! - y •�RW89'- - 2p17 it' ; �. t "` Nt r • Y : 9 p 4 Legend ..a - -_..._. • llt G ' 1 City Limits , • • ii i-�.SMA Boudary , S Jane Valley ..ire_� o -y • River Study Segment Boundary . • •° 1• ••• '" eIt 1 �,` iOrdinary High Water Line e • . • ••• ••:t .°•`i W- - �[ - F-1 SMA Parcels • N Figure 5-2 Spokane River Study Segment 1 , City of Spokane Valley Public Property (l w c 1r i "MS Streets N •. 0 . S 0 s00 1,000 Feet 5.1.1.1 SR-1 Land Use Summary The City Comprehensive Plan provides land use and zoning designations. The primary land use in this segment is Park/Open space. Much of the public land is owned and managed by the Washington State Parks Commission and includes open, undeveloped land primarily on the north bank and the SRCT along the south bank. Most of this land was acquired by the State from Inland Empire Paper when the SRCT was developed. The second largest land use is Low Density Residential. This river segment includes residential development both upstream and downstream of Barker Road. The north bank upstream of Barker Road includes manufactured home lots. The area immediately adjacent to the river is owned by State Parks. There is evidence that parts of the public shoreline have been altered by the homeowners in this development. On the south bank is the Riverwalk PUD development constructed in 1998. The River Rose Mobile Home Park is located on the north bank immediately downstream of the Barker Road Bridge. Some shoreline alteration has occurred to provide residents access to the river, however, the manager of the mobile home park has said that they have a policy to not allow improvements along river by the homeowners. Along the south side of the river is the Greenacres neighborhood. This area was originally platted into 1 and 2-acre lots in 1904 as the Greenacres Irrigation District. Subsequent development has increased the lot density and the current zoning along the river is now R-2 allowing for 10,000 square foot lots or 4.3 houses per acre. There is the potential for additional development in the Greenacres area. 31 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Tables 5-2 and 5-3 show the existing land use and zoning designations within this reach. Table 5-2: Land Use SR-1 Land Use Area Percent (acres) of Total Railroad ROW 2.4 2.7 Heavy Industrial 2.0 2.3 Low Density Residential 32.1 36.3 Park/Open 51.9 58.7 Table 5-3: Zoning SR-1 Zoning Area Percent (acres) of Total Railroad ROW 2.4 2.7 7 I-2 2.0 2.3 R-2(10,000 sf lots) 11.9 13.5 R4(6,000 sf lots) 20.2 22.8 _ Park/Open 51.9 58.7 Table 5-4 provides a summary of the built structures and impervious surfaces. This provides an estimate of the existing development intensity within this reach. Table 5-4: Built Environment SR-1 Features Area Percent (acres) of Total Rooftops 3.8 4.3 Pavement 2.3 2.6 Gravel Surfacing 3.1 3.5 Total Impervious 9.2 10.4 Recreational Use and Access Recreational use areas and access locations are shown on Figure 5 of the attached map portfolio (Appendix F). The SRCT is located along the south bank providing almost unlimited public access to the south shoreline. The SRCT provides a physical separation buffer between the Spokane River and adjacent residential land uses. The north bank is owned and managed by State Parks. Public land on the north bank is typically a fairly narrow strip between the OHWM and residential lots. Access and use of the public land on the north bank around the Barker Road Bridge is somewhat difficult since much of it is perceived as private property. Formal public access to the SRCT and the shorelines include the SRCT parking lot at Barker Road(south bank) and the Barker Road River Access(north bank). This is one of the most popular river access points on the Spokane River. Additional access points are provided in the Riverwalk development for residents and another public access is located on City property at Montgomery Street. A locked vehicle gate and unlocked man gate are present at Montgomery Street. This access has been designated as an official river access point during the construction of the Barker Road Bridge. Two signs with this designation have been posted along the shoreline for people using the river. Access consists of a graded slope, which allows authorized vehicles, including the launching of emergency vehicles, access to the shoreline. Another formal access point has been provided to the SRCT at Flora Road. This access point is paved from the end of Flora Road, providing handicapped access. There is no formal parking lot at this location,but vehicles do park along the road,away from the shoreline. 32 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 The land use is predominately residential along the south bank and many residences have developed informal paths leading to the SRCT. There are four formal access points(wooden steps) along the SRCT leading down the river. Downstream of the River Rose Mobile Home Park and the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, much of the property is owned by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). It is zoned heavy industrial and in the early 1990's portions were used to extract gravels for re-paving of I-90. This area appears to be the largest publicly owned property adjacent to the SMP boundary. Access to the north bank is generally from Flora Road. A network of old roads and informal trails exist in this area that is widely used by day hikers and anglers. Transportation The Barker Road Bridge crosses the river within this river segment. The Barker Road Bridge is being reconstructed at this time (2009-2010) and will provide vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. Parking on the bridge for boaters using the Barker Road River Access is planned. The SRCT discussed previously provides recreation and pedestrian and bicycle transportation between many parts of the City. The Union Pacific Railroad is located within the shoreline jurisdiction near the Greenacres Gypsum Plant. It is planned to relocate the Union Pacific tracks during the "Bridging the Valley"project away from the river sometime in the future. A private residential collector street within the River Rose Mobile Home Park lies within the shoreline jurisdiction. Shoreline Modifications The major shoreline modifications within the SR-1 shoreline jurisdiction include residential development, the Barker Road Bridge,the Union Pacific ROW fill,and the SRCT. Residential development has converted much of the upland prairie into housing and lawns. Many informal trail and access points have been created. Impervious surfaces, lawn care products, septic systems, and other activities associated with residential development provide input of pollutants into the river. Remnants of previous residents were noted during the field inventory along the south bank, typically as rock foundations and lilac bushes. A concrete pad with a corrugated metal pipe (CMP) standpipe was observed along the SRCT just downstream of Barker Road. Its use is unknown. The Barker Road Bridge is being replaced and is scheduled to be completed in 2010. The new bridge has reduced the number of bridge support piers in the river and the City, DNR, WDFW, and Ecology are working to develop cleanup and restoration plans for the immediate shorelines associated with the bridge construction. The SRCT is a 12-foot-wide asphalt pedestrian trail that was constructed through intact native vegetation and along an existing dirt road at various locations. The trail and associated development such as retaining walls replaced some of the native vegetation. Most retaining walls are rock gabions, except for a keystone retaining wall at the Barker Road SRCT access. Smaller wooden retaining walls have been erected along the SRCT, mostly for erosion control. Much of the trailside erosion appears to result from informal trails. The SRCT in this river segment has been flooded downstream of Barker Road Bridge and the river bank has eroded at approximately RM 89.5 causing damage to the trail. The Union Pacific railroad intersects the shoreline at RM 89.8. This area of the shoreline supports the railroad tracks and the dirt access road on what appears to be a fill area. Concrete foundations, likely associated with the railroad are located in this area between the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and the river. This area is noted as "Austin" on USGS maps. A remnant of historic railroad use on the northern/eastern shore is evident in crumbling concrete foundations near the Greenacres Gypsum plant. 33 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Utilities Overhead power lines cross the river immediately downstream of the Barker Road Bridge and at Flora Road. The Barker Road Bridge provides crossings for a water line, a sewer force main, and communication lines. An AT&T's fiber optics line is located under or alongside the SRCT. The buried fiber optics have utility vaults located in the trail throughout this river segment. An above ground appurtenance associated with the fiber optics line was noted along the shoreline immediately upstream of the Barker Road Bridge. Two culverts for stormwater were found under the SRCT. One is situated in the gulley on the north bank, just upstream of Barker Road. This culvert appears to no longer be active as a result of the development of Riverwalk. A second culvert is located downstream of Barker Road and allows for drainage to pass under an elevated portion of the SRCT. Most stormwater management within this river segment is allowed to infiltrate prior to reaching the river or sheet flows through open areas. Environmental The Department of Ecology has identified heavy metal contaminated areas on both banks of the Barker Road Bridge and at Flora Road on the south bank. The Flora Road site was remediated in 2009 by capping the contaminated sediments with clean fill. This project resulted in removal of vegetation and an expansion of the beach. At Barker Road, a fence around the upstream gulley on the south bank is planned to prevent access to the contaminated sediments. On the north bank removal and capping of contaminated sediments is planned. CulturaVArcheological Resources The Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database identified three known sites throughout SR-1. All three sites are located along the southern shoreline, likely due to the focused surveys that were conducted there for the SRCT project. None of the sites are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 5.1.1.2 SR-1 Physical and Biological Characterization The substrate in this segment is characterized by large cobbles with little sediment. Water depths range from approximately eight feet in the spring when the Post Falls HED is passing most of the flow to zero feet in the late summer when this segment becomes primarily exposed gravels with surface water limited to small pools and very shallow riffles. This segment includes a large meander at River Mile 90, which results in dissipated river flow energy. The meander also results in areas of erosion at the inside meander bend (RM 89.5), which is armored by large riprap. The area was further damaged due to the 2008 high spring flows. Segment 1 provides high quality visual resources to users of the SRCT along the south bank due to the presence of fairly continuous mature forest between the trail and the shoreline. This is augmented by the location of surrounding residences along the south bank, which are located above the trail and generally visually separated from the trail by a shrub zone buffer. Hydraulics and Water Quality Within SR-1, the channel is moderately to highly entrenched and highly sinuous with little to no floodplain development. The dominant bed materials are cobbles and boulders with little gravel or fine sediment material. Boulders and persistent willows along the river edge provide energy dissipation and shoreline stabilization. The current is generally swift and the channel is comprised of a series of rapids with shallow pools. Because of the dam upstream, the sediment supply is low unless the streambanks are eroding. The channel is vertically and laterally stable. Large woody debris is lacking, but rocks and intermixed vegetation are adequate to dissipate energy and protect banks. This reach is a Rosgen C3 stream type, which means that it has moderate sinuosity and a cobble-dominant substrate. 34 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Biological Resources and Vegetation Trout spawning surveys conducted by Parametrix in 2003 for the Avista relicensing effort documented no fish or spawning areas (redds) within this study segment. The identification of fish and redds within a mile to either direction of this stream segment indicates that the area is used for migration but not spawning. This may be due to lack of suitable spawning habitat at the river levels found during the spring spawning season. Fish surveys noted by SCCD in the 2005 PFC study indicated that brown trout, Chinook salmon, cutthroat trout, northern pikeminnow, and large-scale sucker fish are all likely to be present within River Segment 1. Wildlife noted within Segment 1 includes bats, raptors, several neotropical songbirds, aquatic mammals, waterfowl, and reptiles (SCCD 2005). Residents in the area have reported seeing bald eagle, osprey, pheasant, moose, coyotes, deer, rabbits, beaver, mink, and river otter. No raptor nest sites were observed within this river segment. The Audubon Society has reported that this area provides some of the best habitat for birds along the river due to its relatively continuous vegetation and the large fields that exist adjacent to the river. The following plant associations were observed within SR-1 (see Table 5-1 for reference): Table 5-5: Habitat Analysis SR-1 Plant Association Area Percent (acres) of Total Developed/Landscaped 25.84 23% Non-native Grassland 15.61 14% Ponderosa pine/serviceberry 30.58 27% Ponderosa pine/black hawthorne 19.82 17% Black cottonwood/ serviceberry 0.46 <1% Black cottonwood/ black hawthorne 6.78 6% Coyote willow 15.51 14% Based on Table 5-5 above, the dominant forest cover within SR-1 is a mixture of ponderosa pine forest communities. These communities are generally unfragmented, long stands that are mature in age with multiple age classes present within a given stand. Based on Table 5-1, these plant associations provide foraging and cover for most of the fish and wildlife present within the river corridor. A fairly continuous narrow band of ponderosa pine/serviceberry forest is present between the SRCT and the shoreline on the south side of the river. This band of vegetation provides a high quality functional corridor for wildlife as well as shade for aquatic habitat. Additional cover is provided along the northern shoreline within park property to the west of the River Rose mobile home park. These stands are located within State Park ownership and, therefore, likely to be conserved. The vegetation inventory included as Appendix C found that though there was a high degree of variability between sample plots, native vegetation cover within SR-1 averaged 35%in the flooded zone, 71%in the riparian zone,and 67%in the upland zone. Areas south of the SRCT are dominated by non-native grasslands with scattered hawthome and serviceberry shrubs. These areas are generally in a degraded condition due to off-road vehicle use, multiple pedestrian access trails, and the ubiquitous presence of spotted knapweed and everlasting pea (Lathyrus latifolia). Along the north shore, the vegetation has been highly altered by landscaping and includes many ornamental plants. _ _ _ 35 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 5.1.1.3 SR-1 Ecological Condition,Stressors, and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation The following ecological baseline will be used to measure changes over time as the City works to achieve the"no net loss of shoreline ecological functions"goal(per WAC 173-26-186(8)). Ecological Baseline This river study segment spans three river reaches classified by SCCD in the 2005 PFC study. Reach 3 begins east of the City and terminates at RM 90.3, where the river bends to the north. SCCD Reach 4 continues downstream around the river bend to RM 89.4. From there, SCCD Reach 5 continues into the next downstream River Study Segment (SR-2). All three SCCD reaches were rated as being in Proper Functioning Condition. SCCD Reach 3 was rated as being in "good" ecological condition, while SCCD Reach 4 was rated as "fair" and SCCD Reach 5 was rated as "fair to good." The good ecological rating for Reach 3 appears to be due to factors located east of the City near the Harvard Road Bridge so Segment 1 is best described as being in fair ecological condition. High Quality Conservation Areas The 2005 PFC study noted high quality areas along approximately half of the southern shoreline through this study segment. The high quality determination was based upon the presence of mixed cottonwood and ponderosa pine forests over '/2-acre in area. These high-quality areas are generally located within park land are expected to remain in conservation status in perpetuity. Degraded Areas and Opportunities for Restoration Due to the extensive areas of mature riparian forest along the southern banks of this study segment, restoration potential was rated as"low"by the 2005 PFC study. Residential development along the south banks of the river is generally located above and away from the riparian vegetation. This buffer should be maintained by setbacks to avoid future development pressure. To the east of Barker Road along the southern shoreline, the area between the SRCT and residential development to the south is owned and managed by the Riverwalk Development LLC. This area is characterized by grassy slopes dominated by non-native herbaceous vegetation and sporadic native shrubs that provide good bird habitat. This area includes several uncontrolled access trails and would benefit from native herbaceous and shrub plantings as well as controlled access to discourage damage from foot traffic. Manufactured home courts flank the northern banks of the river on both sides of Barker Road. Within these areas, several homes are located within SMA jurisdiction. A thin parcel of public park land separates these homes from the edge of the river. Due to the proximity of the homes to the river,there is occasional landscaping found on the state park property. This area has little opportunity for shoreline restoration or conservation with the exception of limiting landscaping within the public shoreline areas to preserve native habitat. Between the northern apex of the river's meander bend and Flora Road to the west, there is a large undeveloped area along the northern banks of the river. This area contains a thin, discontinuous band of mature riparian vegetation on steep slopes above the river. Above this band of riparian vegetation, the habitat is degraded by a dirt road with several spur roads. The vegetation around the road is a mixture of early seral ponderosa pine saplings and non-native herbaceous upland grasses and knapweeds with a few small patches of native vegetation intermixed. This area would benefit from additional shoreline stabilization plantings on the steep slopes as well as native upland plantings in cleared areas and thinning of the existing pine saplings to provide cover,a functional migration corridor,and to prevent the spread of invasive vegetation. 36 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No.10-014 Recommendations Table 5-6 is a summary of ecological issues relevant to the selection of an appropriate shoreline designation and to the goal of achieving the goal of no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Table 5-6: Summary of Ecological Issues SR-1 Ecological Issues Local Stressors Recommendations Woody Cover SRCT,camping,residential Conserve/protect existing forest areas. development Large river meander, Incorporate bioengineering concepts into Erosion seasonally high flow rates maintenance of affected shoreline areas for visual and ecological benefits. Non-native herbaceous cover Encourage landscaping with native plants. Invasive vegetation Control spread of knapweed. Support native herbaceous restoration projects. Small-mouth bass are Work with WDFW,Trout Unlimited, SCCD, Non-native fish outcompeting native trout due and Avista as habitat protection plans are to warm water tolerance. developed. Low water discharge during Work with Avista and regional governments to summer from Post Falls HED. ensure that adequate flows are maintained Water Temperature Hydraulics naturally through summer months. Create pools in discharging to aquifer. shaded areas near southern shoreline to provide trout refuge during low flows. Barker Road Clean up area/ Ensure that clean up efforts are monitored and Contamination heavy metals contamination. that replaced bed/shoreline materials are appropriate size for the local hydrologic regime and public use. Development potential along Create setbacks that would limit future southern shoreline redevelopment near existing riparian zone. Land Use Conflicts Control landscaping in public lands along the north shoreline area. Place signs prohibiting shoreline alterations on public lands. 37 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 5.1.2 Spokane River Study Segment 2 - Flora Road to Trent Avenue Spokane River Study Segment 2 (SR-2) includes both sides of the River between Flora Road (RM 89.1) to the east and Trent Street (RM 85.3) to the west. Segment 2 is approximately 3.7 miles long and includes a total area of 178 acres of shoreland within the SMP jurisdiction. This portion of the river is characterized by commercial& industrial land uses beyond an inner band of State Park land that contains a fairly continuous riparian vegetation corridor. The lack of residential presence in SR-2 results in large open tracts of continuous grassland habitat above the river banks. The aquifer discharges to the river at the east end of SR-2. This results in cooler,deeper water relative to SR-1. ayes r: //, i ¢ .+0 '. wit. _ '. !.:! Y• .. M^- ( . _ ' } tit --- w t_.—y . � .. `1is..z3 Wa N tan► I Or�- z,,�-�-� - -�^-�.- SV(`'/ _ ft, . •q.+Ar..-i:::1-,'-.;/'-:::.: . ,, ....r _ _ srElt •�' tt f' - .aj.......-%• i�.f .a k:_ ea r . Mirabeau_ .RM186 ch `' a)- + _y'v i 1 It 1 T,117"71,r14gI %, it_ �+._ _ .Euclid t .�. -t M abe l P ,, _ "4`_;m,,,.... �.ar.< t' `1 Park • •• r _4__:i 4 ‘ 1 x o. INLAND EMRIR —•`-----L-'4'''--/--5 sl�.-� I Legend _.... , . }--[ ----'''NIS"'N.:, (Sufi.4, ,:\�� t.:. -- ;, '• ••... City Limits "`� L- SMA Boudary '°F{ - RM 8,, _ Rpt —River Study Segment Boundary ' -wse -, --- _-_:_1.771:---...:-_- _ 1 Ordinary High Water Line 1..- - -`'; Oliva*„ (�SMA Parcels ..1:' ,y " Figure 5-3 Spokane River Study Segment 2 } City of Spokane Valley Public Property _ W e URS Streets in it) _ s I 1. 000 1 00 Fant 5.12.1 SR-2 Land Use Summary The City Comprehensive Plan shows that the land use within this river segment is composed of: Parks/Open Space, Heavy Industrial, Low Density Residential, Mixed Use, and Regional Commercial, The largest use is for Parks/Open Space. The next largest use is heavy industrial, much of which is associated with the Kaiser Trentwood Aluminum Plant. The Regional Commercial designation is associated with the Spokane Valley Mall. Mixed use areas include the area between Mission Avenue and Sullivan Road and the Mirabeau Point area. The mixed use areas are only partial developed and additional development is anticipated. _ ___ 38 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Tables 5-7 and 5-8 show the land use and zoning within this reach. Table 5-7: Land Use SR-2 Land Use Area Percent (acres) of Total Railroad ROW 2.4 1.4 Heavy Industrial 29.9 16.9 Low Density Residential 3.2 1.8 Mixed Use 11.3 6.4 Parks/Open Space 123 69.6 Regional Commercial 7.0 3.9 Table 5-8: Zoning SR-2 Zoning Area Percent (acres) of Total Railroad ROW 2.4 1.4 Heavy Industrial(I-2) 29.9 16.9 Mixed Use Center(MUC) 11.3 6.4 Parks/Open Space 123 69.6 R-2(10,000 sf lots) 1.6 0.9 R-3 (7,500 sf lots) 1.6 0.9 Regional Commercial(RC) 7.0 3.9 Table 5-9 provides a summary of the built structures and impervious surfaces. This provides an estimate of the existing development intensity within this reach. Table 5-9: Built Environment SR-2 Features Area Percent (acres) of Total Rooftops 0.3 0.2 Pavement 5.4 3.0 Gravel Surfacing 4.3 2.4 Total Impervious 10.0 5.6 Recreational Use and Access Land use within the shoreline jurisdiction in this river segment is mostly Parks/Open Space with Heavy Industrial between Kaiser and the Trent Avenue Bridge. There are two parks within this river segment, Sullivan Road Park and Mirabeau Point Park. Both provide access to the SRCT and to the river. The SRCT is located on the south bank and provides almost unlimited access along the river. The shoreline jurisdiction along the north side of the river is generally State Park land. Access to this area is from Flora Road (both sides of the river), Mission Avenue (south bank), a river takeout just upstream of the Sullivan Bridge (north bank), Sullivan Park and at the Trent Road Bridge. Except for Sullivan Park,all access points are informal. There are many trail and old dirt roads that are used for hiking in this area. Sullivan Park is located on the west side of Sullivan Road on the north side of the river. The park includes a paved parking lot, picnicking facilities, and a gazebo overlooking the Spokane River. A network of trails extends downriver from the park to Kaiser's fence line. These trails are near the 39 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 OHWM and provide informal access to the Spokane River. Sullivan Park is heavily used for boater access. The banks have been heavily disturbed by users entering and leaving the river in this area. Mirabeau Point Park, the former Walk in the Wild Zoo, provides access to the SRCT and the river. Footpaths lead from the SRCT to the granite rock outcrop. This rock formation is a popular day use recreation spot. Forest Service style fire pit was observed in the trees to the south of the outcropping. Another Forest Service style fire pit was found off of the SRCT upstream of the Sullivan Road Bridge. Kaiser's intake pumping plant is located on the opposite bank and the river channel is deep at this location. An older access point that was closed in the early 1990's is located upstream of Sullivan Road at RM 88.5 on the north bank. A dirt access road leads to this area from Sullivan Road. The Spokane Canoe and Kayak Club(SCKC)is developing a proposal to reopen this access. Reopening this access would provide better access than currently exists to Sullivan Hole,which is the most widely used kayak play spot on the river. The terminus of Mission Avenue is another popular access for the SRCT and the river. Currently it is heavily used by boaters to access the Sullivan Hole play spot. The SRCT can also be accessed from the Spokane Valley Mall and several access points are located leading from parking lots on the north side of Indiana Street. ADA compliant access has been provided at the Sullivan Road Bridge. The section of river between the Flora Road and Mirabeau Point Park provides many locations for swimming, boating, and angling in the Spokane River. There are many locations within this section of the river that have sandy beaches. Informal footpaths are present between the SRCT and the beaches. The river bank becomes steeper in the section between Mirabeau Park and the Trent Road Bridge limiting access. The SRCT tends to stay along the top of the slope through this section, and there are only a few informal access points to the river. This has protected the vegetation in this area. Transportation Four bridges cross the Spokane River within this river segment. These are the Sullivan Road Bridge,the Union Pacific Railroad bridge, and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad bridge, located immediately upstream of the Trent Avenue Bridge. The BNSF Railroad has access roads that are within the shoreline jurisdiction. These roads provide access to both the BNSF Railroad Bridge and the Yellowstone Pipeline. A section of the Flora Pit Road is also within the shoreline jurisdiction. Shoreline Modifications Shoreline modifications in this river segment are typically associated with the four bridges, the Kaiser property, and the SRCT. There are remnants of past shoreline modifications and uses along the SRCT in this river segment. Old mill stones from the Inland Paper Company have been placed along the SRCT where it crosses under the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge. A roof has been constructed under the bridge to protect users of the trail. There are a series of concrete piers next to the SRCT between Mirabeau Point and the Sullivan Road Bridge. One pier is located directly across the river from an old brick manhole on the northern shore. Three more concrete piers are located a couple hundred feet downstream. Kaiser's modifications to the shoreline are mainly associated with the withdrawal and discharge of process water. Kaiser maintains and operates a river pumping station. This facility is equipped with three pumps and is located on the water's edge directly across from the rock outcropping at Mirabeau Point. Kaiser has also recently completed restoration of the shoreline at the location of its discharge pipe. Restoration included remediation of contaminated soils, revegetation, and slope stabilization of the drainage channel where the discharge pipe is located. A rock wall was also constructed near the OHWM, parallel to the river,at the base of this draw. 40 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Shoreline modifications associated with the SRCT are paving and retaining walls. The majority of these retaining walls in this segment are wood structures, erected for erosion control at the many informal river access points. The SRCT is supported by a retaining wall where it goes underneath the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge. Shoreline modifications associated with the river crossings are chiefly the bridge piers and retaining walls on the river bank. There are three remaining piers from an old bridge. This bridge was situated between the present Trent Avenue Bridge and the BNSF Railroad Bridge. Two of these piers are at the water's edge and the third sits atop the bluff on the east side of the Spokane River. There is also the remains of a dirt road,which extends to the water's edge on the north east corner of the Sullivan Road Bridge Utilities There are remnants of and current utilities present throughout this segment. These utilities are situated parallel and perpendicular to the Spokane River. Buried fiber optics and utility vaults are situated along the SRCT. The Yellowstone gas line crosses the river between the Trent Avenue Bridge and the BNSF Railroad Bridge. Two drinking fountains are found along the SRCT. All utilities cross the river on bridges. A 24-inch cased sewer line crosses the river under the Sullivan Road Bridge. The sewer line goes under the SRCT at the south end of the bridge. The fencing around the sewer line on the north side blocks pedestrian access underneath the bridge. The BNSF Railroad Bridge has a six-inch casing attached to its south side. It is not known what utility type this is. The Trent Avenue Bridge has three four-inch casings and a six-inch casing attached under the south side, as well as an eight-inch casing under the eastbound lane. A 12-inch casing extends a quarter of the span from west to east under the west bound lanes. Overhead power crosses the Spokane River in four places within this river segment. There are two crossings immediately upstream of the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge. Power lines cross the river between the Trent Avenue Bridge and the BNSF Railroad Bridge, and another crossing is located just downstream of the Trent Avenue Bridge. Two bioswales providing stormwater treatment for the Spokane Valley Mall are located within the shoreline jurisdiction. The eastern swale has four drywells and no dry wells were observed in the western swale. Note that the western swale is equipped with an irrigation system. An outfall structure is present along the upstream side of the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge on the north bank. This outfall consists of a suspended iron pipe, which disappears into a CMP standpipe near the OHWM. The pipe reemerges in the river channel below the water line. The structure appears to be abandoned, its use is unknown. A brick manhole was observed on the north bank downstream of the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge. This structure is approximately six feet in height and appears to have been part of the abandoned Industrial Park Treatment plant. The discharge pipe was not located. On the Kaiser Aluminum property an old drainage channel was located. An outlet structure consisting of a 30-inch culvert and a broad crested weir was contained within the channel. The culvert extends to the water's edge. The channel and drainage structures appear to be abandoned. However, a minor amount of flow was observed discharging to the river from the culvert. A ten-inch culvert was observed on the west side of Kaiser's pump house. A drywell inlet was also noted in the concrete to the west side of the pump house near this culvert. Kaiser's treatment pond is located just outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. Several monitoring wells were observed between the effluent pond and the Spokane River. The outfall is located in a drainage channel west of the effluent pond. The outfall extends under water to mid channel. An effluent irrigation 41 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 vault is located on the south side of the outfall. This vault is used to irrigate the new vegetation of the drainage channel. The only drainage structures along the SRCT occur between the BNSF Railroad Bridge and the Trent Avenue Bridge. The retaining wall at the west end of the BNSF Railroad Bridge has a drainage system built behind it. This drainage system discharges to the SRCT where it sheet flows across and to the river. A catch basin has been installed in the SRCT where an old road intersects the trail from the BNSF Railroad right of way. The catch basin has been installed to intercept drainage from this road. A culvert extends from the catch basin and discharges onto a steep slope to the river. Environmental Portions of the Kaiser Property and the industrial areas downstream of Sullivan Bridge are noted as having contaminated soils per Ecology records. Cultural/Archeological Resources The WISSARD database identified more than 10 known sites throughout SR-2. None of the sites are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 5.1.2.2 SR-2 Physical and Biological Characterization The river substrate in this segment is characterized by large cobbles and boulders with little sediment accretion. The channel in SR-2 is moderately sinuous and moderately to highly entrenched with little active floodplain beyond the OHWM. An exception to this was noted along the northern shoreline, south of Kaiser Aluminum. Hydraulics and Water Quality The current in SR-2 is generally swift. The channel morphology is dominated by long rapids but SR-2 contains more and deeper pools that were observed in SR-1. Boulders line the river edge and are uniquely abundant along the northern shoreline south of Kaiser Aluminum. These boulders provide a great deal of energy dissipation and shoreline stabilization. The channel gradient is both vertically and laterally stable. Large woody debris is lacking, but the boulders along the shoreline diminish hydraulic shear stress sufficient to protect banks. Biological Resources and Vegetation Rainbow trout spawning surveys conducted by Parametrix in 2003 for the Avista relicensing effort documented radio-tagged trout and spawning areas (redds)within this study segment. Due to the aquifer discharging cool water into the stream, SR-2 provides important cold water refugia for fish downstream of Sullivan Road Bridge. Seven redds were documented around Sullivan Bridge (RM 87.2) during the 2003 surveys. Wildlife noted within SR-2 during fieldwork associated with the 2005 PFC study includes Canada geese, mourning doves, chipmunks,magpies,red-tailed hawk,red-winged blackbird, as well as beaver activity, which was indicated by girdled cottonwoods. (SCCD 2005). In addition, an employee of Kaiser Aluminum found elk within the gated water intake facility more than once. Other than the fence around the water intake facility, SR-2 contains a fairly continuous narrow band of riparian forest or shrub habitat along both banks of the river,which provides a functioning wildlife corridor for species requiring cover. A unique community of mature western juniper(Juniperus occidentalis)was located on the right bank of the Spokane River at RM 86.9, intermixed with ponderosa pine and black cottonwood. This was the only community of juniper in a riparian area noted for the entire county in the PFC Study(SCCD 2005). Due to the mature tree forms, they provide important habitat for cavity-nesting birds. In addition, the 42 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Washington Natural Heritage Program maps unique/uncommon ponderosa pine plant associations along the upper periphery of the shoreline area through the Mirabeau Point Park. The following plant associations were observed within SR-2(plant codes reference Table 5-1): Table 5-10: Habitat Analysis SR-10 Plant Association Area Percent , (acres) of Total Developed/Landscaped 8.86 4% Native Bunchgrass Prairie 1.55 1% Non-native Grassland 53.26 25% Mock orange/smooth sumac 2.38 1% Ponderosa pine/serviceberry 106.06 49% Ponderosa pine/ black hawthorne 10.14 5% Ponderosa pine/ western juniper 3.48 2% Ponderosa pine/ mallow nine-bark 6.24 3% _ Black cottonwood 0.51 0% Black cottonwood/ serviceberry 7.03 3% Black cottonwood/ common chokecherry 7.50 3% Black cottonwood/ coyote willow 0.09 0% 1 Coyote willow 10.01 5% Based on Table 5-10, the dominant forest cover within SR-2 is a ponderosa pine/serviceberry community. This community is generally located along the southern shoreline in long, often fragmented stands, occasionally with multiple age classes present within a given stand. Stands are generally fragmented by clearings associated with camping or historic shoreline disturbance. A very narrow band of alternating black cottonwood and ponderosa pine forests are present along the northern shoreline. This corridor is thin but fairly continuous between Trent and the Kaiser Plant. East of the Kaiser plant the riparian corridor is very thin and occasionally absent. Based on Table 5-1, forest habitat along the southern shoreline is Iikely to provide important foraging and cover functions for most of the fish and wildlife present within the river corridor. The cottonwood forests along the northern shoreline provide slope stabilization, insect production for birds and fish, and a thin/inadequate corridor for migratory wildlife. The vegetation inventory included as Appendix C found that,though there was a high degree of variability between sample plots,native vegetation cover within SR-2 averaged 33% in the flooded zone, 57%in the riparian zone,and 65%in the upland zone. The large extent and continuous nature of the plant associations present within SR-2 indicate that this river segment provides a relatively important,functional migration corridor for wildlife. Additionally,the presence of snags and mature trees, including junipers, adjacent to the large prairie areas along the northern shoreline provide important hunting and foraging habitat for raptors. This use is augmented by the relatively low human presence relative to the southern shoreline. 43 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 5.1.2.3 SR-2 Ecological Condition, Stressors, and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation The following characterization of baseline ecological conditions is based on the Proper Functioning Condition Study conducted by SCCD in 2005. This ecological baseline will be used to measure changes over time as the City works to achieve the No Net Loss of Ecological Functions goal (per WAC 173-26- 186(8)). Ecological Baseline This river study segment spans portions of two relatively similar river reaches classified by SCCD in the 2005 PFC study(Figure 5-2). SCCD Reach 5 begins just east of Flora Road and continues downstream to the Mirabeau Point Park,near the water intake facility for Kaiser Aluminum. SCCD Reach 6 continues from this point downstream into URS river study segment 3. Both reaches were rated as being in Proper Functioning Condition. Reach 5 was rated as being in "fair-good" ecological condition, which Reach 6 was rated as "poor-fair" ecological condition, a rating that does not correlate well with the determination of"high quality area"throughout this reach. High Quality Conservation Areas The entire portion of riparian vegetation with SR-2 was noted as high quality shoreline in the PFC study (SCCD 2005). The high quality determination was based upon large, intact areas of cottonwoods, ponderosa pine,willow, serviceberry,chokecherry,recreational floating,and rainbow trout spawning. Degraded Areas and Opportunities for Restoration The 2005 PFC study ranked restoration potential as "low" for most of the SR-2, despite noting that "The majority of this reach lacks adequate riparian vegetation due to development and parks,particularly on the right[north] bank"(SCCD 2005). . URS observed degraded areas along both banks that would provide opportunities for enhancement of the riparian corridor. Along the south bank several small gaps within the woody riparian vegetation corridor were observed due to human disturbance. These areas also generally correlate with a high density of non- native/invasive vegetation. The disturbances appear to be recreational in nature and are associated with off-road vehicle use,camping,and gathering locations. Large riparian corridor gaps exist along the northern shoreline as a function of steep slopes and xeric soil conditions. Above the areas influenced by groundwater, large woody vegetation has a difficult time establishing due to low water availability and depth to groundwater. Provision of an adequate riparian corridor, would require the installation of trees along the river edge. The establishment of riparian trees would likely require watering or custom-grown container stock to get plant roots in touch with moisture deep below the surface. Once established,the trees could create a microclimate that fosters further seral development. Beyond the forest corridor, areas along the northern ridge may be more appropriate for native prairie restoration or xeric shrub communities. 44 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Ecological Recommendations Table 5-11 provides a summary of ecological issues relevant to the selection of an appropriate shoreline designation and to the goal of achieving no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Table 5-11: Summary of Ecological Issues SR-2 Ecological Issues Local Stressors Recommendations Recreational off-road traffic, Conserve/protect existing forest areas. Expand camping narrow bands of vegetation along the north bank Woody Cover and fill in gaps along the south bank. Plant tall tree species south of spawning areas and pools for shade. Concentrated flow from SRCT Incorporate bioengineering concepts into Erosion(minor) resulting in isolated bank maintenance of affected shoreline areas for erosion visual and ecological benefits. Non-native herbaceous cover, Encourage landscaping with native plants. Invasive vegetation particularly in upland areas Control spread of knapweed. Support native herbaceous restoration projects Scarcity The mature juniper community located along Rare habitat the north bank should be protected against tree removal. Smallmouth bass competition Protect cold water refugia by restricting Non-native fish vegetation removal. Limit fishing of native trout. Avoid in-water activities near known spawning areas. Flora Road Metal Site Ensure that clean up efforts are monitored and Contamination that replaced bed/shoreline cap materials are appropriate size for the local hydrologic regime. Fence around Kaiser's water Land Use Conflicts intake facility is fenced off Provide tunnel or walkway around facility resulting in wildlife barrier 5.1.3 Spokane River Study Segment 3- Trent Avenue to Millwood Town Limits Spokane River Study Segment 3 (SR-3) includes the south side of the River from Trent Avenue (RM 85.3) to the Town of Millwood (RM 83.5). Segment 3 is approximately 1.8 miles long and includes a total area of 43.4 acres of shoreland within the SMP jurisdiction. It also includes a small segment of shoreline on the north side of the river between Trent Avenue and the city limits. This portion of the river is characterized by medium density,rapidly developing residential areas west of Myrtle Point and parks& open space east of the Myrtle Point. It has gaining hydraulics due to positive discharge from the aquifer, deeper water, and reduced flow velocity due to its proximity to Upriver Dam. The west end of SR-3 contains unique and visually interesting rocks formations in the channel. These rocks provide unique habitats for plants above the waterline as well as fish within the river. The Coyote Rock development will alter current shoreline conditions west of Myrtle Point by introducing additional foot traffic,runoff from impervious areas, docks,and associated shoreline access development. - - — — - �- 45 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Legend f<v: '' ,4 ` y4i; FerrySite Par I; „I.City Limits :. �-�'� � � 'f �'� _�� !.-•-u.•'- SMA Boudary .� • l� t ' +, r V:-• River Study Segment Boundary :•~: `'s.� i °'' :'•r'' `N• ,• Ordinary High Water Line '� .. _ 4 Ile ; .• •, SMA Parcels • --4-----Ala 4 :' .. ' . e e ' Public Property " • ••J ."-„`�,tom /. .� I` 57 my Centennial Trail ,/ ire ' M _t �'j • EN c _ . , z =.> ,' •.,. Cr' T ." .,Coyote.- • ;;t, .. .a...;;;• 1•;. .5A'. a •,--. --' __'a -I_ .p ,-t ..-=1.r----;- ' •'' t 1 0 ks ��iDeveloprnent= `` 290 �`• -�"'J� °' .. -r �, .• ':; 1``: '•%'E�,, Wel! . j'., , f •I -'�`-••-'` /�� r 989 Trent v.•* t,,' Ori:ieln n)':,�•-.d : -1'=0g1.4 1 Sch ` Mirabeau :ii•6•!'-"- ' o'.'Thea;�,r. ---'d -.1 - z-..-:7-.- -_...�- • .,•.•• . t.,,..-00••`-" N Figure 5-4 Spokane River Study Segment 3 Mi - liv�rood. f•-� •• + ---. - 's=- " '- 's-'", City of Spokane Valley ' "• •r�i L-'-- yr -.� Cf..... • _t•�, ,r......... I ...l •1a. �i URS 1! •I.• •{• 5 0 500 1.000 Feet 5.1.3.1 SR-3 Land Use Summary The City Comprehensive Plan shows that the land use within this river segment is composed of Parks/Open Space and Mixed Use. The zoning within this river segment is Parks/Open Space and Mixed Use. The land within the shoreline jurisdiction in this river segment is primarily open space,but less than the river segments upstream. The center of the Spokane River channel is the City boundary for the majority of this segment. The Coyote Rock development is private and is located in the western portion of this river segment. The SRCT crosses the river at RM 84.5. Tables 5-12 and 5-13 show the land use and zoning within this river segment. Table 5-12: Land Use SR-3 Land Use Area Percent (acres) of Total Railroad ROW 0.4 1.0 Mixed Use 17.6 40.5 Parks/Open Space 25.4 58.5 Table 5-13: Zoning SR-3 Zoning Area Percent (acres) of Total Public ROW 0.4 1.0 _ Mixed Use 17.6 40.5 Parks/Open Space 25.4 58.5 46 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Table 5-14 provides a summary of the built structures, impervious surfaces, and development intensity within the shoreline jurisdiction for this river segment. Table 5-14: Built Environment Features Area Percent (acres) of Total Rooftops 0.0 0 Pavement 0.7 1.6 Gravel Surfacing 6.8 15.7 Total Impervious 7.5 17.3 Recreational Use and Access The SRCT is accessed from Plante's Ferry, located on the north bank of the river outside of the City, and at an informal gravel Iot located at the northwest corner of the Trent Avenue Bridge. Limited, informal parking may be available at the Coyote Rock development, though it appears that public use will be restricted. The City's Myrtle Point Conservation Area is located upstream of the SRCT Bridge. According to the Audubon Society this area provides excellent habitat for many important bird populations due its habitat diversity. This area is extensively used for recreational activities since it is along the SRCT,the shoreline is relatively flat and sandy, and the basalt outcroppings and small coves provide a popular area used for swimming and angling. An access point for boaters has been discussed with various groups during the inventory. The need for a boat take-out has been suggested at Coyote Rocks, Myrtle Point, or Plante's Ferry. A location is under discussion but has not been decided on. Transportation An abandoned portion of the Inland Empire Paper Company (IEPC) Railroad tracks are within the shoreline jurisdiction downstream of the Trent Avenue Bridge. Portions of Coyote Rock Road are also within the shoreline jurisdiction. The SRCT Bridge is located near the Coyote Rock Development. Shoreline Modifications The SRCT and the SRCT Bridge have modified the shoreline in this area. The preliminary development of Coyote Rock has resulted in the removal of vegetation, construction of roads, building lots, and utilities. No homes were constructed at the time of the inventory but it is anticipated that this development will be built out in the near future. Approximately 31 lots have direct access to the river. Development covenants provide for protection of the existing 75 foot shoreline buffer. Individual lot river access and docks are allowed in the development. A variety of permits will be needed if the individual lots develop river access through the protected shoreline buffer. Due to potential impacts on the river environment,the shoreline environment,the lack of public access and cumulative impacts to the shoreline plant communities and habitats it has been indicated that that permitting agencies will require a high level of analysis prior to approving permit applications for docks and shoreline alterations needed to access them. The southern shore line across from Plante's Ferry Park is a flat bluff just above the OHWM. Several piers of river rock cemented together were observed in this area. The orientation of these structures is random and it is uncertain what they were used for. A few hundred feet downriver lay three concrete piers in a line parallel with the river. The two outer piers are equipped with steel hoops oriented towards the center pier. A large concrete pad is located west of these three piers. This pad is equipped with a large steel hoop directly inline with the center pier. 47 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 An old concrete structure was observed on the shoreline immediately downstream of the basalt outcroppings. This structure has three concrete walls parallel to the river on top of a concrete pad. Its use is unknown. On the bluff above this area was located the International Portland Cement Plant. Documentation indicates that this entire area was covered with cement dust when the plant was operating. It was closed in the early 1970s. Work is currently being done by others to better characterize the environmental impacts to the area from the cement plant. Utilities Overhead power crosses the river at three locations in this river segment. A 12-inch culvert from the cement factory discharges to a 12-inch culvert under the SRCT and then down an eroded gulley to the Spokane River. The Coyote Rock development has full utilities including sewer. A lift station has been constructed just outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. One foundation and daylight basement had been constructed at the time of the inventory. Environmental The Myrtle Point and Islands Lagoon metals clean up sites are both located within SR-3 (Ecology 2009). Remediation of these two sites was slated for 2009 by Ecology but has been delayed. Currently, characterization of the sites is being done in order to develop remediation plans. Depending on the direction that the cleanup takes, there is the potential to provide improvements to the shorelines for ecological function and/or public access. Cultural/Archeological Resources The WISAARD database identified several known sites throughout SR-3, including several around the railroad and the historic Plante's Ferry. None of the sites are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 5.1.3.2 SR-3 Physical and Biological Characterization The river channel contains a series of rapids with shallow pools. The stream bed is primarily composed of cobble and large gravels with fines beginning to drop out of the water column at the west end of SR-3 due to the decreasing flow rate associated with the Upriver Dam located west of town. Myrtle Point creates a large meander in the stream that dissipates flow energy and results in eddies and some associated erosion at the tail end of the river bend. Bedrock outcrops and large boulders characterize SR- 3. The streambanks along the south side of the river (excluding the outcrops) are composed of unconsolidated, in-cohesive materials that are easily eroded but large boulders along the river edge provide sufficient energy deflection/dissipation to avoid significant bank erosion. Hydraulics and Water Quality The current is generally swift around Myrtle Point but slows at the west end of SR-3 as flow energy is dissipated by the in-stream rock outcrops and the backwater of Upriver Dam. The 2005 PFC study indicates that the channel is vertically and laterally stable. Large woody debris is lacking, but the rock outcrops within the channel provide complex stream hydraulics and associated habitats. Biological Resources and Vegetation Rainbow trout spawning surveys conducted by Parametrix in 2003 for the Avista relicensing effort documented radio-tagged trout and spawning areas (redds) within this study segment. Thirteen redds were documented around the SRCT Bridge(RM 84.2)during the 2003 surveys. 48 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Wildlife noted within SR-3 during fieldwork associated with the 2005 PFC study includes mourning doves, chipmunks, magpies, red-tailed hawk, red-winged blackbird, and beaver, which was indicated by girdled cottonwoods (SCCD 2005). The rock outcrops between the SRCT Bridge and Myrtle Point provide unique habitat for neotropical songbirds resulting in high concentrations there. The PHS database identifies cliff habitat northwest of Myrtle Point, outside of the City on the north side of the river. Cliff- dwelling bats and birds are likely to use the river and riparian habitats in SR-3 for hunting and foraging. Few migration barriers exist throughout SR-3. The following plant associations were observed within SR-3 (plant codes reference Table 5-1): Table 5-15: Habitat Analysis Plant Association Area Percent (acres) of Total Black hawthorne- serviceberry-mallow nine- bark 1.68 3% Developed/Landscaped 10.07 20% Native Bunchgrass Prairie 1.38 3% Non-native Grassland 7.19 14% Ponderosa pine/ black hawthorne 16.00 32% _ Black cottonwood 0.24 0% Black cottonwood/ black hawthorne 5.92 12% Black cottonwood/ coyote willow 4.36 9% Douglas fir/bitter cherry 1.92 4% coyote willow 1.25 3% The dominant plant association within SR-3 is Ponderosa pine/black hawthorne. This community is generally located along the southern shoreline in long, often fragmented stands above the river banks. Near the Trent Street Bridge,there is a mature stand of PIPO/CRDO. Northwest of this stand the corridor transitions into degraded non-native herbaceous vegetation with young pine saplings establishing. A remnant patch of native herbaceous prairie vegetation was noted within this degraded habitat. This patch is noted as "Native Bunchgrass Prairie" in the table above. High quality shrub habitat (CRDO-AMAL- PHMA)was noted continuously along the lower streambanks. Black cottonwoods dominate the habitat at the north end of Myrtle Point and along the lower shoreline to the west. The vegetation inventory included as Appendix C found that,although there was a high degree of variability between sample plots, native vegetation cover within SR-3 averaged 54% in the flooded zone, 76% in the riparian zone, and 17%in the upland zone. A functioning wildlife corridor exists within SR-3 between Trent Ave. and River Mile 84. This habitat was noted as high bird value habitat by Audubon experts. West of River Mile 84, the shoreline has been affected by past transportation corridors and ongoing residential development. Specifically, the area contains debris piles, cleared areas, fill slopes, and a linear abandoned road corridor that is dominated by non-native trees and herbs. Although not noted as "rare" by any state databases, the rock outcroppings west of Myrtle Point were noted to support edaphic vegetation that was not seen elsewhere in the study area. This includes buckwheat, lomatium,and sedum plants. 49 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Where the shoreline extends west of the City boundary, it appears that a Douglas fir forest community provides cover for species migrating west into Millwood. 5.1.3.3 SR-3 Ecological Condition,Stressors, and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation The following characterization of baseline ecological conditions is based on the Proper Functioning Condition Study conducted by SCCD in 2005. This ecological baseline will be used to measure changes over time as the City works to achieve the No Net Loss of Ecological Functions goal (per WAC 173-26- 186(8)). Ecological Baseline River study segment 3 includes the majority of Spokane River Reach 6 as classified by SCCD in the 2005 PFC study. SCCD Reach 6 begins at Mirabeau Point and continues west/downstream to the approximate City of Spokane Valley/Millwood boundary. SCCD Reach 6 was rated as being in Proper Functioning Condition but it was given a"poor-fair" ecological condition rating, presumably due to lack of adequate riparian vegetation around Plante's Ferry Park(north of the City)and the Coyote Rock area. High Quality Conservation Areas Portions of SR-3 around Myrtle Point,the SRCT Bridge,and areas in-between were noted as high quality shoreline in the PFC study (SCCD 2005). The high quality determination was based upon large, intact areas of Douglas fir, mature cottonwoods, hawthorn, willows, chokecherry, serviceberry, Plante's Ferry Park,recreational floating,and rainbow trout spawning. URS noted a stand of mature pine trees just north of Trent Avenue, between SRCT and the river that provides high quality forest habitat as well as shade for pools within the river along the southern shoreline. URS also noted a small patch of native blue bunchgrass prairie with a high diversity of native forbs worthy of conservation and possible expansion. This small patch may be a good location for seed collection associated with upland prairie restoration projects. URS also noted an area of slow-moving water and side-channel habitat associated with the eddy west of Myrtle Point. This area is likely to provide slow water refugia for fish when the river is at flood stage. Also, URS noted uncommon edaphic vegetation growing on the rock outcrops within the channel east of the SRCT Bridge. This vegetation is sensitive and easily disturbed by rock climbing,which appears to be a common recreational activity in the area. Degraded Areas and Opportunities for Restoration The 2005 PFC study ranked restoration potential as "fair to good" for SR-3, which fully contains SCCD Reach 6. URS observed two degraded areas that would provide opportunities for enhancement of the riparian corridor within SR-3. One area is associated with historic shoreline disturbance that is evident between Trent Avenue and the Mirabeau Conservation Area. Disturbance includes concrete debris piles and cleared riparian vegetation areas east of a former industrial site. Areas east of this disturbed area were identified as high value bird habitat by the local Audubon Society. A second degraded area was noted west of the SRCT Bridge, below the Coyote Rock housing development. This area is associated with an old road that has provided a vector for the spread of non- native herbaceous and woody plants. This area is likely to be highly impacted by forthcoming development associated with docks and/or other shoreline access features. This presents an opportunity to grant minor shoreline development permits with conditions specifying restoration of the old road to a 50 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 native corridor and,thereby,balance future development with restoration of degraded areas to achieve the goal of"no net loss of shoreline ecological functions." Recommendations Table 5-16 provides a summary of ecological issues relevant to the selection of an appropriate shoreline designation and to the goal of achieving no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Table 5-16: Summary of Ecological Issues SR-3 Ecological Issues Local Stressors Recommendations Conserve/protect existing forest areas and native prairie remnants. Expand narrow bands Recreational off-road traffic, of vegetation along the south bank east of Woody Cover camping, forthcoming Myrtle Point. Plant tall tree species south of development spawning areas for shade. Condition development applications with riparian enhancement specifications for all new shoreline development proposals Concentrated flow from.SRCT Incorporate bioengineering concepts into Erosion(minor) resulting in isolated bank maintenance of affected shoreline areas for erosion visual and ecological benefits. Non-native herbaceous cover, Encourage landscaping with native plants. Invasive vegetation particularly in herbaceous Control spread of knapweed. Support native upland areas herbaceous restoration projects Warm summertime stream Protect cold water refugia by restricting Diminishing native temperatures, low dissolved vegetation removal. Limit fishing of native fish stocks oxygen, competition from trout. Avoid in-water activities near known smallmouth bass,adjacent land spawning areas,particularly during spawning development,recreational use. periods. Ensure that clean up efforts are monitored and Contamination Flora Road Metal Site that replaced bed/shoreline cap materials are appropriate size for the local hydrologic regime. Fence around Kaiser's water Land Use Conflicts intake facility is fenced off Provide tunnel or walkway around facility resulting in wildlife bather 5.1.4 Segment 4- Millwood City Limits to Spokane City Limits Spokane River Segment 4 (SR-4) includes only the south side of the river from the Town of Millwood boundary(RM 82.1) to the City of Spokane boundary(RM 81.6). Segment 4 is approximately 0.5 miles long and includes a total area of 11.8 acres of shoreland within the SMP jurisdiction. The land within the shoreline jurisdiction in this river segment is fully developed and private property extends to the OHWM. This area is entirely within the backwater of Upriver Dam. 51 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 • fife • ` ' •_ - • • _ �`' , r6. • • i• • C ,..ate'`.:o•'• ..-- ••' 'te • ,'.'% k 1 I, ' •i.• •i' •• • C ••• ; ux adena park SCh Weil til ► • i •t •••••• • •• • . . IL. A/+• ti , • ,..„......,-.0,6 t • •• • • •b;M • •• 4? .. -, �i �c mf, City of Spokane -. e • Legend ei1•City of '°:-----II "r • -, •r..r City Limits , ,Spd�kane�Valley t -Mllw9 rt. ood I AVC 1 . SMABoudarynak { � ii River Study Segment Boundary — ' n Ordinary High Water Line " Figure 5-5 Spokane River Study Segment 4 SMA Parcels ; City of Spokane Valley w er URS Public Property s 0 60o 1.000 Feet 5.1.4.1 SR-4 Land Use Summary The City Comprehensive Plan shows that the land use within this river segment is composed solely of Low Density Residential and is zoned as Single Family Residential. There appear three empty lots in this segment but the majority of this area is developed as single family residential with landscaped lawns. Many of the lots have bulkheads and docks. Tables 5-17 and 5-18 show the land use and zoning within this river segment. Table 5-17: Land Use SR-4 Land Use Area Percent (acres) of Total Low Density Residential 11.8 100% Table 5-18: Zoning SR-4 Zoning Area Percent (acres) of Total R-2(10,000 sf lots) 11.8 100% The City Comprehensive Plan shows that the land use within this river segment is composed solely of Low Density Residential and is zoned as Single Family Residential. 52 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Table 5-19 provides a summary of the built structures, impervious surfaces, and development intensity within the shoreline jurisdiction for this river segment. Table 5-19: Built Environment SR-4 Features Area Percent (acres) of Total Rooftops 1.6 13.6 Pavement 0.6 5.1 Gravel Surfacing 0.3 2.5 Total Impervious 2.5 21.1 Recreational Use and Access Access to the Spokane River is through private property. Public access to the river is limited. This river segment is within the backwater of the Upriver. It is understood that the City of Spokane opens up the one boat ramp located near Upriver Dam twice a year so that residents can launch their boats in the summer and remove them in the fall. Transportation Portions of South Riverway Drive are within the shoreline jurisdiction. There are no bridges over the river within this river segment. On the north side of the river, outside the city jurisdiction is Boulder Beach,a popular swimming area. Shoreline Modifications The shoreline has been fully modified by residential development within this river segment. These modifications include the construction of bulkheads at the OHWM, landscaping, and docks. There are approximately 20 houses along the shoreline in this river segment. Utilities Portions of South Riverway are located within the shoreline jurisdiction. There may be utilities located within this ROW. Environmental There are no reported environmental sites in this segment. 5.142 SR-4 Physical, Biological, and Archeological Characterization The stream bed materials are unknown as they are buried by sediment captured behind the dam. Streambanks, where not armored, consist of landscaped turf grass or ornamental landscaping on erodible soils. The stream channel is deeply entrenched and surrounded by bedrock outcrops, large boulder deposits,or bank armoring. Hydraulics and Water Quality Within SR-4,the river channel is backwatered by the Upriver HED. As a result,flow is minimal,water is deep,and most of the hydraulic forces exist as wave action upon the banks. The channel is both vertically and laterally stable(unlikely to migrate up or down,north or south). Flatwater areas behind the dam are subject to wake action from boating activities. Lots without adequate vegetation are suffering from streambank erosion. Biological Resources and Vegetation No rainbow trout spawning areas were observed by Parametrix in 2003 during their spawning surveys for the Avista relicensing effort. Trout populations are minimal to non-existent within this reach due to the 53 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 hydraulics and low dissolved oxygen. Local anglers report little to no fish within the backwater area behind Upriver Dam. Due to the deep water characteristics of SR-4, the river is most notably used for wintering waterfowl habitat by ducks, geese, and great blue heron. When other local lakes and waterbodies freeze,the river in SR-4 provides important,unfrozen surface water habitat for waterfowl. No native plant associations were observed in SR-4. Aside from a few cottonwoods,observed vegetation included landscaped ornamental plants,turf grass, or non-native,feral plant assemblages. Cultural/Archeological Resources The WISSARD database did not identify any sites within SR-4,likely because this area was not surveyed for the SRCT project. 5.1.4.3 SR-4 Ecological Condition,Stressors, and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation Ecological Baseline River study segment 4 includes a small portion of Spokane River Reach 7 as classified by SCCD in the 2005 PFC study. SCCD Reach 7 was rated "functional-at-risk" due to the abundance of shoreline modifications/armoring and the lack of native riparian vegetation. The SCCD rated the ecological condition in Reach 7 as poor to fair habitat. These ratings are consistent with the conditions noted within SR-4(a small portion of SCCD Reach 7). High Quality Conservation Areas No portion of SR-4 was noted as high quality conservation area. However, due to the wintering waterfowl habitat provided by the open water portion of SR-4, it does provide a regionally important function during times when other waterbodies freeze. Degraded Areas and Opportunities for Restoration The 2005 PFC study ranked restoration potential as "poor to fair" for SCCD Reach 7, which fully contains SR-4. Shorelands within SR-4 have poor restoration potential because they are fully developed. Due to the low fish presence within SR-4, aquatic habitat improvements are not likely to benefit fish populations. Recommendations The following Table provides a summary of ecological issues relevant to the selection of an appropriate shoreline designation and to the goal of achieving no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Table 5-20: Summary of Ecological Issues SR-4 Ecological Issues Local Stressors Recommendations Encourage shoreline residents to plant native shrub and tree species along the shoreline. Riparian Vegetation Residential development and Condition new shoreline(re)development Condition ornamental landscaping permits with riparian enhancement specifications for all new shoreline development proposals(docks,remodels,etc.) Waterfowl Habitat Motorboats Limit motor traffic during early spring and late fall/winter. Local Residential herbicides and Encourage shoreline residents to avoid use of Contamination fertilizers chemical herbicides and fertilizers as these drain directly into the river. 54 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 5.2 Shelley Lake Shelley Lake is a natural lake that is privately owned and managed by the Shelley Lake HOA. The lake is located south of Sprague Avenue between Barker and Sullivan Roads. Shelley has a shoreline length of 2.12 miles and includes 28.7 acres of land within the shoreline jurisdiction. The lake receives water seasonally from Saltese Creek and loses water by infiltration and evaporation. As a result, lake levels fluctuate. c ...11.1.s.:1 l • .•• . E,SR137 •..I IE�J 4 L�NCi• • aO_arc..:. --aw:-trite-. - - • .. ,, a i ,• t `fir (. l -`ii It •b0 ••••e ois. ' 1 tIti-ANE. 4TN • i ... . . • AYE: _ _ r •4-'!--,-`'; i .'' Perk :`ems . .-^--:.:•: .. 44 �_ 1 _ . �11�. a • lis .�. .N : /4":" { REEK• rr ' � i IT r$ I .� • "� �_,Se+la e! v ti Legend • • • • • . • • • • �.ws6 N Figure 5-6:Shelley Lake • 1772 Wetland Inventory • •,Y{sVv . • City of Spokane Valley ®City Limb • r • • . URS ' SMA Baudary •• ; •' I 1 ... ._. • • `; • • � s o 600 1.000 F. 5.2.1 Land Use Summary The land use around Shelley Lake is low density residential and is zoned R-3. R-3 zoning allows for 7,500 square foot lots. The entire lake shore is built out with the exception of the granite outcrop on the east side of the lake, where only one home is located. There is a potential for additional development on the east side of the lake. The area immediately around the lake is designated a common area and contains a paved pedestrian trail. Tables 5-21 and 5-22 show the land use and zoning within this river segment. Table 5-21: Land Use Shelley Lake Land Use Area Percent , (acres) of Total Low Density Residential 28.7 100 Table 5-22: Zoning Shelley Lake Zoning Area Percent (acres) of Total 55 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 R-3 (7,500 sf lots) I 28.7 I 100 J Table 5-23 provides a summary of the built structures, impervious surfaces, and development intensity within the shoreline jurisdiction for this river segment. Table 5-23: Built Environment Shelley Lake Features Area Percent (acres) of Total Rooftops 3.7 43 Pavement 4.6 53 Gravel Surfacing 0.4 4.0 Total Impervious 8.7 100 Recreational Use and Access Access to Shelley Lake is limited to residents and guests. The development covenants state specifically that the public has no right to use the lake. A paved pedestrian trail has been constructed around the lake in the common area. The trail is dirt and gravel on the west side along the granite outcropping. The trail includes benches and mooring areas for non-motorized boats. The lake and trail are used by residents for walking, observing wildlife and birds,fishing,and non-motorized boating. Transportation Residential collector streets are located with the shoreline jurisdiction. The streets are separated from the lake by single family residences and the common area. Drainage from the streets flows to bioswales for treatment. While the roadways are located within the shoreline jurisdiction, they do not directly impact the lake shore. There are two paved access paths to the lake. Shoreline Modifications Shoreline modifications within the common area include the paved trail around the lake, benches, three boat mooring areas,the culvert crossing/bridge at the lake inlet, and an irrigation system that covers most of the north and west shoreline. Most areas of the developed shoreline have steep gravely banks. The shoreline jurisdiction also includes many of the residential lots and some of the residential streets area. Extensive modifications to these upland areas have been made in the form of houses, landscaping, driveways, and utilities. Based on our understanding of the environment prior to the development, it is difficult to determine if the development has reduced or increased conditions for vegetation and habitat improvements. Utilities All utilities serving Shelley Lake Estates are underground and include: sanitary sewers owned by Spokane County, water service by Vera Water and Power, electric and natural gas by Avista Utilities, communications by Comcast Cable,AT&T Residential,and Qwest Residential. Environmental According to Ecology's database, there are no locations of concern at Shelley Lake. There are no water quality impairment listings on the 303(d) list. However, lake water quality is degraded during the summer months. There are many factors contributing to the poor water quality, including insufficient water quantity. Two wells are listed in the Ecology well database within the development. 56 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 CulturaUArcheological Resources No sites on either the local or state registers or the NRNP are contained within the shoreline buffer. Archaeological information may be obtained through the State Historic Preservation Office. There is a possibility of uncovering archeological resources along the shorelines of Shelley Lake. 52.1.1 Shelley Lake Physical and Biological Characterization Excluding the granite outcrops and the Saltese Creek inlet areas, most of the shoreline is characterized by steep, gravely unvegetated banks. Shelley Lake is located over the SVRP aquifer. The lake was possibly formed as a scour hole during the Missoula floods related to the granite exposure on the east shore. Soils in the area are Garrison gravelly loams, which are free draining. However, the bottom of the lake is sealed,possibly due to fine grained sediments(PBS&J,2009). Based on a preliminary evaluation done as part of the Saltese Flats Wetland Restoration Investigation, infiltration rates at Shelley Lake are estimated at an average value of 10 cfs. The calculated infiltration rate is much lower than found in the gravels of the SVRP aquifer. Hydraulics Annual flow to Shelley Lake has been modeled at between 2,613 and 4,090 acre-feet/year (Kahle and Bartolino, 2007). Lake levels have been measured in 2007 through 2009 by the Shelley Lake HOA. Measured lake levels range between 2000.9 feet (December 2007), and 2017 feet (April 2009). The OHWM elevation was determined to be 2013.7 feet by Ecology in 1993. Water generally flows into the lake from the spring melt, which is typically between mid-April through mid-June. Saltese creek is then blocked (dammed) by users along Saltese Flats. According to the Shelley Lake HOA the higher water level in 2008 created better conditions for fish and fauna and a decrease in algae and milfoil. The lake has an average depth of about 25 feet (ShelleyLake.org). Shelley Lake has no outlet, and the lake level varies through evaporation and infiltration through the lake bottom. To prevent flooding, the upper lake elevation is maintained by diverting high flows in Saltese Creek to the Steen Road Gravel Pit. The drainage area is approximately 15,000 acres(USGS, Streamstats)and includes the north side of Mica Peak and Saltese Flats(Figure 3-2). The drainage area is located entirely within Washington State. Water Quality According to Ecology's database there are no locations of concern at Shelley Lake. There are no water quality impairment listings on the 303(d) list. However, lake water quality is degraded during the summer months. There are many factors contributing to the poor water quality, including insufficient water quantity. Two wells are listed in the Ecology well database within the development. A limited amount of water quality data is available for Shelley Lake. The SCCD has information on conductivity, pH and DO from July and August 2007 collected through a volunteer sampling program. Table 5-24 summarizes this information. The lake is categorized as eutrophic (overly nutrient-rich) and likely phosphorous limited since large amounts of nitrogen are available from farming on the Saltese Flats (PBS&J,2009). 57 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Table 5-24: Shelley Lake Water Quality Data Depth pH Conductivity Dissolved Oxygen Depth(meters) Temperature (°C) (meters) (µmhos/cm) mg/1 Percent Secchi Total Air Water Jul-07 Surface 9.17 191.1 8.83 108.2 2 6.4 25 22.5 1 9.12 193.8 5.42 68 23.4 2 9.16 192.5 5.25 64.6 22.6 3 9.1 193.9 5.11 61.1 21 4 8.45 208.3 3.28 37.6 19.1 5 7.66 214 1.47 16.2 17.1 6 7.42 219.4 1.25 13.7 17 Aug-07 Surface 8.8 202.1 9.2 104 1.8 6.2 30 22.8 1 8.8 203.3 5.4 62.2 23.9 2 8.93 201.6 5.27 61.1 23.5 3 8.85 198.9 5.15 59.3 23 4 8.32 209.3 4.09 46 21.7 5 7.76 230.4 2.01 22 20.4 6 7.17 251.7 1.42 15.4 19.8 Samples taken at 10:00 am each sample day. Water quality in the lake is impacted by activities along Saltese Flats and Saltese Creek, as well as lawn care practices in the residential lots adjacent to the lake. Stormwater runoff from roads is treated in bioswales and infiltrated into the ground. Stormwater runoff from the lake shore trail and yards drains directly into the lake. Due to the seasonal flow regime, fluctuating lake levels, and lack of inflow during the summer months maintaining lake water quality will be difficult. The EIS for Shelley Lake (Ramm, 1994) says that water quality in Shelley Lake had been degraded prior to the development of Shelley Lake Estates by upstream and possibly on-site agricultural activities, as well as peat mining on the Saltese Flats. Critical Areas The City of Spokane Valley maps the following critical areas around Shelley Lake: • Wetlands-associated with Saltese Creek at the southeast end of the lake • Fish and wildlife habitat conservation area(per PHS,below) • Critical aquifer recharge area(entire Spokane Valley) • Special flood hazard area(includes the lake,associated wetland and Saltese Creek) Priority Habitats& Species(PHS) Saltese Creek between the Saltese Flats and Shelley Lake is mapped as a riparian corridor by the WDFW. There are no records of any state endangered, threatened, sensitive plants, or high quality native plant communities. Biological Resources and Vegetation The 1994 EIS (Ramco) reported the following species as observed or evidence of their presence was observed: Ring necked and cinnamon teal ducks, great blue heron, red tailed hawk, pheasant, quail, flycatchers, killdeer, swallows, robins, flickers, kestrels, wrens, chickadees, great horned owl, field mice, voles, squirrels, marmots, turtles, skunks, large mouth bass and perch. The Shelley lake HOA lists 58 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Canadian geese, ducks, osprey, pheasant, quail, blue heron, white tail deer, marmots, rabbits, fish, frogs, turtles, and many other species as being present around the lake (ShelleyLake.org). Neighborhood sightings within the project area include hawk, owls, Oregon junco, magpies, meadowlark, hummingbirds,evening grosbeak,and rufous sided towhee. Shelley Lake does not support a significant fish population due to fluctuating water levels and poor water quality. The wetland area was not reported to contain nesting opportunities for waterfowl. The lake does receive use by migrant and resident waterfowl,mostly during the breading season(Ramm, 1994). The east side of the lake supports a ponderosa pine community along the granite exposure. The steep slopes and rocky areas also support native bunch grasses, perennial forbs, and small native shrubs. A seasonal wetland area in the northeast lake quadrant supports a stand of willows and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) as well as hawthome and wild rose shrubs. This wetland, while small in area, has healthy dense vegetation. The second seasonal wetland located along Saltese Creek contains fine grained soils also supports a variety of sedges, although they are small in number. The southerly wetland has a limited water supply in the summer and is seasonally dry. The rest of the lake shore is steep, but stable, and appears to be mostly gravels typical of the Garrison soil series. Three vegetation sample sites were established around the lake during the shoreline inventory. The sample plots showed a dominance of native species within the tree and shrub stratum and a dominance of non-native vegetation within the herbaceous stratum. Three non native Chinese elms are located along the trail and have the potential to spread and displace native vegetation. It is recommended that these trees be replaced with native or non-invasive trees. Cultural/Archeological Resources Neither the state register nor the NRNP identify historic resources within the SMP area around Shelley Lake. However,as with all areas around water bodies,there is a strong likelihood of uncovering historic resources along the shorelines of Shelley Lake. 52.12 Shelley Lake Ecological Condition,Stressors, and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation Ecological Baseline Unlike the Spokane River, no proper functioning condition assessment was performed for the Shelley Lake shoreline areas. However, the following list provides a snapshot of the factors influencing the baseline ecological condition of the lake and surrounding shorelands. • Upland habitats east of the lake appear to be in fair condition and functioning adequately for forage and migration; riparian plant species diversity is relatively low and competition with non- native herbaceous communities is high. • The north, west, and south shorelines are completely developed and lack shade producing vegetation. • Flows and lake levels are seasonally variable with very low summer flow. Upstream land uses around Saltese Creek have been altered by forestry and agriculture and likely increase the degree of flow variability. Along this reach the floodplain appears to be functioning adequately and the creek appears to be vertically and laterally stable. • Large woody debris (LWD)was not observed in the lake or creek in sufficient amounts to create structured habitats. • Water quality is dependent upon stream flow. During summer periods low dissolved oxygen and high temperatures are the predominant water quality issue. 59 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 • The Saltese Creek drainage basin collects pollutants such as sediment, deicing chemicals,animal wastes, oil and grease, heavy metals, pesticides, and fertilizers. These are carried down to the lake via seasonal flow. • The sediment regime is characterized by very high sediment loads during flood flows resulting in shoreline conditions that hinder establishment of native shoreline vegetation. The hydrology of the Saltese Flats/Shelley Lake system is typical for a western dryland environment. The hydrologic regime of the lake is not likely to have changed much since the Saltese Flats were drained for agricultural purposes. High spring flows fill the lake in a typical year. Evaporation and infiltration lower the water level throughout the summer. The lake level has been artificially maintained in years past from a nearby well. This may be an option in the future for improving summer time water quality. High Quality Conservation Areas The east side of the lake is a granite exposure that supports a ponderosa pine community. Due to the developed and unvegetated state of the remaining shoreline areas, this habitat provides important fish (shade)and wildlife habitat along the lake. Degraded Areas and Opportunities for Restoration Due to the lake's 16-foot seasonal water level fluctuation, the steep, gravelly shorelines support little vegetation. The Shelley Lake HOA has been planting the shorelines with native plants, but has not had significant success. The lake inlet (south side) has an associated seasonal wetland that would benefit from shade and increased species richness. The small wetland area located on the north side of the granite exposure would benefit from the removal of reed canarygrass and replacement with native lakeshore sedges that better suit waterfowl. Prior to the development of Shelley Lake Estates, cattle grazing significantly disrupted native vegetation, and eliminated most of the high value habitat along the lake. Knapweed dominated much of the area. In 2007 the Shelley Lake HOA with assistance from SCCD, DOE, and WDFW began the multi-year "Shelley Lake Shoreline Habitat Enhancement Project." The project goal is to rehabilitate the shoreline with native grasses, shrubs, and trees to enhance native habitat while maintaining and enhancing the visual aspect of the lake for residents. In 2007 and 2008 the homeowners cleared noxious weeds from the shoreline and planted native plants. In 2009 high lake levels submerged and destroyed most of the plantings. As part of this project an irrigation system was installed along the paved trail. The Shelley Lake HOA is continuing to pursue establishing vegetation along the shoreline, but due to seasonal lake level fluctuation, establishing the plantings has been difficult. Stabilizing the lake level through either flow from Saltese Flats or pumping from the aquifer is should be considered to improve habitat and use by migratory birds populations. Recommendations Table 5-25 is a summary of ecological issues relevant to the selection of an appropriate shoreline designation and achieving the goal of no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 60 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Table 5-25: Summary of Ecological Issues Shelley Lake Ecological Issues Local Stressors Recommendations � Conserve/protect existing plant communities Residential along the east side of the lake. Plant riparian development, trees and shrubs around the wetland area Riparian Habitat Quality southeast of the lake. Plant native shrubs and ornamental grasses along the upper periphery of the lake landscaping margin and encourage native landscaping on adjacent residential parcels. Minimal summer Enhance wetland habitat with native shade- Wetland Habitat Quality flow,non-native producing trees or shrubs. Attempt to store vegetation more water via increased flow and/or hydraulic impoundment. Presence of non- Encourage landscaping with native plants. Invasive Cover native herbaceous Continue native herbaceous restoration cover projects. Remove Chinese elm and reed canarygrass. Low water Become involved in the Saltese Flats discharge during enhancement project to secure higher summer Water Temperature summer, lack of base flow support. Plant/maintain shade shade producing vegetation along the creek outlet and associated wetland areas. Restrict shoreline development below walking Redevelopment trail. Condition future redevelopment with Land Use Conflicts potential along RHA improvement standards. Change granite shoreline exposure zoning to lesser density or conservation area. It is possible that wetland habitat improvements will benefit water quality, and may even improve summer base flows. By increasing the residence time of stream flow in wetland areas upstream of the lake, the wetland may filter and adsorb nutrients, metals, etc. within the water column. The associated wetland has been disturbed on its eastern side by the construction of a gravel access road. 5.3 Park Road and Sullivan Road Gravel Pits Under RCW 78.44.050 DNR is granted exclusive authority for regulating the reclamation of surface mines. Reclamation plans are developed as part of the surface mining approval process. Reclamation plans typically include sequential phasing of mining and revegetation which allows for reclamation of portions of the mine while still active. Reclamation must be completed within two years after abandonment of the mine. County or municipal approval for surface mining is an element of the permitting process. The reclamation plans for both the Park and Sullivan Road pits designate that the pits will be left as lakes and an area for wildlife habitat. 61 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 r. 4 �:. PARK ROAD PIT ►4 ' r'~ _t`''SULLIVAN ROAD PITS_ '� r.�r V, :r r #1, t. c 1rrj — rte.-.- jot p rip �a ,r rt Act,4�t u .� ,¢r 5 �. 11-!(-. ,11 .i).. c:. - i�(.-¢ r 1 mo i+ r.° r - •z • 1,;.." ,to?'t r '...: .. -rr r i/ ; Sr i lg.." , ,f, •;:i j,..:Fitttr,„ ,t-tr._ ---7,,,--otilei), -pore --t-1,- -.,. -10:::,u,q..,v :" -'.rZt.'el . e , 4 - , h ii— ',.;:"x. -"'"..t ?At_..iffr i .4 • i• It _ ..ar 7'!Mt:11-iff i,..7,..R erlrfr ,;.. . A-,•44 ,.. ., y .• - . I --.i-. - 'API rg 'VI ., h r 0 ,Z _ r•� , f j - :r r,,- g--ft_�-i r.,, ..''£_SPRAGUE AV t -i x _ f` r-- ` . / - t7- i -' : :� h +. � ir - - A9.1. '� _ . • lii J 'u #N .' &i.,•-• 5i SC1t" t Legend N Figure 5-7:Gravel Pits Streets WCity of Spokane Valley SMA— iS ry s o �.oaa 200o RNA 5.3.1 Park Road Pit The Park Road pit is located on 98 acres within the City of Spokane Valley between Park Road and Thierman Road in the SW 1/4 S13, T25 N, R43 EWM. This pit is owned and operated by Central Pre- Mix. The Park Road pit is used for: sand and gravel mining, aggregate processing, ready-mix concrete production, occasional asphalt production,and other related activities. The Park Road pit consists of a 69-acre water body with an irregular shape and no outlet. This water body is the result of the mining operation penetrating into the Spokane Rathdrum Valley Aquifer. The water surface elevation fluctuates between 1890 feet and 1900 feet above mean sea level. The shoreline is sloped at 2:1 and transfers to a 3:1 slope near the water surface for safety. The shoreline banks are generally 40 to 50 in height. Mining activities have been carried out to a depth of 160 feet below the water line to an elevation of 1740 feet. 5.3.1.1 Park Road Pit Land Use Summary The entire Park Road pit has a current land use of Heavy Industrial with a zoning designation of Heavy Industrial(I-2). Recreation Use and Access This is an active surface mining site and there is no public access to the water body. The shoreline is composed of gravels at a slope of 2:1 which present a danger of falling to untrained persons. There is no intent to provide public access to the pit at this time. It is known that birders use the pit for the Christmas bird count. 62 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Transportation Thierman and E. Heacox Roads are located with the shoreline jurisdiction along the western and northern edge of the pit. Thierman changes to Heacox Road at the northwest corner of the Park Road Pit. Utilities Three septic tanks and associated drain fields are located within the shoreline jurisdiction. Overhead power is also located within the jurisdiction. Equipment including conveyors, dredges, sorting and washing facilities is located within the shoreline jurisdiction. Shoreline Modifications Sand and gravel mining have exposed the aquifer and created the existing shoreline. This is not a natural environment. Reclamation/vegetation of the shoreline will occur within two years after the mine is abandoned. Portions of the pit have become revegetated by natural colonization. Environmental According to Ecology's database this gravel pit is not a location of concern. Archaeological/Historic Resources No sites on either the local or state registers or the NRHP are noted within the shoreline jurisdiction. Specific archaeological sites have not been identified to our knowledge in this area. 5.3.1.2 Park Road Pit Physical and Biological Characterization Geology and Soils The soils at the Park Road Pit are composed of Garrison gravelly loam. The Garrison series is made up of somewhat excessively drained, gravelly or stony soils. Garrison gravelly loam is the dominant soil type in the City of Spokane Valley. Water Quality According to Ecology's database this gravel pit is not a location of concern Critical Areas The gravel pit is located over and in the SVRP aquifer critical area. Biological Resources and Vegetation Because the site is actively mined, the entire perimeter of the site is fenced. This limits wildlife use to birds and any fish that may have been stocked in the pit. Audubon representatives indicate that this pit is known to receive a high diversity and density of neotropical songbirds and waterfowl. The shoreline of the Park Road pit is a constructed and not a natural shoreline environment. According to the 1995 reclamation plan, prepared by DEA, "Revegetation of graded slopes will utilize native plant materials to enhance the natural character of the grading plan, provide aesthetic appeal, and provide a diversity of habitat." The upland slopes of the site will be planted with Ponderosa Pine, Douglas Hawthorn, Western Chokecherry, and Serviceberry. Slopes near the water's edge will be planted with Black Cottonwood, Pacific Willow, Coyote Willow, and Red Osier Dogwood to create a riparian zone. Created wetland fringes will be constructed and planted with Bulrushes,Cattails, and Sedges. 63 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Access was not permitted within the mine site during the 2009 inventory but off-site observation indicated that volunteer cottonwoods have already begun to colonize the lower shoreline around the water edge. Priority Habitats& Species There are currently no classifications for priority habitat or wildlife corridors at the Park Road pit. Archaeological/Historic Resources The WISSARD database has no records for this site. 5.3.1.3 Park Road Pit Ecological Condition,Stressors,and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation Ecological Baseline The pit is a private operation that is not open to the public and has not been assessed using a quantifiable methodology such as Proper Functioning Condition. Based on offsite observations it would appear that the ecological conditions of the site are currently impaired by ongoing mining activities, as is expected. Conversations with local wildlife experts indicate that the area is used heavily by songbirds and waterfowl. Degraded Areas and Opportunities for Restoration Mining activities have created a new, expanding shoreline area. As such it can not be described as "degraded" because it was not a pre-existing, natural shoreline feature. In accordance with the 1995 revised reclamation plan, the shoreline is to be planted as the mining operations move to subsequent phases. Perpetual stewardship of the reclaimed shoreline environment is planned. There are not any known areas of degradation or erosion to the shoreline at this time. Wildlife habitat enhancement has been included in the reclamation plan. These enhancements are slated to include the creation of shallow water habitat to encourage the growth of aquatic flora and promote use by aquatic fauna. Nesting boxes will also be placed amongst the upper portions of the shoreline. 5.3.2 Sullivan Road Pit The Sullivan Road gravel pit is owned and operated by Central Pre-Mix. The Sullivan Road gravel pit has been an active sand and gravel mine since 1980. The pit is located on 235 acres north of the Spokane River between Sullivan Road and Flora Road. The Union Pacific railroad tracks are immediately to the north of the site. The Flora Pit Road transects the south end of the property. As a condition of the 1963 land acquisition agreement with the County; the Flora Pit Road has a County easement for access to the County Flora Shop site. The revegetated shoreline will consist of varying slopes between a 5:1 to a 2:1. The water surface elevation will be at approximately 1940 feet and will have a depth of 150 feet. 5.32.1 Sullivan Road Pit Land Use Summary The entire Sullivan Road pit has a current land use of Heavy Industrial with a zoning designation of Heavy Industrial (I-2). According to the reclamation plan a 130-acre lake will remain at the terminus of mining operation offset from the Spokane River by 250 feet. A 600-foot setback from Sullivan Road will be retained for future use. 64 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Recreational Use and Access This is an active surface mining site and there is no public access to the water body. The shoreline is composed of gravels at a slope of 2:1 which present a danger of falling to untrained persons. There is no intent to provide public access to the pit at this time. Transportation The Sullivan Road pit is bound by Sullivan Road to the west, Flora Road to the East, and the Union Pacific Railroad to the north. The Flora Pit Road transects the south of the site between the pit and the Spokane River. The County has an easement through the Flora Pit Road to the County facilities on the west side of Flora Road. Central Pre-Mix and the County made an agreement upon the land acquisition in 1963 that should Flora Pit Road be removed Central Pre-Mix would construct a 60-foot County roadway from Sullivan Road to the entrance of the County's Flora Road shop site. Shoreline Modifications Sand and gravel mining have exposed the aquifer and created the existing shoreline. It is not a natural surface water environment. Reclamation of the shoreline will follow the completion of each mining phase, or two years after the termination of mining activities. Perpetual stewardship of the site is planned to retain the site once remediation is complete. Remediation will provide native vegetation, as well as wildlife habitat. Utilities Septic tank, overhead power, natural gas, registered class A well. Equipment including conveyors, dredges, sorting and washing facilities is located within the shoreline jurisdiction. Environmental According to Ecology's database there are no locations of concern within the reach. There are no water quality impairment listings on the 303(d) list. Central Pre-Mix has an active water quality monitoring program at this site. Cultural/Archaeological Resources No sites on either the local or state registers or the NRHP are noted within the shoreline jurisdiction. Specific archaeological sites have not been identified to our knowledge in this area. 5.322 Sullivan Road Pit Physical and Biological Characterization Geology and Soils The soils at the Park Road Pit are composed of Garrison gravelly loam. The Garrison series is made up of somewhat excessively drained, gravelly or stony soils. Garrison gravelly loam is the dominant soil type in the City of Spokane Valley. Priority Habitats and Species There is currently no PH&S Mapping within the Sullivan Road Pit shoreline areas. Biological Resources and Vegetation Because the site is actively mined, the entire perimeter of the site is fenced. This limits wildlife use to birds and any fish that may have been stocked in the pit. Audubon representatives indicate that this pit is known to receive a high diversity and density of neotropical songbirds and waterfowl. 65 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 The shoreline of the Park Road pit is a constructed and not a natural shoreline environment. According to the 1995 reclamation plan, prepared by DEA, "Revegetation of graded slopes will utilize native plant materials to enhance the natural character of the grading plan, provide aesthetic appeal, and provide a diversity of habitat." The upland slopes of the site will be planted with Ponderosa Pine, Douglas Hawthorn, Western. Chokecherry, and Serviceberry. Slopes near the water's edge will be planted with Black Cottonwood, Pacific Willow, Coyote Willow, and Red Osier Dogwood to create a riparian zone. Created wetland fringes will be constructed and planted with Bulrushes,Cattails,and Sedges. Access was not permitted within the mine site during the 2009 inventory but off-site observation indicated that volunteer cottonwoods have already begun to colonize the lower shoreline around the water edge. Priority Habitats& Species There are currently no classifications for priority habitat or wildlife corridors at the Park Road pit. Archaeological/Historic Resources The WISSARD database has no records for this site. Critical Areas The gravel pits is located over and in the SVRP aquifer critical area. 5.32.3 Sullivan Road Pit Ecological Condition, Stressors,and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation Ecological Baseline The pit is a private operation that is not open to the public and has not been assessed using a quantifiable methodology such as Proper Functioning Condition. Based on offsite observations it would appear that the ecological conditions of the site are currently constrained by ongoing mining activities, as is to be expected. Conversations with local wildlife experts indicate that the area is used by songbirds and waterfowl. Degraded Areas and Opportunities for Restoration Mining activities have created a new, expanding shoreline area. As such it can not be described as "degraded"because it was not a pre-existing,natural feature. Rather,it is a nascent waterbody created for industrial applications that may transition into a different land use in several decades. Wildlife habitat enhancement has been included in the 1995 reclamation plan. These enhancements are slated to include the creation of shallow water habitat to encourage the growth of aquatic flora and promote use by aquatic fauna. Nesting boxes will also be placed amongst the upper portions of the shoreline. In accordance with the reclamation plan; the shoreline is to be planted as the current mining operations move to the next phase. Perpetual stewardship of the reclaimed shoreline environment is planned;the entire shoreline is targeted for riparian cover and conservation. 66 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 6.0 SHORELINE USE ANALYSIS Updating an SMP requires a shoreline use analysis in order to estimate the future demand for shoreline space and identify potential land use conflicts. The following analysis includes a discussion of preferred shoreline uses and an evaluation of existing and planned land uses,total acreage available, and percentage vacant lands by zoning category within the 200-foot SMP jurisdiction along the City's shorelines. Preferred shoreline uses are identified in the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26-201(2)(d)). Preferred uses are those that are unique to or dependent on a shoreline location. These include the following water orientated uses, in order of preference: • Water Dependent—Cannot exist in a location that is not adjacent to water. • Water Related —Not intrinsically dependent but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location. • Water Enjoyment—Recreational or other use that requires public access. When determining allowable uses or resolving use conflicts, the following criteria should be considered (truncated from WAC 172-26-201(2)(d)(i-v)): • Provide appropriate areas for protection and restoration of ecological functions. • Provide areas for water-dependent and associated water-related issues. • Provide areas for water-related and water enjoyment uses that are compatible with ecological protection and restoration objectives. • Locate single-family residential uses where appropriate and where development can occur without significant impact to ecological functions or displacement of water-dependent uses. • Limit non-water-oriented uses to those locations where the above-described uses are inappropriate or where they demonstrably contribute to the objectives of the SMA. 6.1 Current Shoreline Use Within the City,there are approximately 511 acres under the jurisdiction of the SMA. This accounts for approximately 3% of the 24,464 acres within City limits. Per Table 6-1, below, the majority of the shoreline zone (42%) 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 accounts for 16% of the shoreline zone. A combination of other zoning categories, including Mixed Use, Commercial, and Public ROW account for less than 10% 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 6-1: Summary of Zoning Categories within Areas Under SMA Jurisdiction Zoning Category Acreage industrial 153 32.3% Mixed Use 29 6.1% Parks/Open Space 201 42.4% Low Density 76 16.0% Residential Commercial 7 1.5% Railroad ROW 8 1.7% City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 During the prior 20-year planning period,the majority of new development occurred within lands having a Residential,Mixed Use,or Commercial zoning designation. The Spokane River currently receives moderate to high in-water recreational use due to the hydraulics of the Spokane River, which provides prized floating conditions for non-motorized boats, rafts, and kayaks (rapids, water play areas, moderate to rapid flow). The northern shoreland areas receive moderate hiking and angling uses at specific, publicly-accessible areas, particularly around Sullivan Park. Due to an abundance of public park land and access provided by the Spokane River Centennial Trail (SRCT), the southern shoreland areas receive a good deal of recreational use by bicyclists and pedestrians. 6.2 Projected Shoreline Use The U.S. Census Bureau determined that 80,927 people lived in Spokane Valley on April 1, 2000. As of April 1, 2009, the Washington State Office of Financial Management estimate for Spokane Valley was 89,440. This figure represents an annual growth rate of approximately 1.5 percent, which is consistent with past estimated growth rates in the Spokane Valley area. Using this growth rate, the estimated 2025 population of Spokane Valley is 114,765,or an increase of 30,815 persons(Spokane Valley 2009). Planners often estimate a regions ability to support additional growth by quantifying developable lands that are currently listed as "vacant" in the City Assessor's tax parcel database. Such a land quantity analysis (LQA) was conducted by the City of Spokane Valley 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 zones (see Figure 6-1, Spokane River Land Use Capacity Analysis). " N ' — '` in � 4 � ° °''- ' --. x 1 : x• I i ° 1 te 11^,;, -yid 2 " ... M ..•Y": g _ rte. .tixrk �- `�f!'m n NA, V. • ire ��`c- N`� '1 ' f. y+.,N.a — y.+ 44� t+yerfAe"4 F?i� � aj v i 1 f iA M�,�tT1•��1 � �y t '��%1321-12-404t 4Y �c 41 4 . l Ara,..... - s r �" = ..r•..,- `} g�. i ,, ,/=t`' r..'i. i- ' t, '•s;, Fr..s. a,7.. _ • I�0+• 4 Legend b° El City Limits Vacant Shorelands by Zoning r {�',r , ${ L --Zr , ? °� 7 Industrial • .�` e, ' -! f •,'".3140..t,A Public Shoreline Property � i t + n Spokane River SMA Boudary Mixed Use . a_ s35L i° ' ' ,�' a, • n SMA Parcels Residential ' - .w4, / •k'' f -- ,'t' .. .»4 k r 'ii..,..,• `� / `'•- s Ff� _ i v �'+_ _1.. t 'iw 1 y'7r °. a - A�,.:• f-. ``��f ' a�,�' fye.4t , ,t,,, • `Y G4 i irivotsist " Figure 6-1 Spokane River Shoreline Use Analysis ',v t ; +�; 4 � .. City of Spokane Valley ••.'V� ',-,� ,e 1'. �,7 -y - c4 w-<:).-e v- f• 34 tiitigedr 5 0 1.000 2000 FeetURS t'.. .4'..?-ii t.:iv,•f--y,.-0' '1 1 4."41d6 The majority of vacant land (57%) is associated with lands zoned as "Mixed Use Center" (MUC). The MUC zoning designation allows two or more uses on a site that can either be vertically or horizontally mixed and allows for employment, lodging, and retail along with higher density residential uses. Land with "Heavy Industrial" zoning accounts for the second largest vacant land zoning category within the 68 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 shoreline zone (34%). Vacant residential lands (8%) account for a small portion of the remaining developable vacant lands within the shoreline zone. Table 6-2: Land Quantity Acreage Analysis Zoning Designation Acreage % Residential 4.15 8% Heavy Industrial 16.72 34% Mixed Use Center 28.08 57% Total 48.95 100% Based upon a review of vacant lands intersecting the shoreline zone, the bulk of future development potential lies within the area between the SRCT Bridge and Millwood (Coyote Rock development) and areas east of Trent Street on both sides of the river. Although zoned as Mixed Use Residential, the proposed Coyote Rock developments are all single family residential based on historic platting. However, areas east of Trent, on the southern shoreline, have a greater likelihood of being developed as high density residential with limited mixed commercial uses. Vacant industrial parcels east of Trent Street, on the north side of the river,have the potential to become developed in a manner that could affect the shoreline;however,access to these parcels is limited due to the railroad. Additional 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 potential(such as by utility easements or lack of public access). 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 SR-1; however, this would be restricted from infringing upon park lands and, as such, have little direct effect on the current state of shoreline ecosystem functions. The primary 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 river's shorelines through the City, particularly along the southern shoreline due to the SRCT. Additionally, the City is likely to expand access to the shoreline areas per the goals of the SMA and public input received thus far. Proper planning for increased access to identify appropriate areas and methods of access will be important to protect the shoreline ecosystem. Within the City, the section of the Spokane River located between Barker Road and the Mirabeau Point Park is one of the most popular whitewater recreation stretches on the Spokane River. This stretch of the river is heavily used by rafters, kayakers, canoers, and inner tubers depending on water flow and air temperature. Within this reach are a number of natural whitewater features including Flora Rapids, Sullivan Hole, and the Zoo Wave that are used for park and play kayaking and surfing. In 2005 a siting evaluation for potential Whitewater Parks along the Spokane River from Post Falls Dam to Sandifur Bridge in the City of Spokane was prepared by Colorado based Recreation Engineering and Planning (REP). Within the COSV no potential whitewater park sites were identified in large part due to its relatively high gradient. However, the report did address potential recreation improvements in this stretch: "This site is an existing river run of approximately 2.5 miles in length, and runs through a residential area. The Barker to Sullivan Run features existing recreational amenities at Sullivan play hole rapid and Flora rapid. This site could be improved through less 69 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 intrusive enhancements. Hardened access points at put-ins and take-outs would facilitate and improve access while limiting erosion." (Site Evaluation For Proposed Whitewater Park Venues in Spokane,Washington,Recreation,Engineering and Planning,2005). There are also recent efforts by members of the Spokane Canoe and Kayak Club to improve access and use at Sullivan Hole by re-opening the road on the north bank and making this area into a formal river access and"Whitewater Park." Current ideas are to focus on shoreline improvements only. The Spokane River within the COSV boundary is very popular for fishing. This area is not stocked with hatchery fish but is fished for the native redband trout. State fishing rules allow catch and release fishing between the first Saturday in June until March 15. Selective gear rules apply where up to three unscented artificial flies or lures with one single point barbless hook can be used. In addition,there is a State Health Advisory to avoid eating any fish caught in this area of the river. During the summer much of the fishing is located below Sullivan Road where cool aquifer inflow maintains water temperatures and flow volumes within the river that are preferable for the native trout populations. A proposal to establish a Spokane River Water Trail was unveiled at the Spokane River Forum held on March 22n1 and March 23`d, 2010. As currently envisioned,the Water Trail would formalize and provide improved direct river access at many of the existing access points identified in this inventory. Improvements to access points may provide opportunity for restoration of vegetation and remediation of contaminated soils. Some of the access improvements, as currently envisioned, would provide for additional parking and extending paved or non-paved roads to the river in order to trailer and launch larger rafts and drift boats. This proposal, if developed would increase direct river use by the general public and also by anglers who reportedly have had difficulties legally accessing the river. Additional development around Shelley Lake will also result in increased recreational use of the lake, albeit only from the private homeowners that live within the gated community(and guests thereof). The Sullivan Pit is expected to continue functioning as a private industrial site throughout the foreseeable planning period (20 years). However, the Park Road Pit is nearing the end of active mining and will likely transition into a natural space land use over the course of the next 20 years, per the terms of the reclamation plan. It is expected that, under the SMA, access will be a goal of the future use of the Park Road Pit; however, this would likely only happen if the land became public. If the site remains private, access would be unlikely due to liability and insurance issues. Based on this estimate of projected shoreline uses and current land availability, it appears that shorelines within the City will be able to accommodate future demand for shoreline development and recreational uses. Primarily due to the widespread state park land along the inner riparian shoreline areas, it appears that the current and projected balance of shoreline land uses, including recreation, residential, mixed use, and industrial uses are adequate to meet current and future demands while maintaining valuable shoreline ecosystem functions. 6.3 Potential Conflicts Primary conflicts will arise from the attempt to balance recreational river use with the protection and conservation of priority habitats (riparian conservation) and species (red-band trout). Growing use of shoreline areas is likely to result in additional informal access trails,which result in habitat fragmentation and erosion, as is seen along the river banks between the Sullivan Park and the beach below. Additionally, informal camp sites and litter will likely have a negative effect on existing habitat quality via clearing and spread of noxious weeds. This process can be currently witnessed along the southern shoreline in SR-2. 70 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Residential growth in the Coyote Rock development area will likely further degrade a historically disturbed shoreline area due to increased shoreline access pressure. Such pressure would likely result in both formal and informal access route construction. The shoreline will likely experience high intensity shoreline use, including potential dock construction. Dock construction and associated watercraft use would result in a conflict between fish &wildlife habitat conservation, water quality, and recreation due to the potential for increased bank erosion, petroleum pollution, and removal of vegetation cover. Because this area lacks the buffer provided elsewhere along the shoreline by public park land, this area has the potential to resemble the residential area west of Millwood in SR-4. The risk of high intensity shoreline use also conflicts with the potential for improved wildlife migration corridor functions. Due to higher quality riparian habitats to the east and west of the development area, the degraded shorelines through the Coyote Rock development area provide opportunities for shoreline habitat restoration, yet they have the potential to become further degraded by ongoing development. The City should take care to evaluate all shoreline development proposals to ensure that they include compensatory habitat improvements so that migration corridor and shoreline habitat functions are maintained. Such a balance between development and restoration can be achieved with fairly simple riparian vegetation enhancements but proposals must include monitoring requirements to ensure follow-through and maintenance. Future development of the MUC-zoned vacant lands and infill or redevelopment of low density residential areas along the southern shoreline are likely to occur above the SRCT and, as such,have little direct affect on the high quality riparian forest/shrub habitats. Impacts are more likely to affect degraded grassland communities along the upper river banks. There is also a strong potential to affect the visual/aesthetic quality of the shoreline as experienced from recreational users of the river corridor. These likely impacts provide an impetus for native grassland conservation and restoration in order to achieve no net loss of ecological shoreline functions. Additionally, as with new shoreline residential development, new construction in this area is likely to result in impacts associated with increased shoreline access pressure. New industrial development east of Trent Street,along the northern shoreline,has the potential to result in conflicting"shoreline dependent" development,recreation, and wildlife habitat uses. This area is already highly degraded by historic shoreline alterations, including old railroad infrastructure, utilities, maintenance roads, and drainage infrastructure. Future development may affect recreational values by clearing vegetation and constructing incongruous development in an otherwise scenic area. As mentioned above, the Park Road Pit is likely to transition from industrial land uses to open space/natural area conservation land uses. This may result in potential conflicts that are inherent with any attempt at natural resource conservation when proposed within a matrix of high intensity land uses. For example, the area is surrounded by industrial and commercial development and interstate transportation corridors,thus not an ideal conservation area for terrestrial wildlife. The area has the potential to provide important wintering waterfowl habitat, as well as general songbird habitat but the value of such habitat is limited by the movement,noise,glare, and pollution sources located around this pit. Additionally,the use of such an area for recreation conflicts with avian habitat goals and may not be appropriate without safety improvements. 6.4 Management Recommendations In addition to the recommendations provided in Section 5, this section provides a summary of general recommendations related to the goals of the SMA. Future shoreline developments, including infill and redevelopment proposals, have the opportunity to be allowed in a manner that balances growth with shoreline enhancements to maintain no net loss of ecological functions. This balance would occur through the issuance of shoreline substantial development or conditional use permits, which can be granted with special conditions requiring native plant establishment or similar enhancement activity. 71 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 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. 6.4.1 Recommendations for the Spokane River Under RCW 90.58.020,the legislature declared that the development of SMPs for shorelines of statewide significance,shall give preference to shoreline uses in the following order: 1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest; 2, Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; 3. Result in long term over short term benefit; 4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; 5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; 7. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary. The following recommendations provide a means for implementing these preferential uses for the Spokane River,a shoreline of statewide significance. Protecting Statewide Interest The City is currently supporting statewide interests for the Spokane River. Regional plans for the Spokane River identify improved recreational use, improved water quality, and support for native fish stocks as regional goals- an appropriate surrogate for statewide interest. Presence of the SRCT throughout most of the City is emblematic of the regional recreation corridor that the City of Spokane Valley supports. Impacts to water quality from Industrial point sources and combined sewer overflows are very limited within the City, despite being a large population center. Regarding support for native fish stocks, the City has little ability to affect the changes that are most necessary for improving native fish runs. Preserving the Natural Shoreline Character The city's greatest shoreline asset with regard to preserving the natural shoreline character is the large area of public land under the ownership of the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. It is recommended that the City consider establishing shoreline designations for these areas that protect their natural character and functions. These areas provide important shoreline ecological functions and should be conserved and protected in perpetuity to meet the SMA goals of No Net Loss of Shoreline Ecological Function. Areas where historic land uses cleared vegetation and introduced roads or other infrastructure should be slated for restoration where feasible, particularly near the shoreline. Areas prone to uncontrolled river access result in bank erosion. This is particularly notable below Sullivan Park in SR-2. By establishing formal access points in high intensity use areas, such erosion may be limited. This may require coordination with the State Parks and Recreation Department. Ecology should also be consulted to determine if these sites have environmental issues associated with them. The City should participate in the planning process and evaluate opportunities to combine the goals of conservation, restoration, and public access at these sites. 72 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Uses resulting in Long Term Benefits Similar to preserving the natural shoreline character, the large, linear tracts of park land along the City's shorelines provide long term conservation of riparian habitats and high-quality visual aesthetics and ecological functions that support enhanced habitat functions for wildlife and recreational opportunities. Therefore long term conservation, protection and restoration (where applicable) of these areas is seen as the best way to result in long term benefits. New development in shoreline areas should be allowed in a manner that includes a provision for the improvement of shoreline ecological functions. This would allow growth in a manner that balances the future development impacts with the goals of"No Net Loss of Shoreline Ecological Function." The City could accomplish this balance in two ways. It could require applicants to submit and implement shoreline restoration plans commensurate with the level of proposed impact. Alternately, it could collect revenues through property taxes on new development or through shoreline substantial development permits and use this money to fund shoreline restoration projects and project monitoring within the City. Protecting Shoreline Resources and Ecology The ecological relationship of shoreline resources, including wildlife, fisheries, invertebrates, and amphibians, all receive benefits from mature& diverse shrub and forest habitats within the riparian zone. Avian resources also depend on diverse shrub and prairie habitats. Therefore, protection, conservation, and restoration of these habitats are the easiest way to benefit multiple shoreline resources and protect the existing ecological conditions within the City. Special emphasis is recommended on the protection of existing trees and the addition of new trees to forest areas along southern shoreline south of pool habitats to provide thermoregulation. Additionally,the fence below the Sullivan Road Bridge on the north side of the river provides a wildlife migration barrier that may force wildlife up onto the road. Alteration of the fence to allow wildlife passage is recommended. Enhancements aimed at benefitting fish, beyond increased riparian functions (shade, benthic macroinvertebrate production) would require greater effort, particularly with regard to permitting and design. It is recommended that the City work with WDFW and Trout unlimited to secure funding for fisheries enhancement opportunities within the City. Opportunities include enhancement and protection of the unique aquifer interchange area between SR-1 and SR-2. The reemergence of cold groundwater makes this area a likely cold water refuge for fish,particularly during the summer. Additionally, the existing stormwater treatment facilities in SR-2 provide an opportunity for improved habitat diversity and shading. Such improvements would provide native vegetation cover for small wildlife and improved bird habitat. Increase Public Access to Publicly-Owned Shorelines and Increase Recreational Opportunities for the Public Access to the southern shoreline throughout the city is abundant via the SRCT. However, input gathered thus far indicates that additional parking and access to the shoreline from adjacent city streets is desirable at various locations. This includes improved access at Barker Road Bridge. This location provides a logical spot for non-motorized watercraft users to park and access the river. It is also a good bicycle entry point. Additionally, formal non-motorized access to the river from Eden Road would improve public access. Park land located south of the Kaiser aluminum plant and west of the railroad bridge is a popular destination for hikers. The area contains trails through a mature pine forest with a diverse herbaceous shoreline plant community. Large boulders along the shoreline make the area attractive to rock jumpers. Access to this area is currently gained from Sullivan Park, which is approximately a half mile to the east. For this reason it appears that the public occasionally trespasses through an unimproved dirt road located west of the railroad. This area is,therefore, a logical location for improving public access. The old water 73 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 treatment facility,privately owned by Pentzer Venture Hodlings,may provide an opportunity to improve parking. This access improvement is dependent upon land availability. In addition to creating a wildlife migration barrier,the fence below the Sullivan Road Bridge on the north side of the river provides a barrier to hikers using the otherwise contiguous parklands along the shoreline. Alteration of the fence to allow pedestrian passage is recommended. Also,public input includes requests to improve the dirt road located northeast of the Sullivan Road Bridge to allow access to the river for drift boats. Lastly,the park land/beach area just west of Myrtle Point is another popular recreation destination. Users can currently access the area via the undeveloped portions of Coyote Rock. However, as the area is developed, access will become limited. This area provides a potential take out location for watercrafts as most users end their runs at this location. It is recommended that the City work with the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (WSPRC) to provide access for the take out of non-motorized watercrafts and associated public parking at this location. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary Other elements described in RCW 90.58.100 include support for,and appropriate placement of,shoreline- dependent economies and the protection of single family residences against shoreline erosion. Due to the presence of dams, freight mobility and other shoreline dependent industry factors are not applicable within the City. Therefore,there are very few"shoreline dependent"uses that apply to the Spokane River with the City, other than river recreation. Gravel mining is one of the largest industrial land uses in the City;however, it is not shoreline dependent. It is recommended that future gravel mining be restricted to areas outside of the Spokane River's shoreline zone. Residential structures within the City are located above the floodway and are currently protected against erosive flood events by the dams, which damper flood energy. Shoreline erosion was noted in areas where concentrated stormwater runoff occurred or where off-trail foot traffic resulted in bare soil. Neither is currently posing a threat to upslope residential structures. Native shoreline vegetation establishment/restoration efforts located below residential properties will reduce the risk of erosion. 6.4.2 Shelley Lake Shelley Lake is expected to remain a private area, thus goals of the SMP related to public access are not applicable. However, goals related to protection of the shoreline ecological functions are applicable. These present the greatest management challenge because there is no public land around Shelley Lake that the City can target for affecting ecosystem enhancements, yet additional development is anticipated around the lake that will add intensified shoreline use pressure. One property remains along the eastern boundary of the lake that includes functioning riparian and wetland habitats and a unique granite outcropping. These natural areas account for much of the wildlife diversity observed at the lake. It is recommended that this area be conserved formally, either through shoreline designation or a conservation easement. It is recommended that the open space associated wetlands around Saltese Creek near the lake inlet be brought under the SMP and zoned for conservation. Where possible, the City should support enhancements to this area. Such enhancements may include native plantings, hydraulic modifications to store more water,and/or placement of habitat features(woody debris piles). As a purely residential environment, it will be important to provide policies in the SMP that allow for utility maintenance and other ongoing activities within the shoreline zone. Restrictions that disallow normal, ongoing maintenance activities will either be ignored or will provide bureaucratic difficulty for residents and City staff. 74 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 The Saltese Flats Wetland Restoration Investigation has the potential to affect Shelley Lake. The draft report for restoration of Saltese Flats indicates that potential benefits of wetland restoration include improved flow conditions in Saltese Creek and summer lake levels in Shelley Lake. Restoring Saltese Flats to a seasonal, shallow lake/wetlands system is an option that has been of interest to several state and local agencies. The flats have the potential to provide seasonal storage, which would improve summer base flow support. They also have the potential to provide open space and attenuate winter flood water. Water releases later in the summer will help increase the hydroperiod in wetlands associated with Saltese Creek,which will enhance water quality functions in those wetlands. 6.4.3 Gravel Puts The Park Road Pit is an active gravel mining operation that is approaching the end of its operating life. The land is private property, zoned heavy industrial, and surrounded by an urban road network. The Sullivan Road Pit is not expected to discontinue operations in the foreseeable planning period. As stated in Section 5 (Local Characterization), both pits play an important regional role in providing habitat for waterfowl. It has also been reported that the pits have been informally stocked with fish and, if managed correctly, may provide habitat that would support a cold water fishery. Discussions have been had with representatives of the gravel pits about potential future uses but it appears that little work has been done to address future uses beyond implementing the DNR approved reclamation plans that include wildlife habitat enhancement elements. It is reasonable to anticipate that if the pits remain privately owned public access will remain limited due to potential liability and environmental degradation issues. In the event that that pits become publicly owned, it is likely that they would be converted to public parklands, conservation areas,or a mix of private residential and park land. Public ownership would have the potential to provide education about the SVRP aquifer and to provide areas for conservation and protection for wintering and migratory wildfowl. There are challenges with transferring ownership to the City, a state agency, or to a third party conservation group. Major issues the costs associated with purchasing the properties, constructing public safety improvements, and continued operations and maintenance. If these pits are converted to future parkland,natural open space,and/or conservation areas, it is recommended that the existing structural facilities be converted to public uses or removed and revegetated. The narrow and steep upland banks should then be upgraded with a walking trails, safety improvements (guard rail),and viewing platforms. Habitat improvements should focus on avian support. Fishery enhancements may also be a popular public use, though easy access to the water surface will require substantial modifications to the banks. The Sullivan Road Pit is located adjacent to the Spokane River corridor and presents an opportunity to improve habitat diversity through this segment of the river. The Park Road Pit is more isolated due to the surrounding urban road network. At the Park Road Pit, increasing/improving habitat for amphibians and terrestrial wildlife may be problematic beyond the confines of the pit due to high intensity vehicular traffic; it may result in frequent road kill. It is anticipated that the future, post-industrial use of these properties will not be determined for several years due to the relative abundance of other recreational opportunities within the city and corresponding low current pressure to develop these areas into public park facilities. 75 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS City of Spokane Planning Staff Scott Kuhta Project Lead, Senior Planner Kathy McClung Community Development Director Greg McCormick Planning Division Manager Lori Barlow Associate Planner Mike Basinger Senior Planner Micki Harnois Associate Planner Dan Neyman GIS Specialist URS Corporation John Patrouch,P.E. Project Manager Noah Herlocker,PWS Ecologist Jacqui Halvorson Environmental Planner—QA/QC Jake Dial,P.E. Civil Engineer Jim Kolva Associates Planning Technical Advisor Mike Folsom Professor of Geology, Soils,and Wetlands— Eastern Washington University Shoreline Technical Review Group Doug Pineo and Jeremy Sikes Washington State Department of Ecology Dave Harsh Washington State Department of Natural Resources Spokane Tribe Dave Lamb Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Indians Walt Edelen Spokane County Conservation District Mike Stone Parks and Recreation—City of Spokane Valley Karin Divens and Jason McClellen Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Randy Person Washington State Parks and Recreation—Riverside State Park City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Avista Corporation, 2005. Spokane River Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2545, Applicant-Prepared Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment. Spokane,Washington Box, S.E., and Wallis, J.C., 2002. Surficial Geology along the Spokane River, Washington and its Relationship to the Metal Content of Sediment (Idaho-Washington Stateline to Latah Creek Confluence. U.S.Department of Interior,U.S.Geological Survey. Gearhart, C.M., 2001. The Hydraulic Connection between the Spokane River and the Spokane Aquifer: Gaining and Losing Reaches of the Spokane River from State Line, Idaho, to Spokane, Washington. Eastern Washington University,Cheney,Washington. Kahle, S.C. and Bartolino, J.R., 2007. Hydrogeologic Framework and Water Budget of the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer, Spokane County, Washington, and Bonner and Kootenai Counties, Idaho. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5041. (Provided information on the regional geology and current status of aquifer hydrogeology). Louis Berger Group, 2004. Recreation Facility Inventory and User Surveys Report, Spokane River Project,No. 2545. Bellevue,Washington. Northwest Power and Conservation Council,2004. Intermountain Sub-basin Plan, Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Portland, Oregon. O'Connor and J. G. McLellean. 2008. Stock Status of Redband Trout in the Upper Spokane River, Washington- WDFW Resident Fish Stock Status Project Annual Progress Report. April 2008. Washington Department of Fish&Wildlife. Spokane Valley,WA. Document ID#P106616. O'Connor and J. G. McLellean. 2009. Stock Status of Redband Trout and Estimate of Smallmouth Bass Abundance in the Upper Spokane River,Washington-WDFW Resident Fish Stock Status Project Annual Progress Report. September 2009. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Spokane Valley,WA. Document ID#P114270.. Parametrix, 2004. Spokane River Hydroelectric Project, Wetland and Riparian Habitat Mapping and Assessment. Kirkland,Washington. Parametrix, 2003. Spokane River Hydroelectric Project, Sensitive, Threatened, and Endangered Plant Survey. Kirkland, Washington. PBS&J,January 2009. Existing Data Review, Saltese Flats Wetland Restoration Investigation PBS&J, October 2009. Data Update and On-Site Feasibility Report, Saltese Flats Wetland Restoration Investigation (provided background information of Shelley Lake, water balance for Saltese and Shelley lake system, and proposed plans for wetland restoration). Ramm. 1994. Shelley Lake Environmental Impact Statement 77 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Small, M.P., J.G. McLellan, J. Loxterman, J. Von Bargen, A. Frye, and C. Bowman. 2007. Fine-Scale Population Structure of Rainbow Trout in the Spokane River Drainage in Relation to Hatchery Stocking and Barriers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:301-317, 2007. 17 pp. Thurow,Russell F.;Bruce E.Rieman;Danny C.Lee;Philip J.Howell;and Raymon D.Perkinson. 2007. Redband Trout:Resilience and Challenge in a Changing Landscape. Oregon Chapter,American Fisheries Society. 19 p. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, 1968. Soil Survey Spokane County Washington. Washington Department of Ecology. 2008. Progress on Watershed Planning and Setting Instream Flows. Publication No. 08-06-002. June 2008. Olympia,Washington. 78 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 GLOSSARY 1. 100-year flood. The terms "10 year," "50 year", "100 year", and "500 year" floods are used to describe the estimated probability of a flood event happening in any given year. Their primary use is for determining flood insurance rates in flood hazard areas. A 10 year flood has a 10 percent probability of occurring in any given year, a 50 year event a 2 percent probability, a 100 year event a one percent probability, and a 500 year event a 0.2 percent probability. 2. Aquifer Recharge Areas. Geological formations where rainwater or seepage actually enters an aquifer to replenish or recharge it. Aquifers typically consist of gravel, sand, sandstone, or fractured rock. In recharge areas,water is able to move from the surface down into the aquifer to replenish groundwater supplies,but contaminants may also enter the aquifer at the surface level. 3. Bank Armoring. Protective covering, such as rocks,vegetation,or engineering materials used to protect stream banks, or fill or cut slopes from flowing water. Stream bank and channel armoring is done to prevent erosion of channel banks and bottoms during runoff events. In some hydrologic systems stream banks are a major source of sediment. 4. Bio-infiltration (208) swales combine grasses and soils to remove stormwater pollutants by percolation into the ground. Their pollutant removal mechanisms include filtration, soil adsorption, and uptake by vegetated root zones. 5. Bio-stabilization. Biological shore protection techniques comprised of living and/or organic materials, such as native grasses and sedges; live stakes and posts;jute netting; and coir fiber rolls and mats. 6. Channel Aggradation. The accumulation of sediment in rivers and nearby landforms, which occurs when sediment supply exceeds the ability of a river to transport the sediment. The increase in sediment is caused by a decrease in soil binding that results from plant growth being suppressed. 7. Channelization. The process of reconstructing the natural course of a stream in order to make it flow into a restricted path. 8. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) and stormwater point discharges. Combined sewers convey both sanitary and stormwater flows. 9. Conservation Areas. Conservation areas define areas of undeveloped land primarily left in its natural condition. These areas may be used for passive recreational purposes, to create secluded areas, or as buffers in urban areas. 10. Critical Areas. The Washington Growth Management Act(GMA)requires cities and counties to designate and protect the functions and values of critical areas, and these are defined as: 1) Wetlands; 2) Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers for potable water (CARAs); 3) Frequently flooded areas; 4) Geologically hazardous areas, and 5) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Recent changes to GMA further require that cities and counties use "best available science"(BAS)when designating and protecting these critical areas. 11. Cumulative impacts. Prospective impacts from a proposed action that may be indirectly or directly related to the action and, when taken together, may constitute or result in short-term or long-term impacts. 12. Ecological Condition Ratings. Ratings reflect the current structural diversity, density, and continuity of native plant communities. Riparian vegetative communities trap sediments and nutrients from surface runoff and provide a matrix of root systems that serve as effective filters, minimize streambank erosion and flooding damage, assist streamflow maintenance, and moderate temperatures. 13. Ecological Function Assessment. For each of the inventory reaches in this document describes the eight processes and functions identified in the SMA as summarized in Section 3.2. 14. Footprint(building). The shape and orientation of the ground floor of a structure on the lot. 15. Frequently Flooded Areas. These areas of special flood hazard have been identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. 79 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 16. Geologically hazardous areas. Geologically hazardous areas include both erosion and landslide hazard areas. 17. Geomorphic processes. Induced by the hydrology create the in-stream structure that aquatic species have adapted to. Pools,riffles, glides, cover, and off-channel refugia are created through the movement of water at various flows. Each of these habitat elements together provides the complexity in a stream system that is necessary for the various species and life stages of aquatic organisms. 18. Habitat Fragmentation. The separation or breakup of a habitat area into smaller sections or habitat blocks by activities, such as development, logging, and agriculture, often resulting in degraded habitat due to blocked migration corridors and decreased access to water and feeding areas. It can also create isolated populations of wildlife and a decrease in their genetic diversity. 19. Habitat. The sum total of all the environmental factors of a specific place that is occupied by an organism,population, or a community. 1)High species diversity;2. High vulnerability to habitat alteration; 3) High wildlife density; 4) Important movement corridors; 5) Important wildlife breeding habitat; 6)Important wildlife seasonal ranges; 7)Limited availability. 20. Hydrologic functions(shoreline). Include the transport of water and sediment across the natural range of flow variability; attenuating flow energy; developing pools, riffles, gravel bars, and the recruitment and transport of large woody debris and other organic material. 21. Hyporheic. Within a shoreline this zone provides the following functions: removing excessive nutrients and toxic compounds; water storage; support of vegetation and invertebrates; sediment storage; and maintenance of base flows. The subsurface habitat, or hyporheic zone, is the interstitial habitat beneath the streambed that is the interface between surface water and the adjoining groundwater. Vertical and lateral dimensions of subsurface water movements are controlled by geologic structure, such as the relative permeability of underlying strata. 22. Invasive Plant Species. Invasive plants can alter and disrupt natural habitats and reduce biodiversity. They are most threatening in ecosystems such as wetlands and fire prone areas. Invasive plant species thrive where the continuity of a natural ecosystem is breached and are abundant on disturbed sites like construction areas and road cuts. 23. Large Woody Debris. (LWD). Large woody debris including tree boles, root wads, and large branches, has been recognized as an important structural component of stream systems for both stream stabilization and habitat restoration. 24. Lucustrine. The environment of a lake. 25. Meander. A bend in a river, also known as an oxbow loop.A stream or river flowing through a wide valley will tend to form a meandering stream course as it alternatively erodes and deposits sediments along its course. The result is a snaking pattern as the stream meanders back and forth across its floodplain. When a meander gets cut off from the main stream body, an oxbow lake is formed 26. Native Aquatic and Shoreline-Dependent Wildlife Habitat. The shoreline provides habitat for a variety of species. Habitat functions may include but are not limited to: space or conditions for reproduction;resting,hiding and migration;and food production and delivery. 27. Native Plant Community. The collective product of individual plants indigenous to a particular locale responding to shared habitats. 28. Neotropical birds. Account for 340 of the 600 species of birds that breed and nest in North America. These birds migrate each fall to warmer climates in tropical regions of Mexico,Central America, South America,and the Caribbean. 29. No Net Loss. Ecological functions recognize that any ecological system is composed of a variety of interacting physical, chemical, and biological components, that are interdependent in varying degrees and scales, and that produce the landscape and habitats as they exist at any time." When more development is proposed than can be reasonably expected to have impacts not anticipated and mitigated by the regulations of the SMP, the resources that may be affected must be identified and mitigated sufficiently to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 80 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No.10-014 30. Ordinary High Water Mark. The OHWM is a line usually identified by examining the bed and banks of the water along the shore to determine where action of the water has created a distinct mark upon the soil with respect to upland vegetation 31. Palustrine. Palustrine systems include any inland wetland which lacks flowing water. 32. PCB's. A group of man-made chemicals historically used as insulating fluids or coolants and lubricants in transformers,capacitors and other electrical equipment. They have also been used in hydraulic oils, fluorescent lights, inks, carbonless paper, and other uses. Manufacture of PCBs stopped in the U.S. in 1977(Ecology 2005). 33. Priority Habitats. Are habitat areas determined by WDFW to have unique or significant value to many species and that meet one or more of the following criteria: 34. Properly Functioning Condition (PFC). Represents the physical ability of a reach to withstand a 25-30 year hydrological event. Properly functioning reaches have characteristics such as: well established riparian vegetation; an active floodplain; and stable channels. Sites considered to be properly functioning may not provide other important ecological or biological values and functions. 35. Reach. An expanse, or widening, of a stream or river channel. This commonly occurs after the river or stream is dammed.A reach is similar to an arm. 36. Riparian function. The interaction of various hydrologic, geomorphic, and biotic processes across a range of spatial and temporal scales within the riparian environment. As a result, riparian function encompasses a variety of processes that determine the character of the riparian zone and exert influence on the adjacent aquatic and terrestrial environment. The flow of sediment, water, wood, and energy into and out of the riparian zone is controlled by climatic, geologic,topographic,vegetative, and management-related factors. 37. Riparian Zone. The riparian zone provides important stream shading through canopy closure over the shoreline, habitat for invertebrates that provide forage for fish and wildlife, habitat for terrestrial species, surface water runoff filtering, and structural stability of stream banks. 38. Riverine. Associated with a river. 39. Scree slopes. Broken rock that appears at the bottom of crags, mountain cliffs or valley shoulders, forming scree slopes. The term scree is generally used interchangeably with talus, though scree often refers to rocks that are smaller than a volley ball). 40. Sessile aquatic species. Sitting on stem. 41. Shoreland. The area 200-feet horizontally landward from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). 42. Shoreline vegetation. Both within the riparian zone and the adjacent upland areas, serves the following functions: maintaining temperature; removing excessive nutrients and toxic compound; sediment removal and stabilization; attenuation of flow energy; and providing large woody debris and other organic matter. 43. Shorelines of Statewide Significance. For rivers east of the Cascade Mountain Range crest, "those natural rivers or segments thereof where the mean annual flow is two hundred cubic feet per second (cfs) or more; or the portion of the rivers downstream from the first three hundred square miles of drainage area,whichever is less." 44. Shorelines of the State. Shorelines of streams or rivers having a mean annual flow of 20 cfs or greater. 45. Shorelines. Include all upland areas called `shorelands', which is the area 200-feet horizontally landward from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM); floodway and contiguous floodplain areas;and all associated wetlands and river deltas(RCW 9.58.030(2)(f)). 46. Surficial Geology Study (USGS). Surficial geology is concerned with the description of the types and distributions of unconsolidated sediments across the landscape. This information is collected and maintained primarily in maps and databases. It is useful to hazard assessment, and Iand use planning. 47. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The maximum amount of any number of a variety of pollutants that a waterbody can assimilate without violating state water quality standards. 81 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 48. Underground Storage Tank (UST). And Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST). About 640,000 underground storage tanks (USTs) nationwide store petroleum or hazardous substances that can harm the environment and human health if the USTs release their stored contents. Leaking USTs(LUSTs)can leave considerable clean-up problems. 49. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA). Ecology was given responsibility for the development and management of these administrative and planning of these watershed boundaries. 50. Watershed. A drainage basin or catchment, meaning the region of land whose water drains into a specified body of water. 51. Wetlands. Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,marshes,bogs,and similar areas. 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Appendix A Data Inventory List 1MSMemorandum Date: January 25,2010 To: City of Spokane Valley Community Development From: John Patrouch,PE Noah Herlocker Subject: City of Spokane Valley Data Inventory Purpose This memorandum provides information on the inventory data and an analysis of data gaps. Within the framework of the Shoreline Management Act and Guidelines,the shoreline inventory establishes a baseline that shoreline development and restoration can be measured against to achieve no net loss. WAC 173-26-201(E) states "Local governments should use the characterization and analysis called for in this section to prepare master program policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of ecological functions necessary to support shoreline resources and to plan for the restoration of the ecosystem-wide processes and individual ecological functions on a comprehensive basis over time." This memo outlines individual shoreline inventory elements, existing data sources that address those elements, and an initial assessment of fieldwork needed to gather information for those elements not adequately covered by existing sources. Discussion of Data Sources City of Spokane Valley The City of Spokane Valley (COSV) has GIS data relevant to landuse, zoning, roads, utilities, critical areas, aquifer recharge and other planning and natural use data layers. The City information is up to date and is well coordinated with other local and state agencies. Spokane County Conservation District(SCCD) The Conservation District performed an inventory and assessment of streams in Spokane County that was completed in 2005. This report contains data relevant to the City inventory. The potential limiting factor of this data is that it is specific to a reach but not down to the river mile, with some exceptions. High quality areas were inventoried and listed by river mile. Each data category was also put in GIS layers. Avista Corp. The assessment work conducted for Avista's 2005 relicensing application provides detailed information within the inventory area. However, the defined project area for the relicensing does not include the entire length of the river within City limits therefore some reaches are not covered. What stream segments are covered varies in each report. Spokane County Spokane County is in the process of performing studies at Saltese Flats. There is valuable information contained in these reports about Shelley Lake. Spokane County also has layers available for sewer plans and existing septic tanks located within the shoreline area. Page 2 of 4 URS Shelley Lake Homeowners Association The Shelley lake HOA provided Habitat Management Plans and permitting documents, including and Environmental Impact Statement that was done for the development of this land. This information provides much of the available background information on Shelley Lake. Agencies(Ecology, DNR, WDFW,EPA, USFWS,NRCS) Each agency has reports/documents and GIS data relevant to the agency's purpose. The level of detail varies. Examples include the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Spokane County Soil Survey, the Washington State Fish and Wildlife and the Priority Habitat and Species data base, etc. Much of the information for the gravel pits is available from the DNR permit, reclamation plans, and associated documentation. The following functional groups were taken from the Costal Training Program — Preparing Shoreline Characterizations for SMP Updates. These groups provide and outline for the information needed for the data inventory. The fieldwork designation in the data source column identifies elements that at will be assessed in the field to supplement existing information. Specific Inventory Elements and Sources COSV—Inventory Data Functional Group Data Element Data Source Hydrology PFC rating SCCD Report&GIS Rosgen stream type SCCD Report&GIS Geologylithology USGS GIS geohazard City GIS-Critical Areas permeability Soil Survy(report&GIS) Soils runoff characteristics Soil Survey(report&GIS) erosion hazard Soil Survey(report&GIS) hydric soils Soil Survey(report&GIS) upland vegetation General description per reach from SCCD report. WDFW Priority Habitat GIS,DNR Natural Heritage GIS.Fieldwork needed. General description per reach reach and specific high quality areas by riparian vegetation river mile SCCD report. Good detail from Avista for river. Fieldwork needed. Good detail from Avista except Upriver Dam to Monroe St. USFWS wetlands National Wetlands Inventory.Fieldwork needed. Biological wildlife/fish Good detail from Avista. WDFW Priority Habitat GIS.Northwest Habitat Institute has broad brush information.Fieldwork needed. Some detail from Avista for Nine Mile Dam Pool and Monroe/Upper wildlife/avian Falls Pool. WDFW Priority Habitat.Audubon Group information. Fieldwork needed. wildlife/terestrial Some detail from Avista. WDFW Priority Habitat. Local landowners. Fieldwork needed. Land Use& boat launches Avista Relicensing-Final Recreation Facility Inventory and User Cultural Survey known cultural sites Centennial Trail cultural resource inventory.WA Dept of Archaeolo•y and Historic Preservation GIS roads City GIS Page 3 of 4 URS cosy_Inventory Data Functional Group Data Element Data Source railroads City GIS bridge/fence crossings Aerial photos shore protection(eg rip rap) Aerial photos and field verification.Fieldwork needed. effluent pipes DOE permitted facilities GIS DOE permitted facilities Ecology GIS impervious surfaces City GIS zoning City GIS current landuse Aerial Photos,City GIS,Fieldwork needed. historical landuse Aerial Photos,old USGS maps,Boutwell books essential facilities City GIS/Aerial Photos/Discussions/City Shorelines of Statewide Ecology GIS. Spokane River meets criteria Significance unique features SCCD inventory of high quality areas,Fieldwork needed. environmental contamination Ecology Records/GIS Database. Discussions with staff Docks Avista Recreation Report.Aerial Photos Public Access Points Avista Recreation Report Restoration Opportunities Restoration potential per reach from SCCD report&GIS.City and Ecology consultation. Fieldwork needed I Spokane River—Ecosystem Wide Updrift and basin characteristics Applicable Data Source influencing SMA shoreline ecosystem Dams Avista GIS,many reports on Aquifer and River. Irrigation channels No High water demand agricultural landuse No Mining/dredging operations DNR permits,pit reclamation plans. Low flows Avista/Upriver dam operation,Aquifer Influence,USGS gauges Record of dredge projects,maintenance Ecology heavy metals beach cleanups. dredging or disposal activities Levees No Fills in floodplain USGS Surficial Geology of Spokane River GIS data Recent changes to flood/erosion zones No? Aerial photo comparisons. Transportation facilities intersecting City GIS floodplain Incised channels No Development within channel migration No? Aerial Photo/City Zoning/Landuse zones Impervious surface in watershed City GIS Large undisturbed wetland complexes and National Wetlands Inventory,EWU Inventory,Fieldwork. beaver dams Unconstrained sources of upstream sediment Shelley Lake/Saltese Creek Areas zoned for growth on erodible soils City GIS Fragmented vegetation Aerial Photos,Fieldwork. Page 4 of 4 URS Spokane River—Ecosystem Wide Updrift and basin characteristics Applicable Data Source influencing SMA shoreline ecosystem Dams Avista GIS,many reports on Aquifer and River. Upland logging No Water quality exceedences(303d,305b listings) Ecology GIS Designated state or federal cleanup sites Ecology/EPA Records Urban/commercial/industrial landuse adjacent to upland aquatic lands City GIS,Aerial Photos Upstream ports or marinas No Livestock intensive agricultural landuse No High pesticide/fertilizer demand agricultural No landuse Direct upstream input from outflow pipes DOE&IDEQ Records(City of Liberty Lake,Kaiser,Inland Paper,Idaho Sources) Presence of older septic systems Spokane Regional Health District,Spokane County Areas zoned for growth atop aquifer City GIS recharge areas Interruption of aquatic migratory corridors WDFW,Avista Studies,User Groups Interruption of terrestrial migratory corridors WDFW Priority Habitat and Species/DNR Natural Heritage Loss of native species WDFW Priority Habitat and Species/DNR Natural Heritage, abundance/distribution User groups. Identified conservation,protected areas WDFW Priority Habitat and Species/DNR Natural Heritage GIS Database-Initial Dataabase Request 1/25/2010 Category DataseVLayers Geometry Author Date Status' Metadata Comment jurisdictional River Boundaries High Water Line Line SV Sep-09 '—`15----I X Digitized by the City for use in the field inventory Wetland Areas Polygon SV r X Author? SMA Polygon SV 9-Oct P _., Mike Folsom Floodplain Info Polygon FEMA P X 100-year floodplain Natural Resource Field Inventory Portions of the river that are separated for the purpose of Study Segments for SMP Line URS Oct-09 Pdiscussion in the Shoreline Inventory&Analysis Report Erosion Line URS Oct-09 ../... P i Areas of erosion inventoried in October 2009 Restoration Areas,Conservation Areas,and other unique Restoration and Conservation Polygon URS Oct-09 features inventoried by URS in September 2009 Photo Points(?) Point URS Oct-09 1 Field approximated and drawn on high-resolution aerial OHWM Line Folsom Oct-09 #�. photos by Mike Folsom in September 2009 Field approximated and drawn on high-resolution aerial Vegetation Zones Polygon Folsom Oct-09 P photos by Mike Folsom in September 2009 Cultural Resources CT Study ? CT Tribal ? .'INS ,.a45.. - _ - State Historic Preservation Office ? SHPO ` I Historic Districts ? Critical Areas As per Spokane Valley Municipal Code Title 21.40 Erodible Soils Polygon SV �--P-1 X RHA Polygon SV " "--1 X Aquifer Recharge Polygon DOE —Pte" X Geologically Hazardous Areas Polygon SV ""' -I X Frequently Flooded Areas Polygon ? f� X , zoning/Land Use Need to delineate areas. City Limits Polygon SV _P- X UGA Polygon SV ,. P , X Tax parcels Polygon County ' X Public/private delineate,also ownership City Parks Polygon SV =Dr 1 X Is this part of Land use mapping? Land Use Polygon SV I X need to determine areas by reach Zoning Polygon SV "`"_ X need to determine areas by reach Railroad Right of Ways Polygon State j X General Information,areas along shoreline Natural Environment Environmental Compliance 2008 303d List DOE Is:='Atli Need to delineate areas and points TMDL? DOE I Should see if this is available as a shapefile GIS Database-Initial Dataabase Request 1/25/2010 Category Dataset/Layers Geometry Author Date Status' Metadata Comment Is the same as the metal contamination clean up areas DOE Permit Sites Point DOE P (EPA)? Fills in Floodplain SCCD PFC Data Need to delineate linear feet(percentage) PFC Ratings .Polygon SCCD P- Development Impacts Polygon SCCD P Reach Breaks Line SCCD P Ecological Condition Polygon SCCD P Erosion Line SCCD Restoration Potential Polygon SCCD 0 - Vegetation Vegetation Plots Folsom ___F_ .f ' Field approximated and drawn on high-resolution aerial Vegetation Zones Polygon Folsom Oct-09 P t photos by Mike Folsom in September 2009 Noxious Weeds Folsom P tPhoto Points Folsom _ P . i Wildlife Habitat PHS-Terrestrial Polygon WDFW T X Natural Heritage-Current Polygon DNR P ° X Natural Heritage-Historic Polygon DNR P X 3rd Party Sightings ? ? fr Audoban ? Audoban P Norma Treyfa-Audubon Society High Value Angling Spots Point Local Anglers P Stann Grater/Bill Abrahmse/Judy kaufman '----73 Not PHS-This will be additional observations from the local district biologists made specifically for the SMP update WDFW ? Karin Divens process. Fisheries Avista Info Points Avisat ~--�'-' Recreation sites,fish studies PHS-Fish Polygon WDFW WRIA Info DOE Reports.No GIS data Physical Environment Geological Map Polygon NRCS Need to delineate areas of various soils in jurisdiction NRCS Soils NRCS P 1 USGS 1:2400 scale topo or better? Topography USGS P t Need to digitize and delineate by LF Built Structures Fences Polyline URS Field Inventory Bridges Polygon URS URS Field Inventory Bulkheads Polygon URS URS Field Inventory GIS Database-Initial Dataabase Request 1/25/2010 Category Dataset/Layers Geometry Author Date Status' Metadata Comment Docks Polygon URS Aerial Photos Transportation&Access Streets Line SV • Formal Trails Line Centennial Trail Line Avista .........r 1 Informal Trails Line Formal Access Line Avista -, .15 Informal Access Line URS P Digitized by URS based on field inventory Wastewater Sewer Line County M` Pump Stations Point -I,MIA Force Mains Point -,_ AIM Septic Tanks Point County = 2 Built Environment Water Transmission Line t.-, _ r4 Distribution Line Wells Point Booster Pumps Point iegg'tilt Reservoirs Polygon Int Mi Wellhood Protection Polygon County _ Electric Substations Point BPA/Avista Power Lines Line BPA/Avista P Comm Att Fiber Optics Line - + No gis Data Quest Line -,- ';C No gis Data Verizon Line No gis Data Stormwater Outfalls Point "' URS Field Inventory and City Records Impervious Polygon COSV Oct--0i-41.1",""4 1 Status:"P"=In Possesion/Complete,"ND"=Need to Digitize,"NL"=Need to Locate,"U"=Unknown COSV GIS Data List j 1/14/2010 Outside Agency Layers Generated By COSV Generated by COSV 1 ambient.sho 51 Recreation_Sites_092105.shp 1 all_reachbreaks.shp _ I 1 reach3.shp 2 aqwells.shp 52 restoration_pot.shp 2 buffer_150ft_shellyik_wetlnd.shpL 2 reach3_buffer.shp 3 arterials.shp 53 restoration_pot.shp 3 buffer_200ft_HW.shp 3 reach4.shp 4 attfoptic.shp 54 riv_aq_ex.shp 4 builtenv.shp ( 4 reach4_buffer.shp 5 avista.shp 55 rvr_lkbed.shp 5 data_point.shp 5 reach5.shp 6 baseflow.shp 56 rvrbd_poly.shp 6 Field_Inv_Lines.shp { 6 reach5_buffer.shp 7 bpal.shp 57 rvrbed_poly.shp 7 inventory_arc.shp 7 reach6.shp 8 bpa2.shp 58 Septic08.shp 8 inventory__,poly.shp 8 reach6_buffer.shp 9 bpatlins.shp 59 shelleylk wetbuff2.shp 9 inventory_pt.shp I 9 reach7.shp 10 bpatlins2.shp 60 shelleylk_wetland.shp 10 pits_200buff.shp j 10 reach7_buffer.shp 11 bpawwp.shp 61 shorelines.shp 11 River Study_Segments.shp ( 11 SR1_A.shp 12 c53063stpl.shp 62 smp_arc.shp 12 shorelines.shp I 12 SR1_B.shp 13 CARA.shp 63 SMP_CP_clip.shp 13 SL_Imperv_surface.shp ( 13 SR1_C.shp 14 centennial trail.shp 64 smp grid.shp 14 SL_Imperv_surface_Clip.shp 14 SR1_Imperv_surface.shp 15 chevron.shp 65 SMP_zoning_clip.shp 15 SL_Imperv_surface_Clip.shp 15 SR1_Imperv_surface_Cli .sh 16 conoco.shp 66 smppits.shp 16 SLjuris.shp ( 16 SR1 Jurisdiction.shp 17 csv_bikerts.shp 67 smppitsbuff.shp 17 SLJurisdiction.shp j 17 SR1_sewbasn_clip.shn 18 cultsites_clip.shp 68 smppitsparc.shp 18 SL_sewbasn_clip.shp 18 SR1_soils_clip.shp 19 dairy.shp 69 smppitsparc2.shp 19 SL_soils_clip.shp 19 SR1_srgeounits.shp 20 devel_impacts.shp 70 jsmpriver.shp 20 SL_Zones.shp 20 SR1_Zones.shp 21 ecological cond.shp 71 soilmu_a_wa063.shp 21 smp_arc.shp ( 21 SR2_A.shp 22 ecosystems_clip.shp 72 soilmu_a_wa063.shp 22 SMP_CP_clip.shp ( 22 SR2_B.shp 23 erosion.shp 73 srgeounits.shp 23 smp,grid.shp 23 SR2_C.shp 24 facillty.shp 74 srgeounits_Clip.shp 24 SMP_zoning_clip.shp 24 SR2_Imperv_surface.shp 25 full jurisdiction.shp 75 sva103_scollect.shp 25 smppits.shp { 25 SR2_Imperv_surface Clip.shp 26 high_water.shp 76 SVFDHydrants.shp 26 smppltsbuff.shp 26 SR2_Jurisdlction.shpl 27 histsites.shp 77 svi.shp { 27 smppltsparc.shp 27 SR2_sewbasn_cllp.shD 28 HQA_Spo_Hang.shp 78 svrp_aquifershp 28 smppitsparc2.shp 28 SR2_soils_clip.shp 29 imperv_surface.shp 79 trails.shp I 29 smpriver.shp 29 SR2_srgeounits.shp 30 jurisdiction.shp BO Tribal_arc.shp 30 URS_NR Field Inventory.shp 30 SR2_Zones.shp 31 list303d.shp 81 Tribal_poly.shp 31 SR3 A.shp 32 list_305b.shp 82 URS_NR_Field_Inventory.shp 32 SR3_B.shp 4 33 minepits.shp 83 usewbasn_Clip.shp 33 SR3_C.shp , 34 minepits_arc.shp 84 usgsrivermiles.shp 34 SR3_Imperv_surface.shp 35 npc.shp 85 valshs.shp 35 SR3_Imperv_surface_Clip.shp _ 36 nva104.shp 86 val_roadfile.shp 36 SR3 Jurisdiction.shp I 37 nvi.shp 87 val_wetind.shp j 37 SR3_sewbasn_ciip.shn 38 parccosv.shp BB vera.shp I { 38 SR3_soils_clip.shp 39 parcels_200ftbuff.shp 89 vfloodzn.shp I 39 SR3_srgeounits.shp 40 pfc_reach_ratings.shp 90 Water Well_Logs_4_29_09.shp j 40 SR3_Zones.shp 41 pgt.shp 91 WNHP_Current09_SV.shp 41 SR4_Imperv_surface.shp 42 pgt_gas.shp 92 WNHP_Historic09_SV.shp 42 SR4_Imperysurface_Cllp.shp 43 PHS2008_clip.shp 93 wria_arc.shp J 43 SR4_Jurisdiction.shp 44 Pit_Impery surface.shp 94 wria polygon.shp j 44 SR4_Jurisdiction.shp 45 Pit Jurisdiction.shp 95 wwp.shp 1 j 45 SR4_sewbasn_cli•.sh 46 pits_200buff.shp 96 wwpfuture.shp j 46 SR4 soils_clip.shp _ 47 Pits_sewbasn_clip.shp 97 wwpgas.shp47 SR4_Zones.shp 48 railyds.shp 98 zones.shp I 49 reach_data.shp 99 zones_arc.shp _ 50 reach_veg.shp 100 zones.poly.shp 101 zones_poly_BU.shp _ 102 zoning_clip.shp City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update Existing Data Inventory-Documents s -@ Title Author/Sponsor Date River I n m Report Significant Notes System / a m 3 Obtained Resource The hydraulic connection between the Spokane River and the Gearhardt,CJEastern Summary River Reaches studied are between WA-ID border and Spokane Aquifer:Gaining and losing reaches of the Spokane Washington University 2001 Spokane x x .doc on file Plantes Ferry Park River from the state line,Idaho to Spokane,Washington. Draft WRIA 57 Watershed Management Work WRIA 55/57Unit Spokane Spokane Subbasin Plan Northwest Power X X PDF on file yes Good maps and some restoration project information Planning Council Spokane Spokane River Hydroelectric Project Draft Environmental X x x x x PDF on file yes Comprehensive info on river. Upriver Dam not part of Assessment Avista/FERC 2005 Spokane relicensing. Spokane County Proper Functioning Condtion Stream Inventory and Assessment SCCD 2005 Spokane X x PDF on file yes Report on Coeur d'Alene Lake and Spokane River Sediment Avista 2005 Spokane X PDF on file Area within Shoreline study are covered in 2 pages Routing An Overview of Aquatic Habitat and Fish Related Impacts of Avista 2004 Spokane X PDF on File Focuses on mitigation of Impacts the Spokane River HED Project in WA Final Wetland and Riparian Habitat Mapping and Avista 2004 Spokane X PDF on file yes Middle portion of study are not covered Assessment Report Instream Flow and Fish Habitat Assessment Avista 2004 Spokane X X PDF on file Some limited habitat inventory Final Recreation Facility Inventory and User Survey Report Avista 2004 Spokane X PDF on file yes Detailed inventory with site descriptions containing Lat/Lon Aesthetics Study Report,Spokane River Project,FERC No. Avista 2003 Spokane x PDF on file No inventory info. 2545 Spokane River Hydroelectric Project Sensitive,Threatened, Avista 2003 Spokane X PDF on file yes Covers shorelines affected by fluctuating water levels caused and Endangered Plant Survey by HED's Rainbow Trout Spawning Survey,2003 Avista 2003 Spokane X PDF on file Phase 1 Report,Spokane River Project Erosion Avista 2003 Spokane x PDF on file Does not address study area Reconnaissance Phase 1 Report,Water Quality Data Compilation Spokane Avista 2003 Spokane PDF on file Assessment of existing data (River Licensing Project TR Summary Description of Existing Conditions and Identifies studies that look at specific species for specific Identification of Data Gaps based on Currently Available Avista 2003 Spokane X PDF on file reaches Information Sources Vegetation Map Inventory TRWG Avista 2003 Spokane PDF on file Good source for historical research Stakeholder Assessment Report Avista 2000 Spokane PDF on file Tells who's interested and why In Spokane River issues Spokane River/Aquifer Interaction Project Results,May- DOE 1999 Spokane x x PDF on file November 1999 Assessment of changes in water quality in the Spokane River between Riversled State Park and the Washington-Idaho Hallock,DJ WA DOE 2004 Spokane x PDF on file review border. Pub No.04-03-007 _ Surface-water/ground-water interaction of the Spokane River Caldwell,R.R.and and the Spokane Valley/Rathdrum Prairie aquifer,ID and WA Bowers,C.LJUS 2003 Spokane x x PDF on file review U.S.Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Geological Survey Report 03-4239 Streamflow trends in the Spokane River and tributaries, Spokane Vailey/Rathdrum Prairie,ID and WA:US Geological and Covert,J.J./US Ger 2005 Spokane x PDF on file Analysis doc Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5005 Soil Survey Spokane County Washington Soil Conservation 1968 Spokane X Hardcopy of yes GIS,review Service file Rainbow Trout Radio-Tracking Survey 2004 Final Report Avista 2004 Spokane N/A City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update Existing Data Inventory-Documents Title Author/Sponsor Date River 2 a 24 3 Report Significant Notes System $ mg ® Obtained Resource Report on Temperature Analysis for Spokane River Avista 2004 Spokane N/A Recreation PM&E Upper Spokane River Rainbow Trout Spawning and Fry Avista 2004 Spokane N/A Emergence Protection Plan Final Phase 2 Erosion Assessment Report Avista 2004 Spokane x PDF on file Does not address study area _ Phase 2,Spokane River Water Temperature Report Avista 2004 Spokane N/A Water Budget and Identification of Beneficial Uses Avista 2003 Spokane N/A 1997-1999 Upper Spokane River Rainbow Trout Spawning& Avista 2000 Spokane N/A Fry Emergence Study Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Washington, USGeological Survey Water-Resources Investigations U.S.Geological Survey 1998 Spokane N/A Report 97-4277 Avista Corporation and An overview of aquatic habitat and fish related impacts of the Washington 2004 Spokane x Review Spokane River Hydroelectric Project in Washington Department of Fish and p Wildlife Avista,Parametrix, Washington Ramping Rate Evaluation,Spokane River Hydroelectric Department of Fish and 2004 Spokane N/A Project.Doc.No.2004-0513 Wildlife,and Idaho Department of Fish and Game..Avista Bailey,G.C.and J. Saltes/State of Fishery assessment of the upper Spokane River Washington,Water 1982 Spokane x review,some useful info Research Center, Washington State University Surficial geology along the Spokane River,Washington and its relationship to the metal content of sediments(Idaho- United States 2002 Spokane x x review Washington state line to Hangman creek confluence).Open- Geological Survey File Report 02-126 Spokane River water quality monitoring program annual CH2M HILL/Avista data(April 2001-March 2002)and final monitoring report Utilities 2002 Spokane N/A (April 1999-March 2002) Washington State State of Washington natural heritage plan Department of Natural 1987 Spokane X Review Resources An assessment of outdoor recreation in Washington State:A Interagency Committee state comprehensive outdoor recreation planning document for Outdoor Recreation 2002 Spokane x review,maybe general 2002-2007 Johnson E.E.,R.W. 1992 Angler Survey for the Spokane River,Washington Smith and D.K. 1992 x X Review,might be useful Selle/W ashingto n Water Power Co. _ Watershed approach to water quality management needs assessment for the Spokane Water Quality Management Knight,D.TJWA DOE 2004 Spokane x review Area(WRIA 54-57) Priority habitats and species database:Data compilation for Washington the Intermountain Province. Department of Fish and 2003 Spokane x review Wildlife City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update Existing Data Inventory-Documents c Title Author/Sponsor Date River es Report Significant Notes System = a a a "4 Obtained Resource WA Dept.Fish and Wildlife,Idaho Dept.of Spokane River instream flow recommendations Fish and Game, 2004 Spokane x x X review Spokane County Utilities,and WA DOE Environmental improvements on the Spokane River WA DOE 2004 Spokane N/A Ecological Indicators of Water Quality In the Spokane River, MacCoy,Dorene E.; Idaho and Washington Maret,Terry RJUS 2003 Spokane x review Geological Survey Sullivan Road Pit -Reclamation Plan,Permits DEA 1998 Park Road Pit-Reclamation Plan,Permits DEA 1994 Shelley Lake Habitat Management Plan Ramm Shelley review Lake Shelley Review Spokane County Saltese Flats Studies PBS&J 2009 Lake CRyei Seabee Vabylbamaa langur PlOgrarl djRdate PmvanaWad lnaraaianler antra Math _ -- Daadap Arotarshs.Reeds Merrier, Carew pentium at seachtunrdulaa same Inieaslbn Spokane Dairy Sheeae. Prepared by URS 10,8m9 Speae Coo*Proper Smkw IW yr afydmobcbk Pml.cl Thepokanea weaclbn badmen res Spokane RN.r PG6 S.tliment Sun.Wanhkbpy sting IM BpoFane Tsnn Dare Same Fucwnq Car- Salem Spokane Sear Hryeawzbla Pfopet Spoke Smlebas..plan Fbal Reveawn Foal,.Inventory and ......TN.m.edvw Spokane Roar and the S sae Conlamwadon NOW-Howell River.Washington and bealbeh Rwbme Ta2SpewRmp&WM. Dncrgp Oran EmNm .1 Autummn( User Survey Repan Aeahr:Gallop inflating reaches of PCBS N SedweAdr e.d Uprivr bled netal<orteal of sISmonl X0a wCuacf leeway II AssnsmaM Endargared PanlSway the Swkae gv.rlramlhe slaw ie. Dam boAaessed Iltlaho-WUM1bpbn.lala Eno lo Clan AuWr/Sponsor SCCD Amble Northwest Power Plutons Council Avala Avala EWU Ecobp/ USGS Akan type Document Hewn Document Rewn UwumemNewn Document Rewn Document Flepon Document Repan Document Repan DocumenuRepan Documens Ewan g Rasa II Reach. lima Reath. Hanna Ruch• nasche R.acn. Roache SR Shelley Park Suevan SR Sheby Part Subvan SR Shelby Park Supvan SR Shelby: Park Sulam SR Steres, Park toucan SR Shelley Park Saloon SR Stalky Park SUMan SR Sheby Park Suavan SR Snake, Pa'S Moan SR Lake Road Pit Road Pd LAD Road Pa Road Pd lake Road Pd Road Pd lase Road Pd Road Pit Lake Road Ph Road Ph Lake Rosa Pk Rom Pk Lake Road PP Road Ph Lake Roan P4 Read 1.11 Lake Road PA Read Pa r IPFC muse _- l RO.q.n stream typo Mydrageo• _ _ • D.tae y HwlaM gwneyam • MOON. Sok well charutarbles Drown hazard MI hyNb sok oisland arbn v g natio n Mil Babplol lands rnbwlwaman Q kMlmwruval Soar wunuws y kewn cswral am. roads y RS m mu ase 4 lakka force clovqs shwa powcbn lee DP dept a■ DOE..honed tecatee — Lard u.. embus swtanea a Caton,eo rent suss. — — — r hie Weal anduso mann laelble Swreies el Sbl.wrla Sbnileam unistvvlmneenbl contamination Docs. IIINEr Pubic Awess Pol. a lapponuni as Basw Charmlareas irtal.len channels InlberLp Shama. hbnvnrer demand onrkland..lwal lane _ - ' sg.yswm leawrel mmaamyaraapbp oerarbm 1 "...........".!•=1, .."1Whinled bash or law lbws - slang en SNA water recede of dredpa propels.maintenance dredpbg that drain kilo SMA or deposal animas deepest time. has MlbodWN Illiall chee.e lohnndaro.bn son.. ansponalbn lea.intemoctvip Iboapainilk .. Ircmsad channels � - __ -. -...8 dw.bpm.nl ohne cNneimgrelbn runes Wee..salac.N weaned Wee undawrbadwolUrtl wmeism and beaver dams r ! elr./ed sources of upaUsem oarsmen `�'y a aea zoned lm growth on aradbb Sole fragmental vmelalon upandlmNq _— — i oratar Wabryosee.derces lea Winos) r _ dsabnaled stab or ladde,al cbaru'saws wbaNcomeroal Ndmlial anduse adlacunl to wand punk lands upstream pond or meruw ` ...eh W ensive aercunural amass lugh taI puim Pcdandemand mand egrcliWel andid. _ drem:l upstream bout tram oulllew moss ere”nee of MarSeplb systems went aoned lar growth atop ngNy erosible saris or Own areas zoned Or pram.atop mutter recharge a ImemMled roman vmnarbn 1 nwlbn of aquatic migratory condom ,.- Interruption mempwn of larbtrml mbmery lar... bas of native glebes awndereNdatewim decoded wnsemaean.protected arae. MN el Seekw VYIry Shoreline leaaM RPM.Slpdala Dad Gap Malys-Need,hxanlory Spokane Valay Shorknaa Prepared by URS 1016109 _____T gnatM.oune:Summary M1Cul urw Resaurbe Surveyor me v .—�-- --.- - _ ��— —� Data Source enol of Data Caps Conditionsand Shahan-RhrerSpok rte to the ArlTraD SooW.Coury Sol Burry Department al Ecobay Mac FaMrai:DSOSIFEMMySPWS C I on of EDad Glp.based on Phase Spokane loWWMD yo Speham baby WDFW SDNR NdYPNb Wrpnulbn Seeley Wu/WP,EMMA Wwrmtlon 9abea Pb coy Available Information Border - AUNor,Sponwor Ayala Canter for NW Mlhropology.WSD NRCS Type Docvmenvfeport Document Report DocumentRepofl Records DocununOReporvClS GIS DoeumankReporuGlS D0cumentelS Document/Report Dontmor Reach• Reach! Reach- Reach! Rauh! Reach l Raaahl Reach! Pew. Am Slurry ParkSuiNan SR Shaky PM Subvan SR Shaky Pah Sossan SR Shaky Park SUWm SR Shaky PM Sulnan SR SNley Park Samoan SR Shaky Park Swan SR Staley Pan Sullivan SR Shaaey Park Road &elven Sheary SR Lake flub Pit Road PII lake Road Pil Road Pil ala Read Ph Road P11 Wm Road PB Road PO Lake Road PII Road Pit lake Road Ph Road Pa lake Road Pd Road Pd Lake Road Pit Road Pit UM Pit Road P0 Late I olrsgy IROcrafiSgan stream typo RYdrPomla;vholom' • / � I. pwmeeC.e - -- ..-- MN Serb runollcNrect nlslin ' *Mon 00 had.cotl. - . upland vegannn - - - madan sensation Bologlul w....otif. wands - - _ -_ — —Navlsn Miehramrmmw ■■■ vnb4l # Coat bunches _ 1 grown augural shoe mid raime. IIIIIIIIIIds 1.7 _ Mgawdnce oroslinpa - - , AMIE dY MretMaas n(eg rap rapt --- sftenshe..Ppgaa - DOE penNhudio.. a - - - - MEM lartl Use impervious audios. • _..__.._ — -. LCWNN current M esserhistobal toddea ® ■.■ SMrohnes of Statewide SgrWcancs • environmental features contamination ® BEIMERIMOMMIIME — D acia Pude.Access Points IMMII— Opponurotaa .-- dams Basin Characteristic. Weaned erns M@eecing Share.m high...mad alemmal Medusa Ecosystem(allures ....redoing ppanrnm • Wothe basin or lbws along con SM1.0A avatars record of dredge papasMOON,.maintenance wad !' but train into Sled or disposal activities 1 slvnalinas) _ IJsin alloodptain ibod'amabn sores m_ wperial an�b laced les nM s lnneengg adplaln < _ basad channel _!_— tlNebarnemeilNn eNnml migration roma impervious surface In watershed .. w Orme arosbrbadwwbm compasee and beaver dams s uneomhetnetl.ourm.of npstreamaeMSM areas zoned ter growth on egdrsta lois fragmental vegetation a uplan0 biomed ler matey ercea0enea.1300 bengal , dbtomled Glad or federal champ elms unNrymmnerc.bndusglW laquao adamant b emmemmeenent1 *and aquatic led, 1n upstream ports nrnw.. S aspck Mans.ear damanl Mltluse NO Wstcgwl.naser damn,agricultural lenders direct upSInem input from outflow Moos "meson-oloSer seplicsyslem5 ..• tuned for growth atop hgNy endgle Sols _-'- - ''l or slopes areas mead for growth atop eviler recharge areas , Ingrnenled riparian vepetalen i..-. Inlemglbn of aquatic Moralory c0rritlon ...eon of tare.ral mgralore card.Ss , toss of Nave specie,0CurWrowdalrbmOn tient Mad conservation.Rfoleelad areas City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Progreso Update Dais Gap Analysis-Needs Inventory Spokane Valley Shaman.. Prepared by LIPS 10/S/09 Dale Sauce W Shales Gravel Pa Permits and Redarraoon Plain AulronSponsor POP. nl Repan DxmnenReporl chs Reach• Park Road SuawanSmiley Park Rob Saban Rab PS UR lake Pa Rob Pa pea R��Rpsooaon etleq leem tvwe Nvmogea r . meal./ az nsSomsionoeard hylasoils Uplanndvwetetnn . t loarlan vaga,ron logL wetlands 8 Bi d wddtlalne anlekleroden boa launches sown cultural styes roads retreads bridq.larce crossings shore rnn leo ata rad •Heolaces DOE garrotted rookies Lib Ds.aryervious eurlacos S cowai current tondose NSlorIcal Landow, essendal facia. Snclekon of&c.d.SbNlCance uoiKaron emlnenloroM lnunalbn Docks Pubic Access Pones OpponuNnes dams Sasncnsracclatooelnn channels Inglercap Unclean. ngn wale,demando.rnullmal lamluse Ecos (features minmytl,etmng oporetenswelshii..basin welsh IN basin o, low pews along ran SMA waters retard of hedge proNcrs.melnlenanro medgep that drain Into SSNAs...sal an e. ahorelenWe.s l las n roodFlain recent In channen 10 oderesnte n ros nspon .m alnn lacmlersecnno OoodoL n bowed channels development wenn channel mprslmn roves Impervious audan In watershed large enealul.b wetland mnplases W beaver dams Upconslrnned eourcaf of upstream sadmenl zoned for nasal,on Mama,fogs area. nab vegetation wane lamhp ler Cloak,/ascaodencef 1909 esenres) despnaob Male or,doral cleanup nes urbaNwmmealakktlweial landwe adjacent to Upland nr1uelC lands upstream pons or marinas !cosies.wenINn ayralaural landucil ego polllCara Ib&ar demand aura vasal ,Muse deem upstream Input from miaow woes presencs ober Sem, n5I areal o Sonror growth Mop egNy erockbb sods or slopes areas zoned for growte atop wester recharge areas lemmemb unman vene,lnn Imem mean of equal,mplelory corndon ioemmlan ol lereslnal monitory comkbn loss tel newt species abundancenldlnculbn denNetl conservation,aristocrat areas City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Appendix B Spokane River Inventory Data Tables CATEGORY Count CP Code Acres 7 5.25481 Heavy Industrial 44 HI 112.0169i Low Density Residential 243•LDR 75.7803' Mixed Use 63 MU28.8996. Park/Open Space 29 PO5 _ 200.8_791. Regional Commercial 5 RC 6.9580, Water Body. 1.WB 0.0815 429.8702 Total Acres SR-1 .% 1 - -2.38 2.69% Heavy Industrial 3 HI 2.02' 2.28% Low Density Residential 107 LDR 32.06 36,29% Park/Open Space 7;PO5 51.89 58.74% 88.3432 Total Acres SR-2 5 2.44: 1.37% Heavy Industrial 18 HI 29.90; 16.84% Low Density Residential 7.LDR 3.21 1.81% Mixed Use 18^MU 11.341 6.39% •Park/Open Space 19 POS12.3.62, 69.62% Regional Commercial 51RC 6.961 3.92% Water Body 11WB 0.081 0.05% 177.5557 Total Acres 1 1j 0.44; 1.02% Mixed Use 45IMU _ 17.561 40.49% Park/Open Space 3i00S 25.371 58.49% i 43.3637 Total Acres i SR-4 I I Low Density Residential 301LDR 11.8212 Total Acres Pits • Heavy Industrial 23!H1 80.0954 Total Acres 1 . i Shelley Lake 1 Low Density Residential 99?LDR 28.6909 Total Acres i Spokane River Total i 321.1 • Parks 200.9 63%; LDR , __ 47.1 15% HI 31.92 10%1 Commercial/Mix 35.86' 11%1 I . 316 98% ZONING_COD Count Acres 5 j 5.2548 1-2 30 112.0984 MUC 58 28.8996 P/OS 291 200.8791 R-2 68f 25.2603 R-3 101 r 30.3447 R-4721 20.1753 RC 5` 6.9580 429.8702 Total Acres • SR-1 1 2.38 2.69% 1-2 3; 2.02 2.28% P/OS7 51.89 58.74% R-2 35' 11.88 13.45% R-4 72, 20.18 22.84% 88.3431 Total Acres 1 1 _ a SR-2 51 2.44 1.37% 1-2 191 29.99 16.89% MUC , 181 11.34; 6.39% P/OS 19+ 123.62, 69.62% R-2 5. 1.56 0.88% R-3 21_ 1.651 0.93% RC — T _ 5.1 6.961 3.92% w I 177.5558 Total Acres SR-3 { 1' 0.44 1.02% MUCr 45i 17.56 40.49% P/OS 252.37; 58.49% r 43.3637 Total Acres SR-4 R-2 { 30 11.8212 Total Acres Pits 1-2 23 80.0954 Total Acres Shelley Lake R-3 99 28.6909 Total Acres a a k, I f a s < { -ai u u u 1 u u u I g C2 N JI A N ▪ w ¢ vt I Q I Qan ¢ an Q • 4 O a W 3 04 g s c v n c a 3 m u� Q a 'C Q ? e7 E I u !�I c ' 0 'c ,., o c Z ¢ t ••,:t it Q a Z :: :° o E 9 E. £ R a' E m n r a E 11 a E I- I-. E CC I-. E z .IO— 1.• E s I- CC I- CC N m Cr CO ci .-I ui �+ 0'. oO.n .t "n N m -1.-- CO .t Ni 7-4 �'' C1 X31 n yi.,n. 0' ,O,e' av 0 N Cl'. ".' �} m ai ' Co "'1 a' N n •c�•nn ri o c ea n m ai m 0'. CO ti m M v't m N CIO N N i l I • ` .-a 0 N I 0 e-1 ' 0 ri 61 { MI 1 '0 n Cl'. N S m ci h ci Qo ry =.o 1 O' a , n ' .1 , 11=1 _ _ O r r i ! N 1 ! f/ 7en t0 NI ! 1 rri 1 t, art m u' • I 1 ~ I m 1 m ei 1j , m .u1 ! i ' m ' 1 ! an ' ' , t , I I ' " , '� r r f f ' f I 1• 1� • 1 1 1 t ' f t I f 1 11 � , I , ( j I f f 1 11 € f I ( 1 1 , I ' ! 11111 ' 1 w Ii I 11f . I f ; 11 I 1 • ¢' , 1 1 1 I { 1 1 , I , I I t I l i TO, 1 1 1 ; i I I 1 I l i ! , { 1 1 1 If 1 I-' 11 � tlf I 1 � 1i 1 , f � 1 ( Ii l a10 o .. olo 0 o' 1 iNfoc'-..o ' �rnlm m'r 1 'n .t1m1N1 ' 1njvlol0O'"nlo� i l o"o of I t 'ol �0 1 1°445;1217.` 1 o v .-Ili.. 1 r„n 'a.a. 1N m nIm'V as { an au m m • ..tl an g m l rn ...t { m 0,o;.-a 1 1 01.-4 ..... n'N'cru j <` 'N.N•010 ' I ln,N m ml Vt ICOI O f 1 ,:ml in In N� l i Cl')1 (D'101 Q} 1 i 001 N n+i'r1100:M e l 1'.m i N l r.1 0 1 i ,00 1 61 ari 1 'Cl'. O i0 0 ai a-1 01 0 I .t Cl'. v 01 0 10 ^+;001 CO••0 IQ� , I .001 I :"` , , 1 1 I IN , 1 I 1 and (r"! . 1 I 1 I l l I • f l 1 1 .j I ` 1 I 1 . " I 1 lE;1N 1 1 , i1 , f 1 f 31 iI I o r I f 1 1 I f 1f r1 f 1 ,• � fi1 fl � l ' ' I ( ; � f Cif Ii f o 'U I U1 1 ` 'U. VI I �' I I UI t i 1• J 01 ,3.3' VIII. 1 l3 Ial, t3.3! wl 3 f Io' 1 ,31 1 a' 1m' m > o lei ,o',g jc1 I 10 f I C. 0•oi c g I c 1 'p• I ' c 0:0, 0; i 0 O, 0 f'- ' f of y 0 + I- 1._� i' , 1Y, I 2. 1 _ '2 ZI 1 1 01 �, j a' w oo oo 1 F , 'r CU - el, a rut ru; I rut t al W 61 ¢ I:° n a l 2, 1 a± } I '° a.G .'O. a.; " p, I ;° a,a a; a' E E 1 ,w, E, 1 t n+ E E' f Irl ; E I d, f 1 Ei i• i E_,Ei EI a. .•cat I.__._ 100' #._ at. _. a0 I m, 01 - I; ` hill F l r' 1 0, an {. ru V I ru I L: 01 Li in W I R a -o m' a. I`; .1171 110 ''0 , iii' of (`I Ia ai-0I ' U : 0 r r I �I r i P. ri 1'-, a > 1 rI , I L." . ri r r ¢ i Yi F'i' It 11 u tii , 1Li I i ui , " i�:u'ti. 1 "."_ m. m m I 1 m 1 m 0, ro mi 1 m' m' ro ! m� m,roto; I ' z c a s lcl i n 1 a a, 'c1 fa ci I'S.' 1 l c I a, a'a O 1 N 'p;O N; E, E1 E NI I t E uN'� E. d i O O' O' 1 to E E I �., o ' o of t 1 p, p. an i ea u u m , 1 u. y_a u1 v; ! iii 1 ml u m u, I m u u v, i I 0 w;°0: 1;13° € 1 w; 1;2; i m,. ,*;*1 I _m, fie m' I3E1m' ;QR3� `o°I ( i O 0..i N' a c c.,100, I NI c 0' i N c'010: t f N1 '•C o N C Oi 11 o'o o K II-'1 Ii_:—. I > C ruin i 3 0,1-‘,03: i ,m C r1n' , , 0.i.`11-0; ru n" . �i a rlh CO 0)! I 1 .. E d1 ruf o_ EI cul + -of E rul., 1 0 E ru o EI—rul o o' EI., Ti!al i 0- 11_9_;,v°alp r. >.>, ; Zal I.0 rto' > ai 1.5S = r1 > ai v > >' >' 1 a I�I > m'R' f 'o >' m Zi>, i "`; a_• 0 > m I 2,o >.ro, 2 O >,"� m• % g LL a:0- a. 1710' " {af�{a'09 'a. a019' a rz'o-. 91 a'a:a 171 a z a,17 000, I I I wlmt Oi 0",0 .-1 . 1 InlmimfoI call-4,-AI,, • ' lh v'-i'vi I 0'm..QO�la0' 1 !m Cr, ,n v o'.-" p .0--a- N co' as .I. -a1rv1+ • a+Hml Cl'. min..a tM 'o N Hi "m �. , NI N .-a I , I , .-". , I q'! ' i f ;• � I ' I { 1 f 1 1 1 1 I • ! �rI f s f 1 f '' 1 I • I 1 'a. I I _ i_1 _• tt I . • f + ru i 1 1 1 __...-1 N m v an 1-1.NI no.4. -.'m)V1"n` I .t1Nlm I'0 1 ra N m R1 '. .- N Cl'. 7 in a0 11 t -. -. .•" .� .� .-1 .-1 i-'I.� .� ti 1,-10-11 .-a •-11.-11/-1 _, ' -t ..-1•.••1!I ti r-1 '-1 -I .-4'.t , . I I I .. i u 1 w 1 .•, o N I l I ah ' l I l 1 Er a, I I , F Q •• VI u awn I w l " ' ✓�+ I � _,... _.... ?.-.. ! OBJECTID AREASYMBOL MUSYM MUKEY Shape_Leng Shape Area ACREAGE SR_I 1 WA063 W 1695408 1403.89023155000. 4734,92643934000 0,11 2.WA063 GgA 69277 5635.92860268000 266729,794.96600000 6.12 3.WA063 Rh 69348 19704.27051460000 525460.85754600000 12.06 4WA063 GgA 69277 10979.61966050000` 540029.42006300000 12.40 5,WA063 GgB _69278 379.71248266100 1351.35764896000_ 0.03 6 WA063 GnB 692_80 10688.213056200007 83_5325.80952100000• 19.18 7,WA063 Rh 69348 18096.21140810000 278444.9_9853100000 6.39 8:WA063 ,GnB 69280 5565.89077434000, 236196.02066100000 5,42 9'WA063 GgB 69279 11174.26837020000' 749690.31364400000 17.21 101WA063 GnB 69280 5964.25792916000 419010.66131100000 9.62 11 WA063 GnB 69280 1889.40042137000 95885.07418780000 2.20 12,WA063 GgB 69278 985.47416992200 29469.09576870000 0.68 13 WA063 GgA 69277 2016.31241023000 80604.68805710000 1.35 SR_2 , 1 WA063 W 1695408 6902.242472510001 26483.04001630000 0.61 , 2 WA063 GgA 69277 10851.8_6871610000 346477.61823200000_ _ 7.95 3 WA063 Rh 69348 259_18.66310430000 895695.01_779400000 20.56 4 WA063 Gn8 69230_ 35992.04785460000 20293_63.827710_00000 46.59 5;WA063 GgB 6_9278 809.96273238800' 32628.6372.4220000 0,75 6 WA063 GnB 69280 8978.30907425000 719068.20234200000 16.51 7 WA063 GgA 69277 13066.06224080000; 407145.22869900000 9.35 8 WA063 GO- 69278 530.171496432001 17964.93024800000 0.41 9 WA063 GgB 69278 1130.22541692000. 20824.31954530000 0.48 10'WA063 Rh `69348 6788.02095034000 241149.42640800000 5.54 11 WA063 GgB 69278 2317.16744675000: 172659.30382400000 3. 96 12 WA063 •Gn8 '6_9280 1420.987257520001 _88150.12170540000 2.02 131 WA063 StC 69371 1 1061.629314_32000! 51476.39572590000 1.18 14:WA063 Rh 169348 1 14054.82285620000; 338201.12194700000 7.76 15'WA063 Ro 69349 1 1839.44019865000, 137105.44069000000' 315 16I WA063 SuE 169373 1 171.993953995001 662.208998992001 0.02 17j WA063 !GnB 169280 29957.189609599_90 2067418.23755000000; 47.46 181WA063 GgB 169278 4027.47577630000 126585.79772700000 2.91 19;WA063 !GgB !69278 1835.52389581000 _31623.85821280000 0.73 201 WA063 Pits 11695409 _ 28.419736532_30 10.773133762_901 0.00 2111WA063 ;GgB :69278_ 1715.335580920001_51991.55186430_000 1.19 22 WA063 GgA 169277 2775.00396160000 77328.06844240000 1.78 SR_3 - - -' i__ --- 8 WA063 _(GnB 169280 1- 13566.541928300001_896144.55375000000- 20.57 9 WA063 _ ;GgA 69_277 _ 1 13276.22708620000 873626.63963800_0_00: 20.06 12•WA063 ;Pits 1695409 2128.81530109000 64053.33562200000; 1.47 13;W4063 _ .GgB !69278 125.19722112700! 325.51513775200 0.01 141WA063 _^__ !GnB '69280 1 1719.86214614000! 85764.052298800001 1.97 15.WA063 _- W 11695408 311 16494069700, 814.118602531001 0.02 18 WA063 T1W 11695408 154.76538439600, 205.02258470500 0.00 19'WA063 __ 1W 1_695408 • 611.82749804600' 4271.40141759000: 0.10 21:W4063 W !1695408 i 106.536534626001 58.591468115801 0.00 23'WA063 T W :1695408 _� 153.55752077_100: 215.88067608300 0.00 24I WA063 ;W 1695408 _ 113.53651184700! 637.60452396300! 0.01 261 WA063 !LA/ 11695408 28.39899511800: 15.452317191001 0.00 291WA063 'W 1695408 1 430.79115841900: 3441.861763030001 0.08 30!WA063 W 11695408 91.22528969780 68.34034176810;. 0.00 31 WA063 W `1695408 31.76470442570 8.80171651542, 0.00 37 WA063 ;GgA 169277 1149.97656424000' 52299.33345890000' 1.20 SR 4 1 __- 1 1 WA063 W 11695408 2608.18411811000: 15210.11150280000' 0.35 21WA063 GgA 69277 5853.08914265000; 333864.09242500000 7.66 1 3VA063 GmB 169279 5844.443648340001 220827.37696800000! 5.07 �„ if�y take" ..A _ _ _ _T_. . _ �. .. ._ ..__ , . . . 1:WA063 GgA 169277 10.382291577701 3.97535889873' 0.00 2 V:WA063 •SuE 69373 3990.93917595000' 318_787.85907100000, 7.32 3 WA063 Pits 1695409 1595.571282.64000 i 114057.61.96540.0000 2,62 4;WA063 Gn8 •69279 8249.6108598400_0, 735918.67498100000' 16.89' 5 WA063 W 1695408 8040.7051148500_0, 208078.663388000001 4,78 6,WA063 GgA 69277 1903.60090529000 106163.23582300000! 2.44 Pits ! _ -;--- 11WA063 !GgA 69277 18634.91945260000 1641227.6063200_0000' 37.68 2 WA063 GnB 69280 1840.44575494000 73242.23536000000 1.68 3 WA063 GgA 69277 16607.05468920000 1348942.81217000000' 30.97 4 WA063 pits 1695409 817.01495699700 20030.7_3939150000 0.46 5 WA063 GO 69278 3736.82019293000 134865.71906600000 3.10, 6 WA063 GgA 69_277 1169.23283555000 31351.2986706_00006 0,72 7 WA063 Pits 1695409 2458.36897942000 173853.6257_3800000 3-99L 8 WA063 Gg6 :69278 4708.34324049000 193543.78232700000 4.44, Soil type Percentage Count , GgA 15.79% 6 __ • ; GgB 26.3% 10:, r G_m_6 7.9% 3! , Gn8 15.8% 6' Pits 10.5% 41 Rh 77.9% 3' 4 Ra ,2.6% 1: i - S_tC 1'2.6% 1 i SuE '5.3% ` 2 j i W 5.3% 2. T SR-1 USGS Suriflciai Geology SRGEOUNIT UNIT UNIT_DESC ACRES 116 Qgpc Gravel,coarse pebble(20-64mm) 0.017 117 Qgcc2 Gravel,coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with patches of sand 0.056 124 Qgcc2 Gravel,coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with patches of sand 0.079 128 Qgpf Gravel,fine pebble(2-20mm) 0.004 . 139 Qgcc3 Gravel,coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with patches of silt 0.110 141 Qts1 Sand and gravel deposits of the first(lowest)terrace 2.054 157 Qsc Sand,sloping channel flank deposit 0.262 159 Qsf Sand,floodplain bench deposit 0.007 163 Qsc Sand,sloping channel flank deposit 2.031 166 Qts2 Sand and gravel deposits of the second terrace 2.553 170 Qgcc2 Gravel,coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with patches of sand 2.015 176 Qts1 Sand and gravel deposits of the first(lowest)terrace 2.573 182 Qgpc Gravel,coarse pebble(20-64mm) 0.067 188.Qts1 Sand and gravel deposits of the first(lowest) terrace 4.180 193 Qgcc2 Gravel,coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with patches of sand 0.530 194 Qgccl Gravel,coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with little fines 0.456 197 Qcp Low-flow channel pool 0.003 2014Qgcc3 Gravel, coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with patches of silt 0.162 2021Qgcc3 Gravel,coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with patches of silt 0.977 210Qsc Sand,sloping channel flank deposit 1.803 216;Qts1 Sand and gravel deposits of the first(lowest)terrace 5.453 218:Qgpc Gravel,coarse pebble(20-64mm) 0.000 224!Qts2 Sand and gravel deposits of the second terrace 1.725 225Qgcf Gravel,fine cobble(64-125mm) 0.276 233 Qgcc3 Gravel,coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with patches of silt 0.006 240'Qsc Sand,sloping channel flank deposit 0.181 244;Qgcc1 Gravel,coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with little fines 0.044 249:Qts1 Sand and gravel deposits of the first(lowest)terrace 10.885 268 Qgccl Gravel,coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with little fines 4.757 SR-2 79 Qsf Sand,floodplain bench deposit 0.753 80'Qsf Sand,floodplain bench deposit 0.170 83'Qgcc2 Gravel, coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with patches of sand 1.691 87 Qsf Sand,floodplain bench deposit 3.020 91 Qsf Sand,floodplain bench deposit 0.358 95 Qcp Low-flow channel pool 0.007 101.Qsc Sand,sloping channel flank deposit 0.043 102 Qsc Sand,sloping channel flank deposit 0.178 104 Qgccl Gravel,coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with little fines 0.030 110 Qgcc2 ;Gravel, coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with patches of sand 0.520 111'Qtsl 'Sand and gravel deposits of the first(lowest)terrace 6.674 112 Qsc Sand,sloping channel flank deposit 0.055 113 Qts2 Sand and gravel deposits of the second terrace 12.734 114 Qgccl Gravel, coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with little Fines 0.521 115 Qsc Sand,sloping channel flank deposit 0.005 119 Qgpc iGravel,coarse pebble(20-64mm) 0.110 i. 120iQsf 'Sand,floodplain bench deposit 3.623 121!Qaf Artificial fill rock 0.333 131 Qgpf Gravel,fine pebble(2-20mm) 0.064 134 Qcp Low-flow channel pool 0.129 137.Qts2 Sand and gravel deposits of the second terrace 16.615 138 Qsf Sand,floodplain bench deposit 1.618 139 Qgcc3 Gravel, coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with patches of silt 0.004 141 Qts! Sand and gravel deposits of the first(lowest)terrace 4.053 142 Qsc Sand,sloping channel flank deposit 0.591 159 Qsf Sand,floodplain bench deposit 0.909 162 Qgcc2 Gravel,coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with patches of sand 1.899 163 Qsc Sand,sloping channel flank deposit 0.791 194 Qgccl ,Gravel,coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with little fines 3.213 196 Qtsl Sand and gravel deposits of the first(lowest)terrace 0.958 200.Qgccl Gravel,coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with little fines 0.529 204 Qsc Gravel,coarse pebble(20-64mm) 0.532 206 Qgpc Gravel,coarse pebble(20-64mm) 0.017 207 Qts2 Sand and gravel deposits of the second terrace 2.993 212'Qsc Sand,sloping channel flank deposit 0.110 226 Qgcc1 !Gravel,coarse_cobble and boulder(>125mm),with little fines 2.851 238,Qcb !Channel scoured bedrock 0.309 2411Qts2 !Sand and gravel deposits of the second terrace j 9.024 242iQaf !Artificial fill rock 0.757 249!Qts1 Sand and gravel deposits of the first(lowest)terrace 1 0./03 254 Qcp LLow-flow channel pool -_ 0.116 Qgcc1 268 (Gravel,coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with little fines 5.192 280!Qcp ;Low-flow channel pool _ ` 0.007 287!Qsc !Sand,sloping channel flank deposit 1.100 288;Qcp iLow-flowchannel pool_ r 0.000_ _ 290IQcrc !Cobble riff_le in low-flow channel ~ ; 0.002 300iQ.sc !Sand,sloping channel flank deposit 0.671 334;Qgcc1 !Gravel,coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with little fines 0.104 350!Qcp I Low-flow channel pool _ _ 0.000 351 Qgcc1 Gravel,coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with little fines 3.905 I i t 3091Qsf Sand,floodplain bench deposit 3.400 310Qgpf `Gravel,fine pebble(2-20mm) 5.200 311 Qsc 'Sand,sloping channel flank deposit , 1.200 312!Qsc !Sand,sloping channel flank deposit j 0.600 315'Qcpb !Low-flow channel pool with emergent boulders 1.100 327'Qsf ;Sand,floodplain bench deposit ? 2.200 330'Qgccl :Gravel,coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with little fines 1.700 334lQgcc1 'Gravel,coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with little fines 8.200 336j Qts1 !Sand and gravel deposits of the first(lowest)terrace 13.500 337;Qsc; Sand,sloping channel flank deposit 1.200 332 Qts2 Sand and gravel deposits of the second terrace 6.900 351 Qgcc1 Gravel, coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm),with little fines V.800 351 Qgccl Gravel,coarse cobble and boulder(>125mm►,with tittle fines 17.800 Totals Unit Count Percentage Qaf 2 1.44% Qc b 2 1.44% Qci 2 1.44%. Qcp 10 7.20% Qcrc 1 0.72% Qgccl 49 35.30% Qgcc2 8 5.75% Qgcc3 7 5.03% Qgcf 1 0.72% Qgpc 5 3.60% Qgpf 8 5.75% Qsc 19 13.67% Qsf 9 6.47% Qts 1 9 6.47% Qts2 7 5.03% Washington Natural Heritage Program-Current SR-2 Current 2009 NHET_CD SCI_NAME ___—_ _ _ COM NAME SPP_CODE LAST 0B5 Acres TW Pinus ponderosa/Symphoricarpos albus Forest Ponderosa Pine/Common Snowberry PiPO/SYAL 1986 5.26 TW •Pinus ponderosa/Physocarpus malvaceus Forest ,Ponderosa Pine/Mallow-leaf Ninebark PIPO/PHMA5 1.986 5.26 TW Pinus ponderosa/Pseudoroegnerfa spicata Woodland (Ponderosa Pine/Bluebunch Wheatgrass PIPO/PSSP6 1986 2.48 TW Pinus ponderosa/Festuca campestris Woodland I Ponderosa Pine/Rough Fescue PIPO/FECFI 1990 2.48 4 Washington Natural Heritage Program-Historic i T — SR-4 Historic — ___ ` —,__�_ �r_ , _ RP _ —Antennaria parvifolia _ _ r�_ �_��y �FNuttall's Pussy-toes ANPA4 _19321 _ 23.08 RP _Sclerolinon digynum — _ (Northwestern Yellowflax 5CDI5 1892, 13.138' Pits Historic _ __ _— —.___-� _ __ ._ . • RP Antennarla parvifolia Nuttall's Pussy-toes 1ANPA4 1932 38.77'. RP Scler ollnon digynum •Northwestern Yellowflax SCDI5 1892 38.773 OBJECTID ECOSYSTEMS 'ECOSYSTE 1 IMPORT ISITENAME M_APRE_ cr F (HYDRO GEO ECOWILD ECOAQUA ECOBOT Aes_ 1 24 __ 14 6 ;Spokane River �� MR-6 H EW EA v 375.5452 2 - 25 14 6_ ;Spokane River _ MR 6 H EW EA 122.6699_ �- -� 28 _ 15 28a ^ -Gnarled Junipers MR-28 EB V 19.87407 3 4 30 30 48b Shelley Lake MR 48 H EA 23.52464 __ Facility List FACILIT_NM JURISDICTION Central Pre Mix Concrete Park Rd Pits IBEX CONSTRUCTION � V SR-3 KEMIRA WATER SOLUTIONS 5R-2 Historical/Cultural sites SR-2 FILENUM SITENAME SITENUMBER 1154-23-06 Schnebly Bridge Site&Daschenboeb Cabin 23-06 • SR-2 DOE Water Well Logs WELL LOG_R WELL LOG 1-- WELL DIAME^;WELL DEPTH WELL COMP _WELL OWNER-- WELL TYPEWELL ADDRE 10/13/1998100185307.tif_ _ 21 __ 85 10/29/1998 SPOKANE COUNTY _ W _1500 N SULLIVAN 1/12/1993•00182412.tif w 2i 20. 1/9/19931KAISERALUMINUM TRENTWOOD W E 15000 EUCLID,SPOKANE.._ _� _ 00155284.tif b� v 115 9/27/1979 KAISER ALUMINUM TRENTWOOD WORKS W — - , —------ _r__-__ —_..— —__ __.__ Pits _. _. ____ ____ _ _., __ _^ ---------- • 9/26/1984 00159398.tif — ----6• _ 931 _9/17/19_84iTERRYCARLSON - W' — - 8/15/1986100152426.tif ,— 6 83^ 8/12/1986IERICSANDSTROM — _ 7W _ __. ____ _~T _ _v_ 11/2/1984I00150842.tif _ �_ � 6; 125 CONCRETE CO. W 5/10/1979100150410.tif 36 78 CENTRAL PRE-MIX CONCRETE CO. W 3/23/1_985100150413.tif_ 8 1_19_ 2/19/1985 CENTRAL PRE MIX CONCRETE CO. W 11/2/1984 00149219.tif _ ^ T12 _ _ 125 —_ — ACME CONCRETE CO. W SMP Access Points(AVISTA data) OBJECTID :SITEID _ SITE _� _~ - LAT LONG _ (WHITEWATER PARKING JURISDICTION 1221SR-35 Mirabeau Point Regional Park_ _ _�N47 41.0_ -51 W11713.435 _Yes yes SR-2 123;SR-36 (Sullivan Traiihea_d __ N47.4-073-16 W11711.8 6 _l.No no SR-2 1241SR-37 Sullivan Park _ T_^__``_ N4740.469 W117 11.845 No yes SR-2 -1251SR-38~ INESullivanAccess ^ _ IN474-.362 —W11711,740 No no SR-2 126)SR-39— —Suliivan Hole-End of Mission Aven__ue ,N47 -i i W-11710.843 Yes yes SR-2 _1271 S_R-40__ _I Flora Access/Trailhead_�� _ i N47 40.650_ l 11710.504 No no 5R-2 128,SR-41 1 Barker Road Trailhead L N47 40.644 � W;W117 09.215 No yes SR-1 ____12_9 i SR-42 Barker Road Informal Take-out__ N47 40.730 :W117 09.228 Yes no SR-1 130 SR-43- mery MontgoAccess ��_ N47 40.767 'W 117 08.918 No no SR-1 SR-2 DOE 303d List OBJECTID LLID_NR CAT DS PARM DS MED DS 832 1183415478936 5 PCB Tissue 1743 1183415478936 5 2,3,7,8-TCDD Tissue SR-3 1094 1183415478936 5 ;PCB Tissue 1105 1183415478936 5 PCB Tissue SR-1 DOE 305b List OBJECTID LLID_NR CAT_DS PARM DS MED_DS 74061_118341547893612 Temperature Water 11607`11834154789362 Temperature Water 12076;118341547893611 pH ,Water 13228'118341547893612 PCB Water 132901118341547893612 pH Water 139081183415478936'4A Zinc 'Water SR-2 9 7920 11834154789365 :PCB Tissue 10903 118341547893612 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ Tissue 109221183415478936'5 !2,3,7,8-TCDD Tissue 11462 118341547893614A Lead Water 12214,118341547893614A Zinc Water 13353,1183415478936 2 Temperature Water 13385 1183415478936 2 ,pH Water 13597 1183415478936 4A 'Zinc Water I SR-3 . 792011183415478936'5 PCB Tissue 89181118341547893615 ;PCB_ !Tissue 8941,118341547893615 1PCB Tissue 10903 11183415478936 E 2 12,3,7,-8-TCDD TEQ ;Tissue 10922}118341547893615 '2,3,7,8-TCDD {Tissue 114621118341547893614A 'Lead Water 122141118341547893614AZinc Water 13351 1183415478936 2 'Temperature Water SR-4 i 84201183415478936,2 1PCBWater 11860,1183415478936'2 1 Dissolved Oxygen Water Historical/Cultural sites SR-2 FILENUM SITENAME SITENUMBER 1154-23-06 Schnebly Bridge Site& Daschenboeb Cabin 23-06 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7,2010 Inventory and Characterization Report Accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 Appendix C Veget;tuon Inventory Michael M. Folsom 20 November 2009 City of Spokane Valley shoreline inventory field narrative. The objective was to examine and inventory the habitat of the waters of the state shorelines within the city limits; the Spokane River, Shelley Lake and two large gravel pits. The specifics of the inventory are to recognize the different portions of the shorelines and document the dominant vegetation according to species name, percent cover and native/introduced status. The Spokane River and Shelley Lake were examined on foot and from the water, but the gravel pits could not be examined in the field and are inventoried from aerial photograph examination only. The majority of the Spokane River could be relatively easily accessed on foot and was inventoried as follows. The shoreline vegetation is classified into different stands, each with a characteristic dominant vegetation structure and species mix. For this task the term stand is used to identify a specific portion of a vegetated shoreline that is not the same as adjacent areas. Each stand is given an identifying letter,A through X and is described on a field data sheet at a representative site or data point. For this task the term data point is used to identify an individual location that was evaluated for plant species presence and dominance by percent cover. Each data point is given an identifying number, 1 through 35. Each stand has at least one data point and larger stands have as many as five. The areas of the stands and the locations of the data points are shown on the field maps. The stand letters and the data point numbers were assigned as the work progressed so they are not sequential along the river. The stands identified in this task essentially follow the classification pattern presented as riparian vegetation types by Crawford (2003) and elaborated as plant associations in the Spokane County PFC Assessment(2005), however the Crawford study did not include the Spokane River drainage so it does not include all of the stand types encountered in this inventory. Stand types in this document; PSME/PREM, Pseudotsuga Menziesii/Prunus emarginata POTR/CRDO, Populus trichocarpa-balsamifera/Crataegus Douglasii PIPO/CRDO,Pinus ponderosa/Crataegus Douglasii PIPO/AMAL, Pinus ponderosa/Amalanchier alnifolia POTR, Populus trichocarpa-balsamifera POTR/PRVA, Populus trichocarpa-balsamifera/Prunus virginiana PIPO/SAEX, Pinus ponderosa/Salix exigua SAEX, Salix exigua PHLE/RHGL, Philadelphus Lewisii/Rhus glabra POTR/SAEX, Populus trichocarpa-balsamifera/Salix exigua FERAL, dominated by a combination of escaped domestic species and invasive exotic species on sites with essentially natural slopes and soils. LANDSCAPED, dominated by mowed and managed vegetation on sites with intensive cut-fill surfaces. Landscaped stands are not documented by field sheets. At each data point the vegetation was documented in three different hydric zones; zone A,the frequently flooded lower elevation nearest the water, zone B, the riparian transition area, and zone C,the adjacent upland. The vegetation was documented by examining plot areas. The plot sizes are; zone A, a 20 foot circle zone B, a 50 foot transect 12 feet wide zone C, a 100 foot transect 16 feet wide. Photographs were made at each zone in each data point and are identified according to the direction of view; up river, down river,to the river and away from the river. Each photo image has a unique number assigned by the camera. More than one camera was used, so the numbers are not in sequence. For example;the image 'E dp6 A down 050' is from stand E, data point 6, in the frequently flooded zone, and looking down the river. The urbanized shoreline in maps SR35-SR37 was not so systematically photographed because of poor access.The Spokane River shoreline is documented by 347 images. The images are made available in printed contact sheet form and in individual 22mb jpeg documents. The lower reach of the Spokane River as shown on field maps SR35-SR37 has no land access and was inventoried from the water. This necessarily required a modification of the field procedure and resulted in less detailed documentation. All of this lower portion of the shore is strongly impacted by human activity such as construction, bulk-heading and landscaping and no parts are dominated by native species on natural slopes with unmodified soils. It was possible to differentiate the sections of the shore that were completely modified (landscaped) from those with some significant remnant aspects of original topography and wild vegetation (feral). Those two different aspects of the shoreline are identified on the field maps and the vegetation of the feral portions is described in field data sheets. No field data sheet was made for the landscaped portions. Shelley Lake was examined on foot and two different vegetation stands are mapped and described using three data sheets. The Shelley Lake shoreline is documented in 18 images. The field maps have delivered at an earlier date and further analysis requires that and some amendments are necessary. 1. Data point 28 is not shown and is to be added to the field map, essentially under the Trent Street Bridge on field map SR26. 2. Data points 32 through 35 must be added in stand X on field maps SR 35 through SR37. 3. Data points 36 and 37 must be added to stand Y on field map SL2. 4. Data point 38 must be added to stand Z on field map SL1. These changes are illustrated on annotated copies of field sheets, attached. LIST IN NUMERICAL ORDER BY MAP NUMBER STAND ID STAND TYPEDATA POINT IC MAP SPOKANE RIVER Q PIPO/AMAL 20 SR1 P PIPO/CRDO 19 SR2 O POTR/AMAL 18 SR3 R POTR/CRDO 21R SR3 N POTR/CRDO 17 SR4 M PIPO/AMAL 16 SR5 S PIPO/AMAL 29 SR7 L SAEX 15 SR9 S PIPO/AMAL 30 SR9 K PIPO/CRDO 14 SR10 S PIPO/AMAL 31 SR10 J PIPO/AMAL 13 SR11 S PIPO/AMAL 22 SR13 J PIPO/AMAL 12 SR14 S PIPO/AMAL 21S SR16 J PIPO/AMAL 11 SR17 T PHLE/RHGL 24 SR18 U POTR/AMAL 25 SR19 J PIPO/AMAL 10 SR20 ✓ POTR/AMAL 26 SR21 H PIPO/AMAL 8 SR22 I POTR/PRVA 9 SR22 F PIPO/CRDO 5 SR23 G PIPO-AMAL 4 SR23 W POTR/PRVA 27 SR23 E PIPO/CRDO 6 SR24 D POTR 7 SR26 W POTR/SAEX 28 SR26 C PIPO/CRDO 3 SR31 B POTR/CRDO 2 SR31 A PSME/PREM 1 SR33 SPOKANE RIVER SEQUENCE DOWNRIVER NORTH BANK STAND ID STAND TYPEDATA POINT IC MAP Q PIPO/AMAL 20 SR1 R POTR/CRDO 21R SR3 S PIPO/AMAL 29 SR7 S PIPO/AMAL 30 SR9 S PIPO/AMAL 31 SR10 S PIPO/AMAL 22 SR13 S PIPO/AMAL 21S SR16 T PHLE/RHGL 24 SR18 U POTR/AMAL 25 SR19 ✓ POTR/AMAL 26 SR21 W POTR/PRVA 27 SR23 W POTR/SAEX 28 SR26 SOUTH BANK P PIPO/CRDO 19 SR2 O POTR/AMAL 18 SR3 N POTR/CRDO 17 SR4 M PIPO/AMAL 16 SR5 L SAEX 15 SR9 K PIPO/CRDO 14 SR10 J PIPO/AMAL 13 SR11 J PIPO/AMAL 12 SR15 J PIPO/AMAL 11 SR17 J PIPO/AMAL 10 SR20 H POPO/AMAL 8 SR22 I POTR/PRVA 9 SR22 G PIPO/AMAL 4 SR23 F PIPO/CRDO 5 SR23 E PIPO/CRDO 6 SR24 SPECIES LIST FOR SPOKANE VALLEY SHORELINE INVENTORY Native species in bold. ACGL Acer glabrum Rocky Mtn maple FAC MEAR Mentha arvensis field mint FACW ACMI Achillea millifolium yarrow FACU PACA Panicum capillare witchgrass FACU ACPL Acer platanoides Norway maple NI PACI Parthenocissus cinquefolia Virginia creeper NI AEOC Aesculus octranda buckeye NI PHAR Phalaris arundinacea reed canarygrass FACW AGRE Agropyron repens quackgrass FACU PHLE Philadelphus Iewisii mockorange NI AMAL Amalanchier alnifolia service berry FACU PHMA Physocarpus malvaceus ninebark NI ARAB Artemesia absinthum herb sage NI PIPO Pinus ponderosa ponderosa pine FACU AREL Arrenatherum elatius tall oatgrass UPL POAL Populus alba white poplar NI ARMI Arctium minus burdock NI POAM Polygonum amphibium water smartweed OBL ASFA Asclepias fascicularis FAC POTR Populus trichocarpa-balsamifera cottonwood FAC ASOF Asparagus officinalis FACU PREM Prunus emarginata bitter cherry FACU ASSU Aster subspicatus FACW PRVA Prunus virginiana chokecherry FACU BASA Balsamifera sagitata balsamroot NI PSME Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir FACU BENE Berberis nervosa tall Oregon grape NI RHGL Rhus glabra smooth sumac NI BERE Berberis repens creeping Oregon grape NI RHPU Rhamnus purshiana Cascara FAC CEMA Centaurea maculosa spotted knapweed NI NW RHRA Rhus radicans poison ivy NI CHJU Chondrillajuncea rush skeletonweed NI NW RONU Rosa nutkana Nootka rose FAC CLLI Clematis ligusticifolia western virginsbower FAC ROWO Rosa woodsii Woods rose FACU COARV Convulvulis arvensis field bindweed NI PYMA Pyrus malus feral apple NI COAR Colutea arborescens Bladder senna NI SABA Salix babylonica weeping willow NI CRDO Crataegus Douglasii Douglas hawthorn FAC SACE Sambucus cerulea blue elderberry FACU EPCI Epilobium ciliatum hairy willow herb FACW SAEX Salix exigua sandbar willow OBL EQAR Equisetum arvense field horsetail FAC SAOF Saponaria officinalis bouncing-bet NI ERHE Eriogonum heracleoides creamy buckwheat NI SIAL Silene alba white tampion NI GLTR Gleditisia triacanthos black locust NI SODU Solanum dulcamara climbing nightshade FAC HECY Heuchera cylindrica round-leaved alum-root NI SYAL Symphoricarpos albus snowberry FACU HELA Heracelcum lanatum cow parsnip FAC TAW Tanacetum vulgare common tansey NI HYPE Hypericum perforatum St.Johns wort ULPU Ulmus pumila Siberian elm NI JUSC Juniperus scopulorum Rocky Mtn juniper NI URDI Urtica dioica stinging nettle FAC LASE Lactuca serriola prickley lettuce FACU VEBL Verbascum blattaria moth mullein NI LYCA Lysimachia ciliata fringed loosestrife FACW VETH Vervascum thapsus great mullein NI MEAL Melilotus alba white clover FACU SPECIES LIST FOR SHELLEY LAKE SHORELINE INVENTORY Native species in bold. ACGL Acer glabrum Rocky Mountain maple FAC AMAL Amalanchier alnifolia serviceberry FACU ANOF Anchusa officinalis common bugloss NI BRTE Bromus tectorum cheatgrass NI CEMA Centaurea maculosa spotted knapweed NI CHJU Chondrilla juncea rush skeletonweed NI CIAR Cirsium arvense creeping/Canada thistle FACU CRDO Crataegus Douglasii Douglas hawthorn FAC ECCR Echinochloa crus-galli barnyardgrass FAC ELRE Elymus repens quackgrass NI ERCI Erodium cicutarium storks bill NI HOJU Hordeum jubatum foxtail barley FAC LASE Lactuca serriola prickley lettuce FACU LIDA Linaria dalmatica Dalmatian toadflax NI LIVU Linaria vulgaris butter-and-eggs NI MEAL Melilotus alba white sweetclover FACU PACA Panicum capillare witchgrass FACU PACA Panicum capillare withchgrass FACU PIPO Pinus ponderosa ponderosa pine FACU POAM Polygonum amphibium water smartweed OBL POTR Populus trichocarpa-balsamifera cottonwood FAC ROPI Rosa pisocarpa cluster rose FAC ROWO Rosa woodsii Woods rose FACU RUCR Rumex crispus curly dock FAC SAEX Salix exigua sandbar willow OBL SALA Salix lasiandra Pacific willow FACW SIAL Sisymbrium altissimum tumble mustard FACU SYAL Symphoricarpos albus snowberry FACU TAVU Tanacetum vulgare common tansey NI THAR Thlaspi arvense field pennycress NI TRDU Tragopogon dubius yellow salsify NI VETH Verbascum thapsus great mullein NI STAND A DATA POINT 1 ., ,.. -7.--,. .,,, ,,--14,--5,,t,:Lk, 7. '7 ,.•'' ; 't i.. ,,,,,T, .. ik, - -, . I,-,:°'''-‘, .5" ' , ,,,„,,• ,:,.„ ,,,,,Alk..,,--, „,,,,,,,,i1 p ,;-.,....,.,,,Z, ,•I 4,k le , ...„:7 .,, „, ..t• , ..:: 1 • r rt.' --. „"A" •, . , ,r.:-. -45: ..,..-• ..?, A.; sf Z''""*. v" - , 4446•.!-,4.5 .4 4'ff ak .!,'' k ,, .1.--1, - %1,! .",•• - -`,‘,.... .-L. • . •"is IL • ' ''Zii‘4, ".f.'' 4.4, 4.4't i." `..i. . ,,i...tk: ..;.. • '- . --., ' `‘:''''*4 . . ...1 •I.• 4 1 i',..All , i ••••, ; •••, .grliih..'t.'i; ‘i.. •"•41'-, . -,a.1kt ' ..4,,`,.'.. 0 ;C.:, ...- i At''';‘,. 0.4. V•tefk . • '''' t A ' ' '''..4 4. ,. . , • t .••• v•• /•,;!..* 4'-‘•+-• ''• i" ' .• •••t! .1. (*.44.e .. ^, . .,_. ,.. ,,... 4 .„i ‘ f i* .,• .•••‘. . , • .....• ..•1 i j•let'e•r4`.1../ . , :tt•''''*-`7, ''' ''sis••"'", ev. ..tt. `,:',1;C.l• yk'It 'v - • .NN,,,'',,,'‘'", in/ A • ',•,, '', --. ts.,- ,Iir_. .• .- r..A.. : . . ... -•A"V,.. 1,- .!•1 \w . - , -':.. \''-• .."- :..e.'-'.1-' f- 'I. - -',Ilk,. '•-.-1, a '1,?.•-'.1- •'•' • ',...• ••-•.. • 4 4..,, , ".tr -.i.•' . ....#0,174- ,- ' - :.--".•,,. „;',..,,•;v:Lz,..-,- ,N,:''...-, * -4 '1%.'. •- :. '' :-.4e..t. • .4,' .,•.** ..'"' - •-"ss‘5.-•'77..it.16:4 sy‘eletg., ....(;.". (.. 't ..,..V4.0 ‘\•.• •. 'Ar..'t.••••i,I...f.. V,, , --,..... - '-" ' .,- . : .....` .• ' - ,2141- 'I. \.4\o•,,.1: r`.,'' >,A+4,,,..,f i frt.,...-?,....*--,..51, s• ,.. .'..;`,`",-,1-:"d;',--"cc,%.*,-,Z,,..‘ J....a. - 4, • .!4.'_ ._".., .,,,,,• )....,•„;.,4Z1,1.4.,..•::•,..,..:•1 ' ,.-'.:3 .....3.1•.,yy, . •*., .• ..- 1 .0. ••••.t}-4,4i. "'„„. . , •....1.•,.. ...,_.•a., -1. ,!,17, ,,t.„.„,..,' 't,c't, 1,,......ik -,,,„4 ,.' 741 ' - I,' ,, '- .L.,1."„,.' ,,,. . - , .:'09:4:-. .., %.*.fxZer. flQ'c_S...,-..' -,-•-'..t.,,,,,L.-.-71'•'..--4.f.TN,,t7', . '":-t;;1„- --A...."-.- `, .-"-' ', 1, I..-1"4.-,"''-.11,Li ' :•4f--1`• ...-- _.*,:r• ', :Is.- -!' 4'.)t2-•-•,,''''fl',1•%•:.-,..';fa'-‘,..‘7.--f,:* .`-.1.10, ,,' -; , ...A.6-. 11. --.1,,.. ..„s , 'ma .:`,.t.,SL:3•4?-0-.,;,,,,#,-.:,'E,'° A,..7.;'.....4-.V1.1.14,-;3 ..--i '413.;,:141.;7, v43, ..47,:•-,4 . , :4\--- 4,1"'", -, t i.-W;,:r-ce--t•rfa,A,t.,-',Z.4;w4.11.-;.11.-..;•1;i7oz,..,:i,r.,.1.i.,1,.,,„..-'1%:*-- -;-;•.;-: , - \ '''1 . -;.' 1- 14 4 V:,,,„ - . '?,,,i'•'•:'.P...;'7$:•t*, ..414.A......*'''',/ .;:z..--.;i?, ",,,‘\"4:,.,-:-,'7%4,,,,,'/ 1. 4 ,, .,:.,,, :„, :),si., .1.2,:i....,,,,„... ,.,. . ,....... , ..p -,,,,,,i F•‘. -7.- .e..--vs 1 tlik .-• IS' • _,..4, 4*-74,"..'":.‘P-14r:W• 4:ev .4 .,'4 -1:1) ' ''''. c.....s.- .. sz.Arf,:r -. • •-0,--•:.,.•-•-..,-..1., -',./**.p'1,' * ‘,t ii, \ ,4-1.ro 't.- .".':71' •4-7,.=43'ts;;--- -. ,'-2.,, V, - ' =.?..1-44,,, . z . . ,• At..: • I --...-,4,-, • *- 4(..-;1•„.. 1.,;',,i•-' , '1._,..-.6 - - ...42" •••'• • 15'....'"" ' A dp1 A away 008.jpg A dp1 A down 006.jpg . _ . •,,,•• ,s; .•.•, ,, . . r: .•;:- ,0 ,•:‘,•.,,,,,,,,,...,,‘„,,„„, ...•••••. --, IP,s'S,•,.•44.,., . ,., -7. . r .' -1 Vs,,,N 4,0•••,.P-411.,,, •i• • a'4•1:... q s .. , .-k-. ' r .6 0 ,- • i,11,-1° 4•,Vie,*. .- 44 . , ,'..,•,,,-4 4 ., , 1,..`, r 4rvi- „,,'*,-- . 4.. ' . --• . ' .•.1 ** 'rtl " slit('t "%IV' 4.,7, ' .tk." •• iiii.• 1 I. ,c. 1. ,Ill • •', '''', '4.etkt.ii. ;• .•'''-‘ -.- .1. W.,* ..,••'., s-. •;'•.-..• • I.., s. ,,: ' '..-'11, . .:It.-;'•• " e,'''.1 • • Nk • •-•-',%. i;•` "e . ;•SP'‘-'4eir' -..:.1-f 4 '',' ',: ,-,.. ...e ,. AO . ' ,,Y),rs4? -Li Vr..,,,,t4.r -", ,' s, -,-.: • ai ...,* , ,,>. - .-S. ‘;'c',.:- -L .;`; .'4"..**th...4-..6., --w..")',1%;•74...--1,1" .1,-:: ..- , ,,,,.. • .,.._- .. • --.. ..-,.1,. ..,::r i• ,...'-. yr4f.,-:,--.7.,,,0....w.,•,T,...:-i*,-. . . • - ,-,.. t• ,. -y ..-•-,; .-: --.• '---'-'-‘.. .0' lk.t;-•,--!;,:liNnljf4,..;:.,.•: I., -, , ,, -7,- :..--. <1.c.;,-.,• - . - .ep.... 1.-..441ka ,. . ...,;„S'f,•"....!„).-.„%. 1 ... y'r. • . 4'.1.t•?' .•''''.:' '-:;•, •./.ifr,,,,..e..: IP.' :t.. .ff:;; ''r:e.:41f•''"4'ilt; -. .., . tt, 'At,•gf. - ,1:11, ":. ...*.".1••t"..i,°..•......',': .C- * '...,: f i.4:-..,t..."4..t ''''-', 1 "."C..t ' ....' ",..,,,,.4.?..,.•..ir ,.•%.-.1-, . - .. _ --2. .:.,, ,., i4,4.-1, .. _- It,' *V6. .r.1,- #.2.*.li ': ,s:\r,....4%,l'-: •. •-i ' • -4-4.-1": V::-'":0.:-.• '',P. ''''- ..„L . - ir ". - '••r s'•-•.,:•'`. .1 '''': ?1:-....• --r. 4.$-M-Zr. :, . .',..° -'3 .- '*: 7 ''''' ) + r-':` • - .: .., '7$-,z4. ..4..;,' . , '.,‘'' ,...*'` t,, . ..... - ..-:11':'-''' .4.,,i,;... , ..,,_ ,L..v _ -6-Z;,-.1:4441‘-:, ,,. ,;::'•'--. , ., ,, :."`• . 44"il...*.tfC.' ''...'L i - - '.,';'4''''•-•:. 't":7::i".--. '' ''.... ''''...-:*,.. . , . 3, -, ,, -4-• '.,, ..,,..„. ‘-,..t ,, Vicir* . , '14C : .,e' ' . '' s'•1• t'',. t •' " s .;.5,-- „.,..4'''' -- •-4.-4.7.q,j,..---A.. ,..4....c r''' ' 1,..... '5 - •: Ns...‘...." ,.;',7,-.1=-... ......• .. -V. .--,•,;.-,, , • , .„ 4*.`f,f. `'. , ..frr` -„,, rli,..t). -'t, P71,11 1:.*. ''',,' ' ' . :-414.% ' , ' .3,Alti, ..ii,:.•4---' ',. -1-. .r. -..,7-; ‘•-•• i••••140 '-,.*Zisr 14. .''•-•' 44' •' -'-• • • ' ,‘- -,d3g110'1•4114 t..i...,............,...____, . . .. ,._ - . A dp1 A up 007.jpg A dp1 B down 009.jpg --tg -; - -64---c :- 4F..r7T ••:-%Sil:i. ' •",!-:'' --Act'o:i 14?,;;:""*. - 1'4„. ,,• •,. '..;s'r,'W•.4...'',e.' '..''.-'•n-• ;', ° ' - ' • .:: P ...4)- it.A t- P •• -. 1114 v i • ' 1.•• . 1,:. s, .i• • • .I', .• 1.- '-,':.1', •`'44.' '.',4r.".' . ,. . , 1..••• - -,--4,1-.5,, . -- - 1•-.......if,"iiii.':, ,. , .15. :k‘t, • '4W4,br-'' .i.....4••. '-' '-- ; . • •:' • ••••" •••• •!."•••4.; .••:' • ..• lite-:.' •-:. -V--.-••4.4.• Al!. ,,I.' ••74,1. '. , • +.-• , ,4. "•'•:' '71,, ,_, , • ''.."';r,-, ° .--- .,.,'•:-,_ . *.:4 - ''. t .-• .1.7 li::.- 7'." ' '-- - ' ' * --• '. ..1"; t•: ' .'- ' . •si ,t .--,;' ,k,-,. ..''. Arti" ..'... - ...., '‘,,-:. . '. % ';',,V, '-.` , - ,.: :fr'' • `" -644,1 '*'-::, k,'-?..-•-•:',., - - :14:•"4,..' '- ' • :,4 ,„:„! r. ._it, , • .'4 •r-, .• -...-A .,„, ,. -,--,' (..- A„,..t"...4--. - -a- 'z'----t.-e.' , • • .,'*-0 „ -• ., 1=-::7--";;;411`.' . • .."2 if)41A1-',J-4•:'--- Teir-4.-"• Ak, L/7, t ' -I•,.1- ,,, iiiAK:,...r..:-+A. isr"''‘,::,:,-`''...-'..4,164,__..44,, ,A ,,_*"."•:.',,'. -. . :. ';'' -'*',`;'-'1''''-- ' ' '.., '': *,',,,t‘pr r`',? 1.•:....K,-,4,-04:;.:.7,:. - ' r ,(',.y' ,,.,--X.. ; ....4 ,,* 449/74:1i, -'• • '' It."' '''. . i 4 *-`:, . ;-'a.„..42.,...-.. • 4 4--.„-ce•,A,,. -...••••4...A.., ,41A'y: , .,1 • -41.- •-:-.- 0- -* 1' ...- !, 4 r - - 4..' 44 4.• - i " ' 114 , *--...--kt -,:7-..3,t.'.... :,I.,, `.;-Akk..:::si.,, ,'4A- ''',.:- 1-. I ft,,:---- -•• - -•-•..i- 41e. ''''' .- .-'- * ,• = --• - ...-- .--.4, l''••S:- V..t:: s ''' '' i'•'.‘59e--.-.5-147-•••AL4fil-....41".? ..-4... • ,‘,3;...--..13.'''-(•-r. .,„„ -•-....' ".5_..,,., .L,......_.: ., .*e.ezt,.. ... :,,,,, , _ _ . _c. - ,,,,4, ,,_. "...;;,,,,,-,,..,4---...:,,-.'.;,'(.5 ,Q-, * -2.- A•'•,,''":', -•''• ..f'- ' • s,...' :...--A.'S:•-•;k. ,C,',. f-'- '' ' _ "' ''''..! ".'fel.0 .-.'"•4,,,1 if f,..t,.-;•i.\`' ,..;-•••••''•-';,-y,','•.•TPTX".,. .,,,,'":• • _ 1••••`'' -..t'......', IT- • ' ., •,-'f.4,-Att.?...L'', '5'... . .,'',.... ' ,` • " ,". n',,v 1 ti;..„....'",,r44,,krJ,y,...4-',N,..,,,l'::,,e-*:---t,OP, ,,4,.:rX..."•:-',• - . •,- 0,,-,,-;,....-,,-vti,._ tp.'-.....;:..:,*,.4,‘Njiii,,,,,_, 10 ' -, i.., _.... . • a, = kii.;,,d' Ilfkr-)Ii e.:;.-:,-,„,;.1-..A,.,-.,.....;'-4- 15‹-t.,,b,';;C:',. .---, --- P `-,fe-., - -7' - '''' ---, ';"7 -4--: . ,": ---'r i, P.'• , '5*1-re --; -; -1.'."2:44V..'ls-;:.7.:!'-,!: ,:•1:0..)„).:;:1::..-*11- ...;:,*;',-,;-'1,, :‘..;=:, ..•_ P . gr„ii,-.- •-•-*?.:----, 1'.-t- .. . -7' ':-''''S''..1--',':".-:=-`1-A-....•''.-. - ' ' -. - - ,-' 1.: ....'-`:,'f-•:"..------"r‘t ,.1/4?-.• ., *1;4 - .k.„,„P.„yi-,. *-;-,.::1/4•7'4,'....V.f;,,',••• ;fa.7-S..ar,.... ,';‘,.. - ..•i•.10%.. Jii, .:` ..".". "-:. •:"Sr..'...,,..),,-•+:1."",...',,:,„ .1r,• 'I 7:,•'•••!,, _ -• ' -,- . ,_ ,r, ,'"v., . ),.1'...--...14,..e.;•-i_cf,„-,7144,;-:. 1z-1:kg--;37-----z- -7- '''': - ••=,- i- - ,- -„,-......„.?",.,-r-•- .,7.4.-',..:,--, -9,..*-'-- 1.. --.- ..= - - A dp1 C up 010jpg A eroded foot trail 011.jpg . STAND B DATA POINT 2 . .... . ._ . , __.:.,,,,..•....., •:.-A„ *',.."‘":‘,..,;,.;,,-*Z, • .. • '',. :',"' e.*' , . 4 ,.. ' 5:-`4z.`".' ' , • ' .7.1/1 ' t"'..` '''.'.(1. ''''1' •t•-••44"' es, ..r.. ......1,,) ,. • - , " i:•-*-61"16144-, . -, il,,;,. 6.; ,r. -; .... - tat ,.,..4.0;;;Ai -•• • 4.`-. ,...= '''': 71." , ."`. c'''. •.. '.."'st'a*' ;14/4 ' -,". -# 1.,11;,,,-,,„(.,-; -- 4'., • .V i' .--ra'i-.) -.f!-.-•,.1 t: ..s 7. : '.' '''''''3 ' Y -- •).x+A..,.,...,.,,,,, •••• ..., ....., .: '. -, '...'s,.6 -4-T.? —,II' . .-:::,. .....„,4--;ti-.! ., •.., ,, '' .,„.--,v.•-'---.1...•'....:svel ,r '.• - ,-•... :,-.J-\''.•"':, .,-'-- . --7-7'4>t.;.nk,..L'')4 -'''k."'",,;-c•4."‘-',."'"' - 4;`...•-•.7:.-4i--t1.-\#,I, ,-. .r,%,` •'';''f• , -'- ..;,‘•- ''-'0',,` ‘,"*. '' '':ti...`, - ... - 4•4 ' , 1.%. ‘1.- ... - . ' '''''...„ \. ,,r: - ,-....r-, • --• ,, - i.,-.0. c-, . '-'1,7x, . ,- •:, At!,-4., .s -, " .,..;'..,„;',-,1", t''''''''''' '-. "_ . . - ' 1*# .-.....-i•A•=t-v-44-:t•• .-- v - -"-,,i. .-1'5 •'.- •11.z'. ,s. I • €7",lifs , •• 4 . •,..1•.': 4 -,. .. .,‘,.... ,,,,--%,,et t.. _ %. .'‘-vrkei .-. ,..1 , --s:O.. •-; ' t./ t• - ' • . ----- NT. :TA-0 ......-... ,st..,-..- •,. ..-, ..,... „. ..., '.i.:4•,?,'11 ofi4X4i':T, T-‘"' '1(14 ..! '''' `.-r-•j P?'. •.N' •''''''' TZ•-•.....'''''..AP -•SP* "I ,•. ,1 I . . '.3 th, 1 4 +4.- •.:.} • - 3.. st,- • %.+,....1•44 -' -1'•X -'•° +1,'`-'1- . :-'',' ,- ' ',-...°?"`"7 • /1.417.,.`--A.1.2 " i.-'•f,':'' : . • -4,..• -,-7.'-?? ' : -+-I't t.';....' ' '' '. ' . '''• i "..;'..-.° ' . j'•,'•• 2,- 7,',....'--4..z. ',:,'"•,•_"‘7,+5.s.4,44',4..:-",+g, . .1 , • • . , .+!. .„.-, ' '. . ; ) q • -':. i...,....rs.-11i4;•-'"r"-- • ----•4kairlt"--"t'.--+*-- .its'-?,••,,Ii.t....-;;.i,-,1*:'• . ;,..''',"•'; ',. -, , VI' .,,f1:4E t- 1 ,. 1,, . ,. ...,•,;•,,,,;,„ ,...,:-..4',,,,,, a..„. 4+ _ , ._, .., , ....-.6 • .,-.,.:., -,...„ -,..*. • 4,..,,, -• A%•el, 'T'4,-*V••• ' '"i .' ''' ,/' j‘t '.4' • ' . • ...,‘ VTli.,.1r`S.).\.•*,,:.,•1 '''...i. IA,- . . • i -.y..?7, ,,-,,4.- luz...,_h_-:+tr,,,,. . .‘ '•-• ,: . ._`-''... )''', - li.'11, ''. .',4,"4'.:'$ •''zir-`41t-'• •1+5!° °S.-,'.,, •kv.•‘. ° ''i•-•si• -;li-3.,;' .;.. A °, •," -. .•• "..., ._ . „,Tr - . .. , -t. -- ,••fitCe.4,, t.. i'''. '''''g'ii • ', .i''.'70 . 7.44'',-. ' 7-:?lot.•;;;4•• *,;:•` ' 1 riti; .• -,....1.4.-ki ....k --.;..A.,. . .:-.; .,-- ..:. ..•. r,„. ..,. ,„.,.,c,. . ,*. , ._ ....,,,,,i 1-,,4,..,..,...1,,,,, ., .,... ,,,,,.:..„„a.;.,,, ..,....„.1. ,.:. ..,, ,..-.,,,=-,--,....1 . ..:,.. ,i: . -; l'ckr•4 4.1..... ..„,-,-i.t-...0..ii,'•,-.•',',,w,_-...•-•.-1 , ,itlitu..t. .-.----.- t'flr, v., „,....-Ltu'i,'.. - :.-,-.z..-4,-.),,,,z Mei....?.ef'..t,,iut-..,:Is' 1 ''' : '-.7.•::-.....-,S ii!.1,;._d. ..:-..,0,2:-.1.;,.,/, 6%)..k.-- 0..t':..41}:uttie.,..-11.iirl, '''.`::,(a- w-,:s....:k LI.:_s.k.w._..: • B dp2 A down 014.jpg B dp2 A up 015.jpg B dp2 B down 021.jpg ti ''''-':- ---•":c:',w.: `iiis:',4:-.;-„;-. ---..- - , , -..v,.,-.1---.747.:-- .... .. ......c.-....i,,,•:••:, •...- •.....,..-4--..„.•• • • . 'RI-' •:;_,,,,,'.'..f:•••. -• ..*e• •-7- .. . . . . ,... :-. 1 • — , , ...,,‘,.,' '..".- ... .-•'-'...!. A, ' ,r ',, ' :: IK' ' "::!:e.,;;-•,.,-:-.-.' ,-2144 kw ';‘,,: -'' 4 '''' , ' ..'.:.11T'''' 4 . --:T • .42.,...-.' :0•TV•4`•:. . r",.-?,T....`;,.. ..- Illiii...T. . , ....., • I _, ••...,4 , •• -- C. - -,rq.'''''--1,.%.4' ,. ''' • 42:,‘ ,:4,:. ' 'si:;' .' , h;. , - . •.. ' -' JtAlna.,- ' ''' .- ,,if',A.,F.§..1,,,....,,.:` 1 1T3 ..- ... .k.oi • ...,• 4, 4., + (,F.-1,.-•-. :: • - i:.,43%.0k.tte:7. ''.; ' ,, i ... - :: ,-- .....; .,4,..--. (1...,- - -..,rsh.t;,+%•,•-..----..:•=4:!,. ; - .. !', „ ,' - . t - '. • oz. . • ,--,;••• iv, , 0 Lt, •' ..'..... . 1...4404 4}1... . .4 _7,7 .t. / ' .,' -' !..:4..`•:.,4&,,..:'fF!T-: V- 1.'`,, ' . • ,,. ,,,,,,,,,-_.t.,,....!„..i 4..,4„6 .....5 ., "y4 fr,i,••,,,. ,,.. -..,.— +••'`'.:':f't.„‘=,'•!z--:.' ''--,- s '.'''Y*- '149 '0.- ':,••,-:-.• y ', / 0 °' K 'ZI: •':IJAii.TICSpigtfli.• -.4,.. r:reitil't•,..t..,-`- - . • , 5...?..1,..ri...TT. N.4.*..A • . T 9. iA i,4 •. 4 Ts_ •A. ;_i___. .. n,.. •..0.;,)41.,---',.... ...,..,!".4+,:4-...+:.."sr.-,-.1).4*-;-••.4.-- , . . , ., ....•... y, ,I -,,,,. .• •,,,•• , •,,,• . . . , ,,,,$4.01,--. y••.:.-:4-4.,_,14 i,,,,Witi,.: - •"N. "X -.Z.,-,. r . ., •e:-t•--,-w- .4,...ti.tsak,,it•rz-.•,I++r' '.• • ./.*a-' ',.-, ' i• -2. ..'+'- .- ' •Iik.44+9 V % •-11... ••,':' • -+° • -• - - • - .4.•— •-4..-_42-11%-e....11„.a..... ------ ---- -- --- ------- ' —-- • - — •-- ---,- -- - -. B dp2 B up 022.jpg B dp2 C down 013.jpg B dp2 C up 012.jpg -ii ,,,..-:-......i ,...,;-.4:-.:',•71:117'7', 1-.,-,:•".--..,:.,,,-.*....t.i.ix:.. ro..... '-...,„ -:'15-, , ,:-.; -,.---,.Z.i,:iiCi 7.f*.i., ' • ' ''''':**', '' " > '--_.c. • , - I ,- - ... -!;-,(. ......- • ,--:..- .,1.-,i __,. ,1 4, i^.C:'• :.',. • • 1."-'"--"-'• •s,i.-ki t,,. •/,- . i ., .1:,;iii,y, ..",:,,.....;:F4_ _- . ...! s, t.......,',"'in''...,,! ii.1.-4.,',.. '.. e • ;",.....,.• -' ..' 1,,,V... oN..„,..,.6 0,..1,,3, , • ..,, :•••• ii.....i-..e'r--.'..' '....' ' ' "'WI? '4• It.4 '--..' ;..;'. ,,,,'.4' i '.,;..110:/7:-..;‘'...., ''s'.' 1, ..,: .......6 . '.....".1%, ''....,' .t4firi.t .- . , i.\..--1.., .:. ''.. I.1 ..,,. 'VI 'r. . 4....• -.4,,,.;..--J-.4„.-'4A•t-,_,: _.„,' ' •,-;........ , i :,.i'.. - '';',...,;-,--';''' • '''..,-''. :, fl;•,..:' ,,I..'-4.,;,,,.--.,/'4*-:11,71. "1't•irlt<--1"1 ‘..i• Ti....'-' - ' 4......4` ' .,,,, -1,4...,;.,-4,. ;,..V,k".. .V.kz.a.'t N, %:SO'S,1,71-,- ...,,_a.at,•--;,,,--..7.0,:Aos'llek•=1-' . s;,.... 1,..;;;O: . i••,,,-, • '1,--m--'..%. •.- 1k' - ',"-it i •-••-,-. '1,&, •' -1, r',, -sr.A..0*,:c,•'-'^'.-..' ., -• ii-,:•,:'..--- - •,,,,I,— 1.k, ....,.. ; Y•';'••:' :',7,•_,4•-. ,. • '-,47‘ozi-fr 1••'<., , -tr- -- -.$ se:; - ,..- ri•.... -9•••••-.•; r ,4-''' ' . •1- '' '}',:'1:4'.. -. ,,AiIP:I.*. .7.1ak,..i;:- A 1 -..* -•.2k*;••,;-_, -,,' 7 1'1';;"=:.--z, .1'' ..--•,„W.-• 'F!;,, ' 4.,s,,-",••:'''....!.-•. -`b•- -.-.--''.--.,,.....,(1,?4 , •.1.,.?: , • : ,:.-''t,• A, ,va.,,,,‘..",t,.•:- ••• •._-.,•,,;_•,...i.7..,2,421....A".•;:i4.,,, _-,-..1,..r .,.30440,4 '. Y •z ''' '-'4,'.•:;.-'''''?-7- 44" '',''-‘)',..';'''''.:..k.7---;4?All'. '.....,-7- 7--tii.,,, s4:/7---V.Ar'r**,t,,,V„k.--4,,,',., crtii: ::-., if_.!,-:•.-4. :.7-'• ;,..4„.,t4 '. ,,--.':...'",,'-:.''' .,...c.--'• A 1:';',0: -. ''-'1 .„...',..:-...' ' kr-,::-,....., --ik.,...- -- . . • -1-.1-,..,.•.•..s;.1"•-•'_:-'-'",-,-.0.,-, -.,c.--• `,"-..., ' `''', * 1- •- • . -• • .441_1',";;•1.,0 ' i J4,...,,,,,,,,,z;.1,..,-„,...e.„,,,Az-:,...,,f4 •, , -n„,- , , -, ...1 *.a,,,,,,,-.A ...,....: -, ,1030 -.,-A-,...,:.',_:-..,,„..-..,,,-,..4-74‘-:'-:V'-•c.-...' ,-, - • •, '14 • ‘...t 4.40 • ..-;c4c .-47- -°'".....e' L 4 - . ''''+-,--- ... '.-0.11--.e.„-_•,f+c-z.,`r.L. :,,_....i..:.. --,..- _,,,_z, . r;of .,,,,,„±v,vt‘,.,..:1„..,,,lattles4.,,s—..., .,_ ..v. „iota:A.141_ __. .z.s.i, -3/.,-...: B dp2 C up 023.jpg B dp2 high water mark 02... STAND C DATA POINT 3 i,14 /. ---•\ •Ur- r a.� t rv.t f ,'l' 4, r '. ,�y !' -,' r ^. —'" rid I'. ; 1�'�1- ,-. ..�,.-- i\.i• � ,..... ,..„ .�ti - fw - t ,....2.'"i if; r� .syr: �.L { y ri t o .�i 1./ �t I% -a .i' --Yr 1! •u5'.‘,41-._45,71:r w.- b 4.'° a:�w3 JYi" -. , . . _., r+� , 4th b t� i. S, 4 f! 41, or I�. a _{ 1tf. ori .1 �$ i :so { - �'�• '�! 4 i.-1 ` .� '.x '4i ,txt n si'+`r , d' , ;.`si .r • • t %, + ". .-... -mss t .��Ji:>� Ct�l�?'. r. -. C beaver lodge 030.jpg C dp3 A away 033.jpg C dp3 A down 032.jpg ! �0 r 7 • � y -....„,..r,.,1 3s �j g •,...4.44,, ' . -/t :. .om „' i,.., l73r,r -'� a�..; .: 1.11.. • •. !Tr } y' �7t ' . _ '"-• . 44 -rtI' ¢- . p' k ' ', l "! • �+''2 l ` ; ' Y � . • . 't �' � '�:i .-‘'a'° r., 'l. „ •is fi"'- X571 '7'67, k • ^- y-,. z }� k i* ;x `a5 ,ra" e. t .a.• 'Z ' 1` ++f` y`• t�•� L '""a: Y ;? • `�, ,-,,�F'� iF Y� 1 .+ - e4... -..,-.2...?.. ' - ...:z.. - .`• ,:sc ' - •e* ( ..---,'+' .. - ~ JV •�x n f r -. _ -_ C dp3 A up 031.jpg C dp3 B down 035.jpg C dp3 B to 036.jpg ,.,-',,_, \v.% .„.N, -3 l' ..w..0, .N te(.,,,, ,,,..,,,,...,. .. . -,..,,... , .„,,,,,, ,l -4 ..,- ..„,,,,i Ff Tci� �i5�`�` rA~�1 Y.' ti t 5r 3.. '� rr� �"f ` �S. ;.a• p�sG i ��N 4...,.,:,,,,.....*.„, . 4• Y,. r..i'y . qRr �p�y - r.: e - 'LYr+a,.- e Y" .,...2'...A.,....�{4c £ _ i r f,,,p"F4N.f'^"(� '��t ._7�- 1 -� t ', T.,G- .!' 4 ��1 r'. .'C' _ 4y�ju�-k��P `Sr Y 4 ", / t/ `.. ;�"4 '.;- , - ,, k `Y'. I';'# .� tC'f e '_ +Z 1''' 1 .. •� �.} -yl ' `t L;.'' 'Ir ''=1- t ; •t t 'Y' •a 1 �'ty-t , ",,,,i. Lsrfk3 to t t + u_• J a'r „, - a y` Al` }` ,• ."• II .. .�s .. fit. 1_ .�_-+,. rr r- Y -.:.1.... �F" 1 '" HSL - ra N,T � ..' IAA ✓ a'-.g:r." •^=••%1 �' y^' - t -.. i r �! ' - '-r'�k'-t�' ..D 7. ylj%iry-- 1 ' ~ -'n( -4. i, 'e'fi' ,r� -'�i '�` L.. , • _ ,� •t .r 1 r r•,y w� ! y `}i+�i .^„`,r4..A' ._. - ,.. '•-+�:-:-.te r t.: :, ss.�.:._ '- .!$G1` b. .._ --_ C dp3 B up 034.jpg C dp3 C down 038.jpg C dp3 C up 037.jpg STAND D DATA POINT 7 t -';-."1,:cX SF',Ai- .f ?; qty..tel :•Ari f �s . ....• 3 'a M' ..yc��l • • te` ".. ^!e. ,ti: wr j ..,tiv Itt fi- ••. jl- t,... • •.,� ♦ 't.! `r w•+e yr .-`�. IS r"4 • ,' d .0.1:0,0,...: � .e,0, 'T .• 40 •, Fr.,1 .; '� ';A k. 4,Y.< ."1� ,�r- _3 - 'sem •LrICf i �'' .( 1 • yg � � � �' Y,l a f ' p" _ 4. r� +:ir_ :f - �f'. ..4.,••••• t��K`�l .` �i:< ��:1_ ^Y,14,,..,,74. -34 r j.JE ./-*, f, =ti�`.w n.. �'•c:ir° `- r1 * . t r 1 fP^v L . •_+e•„ ,...,,,-..,-,,,,...f,-,.!-....,,--- , _ V` "_ _ )'e_6 "1"1,sir —;/.4.s.••sF.. `'.'�� t.-` d -4— D dp7 A away 067.jpg D dp7 A down 065.jpg D dp7 A up 066.jpg ,{e Y;Y'� r � f, .4" .,in,Zn T s - ° ? '7[• : �" ' .._yam`f r„,', 4)•'.',-,_'sai; .ifL` rt Iwt14 'y $'`J-44-01..." , ''''' ,.;41.1"..., • { ... ii _ r _¢ r i',. � :� :4"111.,,,,,..4.,...,,,...; _ r�. ? A•v. � � '* 1' 414-' v,.. - � �--f.-.!tL � � �c s ^a)' -ut, r r'Y. �.. y.� / v+K,� cox /�^. �, " o,+ 7_ t\, \�• +'7, t „t #-;.,,!„--)..-•,::_ . , , tj , ,,, Y� J 1, ' t---f.,.4,. .,- -a•• t 4F r.. ur t R �, •�,�r '�.,,' � s ' �T' . t r z .� 1 ./,._ •�v ars - ,• '. r. /...!:,....,;,..r:,�•' .Lif7, M1• _"0". ;••�, 1 -ek - 1 r. 7.0 . �4,. �..'1 ;! , ,--.fin e.v..'- _1.y, •-T /' •' 'Y if - rr,�'' �-•'i-` f ' -•.:f r _"t ri / �..,^ -i -ss 4�';-4-.t•-•,-.N.-'- , �P� �'v - r��y��,.�� r w2:.. 1 evil . v AI** �ri 1: S _ '•'r i V:."• r. • 411.7, :Kii-',t,,� ,l ° ..>A .4 - *.i,• it .05 ' ''y,.. l ` . =••'h , -i, pT' 1 ." " . 1 �r"x-•' ^ .Tw'k� i' . ti ,6 c ,� vh i a "LTi w .s'. . '- 'a`- -,i ,.. t, -' ••-_,I,„ .• *.tY -r...-:-.. 5,- . :h,•h. _. i^• t,- .f. i —_ .nY .-r" Y. h'<.r .a. -J_ - D dp7 B away 068.jpg D dp7 B down 069.jpg D dp7 B to 070.jpg . ,- -.4.-,.., i 7-} - • •^ 'l:r 3•. H ;WIT 'E Jiy��{ `•-TAT_ Y. C^ v xrr 4; }� r -P )7 _ y._ '' 7t3 f i ..;11R.,14.. 4 r;'\V�• t•,. 4 .i• ..-t �y Y • i .S +' � V''' Y " �• 4 - a.$i ,r,•'•�a•s•,q , �'3� " �'7�''? 1 y �"„t 3 q y r 1 i �l•T $ 3 •'f X JI - ..A.,--t1' :1';:,•,..i.',74.3..- v 'v ';',V, 1 W+ ..14;' .F 1''r'' i 1rY.y i a.•+ t. - -i ; ; ' s :- r.., ..• t �� j:a Yra\ 1.957....,!,.- i , ;'',-t /„ � { /tom. :•"�' t L s" �•,.� • '+ i 4 +rN '~ + ,S .�'•5'r'i� -ff 4•L!3. '' a.. V ''','''.4%;'''it' L $4 14,7* _Y` 4•s ..:r � ^'tom#-r *t .; f ., tel' Y t•- , t a tr • • • •rG.. ']!„1...1.—-t�\. ,m• --+ Lddryr,.--``1! ' ','� i',.'r ' tf'0 1� '�' _ ,x ,gyp#; .. • 1t ! ,' •,1 _ -g.44441' v }�$.t�Y.•t.e`4 °\c,1''�'i'c° 416`4't x .-_. _ _ _ -fr_£`t .f . .---..-.1,-..4—s, D dp7 B to 071.jpg D dp7 C down 073.jpg D dp7 C up 072,jpg STAND E DATA POINT 6 .....-7;,...,---- V' 'tet ,Qjf :11-.3'''...,v,,, n` _ Y r.7. e ` '^i • r L`fit • • y-. ' • IOic :�Y It ♦f. 'F • ,,. J t. + � '�' F� f/S"�1• �C ..'. to ' + it� -1,1'24.:-.41-"-e..044 • � •A + i � . . - ` \a • • s � ' 4 ' ' • •r ..i.• ' 7x . .._'.....-4-%.•-•1 `' , r ± `it.4, , t`-'(' .0..'1,$. .3 1� sr� i a`. •s"' • • ,} i4e �`� % 4 4• 3'' %P r r ` N i 3.... •�' . ' 4a ' gyp ,• rt f • S- ,; • : i3 :.--;•• •••-•:..(..4••••0: ./•••' s � yAbi, r i �/� Y;ek �R " " " al . . •L Y• •yt ` . k , 'le.. g'''' •�i tS r -p ` ri i: it/. ` aeir . E- ,,'ie ..2,...,_ .: .: .v -r_" ' #% .nr-.E dp6 A down 050.jpg E dp6 A to 048.jpg E dp6 A up 049.jpg f 't+.` 15 r } u' l.\ Y i • ''tom 1.. Jfe t.A r �g t } • r, t •` qy' r q k 'ice t • T ' + .• .. �+' r Y a '4: • -1-:.... ." ✓i ` --=-,',- -f}.', 4,f130424' w • s n•_ . �y 4'y •'' f,- -.'t. •r �: ..N: :•r �i. . , it - -- - c E dp6 away 051.jpg E dp6 B down 053.jpg E dp6 B up 052.jpg -,.5.: M. •:,:4-' 12 • • ►' Y�p•.Y'yy �,�.- J4'1 .. I �'1l 4 'A {' J}t."t. .alpp• fj F xx 1'V•( ;„t, t Y ZRI� ,.`T,, h Vit..- A. , j ��• '' a •'• �1'1 7.7 . Y r; . ^cg ewe • t 711 s 1. C '--r~ _Fr9 d; G rf e..;, S .r P it,p- ,r,-,`•, 17. ; , _•,y I 4 lc' ,0,,...,..i...,/; J� `, °. Z. - +. e;�., •.S,• _.�ed� �r�' ,••�. ,,, t 011/3.4.1, „!.1;,' J r t _la- g ,'. ' fit 4s #r zi•=” �rr � Al. �:.+i r3. a '',�,• , ` t •t!..,7:, - i 4.,�f i i::V" 't • i,4r yr, P' i s .. 'Pl.'''. h'+'. • 1 • • ,yam --tlrj -. r1• .i.j 4�t ,� •'� i1c,5f y itr. ��•['i .eco r�`r''.:i fi i'. �� ,'g�. t 4;- '� 40 :.i?t,:,- :.ii, Y ; tis ,••‘,1--11 Ry,e,..'. r -...-4-,� •0. . f ., u.5++ k • • ` �^Y i`' ,,,.....4 ..ii., i • ^s•-.. •<, N may•% r7N1 i fi• I q • J tr '4', y't trr • 1 1�• ,°1 - 5i •' pz - r `.• 2 s t•, x' r Nt4'l•.`'yCrtt ••:4-`•4K f ��, , :4•C• _�i',, ,4 �w . ' •' i , y+•r�?j *`'-- ` 4 _.{,1 } \ r si ,n,1 i "-./7 ,y!/. Z ),3:t-y ? •i b �'�pi1,* r ,��, , ,- :r i.. -7 ,�, rf.. ;n".3 £', •4"4*),;:ti'...•r, + w ".., t. {'.4n•.a' 2'.• ..."'\r''re°(s 1j. %i'F .. 1 ••,r, 1{F `C:11.-t,"41': -4 , + . .. .+;i. t ,t,.., ••-4.-4---,. y -I:lal :.-.,..K"3' 4\ \� . r o t :• r ' 7 frip ,,.-,.-:ri-.g.x-a L_.,1. i�,•I..f •..-L *2,*-.4• .__ j_ *la-,-k•-r'.00 r 'h.' {-_ �:3- .•l ` �'~'.ir•y .-. E dp6 B up 054.jpg E dp6 C down 055.jpg E dp6 C up 056.jpg STAND F DATA POINT 5 b, r..'pJr n " c rylY.�` lZ+-.� 1 t�-- ` • .`. �+> r41 a ` 41• ` r t A n 1 t Y 5 j ` .17:1 ' ' -..•..w., •ti,' '9_ - • .^ ,• '•�' •r'. J., , ' )' ,S L .;+�,.K Vis. Irtk r - s 1'• •d y S 1 <r a ^ar'•� 1 fl -1 < 1 •..,..'}' _,,r, �j'^k''.t;-ti, x: • - ....,:,...,,,..5 }Me4 < .+..�.:.. (�,q y< •4±:-,'i, �,.. ,. :4 "a ` ".t r�';� . ^ } % •,t ►y.S,. _p t r� < 'ti'j' tr, {'yr >t �' ..i, r 't'�Yv�h ' "'8 . - ti- >`i`«.itv r14.,,tet'' t�' ; ti'" .,5+ tl" s+r^,5�. ,., '' .:�1> !;,%,,....,-",:;,..1•:;',,I; rr �'fi^ '1, !.17:—. • F.qy. r � z .> S + 3. ,r ;: - E•7:1 �. r , \\� _ >:142' �1. • -it 4 .�1 .,. .7_ ML • '!. -I.r ,'".:4";.:.-,•7- ♦,'"• ...s '"r;.‘,..a, o,.. ��2 �' � ,_ '{�•t. n 1 } :iii*air94..'l'ALPI174:41.'r-..#1;,z.4,..sk:-': A.- .4.•...rd'itt.,.....-1-1.1.:?4.----, '''':"."..-_,,ifit' 4*::.M.T'il- -:.• 4-!tt-144%-:=1 F dp5 A down 061.jpg F dp5 A up 060.jpg F dp5 B away 064.jpg ''''-"--.',-0.:: ' . tk y • • E 7{ ' 1 I r s `1, „ii Cu^' �� 0r4, y� .i f rk.rli rF-ti'1 1.0, .1.`!'''•-••`''. i .e', -L. T .; C r ,r .. • r-:--y 1. r{^, {tMmer ' < r • "(c .. • • tit •,,.'-' -...7.•-.';:.';,...4::r1•'ritil i•,” - -....'•• •' • • • tS.J -• 'w � .-� 9I 4,2.1". q ��,� . { k /!'.J•Z « r,43,'-',7f.,-.._}z'4. �..t .. 'a 4 r�Y ' is '- .T .l.• • r ro 1 1 -+: 1�•v_,`R F. ,.'� '�11i1 ti1� ,k ' ,�, ,�M ` -y•. • c Z- ,.e:(Th-k 1 ••1:'4=A.-••l' oftr-i . ' { ."�r , : `.'..v i �Y 7 +. Y 3¢ T •C I` �. .v ----r ,. i^ r. ,-*:ti� i,Jr. -7.S .�1� ' f��'b ., � > ",,... ' , r7Y� kt t + r._ r_t -y ,'� ?&/ },�i� , KL} "^•wt � ' ' ..',Z. `^+.^4+. 1:1•':,"•.4-...:'ti'� .` • • F dp5 B down 062.jpg F dp5 B up 063.jpg F dp5 C away 057.jpg ° R i4.* s s ((^'t/ Ix' f,; 3"".1 `0 ''f "•.-•-• { :,;r .• v` Y` J y� t1yfi J�!.yr. +fi?. .F th F' -444 a�!f�' - „r.`:"*.-"•F'P jr",:- x y •;1 Imo, _ L,.• 'I !'.-",;•`4-':,:v'' : '?9 �' '41711 "y( .,;*..e 'A3 , C'':. �..t.1..% elt..1:i'f•'.g4�.. Jam`..4t1 t -rat v 7fS Y�.. •. • ir3-r•r n •�1!'.. , 2 ~ . t 1y3u ,,. w.s `camA n,, v1 ,. ..'s. .n "...';'''--.511. i F dp5 C down 058.jpg F dp5 C to 059.jpg STAND G DATA POINT 4 , _,.... s_ , .„. ,I.,.,4 - ... Vk Cr,41,1';. 4. :P:4.,'i• ..• .' T "it, ...c.f-v"r-,' ;•, ' 1,, = -• ,i,•••.,•-• . . • • : . . 1 ' .. '-• I, 4 ,1 ,A, , J ',NIP,3"1,1-A-vi .0',.',,L IC:',,,,'',..-:i t..„. \ ,• 4/iik't•-•:, , 7 4'''',''' . "•.g'L',....,,."14 ';y-,''F'r7j.:'11,11{1. 1:41W'.1.4*-''''.:;".'"'"':',',-*'1.44i. l'-• .,..e , •? .,,,,;,•,,,,-,1;- .- 11'..tt:r. -A e.,„,iiv -.•., .... . ,. , ' . -" '1,- -'1:e ,' ' .:' ','• "-- : ' '''" : -4---- - ----*•2 -4' ,7. • , ' , Tf•v, , z', t. Ifig -1- - ' ' ' ''- k '' i. •, - ' 1 .: '1- ,v,... • ,„ ' . '.- ^-stXD: • Apyl-ty*e , . . 1 • - - •: -'s :':. P:,1*,4f.'. . F ' - `- • , -1.06.,-i . -,*-4110 • , t ,• +.• 0'2', • ' ? • - •- . . _ - ,.. • .1,' i .....4.,4' --, ,........• -.1FF'" • -..z*-•,-1, --: tt • '' ,\-. 9 :.4. —..slt. • -•- •- ., c"• -• '--, ,..• . .ef-4474, 3744 -4:,.• '.11T.1!1„L'• .•':. iii_ .:,.... 'f.44Z. L. .,-... „ :.. -•4 '',.. ,.4 %,-4•1•,,,, -., r 43 . .-., •-•• .44--.2,:l • • '- ...,, , ,ti.!...,,,, * - 1 ---', 2.. ,,•-•..- - ; - .---_,„, • • - ,., ••... 1.-- ,••• - • --2-•er,roli.„--..i...v,ri., e4: •''t•4'' . ..*P-' ' 'A'- -. \ Z-* - 2•-•,kr,-;;„ ',,,:z.1 - . ....-'• .,!. .kx-,,,-gill!'" -- . , . . •••..ilki=e•,.., •, --;.-.`r *,-, , .;.4,,,,,,,".-,' -P-,.." „. ,--.....• --,,,:i .oraiiiiits--,w--. -:<- 4.;...- '4, ..1''.:: '''. 4-141 XX. .1.%i'!1•'..";•,' ' •.k. , ;.•1,..,',i7 .--).4;:* ' N„i.4.‘. 4'`.;•:,•,,t,' '''..' •"">. .,..• ,;V.* • ;-,,rkiliid,• ' lip . , " sac,....* ,r, • - , .,, . . 1,„0.....1, ..,„,r.....c,j.„,r-, - A• 4.,,1•,,„ , - ,_ ...31.- „,„..0, -,-,--.t.,,,, -•,••.., _iii.-- _ , ---•,,,,,,,,c,:i .A.,,,,,?L',...,....„. i.1.,,,,,- ' . , i *• •.• , . ?r ,,,..,- -1, . ,,_ ,,,,,,.::, ,-.1.T.• :::, - .A.---‘4k21......: - :e- • 4- •••t'"i••••.:1P" -4•,•••''- . '- -1•• ti( -- , '•--Pt- t -sok 4, 1.',..',;'-r -,.. ., 4 i • 1 " '''• . , '4=-4,'PA' ..* ' i.'__.14 -.E:..' .. •-.P. 4.''' ' ''..1 G dp4 A away 042.jpg G dp4 A down 041.jpg G dp4 A to 039.jpg ^... ,"1"`"'" • • • •• 7/ , •.• ,r'. -t P•Oil r 1 . rT,.-7" .. , •:1 'r ' IL'Vr, •.--- -`::‘::-J1k1).•-': --- , : - i•- ,,,v- ',`,-• , ., • . ..,:, ---------- 1 ., :4tri •• ' ' - • "-,-•,:-.-. ' . "'.7,t4'i-4,,V-•5..:11 -1,,,-,-. .,F, - . -- .,•-• - _il‘AI'l ''. ''' ' -. ' r' ,•,,r - ''''‘ s ' (i,4 'L ...- -• .4!.V' . . 44•rt. Citt' ,;f,--"t'y1 r'......4,e:,„„...- ' 1.-1,- . 4'. ..' .';..;..,-...k. 1•1„,,s ,, ,. • , .. ., „........-, •,...... - ,• . ,...--,1 , _,, -1 o ;to ,...4 ,-.(s. ...,4„--,-,-, f.i N .,-, —••• z..„---..,.-..• .:.,• ,.....c. eat r 4., • ...•-••• • , , s. A . ...., , ., ,. h ,;.-...,.. .i..„.-••• - ---, ...,-) ..- •• •-,, 2-4, „.--••:, ..- 4, ••t7," ‘ ,- . • ,4; , '-',-„r .7,,,,--' 0e.:t i- •.4- - -', . ,- • iil'51,--i— ,. . --4- '4-,k,7,,.-,k,,,,:-.-...„ ,.. ,-..741.2„..44:p.....,4., . -_,11 -7.,„. y•-,,,..k• '••• I] 2 , . ' ,.441t.-,.. 7 ,_ ,, ,,....N. ' • ' ..!si,, ,2-zyp,-;on-- .• . - . rk .. `,:','..,'',,;•:-,'". ,;`,44.. „4.,Ixe••4- ."* = *' --' • "Pr—. . . ''',"- ''' '''''S :0***-'4r- (. *Tr'''. ... '. ''' .1,',At't' 7 $:•,_ ••••1•-rx-4:40"-%, ,..••••-•:••'4.•-•z 1,IF, - -^,1' 14,, •••A,N1 •-,_ ..,:„,..4 4,r,.., : , 'sagi\l'•rt•-- :1`.-1 ' '1.efil›_.e;..e...r.„ ....,-; ,, - ..r.--„,t1- . , "",l• . -'..,..•.--. -- '''',1,.. t-i..,..!--;°-g ?P., ":• ---- ---- --:' - -' , k ,,.:,.-, .•!:"..", ,,,,,t-*.•.,,,, f--—..,er\7„.. , -4-,.....i ... ,- ...,•• ,,..,,,I.,,,,,,,. .., , _I, '7.• ,i ..:',,41,-- ..- ,1••-x ..-kN- • a,- "•-• . r '-'-• r• . yi ...." ..c,.,._- ',7 ,4r4,..? • V.v.:- •,,,, ......0,4'. ' •-,.- -,..'•.... ' ° ..,14.* • ''••••°:.-•- .1.• 7."."---••• •',.. • ....,, . .,,,,r,,,,_,. , ,. , ...,ZN•••• ''':-..71 / •-%' . .*$!.,:,,,, 4-'444••... , -...,6 ••5, Ak , -...4%,...,.:4' ft:. •' 'I...04,31.'7'' .:e..• :, ,' ,,. ':„- 1'.•'' ,!'''' ' •' .. i 4„1,',2.• -.. ,-4,..-, \ - , ••• ••••:4,.,;,14_,•: •-,._,t,-,• -1;•• .1'$81,..•.. 'fi.',:lje,..•ir....1„,„' ' -27-, • --, A• - -I. • ••• ';'",,;;-., ',• ,', -- -, -,- . - ...• 4 .,....'-q 4,,,,4 , 4.4-. A 41 Iv. NT,-. 44".--.; 10,g Ort, .,...$',.,„,- ..--. Ir a 0".„1",.......'"_,__ .,, k.''-'''-%*e'-"'''. ' " ''-"; - • 'e' • ' 41 4.... ' ''"'il's 7, ''.1''t.1 '1..-.4"7,,, -'0"- -N-- ",.7 i . ,;"' 23'41.6..Vi-. ..,. . 4 l.- .J,-.. .- ).,. - ,,.,_ -7..,....-• • ON :1,.....14. ' Int'fli.k.• '' ',""` • '' • ' * '- G dp4 A up040.jpg G dp4 B down 043.jpg G dp4 B up 044.jpg ,p. -...: , ..:,;. •,:i,... ..:- 4".i. .-A 4,if ,to.,-. , - -'1 N•111-'.- •"'... i` - : ' - r.1J-',...f.,-.%•• .. -•-,.•.•41-4-• -,- ,-1 -...''''.' • , • 74_, . .':' l''''t• ' .=',.' gf, - ••••,-,--!'•l...4 ;1'' '`i. '' 't' '43.',''; ,T4I-)... '1,,' )7:Ci`tf'r-': ‘\,4 7,,:4.1 . ',,,CA.1,,, 7- i :,.;'.. '', .e.'''' '' .... ,".A' " ri•, P." 'P. 16 .?,"N1-.7.... 4,1/4' -'kli :-..t.,-,e,1:11.• „--.,,,t. ,ki•:,.:al,. • 1,;.•-••',11),,; , .. ; ,1, , i'' i...s4**•;'5.A.,# i-5” -7';-:),47i-,;:';,7 ‘7!, ..1'`--.'..I.';.:-'-i. -'":'.;,:7, 01-ftl; ',' :1:: '141.---•'•'--` - ‘,. ''',' . -Dr 5-, !,-- -r,, •••;,gr vet . kr-,..).t_ft,-‘.- ,.!.. , •- s., ,;.,i,t-..1,:. -,.. .--T•41,,,t,;.*',r2,-.,', .'f- ",1 ',...-".1 , .. • F:s---0. ••-..,,e,4,-- ,..{.-z;„„.1-1,1-,. .,, .7„ 4.", % ..,-,. ,p,,i,e•-,,,-_..„.;,,,, ,-74,...NI „, • ,,,, :7.-}, ,, ../.... -.....:,.. ,..,,,,,, t,,, ...4 ,..;Aetli.-0,," 1...44. „'I. .... , ,t, ' a-A. '0.,_ • --_, .'-„,7.4,:,""t--•-,,`• At•:'IN••••••••• -- •AP; ; '•4'i ••''' .t'••. 't y,. •''''' 4,1. • , - • . :_.-\.., - -.. ., i.,‘•-i••ie.- • - v- --‘ 4.. 1.4•1•_-•-: -- : ,^"A'r, --,:,.-- ,.i.-;- ;43-_-/; 7.„c--- . • - : ' J:.,'-'• • - ;-1.t. i , . •-',, '.4,-.4..',..,'".,.•:, ,r-ref.„-j, ' I...•r....". rA r-.,,e-: I ,g•st-'--' ••• 4' ' -'...-'. ''',4; 4: , .t - •••• . ..,-----7.•:;•1 --k, '-' '6,.•'.7.4§44'-'-',`•-•: ' 1:,-,..*•0,4*., •,- • •i'Orzik.`'''':',-4•`- te, .-4.-• -- 4-",- ...,..... ., : k•••,,,-, --i,..;,:- .,%,* ,efl• e• •-,,..T..4.:7 „."7"00.r-., ., „,.•,,,,,;...„,,,,,q-:, .,. , .. fix, ,,.....• ... ,--, :•7 ...„-= ' - • s'.'6', ,.. ::,,----"41 • = ':.--tv.- _ • 1 .1 '''---,.,-,,„, --44:,i1 ....:,:1%-- -'` 0"-•'',/`:.'11'. . %-'4.11 "41. "4"." ' - ' -:,,, :-:-.• ' .) AR' r .,,,;: . .' ,,,.....,`' .,*•. ,_- ,-*-* ;:.0 t....,: 4'4„,._-,eA.-,-5.*:- , ,T.;,. ' ,:„ -..:,:w,-f iii" . , ' .4 • : l'41:1;'' 5 .1.‘'Z' ...... •-44-/- i''•••••••::•••-•-• •!,:...-2:•,,•--x4-.1.,-..---- ••-•,;••--, ' ,,,,,-, -,,,t• ..,-, , • 0-• - • ,,,,,,..:.1 xiltkr,., .4„464.4 , - , *0,1;1., _ _ • -tr./. , , • ....,,,,,t. •. • ,e-h-lte,'• - '- - •%•,-; •-: -- r..---•-•I---:• '- ' t.'--='-•-•••>•,5-'••--'4- • .2.-.." . . • -r.:, ', . ,•/- ..k , •• 1-.04,- .,:, i: ,te.4..;: s- ••,,--:-.:•..„>•,:t_••-....;c12-:.---'''. ' ,- ---,•41,t;.•,..;•••.:,'-• -l''''t• ' ...,- -•'-- - - , .. • .., ,• — - .7,,,:',...„11.. •••• .`;:" ' ",•„i?"7 ft:24I''%' 7-..,-L.,--t‘-',* --,- ''* ' .,,;:1,,*kt --- --*`" •*' ' ' • 3 dp4 C away 047.jpg G dp4 C down 045.jpg G dp4 C up 046.jpg STAND H DATA POINT 8 � �� f is 1 - a-vim -- "w • 6,11or -'-••::: • . , - _ _,,, ',' t• r‘ _ L mt P N 'a ♦4 .^yam — z x. .. M1�_ - r^— -� .\ `,— iii)kip.IN---.% i ' . irf SV�1T-1 / - .--I.. 7<- • — ow.imp, 'k . '''' ',L. — . a 4 0.".# .._41 1 1c . .. . , _ . .,.__,...tait....„.. . . . . • __ R H dp8 A down 077.jpg H dp8 A down 084.jpg H dp8 A up 078.jpg :f.' 9.,0 tea. �: t� +• .3 -4.4%,, i tl 4�: •�{�L-k> 1.t� * R 1�l E ti I r1+ ..45, y.. .its- }, iS 14:a �t `••,1i. }t '�S' lc. • • + ,,,4'-+ '4 , ,,' t,r 'a 1.SIX. t'' `C. , E ' ' 7 1 K ,:.e..4.11.1 ^ .- ,.t-pf r x 'A�-d w- ms's y.�R:,.,31 5\� . +. -.--. �N.i'� rfig 4�f y .Y .d ."-'..1fa 'k, Ifs€`.C"f t ' • i1,1;-r.:-. fir i'r'is htr, -.4 T 'i S - iT. I,11 1 tli1 r, y, ttiW t. l i-Z.: 5 1 'spa 3 . t r,r „f t.r S" :` R / + ,.li', f' ^ j E i r* `" ' 'tF a�'4 .i ,..r Y ` 1 '''''' ,1.4' ' i 111}.. ;, !� i• l'r-a 1,4,-,..„„ a .4�j. t t, ,p., .1„..g,,..,....,,.4 , - •',fit' r � y .4:4,, 'F - ' - , t .� 3 t 1.I „ � _ .at C t2 t� ,.L ---.7.7f..---'. ' ,,1y` a .''Li te' /- Y �P .�..I 1'•-?, -..•-,..7.-4:.;.,;—.WA. �� 7,,\,i y - ' 'r .. _ H dp8 B up 070.jpg H dp8 C away 075.jpg H dp8 C up 074.jpg g, .: ;v i Ni . _ ..„.,-.. .2„,41,41f-,44.. ...•-,.3.; -.'7 t i t 4 ,r5.-- ' F "•fit 2(•••• t a, :. r f' t/' 1.A...""'.. , ..r: +.yy R +.: • y — .J`: 1 3.t its • >..E . H dp8 C up 076.jpg STAND I DATA POINT 9 ',./1(;:v4:-+ yam •:, •.;1, 'c.,t K .`, i "' '� F t4 #y''� ''S.,... �e y,` •R tq Y� Fes« 'A } 1 ti.` s • a w; Q:s . .!r 1 E •AT, 4 ` t , '+ "r1. • �t7 r- L ♦* t r{. jr ,��**'' 4.-.y1r c •t ;„r: -'.-•• Y i.'IL,"` .,sr yts•.'• q- 3� 'N„1 �!�..µ, Y WJ'•'•;M it .•3"`v! a _• 4:"- �.471'..-;.4-'1.-'' `.J.7.f. . xt - , _,*44.1:z.:, .., F .`c_ i at h,:, :Y t;�/d3► !Vol.. c:/4 J` (..:. j4�L = �', • sl! 'K': .!..1. .-r'tii- •e': 1 + <-.- .1 ..l..r •��1,` ♦• ?li.1i - 'c,�.l�'#,r"F`.. r, -,r. t• z 4`<7' y, ,,,• 't��++ CC Y .tlII �'► 4�, �yj�i✓� 1 T'. ,b -144:'•'''' 1S i S • I dp9 A away 097.jpg I dp9 A down 095.jpg I dp9 A up 096.jpg r.+'7. � t o y-" :..:, { , . • .. ,4- `' '',,+ r rF,� � ',V,4,., 2• . •4Pr } T' W,� � _ 9 , • �1 f . �:3. tL$$SkiJa- :Y - nx " • la� te3 Y .73.t •.� .y .t_ "--.•''...-%-...4- `s • , F a t YSa +r F • r.:,;,-..,':•';',77,e' �ll 1.,�'„.i ''..74,.4.,:...'",(.1; `.! 3,f / `' 4.14 41.` ,i'`.: i` ---- ' J,`'�.32 .,,(.rye. t l - Jca 12,...rr held.-�+ I dp9 B down 098.jpg I dp9 B to 100.jpg I dp9 B up 099.jpg • -4,4,,- co. rfic�£ rj E'{ik: G 'F� Ir t -T, 1.-4•44'^' . }'• r4 . t .nlQ:�;. '�«4 -" � -4t ` ' ` w 4 • • y t, rtc ' '. - -,� auL tPsr .1 - • 'a • . -~ x q 4. s• +., ; s a- .4 n ,s t + a .;,.:1:,-t.:•1.,.... ✓ x4 t oa.4 { }F"'' p� t _ . -tXjr b S . -s r >r. � ` ti ' �� . 4 r•" a ', vs'r.. r 'Fc. '._Sc .t,Y� -.•4,., '_ - •y t 1 l '} AYE t I dp9 C away 103.jpg I dp9 C down 102.jpg I dp9 C up 101.jpg STAND J DATA POINT 10 . . .r. ,,... . .. .--„.. , . -'.•.'''••'..I' 1 fr v7% .,1. ... ... ... .. , -: '-'-,...:, -,*=, .- ,,...7'-• ....., „,-, -‘-• .i.1!,-:.. ,'. - - .. . ..-•et. i.-s. -,..,t.r.-• •N .,,.. •.,7 ' . ' - 11-,...; '.71:- .,' ''. ..4110. -.....„ .... '. ..7:.;-:...:.;:.s..;• 1; ".'. . 's 1 ,', '/ ' •' '-''''''Ijk.7,•' lit.•k '''''....r. •••• • •r'' .- 7:"-•• 7 fl.k.},.. '• .4 ttl ':.4.'"- ,.. jej: .,.. i 4=-•-1,--. '---•- -:- .44; - ,‘ - - .- • - ''''. '•••---, --" ••••,, • '- ' , .., - t."'f'••••,- ..!,-4.4:: - it , s.44. . Ar.i...ef,;•103: _ :.; ' 7,-.7_,..14-•ii-,,,••••,..4 ,... .,!t, ,,:: _ ,.. ,,,, .....,AT-. . •;. -441,j. r--.. „...=..,-., .„, ..,, • :,-..-.,...r-, . . - • • - : - .. -,....;.,Ni, • . ,• . - . ,,, `-ptis-,-7.5- ,-;.r.r. _•.:. - _ -ri• , . .,..r..-4:-."-"' . %,, --. ..' ..#4•,4 . , ._ ,, ..„ _ .:-...,:•:„,_,_L.L',.:- . --,-;..i16. . .,.: --... - - . -,1",;.:-_. - •401 _ _. • . . '.,,-,.'nii,o ' ,-.',,,,:.• ,....75.-.w. „v., ,y. ,=',.!'- '- .----.: .,:.-. - — 1 . .. .• ''.'A'r'''' 7 -.-. . . 3F- 7'•'"..#. .'....4Z..1' • *- • ',,,--.,,,'•' , . .'.-.f•'.•....'.''-',0.. ,. .••.....,.........-„..-: ,_, ••-_ . -. ".-•---- • -..1 ' '' 'A t---4 --1 ,, , i,..-.0-,p•-•i'. .-f-•`,.." ._.-,••• ?..'"•••. •••••''''::,'-'1...--- --_--• , • ' • . ,.•••....,„,;;.: .,..., .. " " a,,...--'1".., • , kleili :7•A• . -,-• •*.•.„..'., ..4.._-_ ' .i.-4,5‘"si - ' •-• ' ----'' - ..'. - . ..-''''-: ''''.. ...1:V:4-.---' '' . J dp10 A away 107.jpg J dp10 A down 104.jpg J dp10 A down 106.jpg , . %. v:-.:--,.. ,:ori,,..—.0.. ,. .;, bi.Er."?.". '1,-:--,.'4,: -;.,..,7--...• ...- :,_.: ..,,„ ,._.,.c:,,,,,4,4,,....,.... ,; . • ,,:-..;.„•;-4:— ,. ,;:...,..e.,,i.,,,t,,ft_i,`-?'.:-.-. • •••.-.:,,•,•••,..,•'•!!...•., ..',..4iiii - t...,4, ,-;,,,..-5.-•'-" *-"t..;.i•-t'*.s•*t.5.,V;.'1;.'1=As: ‘• •,:>1 '104 •-• :‘i•I•11..,;,.ifee;Wi'''‘ ----1.4-' ,,:.4_::.,,,,,i:4•:,-,;, ,:, -.- I•:- •",'..f..k•.:.'., , --'•.: . -",- ,s::-..t..1-:' :::;•.,-ry.,==,---.:' --,Th-i---'• ..i,t •••.-,•-'„• .----;7s=-014,11'. ••••••• . --. ::',' •--•ti.r,- ,.-.•-• ''',- ..-g.,,,,,-..- , k•-• '..";`-: , ••E‘, .•1-7 - ..iii.:4, =;',';:,5; • '-.:-...-44•4•:.e.`41;•1- " i .... •'-'="" * ;•••'**%- 4 ' .-.- :la ."' . .7,-.1%.,,,,,- -4...-1 1.: „.' t7A-- :. ,... - ,,...,0„./i'' -.;°,7/. '.11/7g4..r'4'...rA ' i '. '.: •... ,,. 0•...1t,'A ,,,,f, ..•''.... ..1.:,—- -',.., ..., -.. .= }-,-.r ---,ii .;" ..r. .,..-....4..,- .....1b4 . -.,;. s7.-,1. -." .,r`,1,- ..;;;J,•,:...,•44 7, •., :.' • • - - :• "- ../.i ‘ ,;"6:!%* ‘,.;;:;-.0!.....1..,, -''', - ':.4.',- l'.,' ••,..1,'.2;7' /:Y-,''.c ,,f ',,,, ;44. , '::...'.;...,,-..,,i;:',‘.‘14"....,., r;..r.cz. '' , 5•' - '....''' '1 - i_t.e..; '.4.:: i. f.",..;1 4__e. . '''•••+4- '''' ' ::- . '$'-•-• ....L. •t'-'1 •-„ Ctf- --.: '''''' '+'•'-i 'tI''''-'1•• ?•:V• '---'41r••• t--•t;* •' '.. •,. -''''" • t...-.,V---*, . . ----;""-I• .•'...f=...- ; -- ''* ''N1; '''..:,.', X:;,;Kex:14,tip- ....1:'.:1`.4'.1V,-X.,. 71,-,,:.'!:',I's ._'•-ii-'..-..-:-.-,..;-....-41,-.A.-. ...' - "11::?-' 7,;, 1.-• • ..,. .!-' - . ,,,..,- ,.-.. . i ,'„. ...1-,:...-, ,,.,-.,,. •, ,,..,,, r.44;d S 47' -,..:1.:.0 - - :•-- , ...." -,.. •..,,.o,••.•,.,..-.,--,S--.;k- ', i..-,-4, .,.... •.,...s •, == -.•=10.4,4fi,_:.-.. ,.. ...2.---- ...:-.:t... :.:,,,f,' --...., ,. ......*.-. ,.--4 **-', . . ,,,.. —,. -4,-. . 7. .- ... ,-.7 cr'. ....-.„.4...-•_w.:„. . ,.:.•••,:,-i....., . V.. .04 -`,,,,,, :e. • t,.--, •i-•*-''t. ..','1.„`.,,,"'.•-,',..'.. t-,...,....,-; '"..-,..: ''• , ,-,w.v. . • ..„,*-2.t.:,...0:,-,.•-* •.4,:;_ydi;s;;;?:e.-404..7'-,...- -:--- ..; ::..;* ---,:gy. r- '‘it,p;',A N•,„ :0.7', At .54'''•:;j7i,' .'"`'Z iMoilL:'!•_:-.:;rk'j.:7'.,-; -.;.-0.1:41."-'1 , • ' .L---i,. -k .14‘ - '-- .-Iii`•-;., -_,.. --7,40 7-"--4_4' ..--'-'..7'.- .,' *,* ,,,-...0. ' 4..,,,i1;,ir• 4. ,4, :'-':,L.--..--. .--,,-.' ..-..----'=`;`-`717:ifl..--‘'t,• ''..\-J1'1,'' . 1`..'''-; '-';'' .1,....-F,E_ ;--'.',,,,.' .-4 - _--L,, . -..:7.',-,;,.114;-,. . ...-N-:'' : •;'..,.-„r-z-.4::",--,..3-4.-- -'42.:, .4,' 4,N, x --z',;i.,-A '..- ' ..'-'••'-' .."1.e...,k.':4,,f),A,;-.:e.?•••:,.....:••''''' i i • r, '. -"' •••• '.1,11'N=6,--.--••:- . .--- • -.k.' ...ri;- -...!.,-,- ' ' '' -4-,,..•••.--?..74. ,_•' - ''..• ;v.,....7,...,•,--,, ;,-.•.:..._ ,--.,':-".,, --;;42,..•.:. ..-. .3t,-....,, .....4. :•,. ..--,.., #--,0, , • .- • • '4.r..:,•••.- •-. .:..-w _.....• - - -.›,--,•-•,.-.-2%--- i -34,.,0••••,..ka," -.:-..i.,..-.1•••.„-"!,•• i.5 f.... ., •.:.... ."7,,,,;;;, . .„,-.-=•••'s, -„,...,..t,- • ••'•.,, ; '1 ''' ,-.: •:. • /t. •-• -,-"."...,*;•%,•--1•1`:;-7--- • ....:",'"f4...=,-; • •- ..,.._,_,,%.3 _Ply v.,-.-•,..,4%•„-,,i;,v,-;,.. 70,--•, -,--• -,::.,,-4..:.-1 1; ..•---'....4.4...t"i„,2•.:-.... A,:}4'...41.,. 4--.. .: -.17.4 Se./7.-..C .: ,/i-7- .;• fi.•:;,siif.:.:- •i• ---•••,4.-. - r + r,,,',-;•"... ''..*:1-....;->•mr•• •••- -:•"...-t^. _...t.,I- J dp10 A up 105.jpg J dp10 B away 109.jpg J dp10 B down 108.jpg ,. :x7.,-7--,i-,•i:A .1/2-ii,t st7-..,, ,,:,.. , ,,r"... ,. ...;.: '.2 - _ ,- •-04,,, , • .'''' '-. ' .."}....44`.• • '' •ici.",''' I".. . .,'. ..:,;•.;s.;;,•,•,i ..4 .:...• ., p 7 : •:t.,;;;•1 - •-•,• . ,..=;.,4.• .li'.P.1-- • -);,,54.:i FX-.. •*-'". , '.\-;!,-... .).1.•.,.= - :,-, .• -=.,••••. • , .; „--..,... i ::_1,4_ .i.....:4,;,...,.. .,1-fi),..:.,.-.),,,t,••,,•i, .....,.,......,,,i', •• ,-.:.,..' , •:11,..?,,,,;;. -.',W. .. •!' ., . ••-•4.Z',A,j; ....-1.:,•;, •;:,...: 1 '•• ••-Z 'Nti i-.:- • ',.i' , ,,''.:47 . -*.:4::.' 4. :' ,• .4 ' A - .-7'4"./". , •'',',. '.'..-:" •'•'.._,N ---•..-•,1-4.'.....,' ' ' .•1_, ••,-":" :. .!;.',...7.4*'..•,‘ •I',.4,:l's.,`::ti-.;:.--.--•••••., . ••:•;.!:*.,' ' ' - -,,,t ;;f4t.',. .,:z"f-- .. •--.F. T.?,•'.-V,-.?.•:t.....- -4,..-.=-':-.4 :- - .• '-1-'',./':144 ' ; . . ''. "''. '..,-.4%, .22' -,•-• 1 .. •. oj'•%**; ..-, ,, • , •,,i•-. . :. -'-c4,--,,,,•-r.L.,-„, .. •-•_•:;„ , , -. -,;.-.,-- .,;.:•,.., ..,-., • ..• •-•' ,. 1..k.N`.1.v-,'. l'j.:,,•'•' .: '-'.:1-.‘,..`•.°Wv°°` .1,-' . 11-",it.;:-:.-----2"'L . "'*•24-,' '''41"'••:4-',*:::, ..1`',-' ' '••• : -.1. 1..•' -f/t.17'' ••••••--'''•'-'1:•Y-6''.. *••••-_,:•-• •14- , .-;7••' -•"*.A'r*..:,•.-1***'.t-3:4 *74:7.•': .Z•-ir 1' • S. ''.,•e•----(*Jr,:t3,-....A_-.4t,*„,**'f.--,*- • -' • •- ,-,„ !"'" r-,,.• .-'f .-;:r..,, '-.74,ja;',...4.-'.,i:4..I.,.;%!-' :I, 4:1-.• .-•/"<,is;:k.,`"7-'t.:.'• V;>' .' ‘'' -+,.. _••.".';:k.,:.-.-Ti,c- -1'1,04._'...• .1‘.-'''' +)--%;:-';',1:',.11"s" ,7,-....i.' 4...!..V...d.- ' '',....k,:in-'6"e`!,',./.. '."•;i, • 3':.,,s.',•,,i-',"".;:: ''.1";.;•z. .,•1,-..-41,7.-'',': ,,_, .i' •• '""': ,`:r:C!;'"..":"-•--•\-5-!., .45:..-•j',',,,i,.i.. 7!.." - . -•' . .-;*...k‘ ie‘...,;-'':,:v! ..t.', ".-i",,,`,-:4-r::•;.•:Qii.%5::'• .. . \ ..:-X--, .'";i0/4'. .4'..:11,..:!ce:,..:;.111!...1"...'"'4'-':... •'• i ; ,,' i."7 r:;;;:' -"t''_.,7.--,`,71;i:, . :.. :A- •-.... z.. -.7.-. 'ik'''' - J 4,v.,.• 4,4.',' ", .--;',.. .---:),';,...': .. - , - • c'_,F", ,.'44\::•••••"' "': -:' ni."Q:."A,",• 7.....,!- 12."'.-1 •.::-'+.,-.-..'.:•.-,,.,"r 4-.r.., I-k• -.1 i.:".,,.., ,---••,, ,,'..-,r,r....,... ,,,,....„_,.., , -,,,,,.,.....iot.., ,,,:::,-,,,i,...„,. ,._ i N.I., ...1.1,...-.,-.1. ..,..„. V,...k..;-,V 1,!...',.7,,+.-'-, ,1••ttkt;•4.,,,....v,•• -7'...-•• ft';.+'-,..,,erk"1 .-,,rAt-.,./...,,,,,..t,...,,J,e...- ... - ky .,.. , ' ' 4 "1" '1/4,1 :"r'.' •'14'l'•*." '* ,•="'';:•7,4ty.to.x; ,,,,e,:... ....7.*.......„:-..N. ., - _.: .,,,0. - 1,.:,...„.,,,,,,,,--....,,.4:c.. .i.',.:,P..!:.4::: '.A:',,,,,:,.f,.:' 1. 't'', .r.t. -I s.'.•'-.1-':•:''''•''''..... :.'• - . -.. 'I tit'.- -....r. .',' .•,'' : 5,..,:, "-..,...•.' •' 'r. '.''' . ' ' .1124;i4 • ',:,..!.1.6$'i 41.4',-,--. \, '-- ,-`, _ . J dp10 B up 110.jpg J dp10 C down 111.jpg J dp10 C up 112.jpg STAND J DATA POINT 11 ' •-•••=7,. . .ik • -- --, ----- ---7-••z•-::"77.:-.-''''.'".7---- ' riw.------71---- -icijo „ '',.. . , , --1.-4.,. .,.;-:'IP jg,,,,-,..-;-,.-- - '• 4. .....r. , .• --- '' -..'',' . .,-,.. ;1'..!...,- .; , ' ' ' "*.:41,-• ;•,--(-.-`,1: t (-- • '-" • - -•,,.., ^ ' , , *..,4,0. •--, ,--1-..\7-s,-1L ,1-, ' ' ' . ,,,,,' .0 4 rtar...,1/23 W..,--- - ... • . . 41, . a' . - , .11.v.. ... 4414...4 ....a Mr'-,••1 f,.. • 1.• ,‘• '.....,-S. • • ..- ..026 7 --WI%(n,, . •r • ,„ .,"114,2.apW,L. 41:7'..._•=•77- ,' .;,,,„fir ....Jr'•'-'.--.,. '•.-11,:.-44,,,-..4.,.:''.-,_•,',.. _ •-•''',V r ' 1- 116L ....-t;'':."'I') ..„,,a -•. "et-r1.:Ipi . -. '''''I''IS K-'-2-44''-- . ..'' t'Lls,--..- •••=.P.-..ji'"".. .. ''. '''i,..t"'• '--.42 7:%41' .9.1 '/. .:4NS# ,,, ' Vie, ,-•'- . ,-..,-,-..- --1.Fir,-:-.:-.-04"-,,'' •-,.., A 47-.- '-------L1' r.,,- - . , 44%dif.e*:- • , ;.. . 4z, ;i4;..'''• .Y-_ "•''.: 1`) 14* , ''.''''&.:'-,. 7 , •-•.'t P";';''. t..,,.--- .s' -.4 :l','ii. ,,, • , 4; ',le' ..;'[4. r•• "try • ; '•*!•1 - . jilt ,.. ' ..... •. • . .. „....r....-..-r....*A-. ,. 4sTrii,ft.,4',4r. r i•• - ,.:•''.„,---••;,! ,-,..;":' ' ,. "" ' •''..!••i;•;,....,. '''' .•1 ri.?,-..}. ..4?• ,. ••• . k- . . -•-; - •.'"!:.; : .j'''''.1 • . •',..... ,•' ' ...,,.144„, -.-....•-.re-. 't. s : '.• ' ,...,, [...., i tirly?.......k....4 ".‘... 1 ..r.- "-7.&", .. • i - - 44 ... t• -' -.' , 4,- ,''' N.4-. .,.,...,,.../ .4 y .i. .... C.-.. • ' ; .- it!"It- , . :).-.- . - •os:t. - 47 _, , "k 10 .41,,te• .,1, .....#.1.4i4: . --;Nk.., Icila-----47;',',4",-A.. ---";,o1/4,..:. 1:: '.. le.i' --,. • _ -..,. 1.,. .....z.3.... .,i " .W. t'.-c'•'="kft ._,. 1 ".'-'N.... . ! ,..,7c..*„. • A ir-,41... ifi.',...4,-* : *!..-:..:Le,, .;.-SA. ,.e-.-- [-2 ..[ --- '4 [.447.4'... 'T-'.‘: '. 4''.•..'f',,";.A/7.,.1.4. 1 NJ '' / ._ t ...,,,,k .Ai. , „ , (• '• J dp11 A away 121.jpg J dp11 A down 122.jpg J dp11 A down 127.jpg , -:., . %,,---- ,. --,,:- .7 L ....:,--.-.7.,::::.:x: :1 - -4-- .:4 • :=;,:i-.. s .-.. -:::: - k--.,f- - : • ...-A, ..... ..1 ..: -- , • ,t--7.:. -A _ z ,:.',.-'1,;,,,c-;. .‘,4,..5:-. ,-:.i St' 1 ' . -'''1'''• '..' 'I' , •- _,,,,,.1..: ..,--4--e, , - , . i-i-,- k:•••••1 "I ' '''''"%147.-r • 7. --,.. ',',,t,:4:- ''.!• '''''... t. '.:' . ,t....„,_ ''' n• ....„ 44 ,••...I, ..A.A,, ',4 f. ,.-. -4!/,...e.';-- .. :. ' ' --' i'...V:,-, ', .. t„ .-:'••• • ' >. 401,E•ri .tc 7-• '• -4: . - :, r..''. •' V.... .i • •.- -4-, 1,..4' • , •• - ' • .• --...4-' • -\' -- .,.... -- ? '' ---•*.c,,r: I ir,- .-1 t--1,1*---4- ,,!,..-;F../.1 -.4. x+-,;,*i;_, .0,.i."-. , ..--` • -- ' .- '`.--- ,;-; ''.--e': '...' tttf " :;,',.cr':='.Z.1-: . . -4-.-`:414 <'21'..2':::....?..',-a•-'•• : '..... `1*•Ai'.••••'---''',•;-''-.- - ' '.--:•%'''• . . 14-...j.;,. ''.4-'" •-• .1. • .-.' ,••-• 1 • -•••''''.•"." si li .,."' .7- •- •...•-...7•....'""••'c A"- ' it' . nr-,.....,.. :•-74"- -3C;e1.-..,....*-' - "'' . • -. '• •• ,:-....-:.- '..':', ••:: L., . "-':,-.‘4%•:;.‹.-2 41 iq'' • ,:iii1W,:.... _ . e . , . -,..., ' --','..• - N]•'''fl. ,,,41... '4 4,.' ',..' ''`r4-I, *44742 i'L''-f;"* l''..5;..2e"."'4‘,.:'..: .'-..-- .. , 4:,. -418-4.4c,_,, _ ,r,....- k • • `....r,, „A„,,,,.. .., . q 1 .,.. ,,f ,p, !..4.,. .7:---- ••.-•1 -• .•V. '.. .,.. C•• C, ...- 1. - ..,. ...'::.:AI: ••, W.,, 'i .1 , ••'. :. k i.',.- 'I`-Of i 4'1-e,;•.'.i..: • 4.•1• - • a' ,!t{4*: : ,.,...:.•,. '' -;;.•-r".'&?....1 -••- .j.. .."',,c•;?:- • •• 4 ki.',:.--". so.T .••• . .;Z,;... , , , ..,,,, , .4....-.41,'.. . .'-''V., rei'` " - - - '- -t..:0- "e''t •-•-• -"''1,1'-- ' z •' 1[?''''X'-',77.-' - '-../..g -.• ..fiat:, . .- _-- ot#4...4-.-.---, - ,, .•i - - t,. .. ,-.. - - ,vait.,,,,p,., ,_ , . .- 5-s•.4.. -,li,14,..,1Y . WI ii.:47r,-,-,1 ' • ...!...• • •...r - ....... 7.,..„„ ,.f.t 11,'W '4.4. ;' -...4',.•.:7'','''''''' "-,,,,' - •s -..- - '' ..:41`I '.44.0. • - '.--'''` - - .. •:,:r : ••.- - jw`-f(i.•,-w,*-3- ffi 4,1 . ,,,„ii";,;, : : ,•-;-- ' - „...; ..-0.1. ; . --'. -N,- , iett.r. ....- •7[7.•7 st..1',7.'' - If,....,. [41•......ak '[.".. 4.. ..,.-•',OA', '... ,-.1..`t.s.:4". 6r-t1 -[-' . [.'/' . - ' t 4's ...-- -..." - •...,'''.'...... - 7-'7.-14'44' 4, 4 '',•.-i :,11.-.r..-f-e ^ • r, - ' - ,..,-.*- - •.._.,..--. J dp11 A up 120.jpg J dp11 B down 126.jpg J dp11 B up 125.jpg .v):-.....11 ra .i.4 .7..t'-• '.. 1'4%' [ I.-, .[-;'sligr t" •. '-b••• s' *_.•• . .i.V. IX1,4 1 -1-• ,..':.e.: ,,, • , a - .,4.-i- - ••••• ,e' 1' ,,,, .4: - 1... ,,,, ,.., , , ..t NI, -- .. " • ' - `", 7- Ali '5'3. ., ,,•.,. - , 16,?: ....1..`1,.,/,% t ovit .%, - .. go./ • • ,,,,. ,•• v.;• It, :4•.-• As. ,.. ••4t...ntialle.......1 - ...v.---..-- -... •r*„.1" i. -. •i.'"-; ; -4-#..4g('t ,.. _•:•:. - ',SR' 'ilta .--.`. = 4.• : - fr.. 7. --... - • _A.r, ., _. • „.,,..„...„.,,,,..,... . . _:„....,,,,...,...,....„ , .. ..,, . ,,..e.,„ ..,._,. .._..J P•4 3 A.S..•'7. , 411:ik ••• •A t•k...''' .o•• • - •I•A).:• . " •-• P. ••1 1,. fi. ,:, '.„ .4. ,.--- `P"-• - tn.-''. 2'. .. .4 --:;-.:4-.'VF;',, ..11,1:,..:AP,... ••1. ,,.e• •PP, ,.. ',,•4.5:r.• '.-*Ite .“.••.'4'.• LE.° ' ',,i•, ...•;" ' .„,5 '''.' 0-'4„,,, -0... . Iss,„.....-1,,.e.0.----..&''- 1.-"...ti.*'. c...-, -_;.,14 ''.'.•:„..,;" :4;.,,-,-..01.7--"'" ,.-,541,, ")•'fir . - ' ' ' '••••' ' -^'''''''' • ••+. .,:e.1, Fr :yr. '' ....3-, - • .,- ........."..,•• ' ,, •.1 - ' ' ''''',Z-- '--;t,..--_.'' -' P. '''','':.;:., ...-,ti.....tiqgt.A eie...:1 4/..! "''.,..:"'-'[,..- .e.4 .r1 •••,' ..M.XL.,••s :‘• 4 ..•:,:ft '.--- - - --. ,:-...'t.4„_'•,),^.44,.."''. .'i1r”::; ,T, --1.1, -:- • ' ',..q:' ,r:`,,',:.. . .,4.% ,i- ,•••.•,y--!'. ,,,, : •.' 1 - • -'‘..trg• ...." -,... 'Z-'''.. Nat ^.. . ,, - •••".„ ..," .. ",•,• - --...,, ,-,- • .--.. • - • -11-'1.4 •1-.';--,. - . ,-- .•,,, • : ....- • ,. , 4-.-, - .,' 4•‘,„ ;L-: . „•--;„ • 4,4444,4 ,'.,,• , .- , . ' . .-. " _.---- 4 ..'• .,,,_,....:3./A ,• '• -:..a. : .--- - - •"--'•-'---- -- -1 dp11 C down 129.jpg J dp11 C up 128.jpg STAND J DATA POINT 12 tear ' .. —-,t;/ri- '. ,, p.i 1,40. ,Z.,,,,,..,. • 1.1,44444 ,. 'f*_,•,‘,10'1'-_Ic ,iikr:z, .,,,..1A. , . ,,,,_4",,,,,,,_,4•A34----- • - .D; J l .y � _ 4 .l�_ ,.�• * 4-14°....-4 ` v •,, •••••• 6 j • y,� ' r7h,a' 4 , ` � . ry''aF `4`r Yt , • .. r• ,� , ,� 7 �� ti � 71 , .'.. ar J dp12 A away 142.jpg J dp12 A down 141.jpg J dp12 A up 140.jpg -•:•;:•,-114.r"..4...Ir .. e t. C z ? �'�a'r t,, :,',�.-tr-` .S. C e,,'�. . AV t. - •h\'. y� c. ; - . . ti �s�"�11�- - ' , '--•..r7,-.- ...-...--,•1:. i•t � .. i -ffiHy :..'• C ; 2i' pe \, t T 4a faK ' 4. yy. : lis. +,1 • �•F n+„j�_a.1 - 7,r 41, .N1 : ..,•44,114.; .r•r•6. YI ti, -----',.7`, ; om !^ �"r V7 ♦ . i ' t ,Y - _ ta, � '-.1' te � � _ .� • tfitt •eta11:t s a C " ..11: i ,_ rAtr$;1 a4 °4 '} , T-N -sa ra, •S ' `�/' „.,•••.Sh , /Lv... ,.'-> .7i _ _ '. J dp12 B down 143.jpg J dp12 B up 144.jpg J dp12 C down 145.jpg -7.1.7 V' 7':n't�'11:.^l� {_ ijsR:OriNj ?` -L . y �.:0CC't . ^, -.•,A!1ff f A7 @:L ,, .`3,,Ah t, a t 0. ` t i •t 3t_r r .. '. !1r „, # '� • „ F. ` +ik1 .. ... Ntit1 t �1 e . -.. _ - � :.t I {.' 'Ni .:4, i� '-,�*• ', 7 t w lc. ' S, f; 4„.'�,,i 11.Ir v ¢ /r',. ...Y'..M1rI � t#-,"-? F 4 : jj ✓_ _• � .._• s ��h a`33 . s `.,r,. Q � ,� ,f'�' p . �... {.1'(hk..; #: c' �r,i4.t`,•r r..; " ....::,!•1 ,,•-.., :._:r if t= ',4 ,;y F`t ” ti''r , , „..-i,,-,,-,::„: .s Itfi N5' 'nr 4 �" .,s- .0. .-t% ii ' 11 1+^' r; ••st�N.•{) S•- _„,-,-,r- IA '+ , W�i"' C, ✓r!7 � �./� ' ..w.+y + � Y`.. -3 ' .,..-,-,::=}4�;1�( �f _ ...„,..i... _ , .Y � r �/x a5 •� '# :aF: i -` ' Myf' *• >•• • :' 4 ' !`�" -?'_ 4 `y *J 't t •, fi `•74 f F‘1.._,,,,.'-1,,/ r ♦ ie+ I*N. t F "IF'," .• "P„„, - �„ •�I q' - �' 'M j} r ,i7�, l..r'..+ S'`v,..v/ ..a r. I s r.' yZ 1 ;.4,-:-.•,,,a•t• ",. .'%. is r ,'it ' ,'4. ,• 1' �r 'i ,� r r:.ar. r }ri3 eta` ':p,''' r '• 4..--"1C.' '- ,,,,:,..---Al I /•1-a i!�''�':a . .., ,mr-;+S Se t c.-T...F _ �.. an. ... .-- J dp12 C up 146.jpg J dp12 flood debris 149... J dp12 PIPO on terra#35... STAND J DATA POINT 13 •Iy'� 4.J;r_ , A. c i xx v.j •l ,.�':,y wt ; \.?e ; � v � t.4. '1 r--,,,, •,+- i 3, � -y-'R ' -� � i �i .O - .tsta 4 > crYt 'r,,eIvyt .4.t .. rz co,rr, '.i�T'ta .- :� ,, -Cv. -«•wA = ..+. b\c 1 • T^ ry \ :fit�} -.1.x - ,iii -i- „.:,: e . +:� _..�. �.;rd ��. !r.•F.y 4 � • •♦,. '{ S yr t :RkFc Ir. • :04\t* r ,l M d �-' 17 'my--' -- �pry.�' - ,1,?...1 , fj3r.,._ rfaa f, y,,.r },�l1Il:r4— aX. t' 1 ' } r ) 1r .+ 1.. ri �� .- „ -'.- �\.,�- tt!I� ,, 06: 1, • _ • • tfFd�a . •ij; '' � 4, st" +• 7�ii�* ' •.ailz '44r.•1•4. }r _ �. t . ' a . ca.� a+` l R4� JAa i! 4 •,y � � i � , 'a, •et ` ir� ` ra . j. `- ' ' , ?�Y- • ' , y y( s C ! .:.•a ( • '�yyf ai -R.�! i c.......--. -' \ I( ,4; Yig_ _ r J dp13 A down 6378,jpg J dp13 A up 6379.jpg J dp13 B down 6380.jpg � ♦'fie '- '�' 4 _5<+ t.Y t?-. -Jct.' .{g,'. . r�,i.r 'at^ •.':�i•.fYOt' �` �”'{� \• 4 "'�" -R' '-k "t`y.-, „N '44 1 � I � t ' < k:, "4. a••?a yt� ,��s��+ -!' L v,;`a`• f-t��, t4; :.fi,' 1 x` ;.1� �r�i� '{Si Y � � :�L _ " y� L,�y�t�.Y { �'§•sl.� � 1 ' �'1 feY !"� ; ` ywp -,..'4`,..'- .a• • .:Yi�';: .. d.v. • .f .a:. c ,/ - •i. Sitc t 1 4_ 3 �" y �',4 1- '� \" t,- `vim• ` -�-` -n<bk • 'a-.,,. � .a-;.T'zi •k `.4•'-V. .�' rr,� 6cliYnc C"t. . ,�A E t,'� J • 004 '� }+.A... z ,_ ..-._ I `� • .. 44:':;1:, Yui r, f✓ :, ..t C-?if . k. ` y-r.+ ,._ aC.7' Y t-t• - .Ls. f;' .,- •^. ilk/'. r.:Y}. .. -\ ,v_ A 't� 'i,... Z F.'7« 'r+',-YT rv. i W�, dt'r >,N ' , ) f/.,•,i; j, r .'y� +- `,, _ ,, _: .2.44's.r. ,:-. ti\ .Ar+ 11, -. .•1.''',; .:1'; y • _ 1 t C- e! '. I d ,- ♦f !. .�j ..... `:?'l�C`YS''1i- s•/'.' c ...,. ir:+"-t•.., '_ n:yi.L- - a 'r•SLL4�yaS �• tie tt:• 55,� J dp13 B up 6381.jpg J dp13 C away 6384.jpg J dp13 C down6383.jpg ..,,,,,,ri,-T, -, ---4,--:-!,v, -•• if.J.1,--4-iy;-:- ii:‘-I :-:. ,l, •-iii. ,,.I i... '-,!A .� , i yyy 1• 1�• f{g •! tit ~` � b, J 1• ` 6 ..--4,=,,,2 Y 0 ,...?,•,;4. t 1''� ,kv. -,i �4' 4 ... ,‘..i.':,•••,•414: a T ..41 9 y,tl, A.,,`�.•� r Sf.t••.- .i ry ytl•, f14. ,. .,Ct'�4 ,�iw;#">,'� e11� c.. -' y- t .v 1 YS •r L. fir' ` y�l t,. �" d:4;1 F p•. 4' ' +Jt { —•-,,• °-,- •iT �. : i, ', a _t•'! •i -......x.-;;., yafy.,. I S i - Jwi-.� Y b Y.� �,7., .r., a4 . r ` . T•- r.1: , ,ik.+'cq.: t '_, i A 4}•-. t y ,. YVR Via* ' '':V;.;r o—cr!ity - ! •r - JR' bfY� .:eft': y`"e1 r, �[, � +�dt . yy� • • �`f I I J dp13 C to 6384.jpg J dp13 C up 6382.jpg STAND K DATA POINT 14 • ,. • '.�•r. f r l�I• 1 r"F .0.,- A f ,L.• . tel. 1 ,.....,,..-:-4,. y.14,. -. .. , _ �y �. Er 1' 11.**40.4.h" 1• 1 r! .17 t .. `�'_ - ' . . I• rr 5 ..• ..,,:,.j-Lot r , ff • we,rr,r ,•. - •G.` •y "a?G f: ,'.,ss'�yai� +,� i•..,itoda 1 :+ ; r�fl-*+ ;r7 ; ,t '�.i•S �;!t y •�yql MtIwP.►��'-! lt � � `�'t Lt.-...15.7.4.'- 'V* ,--,g f'w.' Ane"'° llj,lll' ..""s. •tj • ; ! , - n.t f'"1 r• 1 i,'' _ •�?w l A +1�.+r. �Y ,F _ .,•$',% ' ' ° 'rya �-14141;•,.?,");:, : • ,. ", .ie c r.N4.ar ..i'._ x '.1: 7, L:.: ^sl F';-, ..f- i \ . .L k 'tib',:' • .w y_,n^j a, K dp 14 A away 6389.jpg K dp 14 A down 6388.jpg K dp 14 A up 6387.jpg t ►;[� -•1 ." -•.:t-,•,.. •� ..1 • +` w tZa 'i.;.. ,, a`� " ,1 '...3,,..1-F."�?� -s . A:'l..e :'"4 • ,.� r-c E-''t .f H L-y • + • `,1 •••!r• .•• }Ja .- amu.' *� ' .1 M. S. +' X11 rt , •C :.:::.-,,c-.•;. K rY F�.yj• ,,�, S' ;w�•f� `Rr T r`,1-/:-..y.',5 fa4.„--Ii?-;,5%.,,, 4 �` .L''., F • ,r X. ..�. 73'•y M.i 3' '`�i y! t Iq•� ' s�� X25 +. y 'g.,',' � '-.h:. J -L1 n.f y 'Yey .,A 'A � w :t '� D •'.3-43A+. .+'--Et'. .1 t '. . :,r,, • `'tNk. ,�c •'�`+fd i • •R A., , 2y, ' _ , •'h; • ,T ' ♦ A t� .. s' ..< �l -- ..t... -v,-`�2v"_l,{-- aA;:1_, 'rhw • r 4.1::i i',. 9, '!,r 'r4t`r` !,,,..,.x:•;,',11..4;,..,!,1.;; q ts,-;74-1- .: -" _� , ,a�., r �"""*rows y kY,.t a • r R . r.- ,.. `••p' �`Ra `,,»� icer• .r i�• ate'` ,� e. -••,_4i.,,.,".,,, • • :" z e~` _ 1r7'141:', 11 1 ! r {. .0 -..---.--..4,—1 r .,...„—r,•••77.tG.„ „.,,,.,,-.• ' f yi.-• •. , 1 a1 A., y1 i+,. { y Yt t �, i,r# .lotto t9� ;aril -, -i--- yf y ,... c - . Y"yi'P ` 'r'S.i: / 4' L, ._'}p 4 t • ” ;IL:: bt��S ;�rt'i-i' K dp 14 B away 6395.jpg K dp 14 B down 6394.jpg K dp 14 B up 6393.jpg F A (` cc— w T •. ;'.::a •e t,' ' CEs 1 ;tr 1 K - c,a - r,,, Y{ .,, ;t2 .r- •, %k, -. ti i --._-: { • 'I' , •,-•-a1, • "'A r•• V 1! +•4''!.� 1' s,,h A..I Y ''• Nmy ,� ,• •t r. i7-..? C� { • F.+- r. C ' �! 1.'''' � t i. z, ! ,, ; ,fir' b oto^ � ,y_r,,,� r .� ;,,�' Y, r. 14 • i t R trt'I' 1 F ` ' *' �r ,,, ^�' cC ,ti r'1 KFS' ,� A ..tia - .. • t -1,4----4, A fr ,t: i. { S:t ,, '-i:,`' t,+.,.°�' 1%a,, �,'.C`�j � r,.,l� •; : 4rx. y - fr •k Vfik .l 1 7 y{a v 9r ,:• �~,' ,y'r1�. ` t� '' qtr fS\ •/� R 1r/►f y 2 �'A y* A: •• 1 7 ... •'. ' � r ,',..• ,.r ' .',,'.1 l 'A .t .,}- '1f �h'\Q�,`.4�,i .;•, tx`6. ? y 4 -' ' , �a ..k`A� t• 1 , • t.i /,,,f,'�•74 r rA, f • Y 1 t N - .Y' r ,. 'A' S{.,:y. '-\;: fiyj'�y _ r 6. 1 6: ; y�� 1, ':..,4 -I byA ,.'.t4 6,- v`. t.1 46.1., t 1 'inl .:::3,.. • 4 A ads.,, • , 1 A. `� 1 �'JJ K dp 14 C down 6397.jpg K dp 14 C to 6398.jpg K dp 14 C up 6396.jpg STAND L DATA POINT 15 - � . _ 'y w 'f4,,,,,,„1/4 '. r,:', L e#- a ' , + - . • . • y „,,r+y is y}- ^� +— .,�l�s i�'Rti i ,�'... *{' i y i.44' - -f,. •St '1,4. t•• '� -f l' }'t .l� i` i-,, +r:,J •,�„ ';Vic, • 4.4 .cr., • ..tk ;Fr ....est,* ..,-•• , -s.' 4 ,3 r+ �7 •'1,oi r� 11 et ��' tty 4.'' X`.ry„ - • �� ., 1, -..," , ,, f t ian 0.0.0,,.,4...,,„, • t {«�,`.. .1iN e • •< ►. ; „ii.;}- .”,4. <' x'oc' .Y 6M►'. 'R 1 +' • L• F P 4'�t f ts�.' r A.'cam' (` _{,'f. ter so 1, -• /le, S_i. s1-. 4 yy --.4';.,5:'; }.✓ J d-.fiY"' a L hJ� `e x tit --,...,1%, t Y • 'T 741, $ R � , t;''l 'p�� 'y.i ' .+v..' a r =tr i'° e '.'w'J�� /,....'...' }r,*if !4 rte.'+►. _ •li - tib { �t r� ► }},,,,yy' �„ . . '„ fcz p i.,� �.. r. i 1 L dp 15 A away 6402.jpg L dp 15 A down 6401.jpg L dp 15 A to 6400.jpg �j4 �� . ,..�``r s r �` ;Y •ySa r *'' ..V. , ..tai y .^ .,, 4«.-0...M.* - • a. R•�$ "��* ,...1".., * �.. til _ .. . v y_ h • ,i d:4 °N �' t ' , .2 " Y * ti. ,..at 4.:-,.. ,., ,f; i �Y `r 1,. •, z• i f �. fir: f-1':'•' ' ^4:`ee.^ '0C 5' p "5., C�"e---'►.-1 •1-'^ -' 1� 'f 1, .,-!,•.-4:.,,:!„,• r t t st �! 5e� • � ` R�• ,-, , J' �. , w`'q 1 .i.^ tta �; • f ' SM ,,y"- s:_ T3 • f J:i- _ VSs id - 1 '''''%"" r� s L t r' t �•y.� • L. u` i ii 1.41;::'.. .�.0 = .. ..,....!,.. ,,,;..;1 ` ,'� •j •, 'iRf .. . -f. '. _ '1' .. if 3 ;'Y' L dp 15 A up 6399.jpg Ldp 15 B away 6412.jpg L dp 15 B down 6411.jpg eft 'y ..y 1 to,. ♦•1i,,FC ,a). a ! . ' F a .;t• I, 1 : e ,. .11 ''• f% .:.:fie .a ,i �'.,."' y` "� „ ,.' ^ . ' •`/''''4,-.1.."--*; '- \:,..-. ...,,,,,4, , ...,,, _ _ . •.,..... . ,...,. ,.,.., .„, .,..„,„ , , i N. / - l 7irF _# � ''ri , �- 1 � f ' •r '• , •s. i - .'p;-,..,.....,,t,, +f • "+ 'e%. e._i ` F F-.. :-L. 5 w •, .F -►ii '' , d ' i L dp 15 B up 6410.jpg L dp 15 C down 6413.jpg Ldp 15 C up 6415.jpg STAND M DATA POINT 16 1 ,N, e° Y y,'-7t• a is {.. 11 , T ' ';u.: t fix - { s ; 1 k I:,>.•y. •3�• ��r •ik• t•¢•.• 'A� f t •sx• a 1-...1.01,V �'y ,y 1 '� rte �• 1" ▪v1"i =r i •.,'i'+` °S •j yil•;,.1 _ — `k l'�i { - e 3L} tyt .... ) M i i 1'j ar,v-A.11,- .• .,4,ef:K'l'„-.•..• _`,K� ' ...-t.1......•..1-.'.•i•'��E.Tr'��'. 1 4' _!- k P P '.:11'.'.'.., .i.'. "('�.0 k- Y^ .•••__: - jli,c....„..,..112,..04 ��:*` ;,Lt 4 •`>r:�.w 'tyr•s r. y L , ••3' -7 ''' t(', 7.,• 1 : :t'• . '. ..1 Fetri•• � '��F 1 • ,� :+^"i `+��t.�h'(4.aF�.•..... �..�.._ ._..3' "ii i M dp 16 A away 6421.jpg M dp 16 A down 6420.jpg M dp 16 B away 6424.jpg -I'1 .. 'i�5' �1 j. iE 'rd E 1 Zvi .1 ,rogr 7 nom.. - "`• �i, ( i S i.. t.eg �v 'ti tea t `arc' 4 „1y� .'4..;.. •�, r}--r 4. .r t. • i ,;,I, ;i y v-fir.. 7• • E Cis' /�'' w Lt y t ' •11 1. � i� •` •-F•Ff WI_,, ;w W.• r•'A _ • --;•• t i am . 1 ' • -,AS ' '_ - C 6�. rs�.:. - '+mom h'•r yt. o.2. h. . . +yam T: (�F. • .., ...... r•- • 7-.. -• • 4'" F `x^,,14. q•-''',,{ 1.,;.,.;:'.- •F� ..f•;" • r� • :�� (f si �. ..r'Fi' li ^.r o•-.--,4---;,-1.' • 4. .. _ - Y �?.• F✓ x' , • � 4t'itrr,4`.41,,,.. .• 't4t1 ,li' /• :I.., : 2"Sy `1-'4•4"14k7:'r.'. g ',,: �''•( • } u 1 r _,�. ._� -ax� ,. ;:� • 1. —- is . ;.• ____• ._ M dp 16 B down 6423.jpg M dp 16 B up 6422.jpg M dp 16 C away 6427.jpg { 'iii F` `47 i" f 2 ! f d� Sa !��` 1 I ti.. s dry;� ✓.. v �+ tt`` Ls , N �•w,• 7• r . •�¢" � o< ae�•..r -S-:1:-''''' 4•Y 1„Nt ;1' ,% �ya..r( I+�L.3 � §•� 1.�,,1� t - ,'' • 4., ,:i:.,.,.:4;,.. •r.•+' Ijs '4Y.1, tom" g.,7a :' 1. -- J�.16!'?` •••••'•, ,F it �� l2t,,f X,� -,x ..4.•:., s s• ,r :1., S t°A x,N_'_„a�.o fF' f es '. y,; t 1' c�%F ”, �FF�- ' • 'i a rt d� .YFY; j";.tir +°r ; :0,,,..e car: F wc, .;4 �r"'.�' ?,:7 r: a n ':T-; �•:' -"..•'• ". A • 5. *'s•"' t `".‘..7v -[i '. •�_ ��•l' i SrIF ".. :.-"fes 1:se `'..-;;•-'''• � t. rM1 1 . .. • ! }fit 4 _ i t�'32,i S S"-:F- L _ = _ r ./' L • g. _ ter, 3 1 �3f}�RiiiiitW � .J} �• "i�� t��5.'• _ r M dp 16 C down 6426.jpg M dp 16 C up 6419.jpg M dp 16 C up 6425.jpg STAND N DATA POINT 17 -....,..,_ ,...-----.-- --.,,,,,,,,,,„ : ..,..,„ •.. , .......ir . . •. ..,,,,, v ,,,,,..x.„ .,,,. , . • __,- ,..4s,,..„.... .•_ , .... - 4 q 1,t, •• ' - - i-ti' , ' '''•• - ' -1 e-1 - - • •' N.-- -•'''as -..---..- - f.,, \ ,•• .24,;„• ..;.,A., _ ,(1.1•.:,,, • v/,_^ - r."-TP, '1,- , ,.....0. 1,,,,a.,1‘..+,, • .„,..... .1,--4.4,-,....,:e • - . '":', ' -. • ..e. ..-...,-;.. -- t.;. -e„ t •„•-•.,..,,,i .- .„..,..,••14- .-...,s',,-,'. .! • r '''......,-- ' *--7.14,,,').• ^i'". .,VY,"-.'-- •-• ,_.,- 'lk - ' ; _ :II "-. ,35.1,*..y,_ , i: ' - - . ,••••i' - I • • • ..,.. a110../ -,---- ,-• - '..Z;s3...'',.. ; „Lt .„...se-.r. ------- --- :-- . -- - „ ..• -•-, z,.1,• • -... . - g•^-.-- „:...,— ••• .1 V. tar.: 41 • - ..e' jr-.'--'' ' V.. '.A. .....1".v.''''•'• -.447‘'‘,...'`l'"<•••.---• a ,. -., „- •I ..- . 2,.;,7• .',4:-. --.... -..-. . ,r .—L.-- ,,-•:'-'-,?. -..-,:•;;..4. • -' .... ,)1.- .0, -----. ;IA& __.. • i--: ..,‘,.....-...-,...t.,Ift,...-•• ..,,, •••..i.. • __4,. -.,.t;,--.Or- -..--r_-..-- -4 w...•1 .t.'. r. - • .#,...,,.•,•,t...".. ....,71.0.:"..t • . .•t„_. - • •N :r„.,...,,f. . i .-.:-.7,-...., - 4' ,irt.R.Z. ' . -'‘- ” --t.-'.----'' ' - • - . -----., ,..- .-I _;_ V . --• 1'4•;.--•' ''.....f: 'r,.I.. ' .t • '. . 1.$gi-4,447.' ',::** : 4',. eft...1°A\I%• ...1 •`:. , • ',4' AK. ''',-"-%. .: t;,:II,'".'"r":4,' -:''N''' ' c••• .7 ....--,•'•, "- r,'„f,>L",,,,•,' '7.1„,,{•••_/ s. •• .°-'t „...cr ,.,4,,,,,,,„, -,,,,t,„,,,i, ., .1‘..„1„. .....„i,„„ it.„7, .:,..„,..te.,,,,ire, -?;.• 1 .- .. .-i k- 7.,,• , , s- k- wracjih..., - '.-; - . .'s`'' . .`'.•'--- • -_e. • ,.• •- . ,:-.•;"7b....L *.--='.,...,-;,,,-•••,- -, ill's . _ _.: . - it; ; ‘,... . -. ..1.,..,.' 41....,_::-.-^1.':\ 2..., It-L '''.:..*:.f,--.-7 .....,;,..7"- - ••• 1 ' ' I ' .-- .4,,-, 1;.:.,' ,,,,, ..,•,,,, *--.."2101,',, ^_'..t.:.•r • „,..... k I. .1 -• *-1"%;,.. :,„,, _ .• %%;'....4%."*4 i, . • -. , ...,, z• •:"1.1r_4119, - ' • ' • - % - , ; ...,- ' ____i i -' -.2 ••!...:f." ' ' . -.." _ ..,..i N dp 17 A away 6430.jpg N dp 17 A down 6428.jpg N dp 17 A up 6429.jpg wVr4,-;•::'' , '.'ii;7".t-7 I,' 1. ' fie!'- -.t,--,..1,.-4 F. ---• 1-,•',--v---x - :..-7 Yr ,ti."'.. ,,,4;z:,:.-74.1!•t7.1:-.../-*.1_'`...-1.--il:(1...,7-1.7".:-.V.,/,.:'.....,;c: .,.-...g.1.:Y.1••'.'' •;',.r...... s - -- ; .-41,7or, ..,:ts...... .., , i ,-.-,.--.`, ..' ••• -e "X'P', 4-'01b,••:1,-,.- - •g.v• i' -..,•'1. . ......Is,, •, '• 11; " //:-.T'L.'" , •'' .,-,_,Ai.i' "1* "1 Iff-3,14.;,i - ,-' . ,, •••I".• .i ,1 .c,-,. ,41'•1,'"•c.,tit";kt';',i;e1%;.1,.:0L,-c-,1-'",•%- II %••••, - ...ii-' • •0-T,,7%.. •4:;. . '• • ., .,. ,.,, :'....):'-',4i\,41,,•• %et, ' J , - '4,.• :',,.. .if •.14' 4.-`,•-•••"''•C:*•"‘',-‘Z tAlt..44,74-•";Y't 1 ,i' '4.:..I..../-1,0..- ..- - ? 'er,' K'II''s. ''''44.-.;q5?,Allf;.' 4 4.V.Z,) ':•.:*" `C,t,':‘1:ke .t:''-.',,,',V.k,,,t P .';41X .''.,,t,',,g,...":'...",'::1 • :-,'''''',..i:gklt'•... ....lit'::::::?:‘,,, • ,,,,,,,c.'4sLi,,,,.:.rr •,.. ,.. ‘. s:•',,. ,.•;,..,7 4- ,,..k.-.;....,.4... '-'<-.4 04.4-11,', 14'1,:•-0-' '.r.y!2.i.A.e-if',.'...ki,... ;;•11:,'• ••1:• 1 ;# ''''.'il"1.1rAP4 '''' '•• 4'[. . .1'4'5.1. ''''..•4'1:-' '4 '" ..ti, •zep.......4.:-'::i....tz..il..i...--,$'-'4"."-',.':1 I SA.' A(.41:4-1,•-•1)rt .„,,,47f-,:, 71.403-•ht-,,•;-;•„1,-. -,-, 4_, , ,„Av.,.., ..,.,-;-„:4•1-r .-... „..,„1-4,.,s•-,. ..,, ; -• , •477.-fc....-nw!..-.., -3.:.••--? •••-4,. .--,.. ,,, „,,„•:-..-.“--1.:,.-- ".:,,,_raks1 f r 1:.%..„.„rex,.%k V. .--,:i„-.:11-Zif- :'.',11--, . ., ,4 4- . ' • ,,,,‘r-;trlii:,"..'. s,.,. -'0•••,-,,•,...k.4,-,?..4.:f;I..,„-.. • _-,. -..., ..'--,•.A. ..,.... , i.& / P"t -,:I tAil. ".‘a,4's!", ,'"..1-_,• ,•••*rf,,''''.'4.7....t-'?:4..4';..:*-.t.._•.:., -::..PT,--,,,-. -,•••••ic: . •it .__!..,,,,...„,11..i.,.... 74.....v.e.,. . :„..„1,.. e,..7r..r.....i.....1,.. .,,,:..4.y .„..,,,I ...,.. .,It...4t,.,,"y..1.,. ... 1:.,t.v„,..,:.,,..,.....4i. .....wki...,,:vitz:_::,;_,I,:le.,....::,L.to.7,,...„:_i.t._:L.,::.,.„.., , __:_..,..,....41::, . .,., :,.._ .. ..,r,..;,..:„..„...,.._,? :,. .1 .i .... . ..e. ...i.f.ltis4...,..,.....r,r•t..v„1,.'.,„::' , ,.0!.;:t.,. ;;:•.rt.,s..- •,:„,e...4.3-.3V:.fi.....,,.te. ..„,..-;,4„,„.: - . ,.,I,• . h.,. 4 ....'3., 1.., '3 tqs:' ,..t ;::-, -;,...-,--"-:2,....t- f.tt-..-76--':'.6 -1- 4'.:1•.:‘..--- ' Ai?", • - .',--- . , • : ..,..: , •.„:.., ...:,-.... ..-.,•„1„:, --... ;,• -- .:•...= ..,...-----•••r--•-•;-. .••- !:,.... ;„--..-- t... --1.:,, ..-', ..,F... -, ,'' -.,.-...; -?..,,-..!4.4-4-‘.;.t-: ',10k-,-,-. ''s.7.CE.- •.•1%,si.:'-,- . -t-----. 7'.".44:?..4.-4 •.....'1 .:' ,143/4:-•-,•0,", ' *,*-:. 'i*,‘,i.,....s1...• " -'4- •',44A.. it+f"--- '. .. %''"s- •• ', ,,,r.*--,4.—V., N•41.*:, ANA s. = •- -' .,,,,,--,, -• • A, ..4', kf,N_ '.,j, - . -7*' -- v.-"*-. t.i''6'• - 411„.,.. ,,, - .. . -. %.`''....10.4,i;...:,4,•,'" - ''' i':-..r.:. '. Ns. - , - -.11,• ..;. -7:4,,N,,' - 7-' •1.--. .- -:•.‘• ...,"•• -..:•.7-i•-•"•'' ..-ti.-h...- - :',...," - ' - ,-*,< -7- --' - • •vt.sr.,•:L.-, .-. . -..4:- . -......,..., ,-,-.„. , .„2.:3.-,..-7.% ... :.-- . -1.-,,,, .,-,i... - .--.,„:.,,,,..-:--1,...,.. ... 0-- ,ki..,;,. --•-"0-,..,.; 1 3,... R r• '.4.1....,,. :-4,,,, - ,-itg, , .., _- ...,.--4--.... • ., , ,,.... . •. .„....., , ,,,,.., ....kr 4,----....... ,....-....,*". / P...4.,.-,,..., . ,-...,--- .....„ .----- • _ , .,, :‘,. , _ ..._ _ ......:-. . r _•_.......-__, ,.-. ...,r .0......u.,....,..-2.,,,,... ,-.4.._ .,.. . -......_.-... . N dp 17 B away 6433.jpg N dp 17 B down 6432.jpg N dp 17 B up 6431.jpg - .• .., • ......,•,.. .. ••••,,..-,.. v.:.,I.7.., .. ,-; .. •q ,.. • . •-• ,.-, ,,... .•Id- •,40', •- .r V4 • • • % ''.::''..-V''' '4% •-,- -% • ' ".....A54, .,- -.,.si ,....,._ , ,; ,. . . „,,,,: ,7.•„,,,t,s, t; ".-.- .-t--."...-. ',..-'-..,.• •%%; -3:-. •- .-tf',,, ./. ....eNV:.:,.,c.• 1.„t; •,:2- : •,, .t .•-,,,:-N• _.?,.• -.-..5,,,•...,1,..:r........N. 1- • ..,...A. ,,,.„,. .0..?,. , .., .0, .... . :sk`I., 4'',...,'..'''4-....--: ,;\ -7', ?. ,...,., ..,...,. ,.,„....,,,,.,t..4,7 ....f,,,... .,,L, ...?„ , „, . ., . 1.'44•- .'•.: • • '• •••••'' ,,_. -4 7 ,-:..,,•:, ... . ,.,„;-.., .'..-,,,--- r,-t„, .' ,..."7 ',„14,. ...-f:i rv,,.'N.'; -9,4;*', t'' • ;t.‘t.'1'',: ;t:••••' tV44;• . 4''''.1 i• 'V • ,'.'A.- ' • ' l' .',-',4. 'Is'. ••' " • .- ''.. r :, -4.''''';`,"2- 4`•••••"1-'' ''.-- -'-it.ft'A••-•%-....""--"441.":-mIt';.4 -!,...-"16..1:,-'.:17'.• ,-,. -4, ,:.'';• ,%,r „... SI:4-1-.i. , : .:, • . I 1:::.•.:T.2.,„'",...,.,., :7•,,,,,:. 4 :6.v.„,t_,.....3, .z.._,....1.:),.- ,,i.i.,,r,„, „,:.,,id,v., ,,,-,.: .....R,.,-.4:„.„....,. .1,:„.;,.. , -„ ..r:4*-e.,..,-„,..,..,.. i:.,. .„:„.,, ,,... „it ...,t .::.4.,--i -., ., . ..r.., . ..b.i.,..„_.IA s-,' '-'',..e:-,•....' •'4-r Itf,'.„,4-•"" ' '"-...- f.;4.', -".•-•-•1: , , -.%,•,. :‘. -.,,_>,,..4 , . -'..% • -- -, .-f`"- • I ' . ,,,,,,N., 444; _ `-^7 ":.;..... •..... :, ...•.._..-k.- ...t-.-........- _-. - .,.:,----;.- 4- . . ; ..--- • - - it ., -o-!, ' '-I. 11J'• ' . . , _ . . . _ ••.,.., .,.....3 ;:,.....- ".••.. '- 'a• ".'''',--i:,----e, -"- -• -.--1 - • ",,' AIL',..-,.i-4P '- ' '--4-:-7,:t•-•.-4.!,-‘t':-:7:: ".'-; -.1,.-?.-1- 0-,•; -f..c- - - - % - ,'%••. - •,'- ---4`,' 4-.., l'-' I ' ."1-- .3ke.4111"‘"*. '` -*; '' • -.1_,•.' " - • •.-. 1' • 'frj1.• '1!:."f'-;-9`•11,i: .,•' ';_ j .• 1 . A-•--...--.. --. 1,- , 4—a. ..6.•.},,e..r,„ ,•:•4,_*•-i4„'- ." .4 • • , . _4. .. ... - . :,,0, • _ -_,-,....:__ ..• . - .. - - - --- • ;;Kofi_. ......,...,., . . ... ._ . dp 17 C away 6436.jpg N dp 17 C down 6435,jpg N dp 17 C up 6434.jpg STAND 0 DATA POINT 18 • •.- -,,,,,-v- - --4-4.....7','..r-Qfi. ---t•-,'..i.,,,,;:::V.,.... 11.'14,i..,:_._-_-; ,,, , .- .',. -4. -'. 4'----*-..i--:-tk,i.<0,47.,t.) f.,,,,:..'::- ':•.NA,'. •.,§,'• ';,,,, '..) • •.:, •• . • i ; ''-'•,•-• ,, ..,- •:,...A. 1•1,1 ....... ,e J...44.1':r.„.,'1 e •••••‘• ' • •••...'.....,• )...7 ok ,.. ...•.:' . •.s..,IL . 1 44611111111".4:.i ii.eilRe. .:1,e: .4 7:141'',I' : (F: .• .e P't• 7.i.;‘," ..'t 1 1 '' ''s • .''•''..•..'''I'S'•.•. 4.Ile't ..+1 4 . .,. . •.... ,. . ,.;. ,,,„,-, .,.1, • •,,i? 4.1, , ":'..,,!.:*. 1.....,er•''..',' • kyi •4,, -..,. _--- -.%4,.:.:--•,' -•-.'. , '•?**_ssokiiik; • - 441404 ---itc. . ...- --,-.., ..--. --.....,•-...•..• • r.„ . s.,-- . _ - ..,.., , ,, ',;--:`,N14*.,'1....-:,•••;%.7,:^::• • 1,'-.".. , 1.'..'1:''!.. ''• '.1-4."-. A.:::'•":",ir -_, -.. ,- 1.4: ''... .t.,...- t lie, ' .2'?4•:1.1 .-?,,,_...,„,.. -:, ,......7-7,... .. ,.....4-•, '''''' A's. ' a... ..-::".,.., le•2..';,+,./.3.".* "" .- ; ,.. .:7',"•.-.#4 1 , 811$14L'.0f.',1".1.. 7 .• FA, ',.- -, '.-)...,:,•• ',' ,1/4";".•••• -• 1114.7:.:'" -s'•:‘•'•!--.••';,,,•-1'7•., ..' ,.1' ''' -71 -$- L'.:7- ,':. ;••••!t"-•••`.,-*c.,'" •'z„.__"..red • ---_ :',-4,‘,.,- • '-•,e,''-.-•:.:-.:, , .. -‘, -- .,_ ,i,-1.--" -'4.• .,-;.'.::ftic ..t- ,- -- -,, .;:.-V ' .• '-'.!, .1, . ••,.. •. • --• - - •NI--'.' 114,•A"--'71 • '-•- ••••/-7: c- .-- 7-• - -..' ''"'-•41 ' 4 -\'-k.- .•'.,'.... ."-•••• .-t kk- 'e• . ;.....d,'-', . ...r..•.,. - ,...-- -, r.:...,‘„,....:„.:JA. ,..,,.........-,....,...-4N3... . .:.,':.. . -., . ;4' ' •''''..- Nitio.,*. -'t.--.'it-5----,, i...: ...r!-'.-.er's•• ' .....'-'1' .•••,...,..--".--t 711'V •V '''\17.'- ,'-'..N;:' ..^-1,...,;%L:.-',-•-• -' -li.,•'!"...!''...?:.i.'-'4,';Li,'-.•••• ''• ..i„,iekt.7•N',.- . , • . ,, •,.‘. --,t,, i*:4:. ' ' --72,'; ..., --.., '"'•',...‘.'S i ,-, '':',.,:' -1•..„,,t ', 1 ,-.. ..,,,; -.."_,.-„,:.--, ,: •; ,• .- •-••••- -,--/7.4":`'-' "-- ''-''. ' -.441/h' --.'t 'it,elf,. ( i) "..7.'" .;t1-V-.'•... -=.- • --'''' ---ic ,. „ • ; -'. -''' •.1.•ir ....•,...-. f-`,,,_-,,,,,,-....?",7•-,..,`: -, ..:• ••••;,• ,,,.... ,,,.. '-,_:',.'4,1,',.:,." IA sit '1.' l'A.;....14:'''''. ' ...., .'IP' r ..fr '-.' .':-• 7 i...4 .. J !, N .....i.„.. .7. ....._,.„..,.,...... ....,,,,,,c.., ;,:,...,•.,...,.. ,.,,, ; ,,t-t-.. ,-. .1.0.2,,.„...;,,,,...„•,21.•2,e. „ -4,;......$4,4r... • ..,,„., .„ .. 5 .. .1...,':....., - .3" :,- . .- ,4. re .kr."•;..',"'..: :1. !ik,'...-S...:,'.1,4 -1./,‘:...' .,‘.i. '; • :'•e:',."--",":"• •••""".4,,e,:` ..':,.. - -,.' .'!' 7‘,..''. .. ,. .;;,., , ----, 1--:' -.- 1--,„. - 1 A 4"47- ;04.-I , • .ti-t; .- 1:113.-.71 ,...'!....,C,1'. •_. .7 ,:, . . ,:. .t ,.4;.!.t.,,,-:`,--.,,1-1..--,-i ----'-'-'' '."'...e. -- 0 dp 18 A down 6452.jpg , 0 dp 18 A up 6451.jpg 0 dp 18 B away 6450%09 . . . • -...-- -,;',,,$ ::::,--0,;:re,Fm;--„;- ,,,,. ...,:iit..,-; 1.,......,,,:„: V. .-44.", ..':,'-'`f*:,;-,1' '.-- ----...-.-. --.`,-;.v. -''...:•.,- .,..,,,,,:, ... ..-ftr,„.,,. .. ,, ,.. .;..,.: 4, ,,, L .. -. 1:--, .,.,. ..;:..,:•...:.44:0: - .,-,, ,r4-*-.',,,••• •. :!'A ...., , - i' 6. ' . 41.6L. -:' : f.t-."-.-"fq‘7.:•4 :.''' '•''=''-'-7*.:1:4tc, . .. .. . ., .. . .., '.-f....-*;,-A...- v.I....',..--:-",...4.tr., • .. ;1:- ::*',41::.: " •- ,s4,a ' .';' '''''''''''''',P'"•-rzo:,•,,, P• ‘41LW-,1k- •* 7-• ;;''''''''''f --12'-'4. -,....'.'j•'01.:-.,.z:-..--;:la.-3.•- il-it'-'' ',',i• ••-"7:1V4A:t' •iliP714:$, .,, r_e,., '''',„-:•,-,,,,71,A .,-.7i,-' •• ,-.._-„, „,• • , .1.... , . - ; .., _. ':,7,-.,,,,-f,:„, „:,,.,,.•,-,,,-,,,:r.-,. :-..,-,,,,,.....„•-, .:•,,,:::„,-,, -7 „s, _ „7.,-,r. ,,,,"44-, .,,, ,,-;:',"°77.,:,--c•-•,'.,,,,,- :-, ''''.;',7:,- '.,,. ..,_ - it,-''':-.-:;:g....aV • .• ''1 -;fie:"--?i-i;',. .,,,k-3.;.- ','-''' ‘.-1'..1." :•.;:' .4 '' .-•::-.',.. - - -:-.‘, * t, .•• - , .. •.: " •-_• ',,,,,,tti - -7'1.1.....':-s' •"-i',4'.77, -.41' '-,'',:f...4..,‘ ."74•.--4" .'''''F ''' •-'1..".':::'!,•-*.-• •'.t"- ',-•.,4 '::- .t.,;'.-'' 1'. .:-7-*4'.- •:=•-• •••• '-'5';: ' .'•;.4:!4*".:f....';'. ..- .....‘ -'''1•;'....7.*:---'. ' 4 ....te% .-.`''',,,...'itf---tt -.,,,* :4•21.4•1,. ...;5.*-Te. ..' .; 1/...4.**-j- ..4,..-,-::. -. •- ',z;',,...1.1.1,74 .,' • ,' .', w-_....-;:-.-'.,;.... :-..- -?,",;-;,''' ,*(.. -.*:: - ,., ) •'W'''''''4- . ri.- ,1; ... .t:, :,s74. t,,... ...t.4,44 ...k., • -. :- . .,,,,,,•.,,,,......... ,., _ ,-.,,,,,., ....„,..,.„,-,- , ,, ,10' ;', A, . ....- '. -,,_± -.1t-i••.•,.. ,;-;4';/.;A,04,„, ''f;;''Vt7 `.‘47n - ' '•• . . I. '., ''' ?:''';t:'7';':7-U;.-ri•:%; ',. '','". ./7"- 4. '•"--,?'-'-; ;1-,?-2.-,,li i"•-•'::- A'Ala--.9--,41-'1'ni''_. .:' ' -4-• 1.- I ''t i' •' • •' • • , ,- ; '. • :'..'6:_se.4'..i. .7. -; --. - . •7.-4.,r. ,...-.',..!--. ':, ,...,.,: .2.,_;-.>;;:.4-;.',,,r-'-`--v...' -'f,C-1,..4.-4.-7,*-7''',C,-'_,,,,-..`".44,'''':.• . it -..-=l'177','''--.4::-:.,:,': --.'.--;,„.., .•.:"..i.:,:'' ,..;.! '-.1,.,,-- ,,..:' 7,.• :;;..- - ,'S ,.. ;,;...;:',;,-..i...(07.1-,)3..1"/.,,-;-1• -'•,' e:-;."4,,,:"-'':ti:V.:',' ' 06,6 i. ;,‘,.:- -""ii;*4 i '.. ••• '•••:•••"-t-W-.1;i7,7.7.i.1 ..._. • ,14,- ."-•&.V.4..i' .cP11,::,.-., . .ir!-, ,.•.-:,;', r:,"...... L'.‘..-0.t. -. '.. i.rk.o. '',..' • • 9..--:;•:oir.,...ii-,:'''' ' i''-'77'.-', 0 0 dp 18 B up 64481P9 dp 18 C away 6447.jpg 0 dp 18 B down 6449.jpg ,:lqt..•;: . .& " .:.:,.„::-..,-,;;;;;....\., ,...,_,,,,.4,,..„..,. 4....t.t, -.,:...,:,•:,,...,...:.:4..T.--,...„.. .-.: -, , ..- it :-,,?....!,..i .',:".,. ' - • ,,,..7 ...,i..,---'1.?-,-,-• ''. .i,,,'•,..'..._-:-',; '..P'.:r• 4:4.- . - , '...,t.*;- 01,-,-..•,,,,,..--. .. .' ' -,-"..- --., '' ''. `.`• . ' - '-''. i- " . .°•:.v, "IT,i' .1,-''s.:•AW,; l',-,...,,...- -.,..,,-•-•:,.- - ,,:! ,..,,,,t-Y•-• . -_ -Aitl-1 ,.....;.: t--.. .,, ,i. -....,4,.,. .:: • ..4 „,,!-;:4.,t...t.e,,,. '-',!:-;;:.;-..,If:....--,......._ -,:--y.-3 -,, -. cf.A.L.(4 ".. •- „:,:?: .'- ,,.-.,-..':i... .';.. ,f:.?,-2,,,..W.*;. .n,f.l'-fl,`.13,.ii,...li ;.:,:.,,..'W),;:-,I.,-'''''. ''' '-, ''4- ?fgWrc;!,,-,-' - •..i...g- .4 ••-.,.:..A., :.k.....r.'P,;,-,...,..:', ,•Lift,GIFfri,t,..,',.: -,,,gfl,,•:,-- -;.,..r.;.• ....,-, 11:1...:.Y.:,1-.. !-,Ii.V,.t...41.-:. 'IAA.' 0 v.7,-'::', •:,•04.'•;.;:,:A4:,.... 7,-0- V. . „ . •4,4,r,r,--;-,e - _R-fr-'*:4,:‘,41:,1,•1•,'',:' ,i,"1-' P,,-W31,N'',i'''ir:',Lq-,'1:747C;,1. '7.;;:'''.•,7f---T'''4-,7: 1,?41,•,,IPoi,Lit'44; :_i i • / ',' • ''. '-,;7fr7-1,1%.?.:'!--7,`!'.!:;.•40?",4*,•-:,7.-';:-...:- .-•'71 ',---.7P:',.`ilr.'41"'-.V.,: .7.'''.'.7::,.. /rP.''...!..:2;,":i.;;4;7:.!,-" -.4,•:: ' ', :,-...2'','-'' ••• •;',.il:i.,•':'ti'j•-,'::-'•- •t-:''''-,.. .-.- '1.-:.'"-..: I 47.''''-i. , -b7i,..;•:,-7'IL y f.• Alive''''•' '''',:i..:Coal.'.iti; r ,..•L ...,,,-e‘ ,4.,, T., ,tt-1.•4' •••••-•''' '''''',V7i. 4...,..,,,..f., , ..-.:-, ,,f . ...._1--..`"' tem.,..t. 4:,!.....; ...',-: . ',„,'...- •':-. = ' 5.07-••ti- -.. irci, 4,4 ;;At;k4t.',"•-:-Tt!.71. .; ‘...---" ' ; . )-,-,-173.1'."-'••••.'..7:';' ,,': -- .., :1, .1.-'il..4-'-"*1•:' gp, ,7, 1,1. .i .','',:.f,i'4"4.1 .:;:z=::41. . -.---'-'. .,*--.-k.r.'-'::"41:"?-- -'''..' "'- ' . '. . ''' ' e-,,,,4'.t:-.?..,.' ;:-'1114•19 4.::',.'-e- .7.-ia';'."1.-::.%::'''' ' - -r- - ' r. . . - ---.... :',..7:7 ,',47"-A.'_ ,,,i1•4)... -,ati,..,2 '•'i'.',...4. ,.._. _ .. ..__ . . 0 dp 18 C down 6446..09 0 dp 18 C up 6445,09 STAND P DATA POINT 19 itif, ,,,,v.....• Ti, ,-..,. , , .,.. ,,, -eA-- N ' • • • 'r''' t‘i6i- gi- -If- ' - '•!',-- ` I.> ' 1440 . gl.,re'-°•„, • ,'''' • / AS. ! ( •' '..' ' . "?'. : . . ,.., .. .. — vic 'ifk r - — . Aft,. , • , 2, --•,44,„ r• - . -----. is:, - .., .' , I :,1, - s. •• -'.' •' ' ,-417"-..7._ ,, ,'• ;'• i I,!, -100,15t,,,A1 t‘",„„,- 1 i i ,,i--,, ,z -•••-4- .H1/11 . ,f- -'-'-‘-----,---•',-,....•,%.: --r .. .. -:L.,: - ... • t • •ze • • ....--- - ,-1 ''. .,,.'''-f.' --'''.: '.; ....'' :-,'•'..,. • - ',..f"- . ,.24.-;.'t.4, ,, --,' .. 1:,-,11,--•-• • 4,--__ . .._-.. _ - -- '04/Orgy :'• • . .. :.,-• , -.,!:',' -A- ..,,. i ,„•:44E-‘ • !• . '''s, .3 ..-. :47` ,, C .- ••"',..1 :- '•r '. IL- . -.:-. _s • ._. ;... , .1N,. - 1 ,i --,F4 - ". - R-,-. )-, -. -'1,.. .4' , .:,... .t, 14.- -.2. I . ,. ..... „:. - 4 1,..: k Irt.'- .••',It*. . • s •• 4',I 7 ' , .4`,,,,,, "". - •' •l''' 411!' 1.•;:4614 ....• ..0 1-4 ••"‘j. •t)'-'11: ,. ' , -.' . -' /..%k, -' - .> - -- ,,• ‘ts'''r '• 14 a -, • '''' „(4itk',- 'Z' *•,-; .. ' "....,,,,, •' .. !..tAP`siti,,c •t'-.4' ''4.k - ”' 2.t.',,": , -,g' .- ' 'Y' 1: , . 4 ' - - • .... '... :"..6,.•<:',...,,, :e:Cis.../.3,4 •-:• ••• •• ,,,,,.., .4,. • P dp 19 A down 6454.jpg P dp 19 A away 6455.jpg P dp 19 A up 6453.jpg . . - ....2 ..r - r . ... • o I, i -.-..,- qipts,, ,--,,,z,.. ‘,.-- - '',.'s;.z.5-'' 'F--,;,.... •1 ..',INN" ..47,1".,,00,r4.•*-....,..) ' 4,"N.Z.,.k..„ • .,2,„ it..< ;Aire, ,, 1- t.`,P•••°":, 4•,,,,,,'- •- 4,;.t,'C 11 '.• .Si,T47 ..4‘.11::l-,..i;%-P: :•1." p..•;47--•-‘44,;!!' ,•;,,e' e 1 7i.„ _ t -,,,'• ,-•a, T <TNtl.•:•'.:Zio- ;4-4."- "-- ,'*i:r,''.?• '.'-"Pe,1%.:4!li ''...1. ;, - -,,:\ .. - .t, -, :- , .!s--;- w•-....1•'''.4.-•d„ ..... •:'- :-.=rt s. i r :'''...,'-• '.. *(i,,;41V-4,.--;'`))'‘. Ct-V ''1,!.. ...- 's':' ''' 1 ', . . , ' •,.,7. it 4141 -- .1..A ',„‘ -..t1 "1.-,,,,A-''. ' • .„ r_i-„, ..3`-;14,1 1.-'*-- s-',,• .2 •- 14, • 4 t,14,,,,,,,j ..,s'.:',.i ':,,{‘,.. ,' 4/.4f.,....,:',,,.. ''',..F4 i "•r i,,.. ", ', NS. ...,,, t'a i'f.,_,N...'?"::„. '%''ir.:.-',, 1".• ,F 1,!..L*is,., ." 't...tC1,..IP' • • " ''',:ljP..Zi.:4.40,),:" -1. --'• •'-1,* '-. - , - '‘.•,....,,,::4., * ' • .5,, ie.,s . .,....-•:s- 2.ir.',4•;Li., 4;,,t:,rttect tl. .:1•414,''• '-'31"N ' '' '- "kt--- ..., '' --+ 14 .• ..x.,O.L.1.:4"7- ' , .. .:4 4 es. %.,-.,.k "• ..`-,,,` .. •"f•le,•,:...-.,. .° ,it•°' ;14% .,. , - - - '- A,e.'" .-", .1.•-" ••- °e --...1",• ‘.. i: .- ^ "• °° , ' -.4,• •!:,-;° .-•• -•:‘•.- z, -::..1.,. .,„,, ^- '7;.,i,,,, - ,-- ,, of it i..e..._ . ,. 411P.ArN,- I , NI' •zie • --..-:- • , 4.. ;...,,.•.- .., „:. .- 1 .` "....,7,07,i-' %'...•'1 .:••tRi.:...*:PS.: ;..e.r,T,TA ., ". .2:-.. ''' -. .Z .1.„„: , $1. ,,- s.vst,.;., ,•1 Iv f. .4,3-,1111, --1 It- .• .4•-,-1,,-°, ,.. --• --e•-t.---,so., '.., - - , — - -- •- ' - zo•.;..r.,...,, -N.-,,,- .....T,-.,-,..-i--,! ---,:::,....a.:-. -...- It:, •- • •t---- . -.. ..:•-• .44 :tr., ,,,,z„ .1,, „..„: _ , ._„,„,,,..,,, ,c, • . .v.,----4tt, ,. . • -....t-,,. .- =-••,••-\--, - --,....-,... x... -,- ...1,-:, --i.- - • - 3,,,. $_,-, tii>r "t•T ..-i!'" ° •"(.',16.'"-V, *I -` -;,.',-` --'--" •-'i-- - -•-- ,-• - - ', -I- RA.,1 -- -0"-''-/„,-,,,,,--•4,,."St: ,:“ k :-/i. , ' 1 ;47%. ', --,,-"-, - .41,,,Ut.,, ./...„•:-CC:::-„,:l. --,‘, t--- - ', - ' - P dp 19 B away 6458.jpg P dp 19 B down 6457.jpg P dp 19 B up 6456.jpg ,-..A..,- - • :.---.'''' --.;,;..,, •.,,-.,4-)14011 r,/ ir;', r • 1", SV '4ii 0.j.,,er , . 4 4,'ell 4 ,:i... , , 4, ... . i .'..... • A, .- ."P.-- ......,1 , -. :11„...* 2 . -if,j,t7 Ot•''' A •/ .9. ",, ' ,, ::L.'i''.'„,,, ,, - •,0 ::N.;-,' ..' 0'''.,s.,".' , ,•,,,,'t' ...ty i 4 :,"1"; `-'7..j,,7i ' 4 ,,"'^,••:,',4 -'- '''[." '''' - 1: ,,- .,- , - ,• ;....... . ‘,.,,,, •'N, „ -''' ,..1 ,,,-7'4',"-• :Z.,' fi,,,l'z''?,,-,,,` :,:4 tr,, ";,:'• ;1,,,,1;' ,-;,T„,' •4 4,-:. i„. k ,...s ..--',-,,,'4, -I: .'"r41:-;.• • - :, .."'7 ":ct.;., ''. , e....A.'. :: ---.., - ..,,,,,,, '-‘, '•',hi ,-;,` ..-' ,-,',-\- ,-.1:4., . -,',-,z; . ov,. . • v,„,",giiii . 4,:/:,',1,...t,p, , -..„, . . • y,..„ti:•.;, -- ",, ..A.,,,„-,,,,,lii .likt 1.. ;' •':,',."- ..:.-•„.„'" i4" , •-•'•'.4.. '' ./ *-- ''''-',4"-- ,;C;FP.:=';•,,,-' '-':':-le , s-,..; ...,, ., -..',--,--fijr1.1.iy,-. • •...-..-y,,,g-,..4., •••- -,,-..,.,. .._-It---,:,,. . ,,,,•.:,,,..,• . Ir.......... -- . ,7,-;,..1, %ar.1,,i,5,.j&ir , ..., . ,4't,,,,A.± •••11....•t,f,,,, .. , .. 'WV's,..c,="tek ,''44.4.1.1%, •1 ., ;.•..,-- _.4. ,'; Ft -''•, ..'..."i4, 5,1 4 4. ',:;-' ,-.; !-e'-0.. .0..-„i'..:... :::. .I.,,'„;,..?.f'''-'",,; z.i'•fr. .,<,•:-.. . , .0,..,.:. :, " -,t,1W1,./f7.„ ':-. . .';:,,, ..I, 3, ' '-;-• ' I: * ; , 1-,f,''''.•1 5,11' .111:.ifi• L, 7 f4),4; ,,,..,', • III 1.,,-,t A, .4,:. 444.?•, 1. : J.',. h; ,. .,..t...,, ,.. , ,, ,. t_ivt. _,.. . _ ,, ....:, - .,6 1'-,..,..1 4s, l'i ''..-4 ".....44*!A74/7""-.,,' -,,7'44''''7'.4:2411'.• ....rs4. SU• 1....i 7..---'e'''''••u.aikvNiric`. .4 ti' r ' : .--. '•e ,. i . - - . _ .i• . •... , ,t NI-0,-.- ,,,,,:;i•- ,., ,-... ,..,.,•-f, ••,. _, . .-4*-orrio.",,,, , ,,i, , .., gy , , ' ' i'''-• 4.i ' --.E. -4--4 j • it • , 4 4 ,.:.,,,..., 1, •' ‘, • _ s 4...,,?...„! i.,..%, .,, ..-, • • ", *. ,-iki- ilictv, ,214, ,,,Vadai,,',„7,..'kTe',_i'.0-Ty• , I ' ,,,,„ -,-47.„,„,,,, '1,,.. ,. r•, .,. :,:,._ ,; , . - .„Ala . ,, ..i.i. ,....,,,...„, -ir, "IL,. ...,,,-, d ww. )4,- ....,, AI. „.1.''...e "s el. , . ,,,w-'---....,-.. •?„, , i.--.- V; ,t, -- . --. -.......Tr 14.,. '..t`- . , -,,-...k.-- 4'7•_).• s z - 'vi,' -,;I. - . -- ... , , , dp 19 C away 6461.jpg P dp 19 C down 6460.jpg P dp 19 C up 6459.jpg STAND Q DATA POINT 20 - .-.. .4, iit .... ..„ .4 _.... • :, . ,P."..-; . ,‘ .... .4614.,1 ,,,,•., kiti - -. . tr. ' . i' -'6,'' ' ••. •, - • - , 41, ,i.. . 14 , , ; ,,,,.; , • .:-e--s„.,', ••.,1-1 ,'''.• ; . _ . I '':rC,‘ ';'".... '--' N . .,,,• ,,..,: . ,,,,, _. ,: _,,!, , ..,,,„ , - _ , .....,..0, . .4.-.:. .--....r •-•'. 4 Yit ' ' tfrIff.' it4 4,i 4, t.:„Ii 1, : i i:•(.4,p'e,;;;;-,p ; ,,,,gt!•Y•61","1 ' * • . t.• ,,l'ibi A M""... 4,4 ...•••:,2,t4•.c...--'ra,.: _,,,.. ,.14, Y.,.,- r-1 •—•21. ;,," .•:''.1. ---' 4. ., , ,. ' ;0' ' ' ..t• •,$. - 114744-:- V;?-''--41-k. ,.."4-1, ..7.., .. 1, .: • •. -• . ' xi. ,• ,Jr I .,,,,.*,. • , r '' . ....,1_ 0 i, • i 41 tt :1-. .•,.. . , .1 qN. .,..„. t! -, ,,,-.4.•1.,.... •:,.e.,,,,4.4.4. ,. ' .. ,-4 .: ',,, •‘. ' .•t ..‘,4 ,.. : - ' ' . .,r i• ,, -, ‘ ... , • 4V:.- .....1 4 ' l't,:t i•iiii:.=..-.....t; 1.;:d.-",,,P6ofgt.V.iNj,IA 0 ,„,-$ ,,-.,/-,,,,,-.„.:4'ilwiNi, '',, - '--t.I.,-,41-,, ;‘.. , ,,,/piii,i.;.,:;-_ .., : ...;,...i,...:, . .47.1 vgie .i V. '' ' k.air• ', ,"?1,41/r ,-, 1,ity.. ...„?,eii, -,-, , i ,, ti,:_:,.,,,,,k i .,,1:122 7;:::,: :...•'',-;,•* ,-15 1-:;.''•. Jtit-nobf-!? ' i• 5112..:',. i2t.''.it.t.VbilaC2::..r:,.;" • , .., Y.),.."301.. ..... t.1., ..AIS V C.6.:ta2-2.4.5 'IL 1,• : *,"t.r - ' •-4 I.. 4„1 ...)'...-.:-.':• :".1i.. .',. '. t...,...!...*:.:r.r bi.W.-01 Q dp20 A away 6553.jpg Q dp20 A down 6554.jpg Q dp20 A up 6552.jpg API ,•••• --•.,, -,.. A., .. •.4„4,...,...-.. 11.-e'rr.", V.,' 414001111 --- '14 ''' -e.4!••.•;..' ,/ '.s'-4'4'44-7,;of:l...fik'lle'-,,,I, ' '• "' -4..., .:,ol.. :.,''' I .sc.•. n s < -n• . , . ..5...MP, ., "''':11,--.4-,A,,zi,„,!ttf: • --.-• ,i.I.,,,x7,...,•••-,,..,, '• • ,,-.,..:::‘, '-• ••-;-•'-:::-'1 i /Ter' . -1., -1 : ::_ - - ,:k. :.,. .- ' .....:_.-:_ ,-•:, , ., --4---- •---,. 1)1j-- 'e -.404.-•-4., 4,- -,,,i4eiti !,:.4L i -.--,..". -. -., 'y . , , , ,, . , ..." tr,, , - ,... .4.i'' , ,• , :-. . . . ,,, '.',-----.. -.4 -'4.'',•":.''':' '.-..--' .; lil ..,4. Jr... I__,....,-'-- "? .. 7 - . IC: 't !hr4k,: • ,i„ , t. _ i• 111,1- - .:. * ' I-, *c. , vito- • - , .. .. ,:, t ._ 9 • gitii 't• ' ' '•.' '' ,',. • :...-. • ,,,„ • -5--i".'' ' • 1. '` ``' . , it‘ 'E--7::, ''''''el )"A 1. I - •,', '*e:J' 4fril - ,- — . .): .. 4.2'. ,ir•-`.,...vd..".‘A,..i--kiif.titivl,F(.1 - •'..."0- Ave•-4 , - ..- - s',, --,,...., ,,. , ,..., •4T,,,i - 1,,, , .1 .1. 4! .4.,„t g,,:;,:- iiiie rt. - 4.:'••• , „.,,•,...,, 4m,,o tiv:tt, 9 ....`, r .... ., .,. ,,, • • -° . .• -• ''.., V:.:?•":'' ' . .r.-,:te4 -- **.14-'.r.' '''' ' ''. 't ' - ' -4 '4 - -'7'.- .- - 04. • *4",.c.111 P)."4#1 '',t ,, #z -1114kiffs.^* k i...-4,,,, ",„W;;,'• . t-P- ,t.IA ,-t;.. ; .11 . ' r r. ..,;-,.- '-';'' ' ,. -idiloa,_'-,...",:ir 4.7 , ..'f;< , f::•?V.t.i.-'.i.b21.A.R.104//d..M.L.A.i.46.'...\--ik...r__..s:_./.2.A....t!__..r...'14 Q dp20 B down 6556.jpg Q dp20 B up 6555.jpg Q dp20 C awayn 6558.jpg ., • I .0. -. •-- • - . -.eft, •..-.4,,' " •"' i.0' , .. 7, f? . 0 •4 , ,Z.4:,,S-,• •- .7, ..j. . ;'".:'. :;'.'' :.:1'S'At'lfr' ...e' ,I, rtfin .) 00''';'%;;,:C..'cli. tr.4; t. •. ' - f 0 41.40.44.,,...:;.-,4.. ,,,,, 0.'•': ..3%.0 1- ' ' 4 - .. aftt,if, • i. .1,1.. 4, 7--ffiii,n.„ '' 7.'"'', . ,>44-11 .„: 4 , A Tr•,1..i.r.!:4.,tt T 1 .,: ;.,. i_,$'. , -!•-c ,-', •, „. _. ,..1-, ., ,,,-.... ...-fr•‘ _..; -,, . • 0-,,i,t..ta•-. , , . 4.---.-; ,- '.0?'\ -1• 4;?• : e'T: ,,T.,,,,I: - t, ----,,,,, -•, ',-- '11,,„ 1 i t •it L ?• . yt., '', _ .1 f,,, : - ''':._ :a a',A,_;._.... ,—.11...._._. Q dp20 C down 6559.jpg Q dp20 C up 6557.jpg STAND R DATA POINT 21R -. - * 3N,,, ..k.•..4.• •,,,,,,v, l'iv.4.7_',,k-f,R;,-;... ..kfl..-,4743,1r.r."•,,,,-7„/„,:,;%; '" ,-.-.--2. -- • .• $•°,.• -3.t , , ..., . 1,.'1:1..",.. ::"...,...•',- : -......4‘..... .....;-,.i.,-.,,te,-, .0.-.-,..,-.4',c,"... 44 ..:-.. ,,s..:1.•• .. .,4 ii•t•-•-1.a-1.•••a. •4 a:,'Z.-4 a at a. • .• .:P • .;•••••'....• ; '' I (..,' ,, 1_,N._ ...,,..,•,.t...., •,; ., ,,a-... ),. .....-",-t,C,,,,. h.,,‘,.., ,0,14. fly..,:Z•• --'' 11;41 '1043',i ,,,,,,A,s. - -'," k:/C. fi,,',Vt,•• A. . ... . .. :...:!,i. .... .4., • .,•. ,i°, ., •.:. , \''''''44--... ''' i'i:`,-Aril,.•"•=71.;.;, .,,,..,4, ,,,iii ' 'S*7':''..0-in-4..`...191,, "'s •_--1.: -in.'"- ''''- . • -:.:- -•l'''.a .I .,..k..--':-/..*;-4.2,,,,:.-;.,.•:-., ,,t?: r...t: , • -',•7: -.•%`.4rip''''',• ' ' 4., 7.,..;•1 , -••• ' s:-. t--,',.:4•-•., -,„' - ..-.-r --_ -. -••,,,- ,,,i.-. It-'9•,`"- ' 4,'-'.),,z; •:`i- +Aci:),.‘; . .. - . , <',,..'" .,*, 'm . _ ,,',..., ., . ••,..„,,_. 1:' - 'k.,.,'' ....,:-.•"1,,:''In. ' • l'''''.3. • ..,,,'-'4'4 .."'.,,313,-.4. "'-rt.:‘,--3-‘ _ . ,-„p.., r. 4.,-.- - ' ,-.4-•.,,,, '---i.,' -.:-.;--,.. •4e:V.- •"` -",', '' .r.' *4:, ,,, '"ii.'" ' . . ... ''-- '-. . 1,,‘1.1. • ' *• i ,,.,. • .....N.':-.:-'v . - - . '6 ..:' -• ',,';fti*:;.. c:2, .,..,.' r_d.'',4.- -/- '. ' i I .4,?I-.a.';k 4' -•,;;';‘.' 0- '-- ' ,,,,., ''•,t. .t'lz,e, • f,'' ;,' 1•131: . ' C.. • ,'‘, k : liri?."- " , ‘r , „-;,.• .7 ,,.%,‘ 44,1....ct, !.. , , . , ..' 1 .a. . % , - , . v-1 1 ' N- t , '.. . . ..-.''''' ;At. '''5'7-ft ,t'L'4-'.it.-' sflt,',.:'::tk-rkk, -- ---.•-•-.. - ,- .., - -44'1,:,14), ;;i0•,'`r W.- -;,,..-3;‘ ,`.-A, -is .•.=, - - * Nr.,;Sq.=.1et-t.1.1t.,4 I, '-1r ' .._.1._,„,--- - • --4 .517 :,,i;"s-• . . - , ,., ,_,, l' ' , ••••••••7 „ ..;-:•'• „ .. --.."-- ..• -:- '4-.... ' ,-4.4'4..) - '- '4 - _.,-.-_- - • :.,.. -..,-.4-4, ,-,,,•••:-.4, . ,. ..ete, „,,,,s rip;:.•- -. .- • • . ... _&....-...bg,....,....:..::. -.., ......t.-2--.1.„.' 1.......4.zi...i......b:th .w.,. .- •- ••T - '3'-.... . • R dp21R A down 6562.jpg R dp21R A up 6560.jpg R dp21R B away 6564.jpg •• , .. - .• - ,- - • .- . ''‘:!-**-1"."'”' I-'' ' • ' '--.';', st , , Nil.`0•1i,'• [..R ,-..- .*;',„, ...:.... :•.‘3.4 ' A ..=...;'''. f..”- ""'" '.-• . • -'•.: ./.... • 1.;.y = ...,1,•4 S -7 4. ... ' "-'4".....';','".'Y ' '51 ;(4...•%t'' ."1,-M tr-T.' • s:"A,',4N-FIW • :‘., • ' • ' z ,;*'i '\'7,-,i-I". :le') ,,.. „gl'elk '''.'•:••: ,• I •• ' . ' -,. .. '-sr.,-' -• --1"."4.:,-.1'•.t,'*;74'4'4.•••• .-.'11"4, -' NI V , • '-'' ,. ''i:• P..--;";,..! '-'....t•44...4.4, "i‘i•::- ••';'-1:. ,-).; ,••,*.1,1t,''';*k<:,?V•-‘" ' " . ' :'t• ,..."`..1'.11. --'., -1-'. .c.,;7", , .,...*.",..,,.„..,.., -,,,... -,. . ..., . .._,..,.„ ,. .. . ,... . . . . . ; =:--, ,,, • 4,- -0•w,-,.,, \ -:•.".1- • 4 • . .r ...,•,. -3 ,...•,t •i .z...4 *.• •• • °'' !*•:: •'•- ,.."----:-... " ' -4,..,- • ---,- .. --, ':" • --..4- `--:,:!,- :- ...• ..-•-••..e: ' " - •^4.' :.,'''''....z . >•9- , - ... I"-,a.'4 T.,• , , . 'r„1.:,`,:c, : , .. ...5e..*, .'",,t',..., ''. .•-'- ,,,-• .. . ..„..,'....., :. ' 4-11Nir. .I-1/4044-`' -..,V3,11LZ 4 . ..-'_ '- ''•••‘,4-:'.,.,. . - ''C''' ,..• ' ".1i;•IL'A'-' .t.41.'-••••;;.'‘+ t--r ,•"--•'-- • . ' -1'-'..:- .-,,t--.'' .'"--Yivoir:-.. ' . - ,Fr': -- '*-,..,--vi.•-•1 A. :. 1 N-1;tkr--,-,-; ,w..,;,....--.m a-, ,7„z.-':, '.' :a.. -^'.,,,^L4r- , I: ''?-- 1.'...1 N'..• 43 , :. ' i° . ''''' - i'4. e. ''':'1' . - -."' :',...; •:' ,...-'::,:s;i - '.'•‘:*.iikiteaite.%; - ::41A, -4, i. 4 , ,..1, r;!..7!3..4. 1%/' L.; . ._•:.._ - -..''' . -.." ,tr.*, . .....„,.: ''' 1,;:-,4"4„. ,-1, '40,..„, - ••'", :., ' ,,, -,i .r•Jr,...t.. •''•3:".•Ksk4 '1.e• ...i.;41/4i:s.;',..,.. 3..! • •,• .s.'• ' . -''''..."„,*.'" : •-3., • ..1‘..3. -.....*'',• -• ,-- •.... .3'''' . ,-...-*4 ', . ., ••iiy.,"-14-r. /1-i_,A ,3 -- .,,,'',,V,Y.,2 F.'t 7'4-ltlt- .'7.1f*:.`3t A : • .-IC" • '.1t.P..,' ' : 0 41V.•%: . 4. • . : - ii:' '''' -1 l'". -' - ' ' ' ° - ''' - )1" - '1(4:t..:.•4.0-. •.t ' - . ..• ,. 3`....*_,"I'l '..., ' ) .- -A .0 . •, • '• " ....,, , ,.+0.„ ...., ,t.,.."C;A, A.. .;.; •-‘'' ", :.r I- 12 -••'.. -. '...i.• 1.41'. ,04 ...7 )413..0,-1 ' ' - .-,.,,A, ...! . " A rp,_,.:.ii,..1 I t•r i, er.„,,..4,,,--.. -••• •1- ,,,..t,„ „., ...;,„, :-..„...; ,:.,..., , - ,,.,.1,--•e.,..-•••,.1 ., •101....f -.-. _ ... ... ., ..••:.-• - -. . .-:-.4•Klir.:4•1 -', • ti;','.: - - ' ' ' R dp21R B down 6565.jpg R dp21R B up 6563.jpg R dp21R C away 6561.jpg ,. 4 ...' k • •• " . '...V• 14 ' •:3- -.''' Vi r 111, , .,0 -... -' • 4-' ..7, ,,, , ••„,, ;• i..? • .. ,)•r J.'. 4 ..... , .....,„........,,,, ,...,.„...„,,..... ,, ..., :_ 4 '--f., ,• -1,..-' , -, ',••• •e- , » ..1-,. -- .?- l.,-7111,,,, i . , : .•...-1,... ie"."4 '.'-:,V, ! .:4 7, ,t hcritopotiratilikv,. .i,. -- i ,,,,g, --• ‹), - • , „, , • s4. ! . vil b,,,..,., , - ' .. e : ”, .4 '• , .!. -,..-Afil i A .. ' ..- ,, ,,, 1 . , Itkk (-,...,, .t , •(1 6. "NE', itlitl'Z„t; ' ,4'.A1,%' . ' ' !Nri AN17/4-44-;;PP-•• _ 4,'. ---- • - ', ,i• -'-ts. t:V.1,1,-4•1/.. s4*.1, . ,, •,•• '‘;?4,4,,fttl- , .1,4,„•,I.,'.1 i,i. ,. •i' .,t;.,,',riv•,,, ..,: . •-•- .. ) . '1"6 :.:W.,: i ' :.'. 4.• . • 'S,, : II t „ , ' ' 4-4, • .' _4. - - .*,• ,ft. -.• 'i 1.1! •i r.cf ." -'\k"-'....!,:- "1 ''IV '"'''''.'• '''' '''''.:u • ; ,, -'W .* w ' ` t;* -; ',,.." -..r• A.`g4) t ..--..:.t.-••i ,-,... ..,...0:-. t. \., -s.•'... Is. ; -......,:,.-_,- - ,....:-.,t .., s. , ;, Av..'+. ,- .Jr -a, ,f el -)1 ,,.. 7r, . 1.,),;., ...e .,1 i.. 1,\A,„N,.b% ..•„, ‘,.., ,,- --j 4- I, -.' 'r" . •• rt•-4`.1.•) %I.' Ilt 1, tt .' ,‘''l'A ., 01..?' ' IV 1' "... .• 7'...' rr..,•tiSt• 7 _•. jt. "-, ..,4,;...:` ,,t. .*P.•••‘ : . ,.. '' ••,,,,r. lk,,, ..,,,,,i, 1,..• N ..... .,(„ 1.1.. ,,,,,,,-..,..,,.. % ,•,. ,..:', ,. ;,.. 4,4'-,/4. :‘,f*2'417: 4,, "...:4,?:,..-. V.a,";.-,•-rAN-,71.:.;.',. i',4‘.. ,-..-4.,.;.;• .:,. IlittitZ4,. .....,-:.,...,4,,,,,,•,f,.....,. .,.: _ .. •-„.t8,. t• 1''iy,)-, f .a.e: 114i.":4,0-1,.. 0.,,, ;i- ; '..- - ,...7,:,---T.,...--,c_.-4,,f,,:s, .-- ,'",.!!,--'' 1 ;3.,....s.11 WI ,' • ' ' .-• - -,$'.4.-- --,),,A.'.11- 4,,,, it. ., ...A, • . .;,..1 V Jiv't i•r. 4",.," '•• •lit.34---?g ;. '' i -4:r• • ....' 'a- '''' 'it t y, ,I, 1. dp21R C away 6569.jpg R dp21R C down 6568.... R dp21R C up 6567.jpg STAND S DATA POINT 21S • ...1.1.;,.,,. . . ‘, .:..,,;" ,,. ',...J.;.',,,.„,5.1.7 7._ . •''.....ift' 4: ‘..‘..t41z..„...,.4, . „•,. ' ,::: '',..,,,. ,.." ':e.,44.1,..1.....,s,•••:%,.e.. . . ....:::::::6'.:1".....:..„:.-..!•.: .t." 1,-,• , 4,.. 1.. ....40,-a •.... .'4144' WTI's i .0.--.'• -- -1. 1‘ .:•.,‘,., _.,'.1 . T... '*4 ,,, :.;., IteT'AFta '"'"•:".•4.4....P.ti. /xt.--.--;"11*"...r: '1:1144,-,:...," ' .4%,•'., '. 11•%,,, -,. - : ,„-. :. ....,' e.z,'....1,!' litikeNs:..,,. t' ,s-1, ' •' 4. •••,t ',!".'•-•," '':.;•-, •. ,. "A T. r-,.: ' '1C` '1 ' N.;,• • ' 24*'. 'f„: ,,-'..,,,' ..:4-. '':e _ '40,,,..: ' -, . '":.' '.. 11-...'..... ' s'•'' ".' - . - '''•-‘ ' 4-‘;',.....;•IN'''''':: .‘1 . • • ,_ . i,,,,'.., ..i. .1'4..%'":''''.... - ''.- jiteX-4.t• - t*'`A'. ' '4 1%-.k...[' '_.'"(V.:•/ . .. t ' --.4.• T, :,.^:,••.,.. --rig. .-,,. •,,:- .i,‘••• •,•)10.0 _,•-.? :, ,-. \.• •,..- --e•-. -. -,- - '':.1.4-‘' fklki • ".'• •...".''' ...• -• _ .--‘.::.-A,, , s ,- ..:.,.-..,.,\ • '•' ''i. `,... . .• .`--'4'';'\ 'tfr. allP ',. ' ''...-.?•4"4, ': ..0<,' • - , ' "44/‘ft. 1„....:.•14, , ,•' ..•'':t•• •S' .. i, ,- -.. / t.,'' .,.- I „..,,..j.." ':....` • .--,.f•..'',44 4..." :. . f ' . .• ....,..*.'i.. :.4.. .!.•-,-, .', ‘...!',••_Ar _ ' ,,,, ,,„1,,,,,k • ..c ‘,... _..., . ,• - , .... - ' ••• :,....A. -,_• „ • • •:' - • , i - _ ...;vit".•••••-,:;.•:_:''-'17.-,4,')..\,74kf4.2414.1.;',0-1-'.'r4''''• ;1''..'• ..i '•••;'42' '111•-•".' . 1" '1•:‘, 411N -,N,.'„••• . . ., 1 Apt ,fQ..g-,.•...".;•..-...>filAtvitef..) • ',--`4. ' • •,•.-•',.. ...L: '-$4., ' '3)- '4"i • - '• ! . !;.,'` .. i••' - t•'-'....' .. ...:c :\ • „4.•...10. • -,-I".....:,-.2„,,...•*.:xt.smlif.-,.... •;.. .t;:, .,,,_ .....-.-..,.,,,,,:, •_,,,,, , • , ...4,,, , :s„,,., - 4........* ..........\:-. ..., . -- -, . ---,-._.;.. -,.5.tpl,,a,,-.:- -, .4,-.-,1.-,...,,, . .....:LifIre?.... - ..'..7.',',. : .-',"it't' • . -- .- ib' .P--... .i- osit.-.... .........._-±n-ti........: .-'.-.'- - ts:OaL.N.,•........,- ,:. • , , S dp21S A away 6532.jpg S dp21S A down 6531.jpg S dp21S A up 6530.jpg p----..-.2440X..!., '. .1).?..tkrif.7.,•:3:,p.,- -,,.t-y,,,,-,-...,...,,,,,,,,,.... f. - gifiWro.‘-5.!,,,,......-: •)•-•. •-..: • -,..-•-• ,.. • • 4: ' ...,.',--...,,,. - ..,r44 ..,-.... - ,-.,41,-..,,,,..,-. .,..,.• .• •,.-.--.?"rnfr7t.._•- '''.----.4 . •-•;. ....,. f.,, , -, ,s .._ • ,. ...T. t 4" - , - . ..,...t,.: . __,. lc: •-f lip' .."" ''''•° ' ''e - ' .' ' .••,..0•...cll.-0'; , ,. jr..42, *"......_''' 1‘4,.. ...-^,.. •, ..,- 1'. .7,,,-.•., ,,_;1. .. .11,,..If ' •-:'•.••''1 ' '1. .0-'L'f•••• '''ir,... ';'... •r,' . .r.'"'r:.riliglipsi -- ''' ' 'I* .'' --- ' " 1.. ,-'• ''•-•--.7=,- . • ?'''',T.'.-.,rOr ;t;','*-..,.''',-Ir,:,' -'' 1 0 1; '''.• ,k1,.. . 7,,'• 7. v,_.-,.:-S).-., ,-.. . A-1-'11,m 11111'''' • .4. ,I,:-,,, ' --;i:',..C.`•_t,-i: -;-!\'...1. --'!.;':''' •tiz' -;=-?'"..7- • ..1.4).'ir:zi:•'-',..1,r' • ;I:1-:-:--•.• ,•-- ' ''''71,,14-4i:j• • I. 4-y,"'''.4;-; $. . . '' .''''fil .., ',...t.:4::' 4. - ''''' '' ' :. ,.:7-=`-_,"`; ',-.,.... .----.......'4.4-$e ott -1.,,:- .1.--.,-,,,, 7. • , -',. - 4 trkt -1114:T.' .if ".--„ ,. i -,.•'.. ', "".N...:.„;:eri•,41.,,,‘?4' .: .- : ' , . ..., ';•,..,4....-‘,. - 1.,,VI& 1 ,..--d:-."?.- !,°-,.:‘,444.7 ir'.,•, .• 4,.ks,' - ,:::-.;die t.'"_-:, .. - -"- ._•' E ,.14V --'t..:". s'6,r.,..,.•.-r•-•' -;-->kx-,44 4-- ..- -.itt-„. -... • ' . , •! .V ::- ,,' '.-.re' ,. ..-'-.. Y.,A...'',• ,,;;;:-2,1.". ,1-s:.-.,- ,,, Arc..,r ' -.- , , ..--. gr.›. a, ,-.'•• .- ..-:'M.' '...,:, ,-- 7- -...,,:". • - s'..-‘7";-' 4' ..1 ' , • :;-'''‘'' - ii i qt. tAN* t...7.•-•., -•,- • , r. -.t,f..,- ',. R:-:a:-,t'',,,,--c'.:. • --,-,- •,,. . . .i -IP • ''',. '-•--.‘-':'..'4-t.•• .,: -›,.,-;-.-*/-. , .,...... • ...-. , , ,-4-4,,,,,..-,,..}. .....t...A.., - •••, , • ..? , .,-0.-/tP.,,. , .i. ..,- 4.• _l_. -,Yt..4.4Sit...4 ji,--'r'•--t -•...5.1e-.44-4/44,-11\. . %•IP, ..:- :::114.',-'1, 4".... .. °. W.," ..r.;,. . ' -'.. ....‘' 4 .L''''''''. -. •''''''-i'''• ."1.tr•- .q -"« ' • ./4. r. '74'-‘.41i4'irj‘,2;•,'Zi.-•:,4•.X",-.... '-.;,'-,,•%A . • ,, - •••=-• n- .--A,::.14.- #7 .-..--.-..,,,-.7.11, ..;.:,...;-1...- -4.ii.-_.. . -• s ,.....i1-.. . • :.. 1.1',2. - '.2# ...,•.:...."- , --, ,'... , - .r‘, „.:`...'',.-_- ‘..1t,,, ..,42:-r-,,,ii--:-.4ei. ... ..kleiti, -, , Y 1 • - • • i' •-,, , ...--•,, ..a ....,,,,1 „--_ .,.. , • .. ,- 4,,,,4., • ..- ...rt.,: ,.. • ••••.. ,.:::. --1, ' , : . -,..k - .•--•- .? ...-.,;% .',..-f4' :RE,- . ._ ., -- -• " -•-Vizi.- --'\A *-.7. - ',` " 'A(: +•• . . 0" '.. • •1 • = "'“... . ' ...:".., ' ' ''. - ;..irg...../ '''... '''' ••!7' ••• •, ';.2,. 2 . ,'••. •01,..a. ' .c. .; . . ',111.4114',, Zil ' 4# '''', • 2 4%ir. -4'• •.'' • '-'- • - • - *"... . . , •-•.,--0-7..' -• •.. L y_4L"(*-- f. . '..",, •..%....11S- ' . ...s.-!..._ lac.. - •-- S dp21S B away 6535.jpg S dp21S B down 6534.jpg S dp21S B up 6533.jpg ."4:7-7 01-, • „ .Yr. , e• .-....... : - -, : . .... ;.,, . !LS -'-'-';' 1,:.. , . '.. 4. ,,,, 4 ,A ,.• .i . '',•:4,-%I.* - ?, i ,•:.•„ I : 4.';')'-, x '.,,i,..... ,t,t0140 -,", •\'',"•'• -." " ":' 4%,(' • ' 4 " l'.4.. .47.7:,t. ,..;.• 1*., -- ,,f..;', .Z",4 ; ':,I, #4,41 .'- ,...; ..s. , , .r..< .. ,..„.• , . ,7,34,4 .. • .,,,, . -..2. • . 4. 4 , 1-i •.'-' • -, A ''',It., ;it-".•;4A. -,.. ';-..-f ',t.:4', -- •s!p,, .,., 1., , --1,,,,,.,,,,,,. ,„ .,. •It ,, , ,,„, .0 .. ri• - v... •, r;-,!..;,,,,,-., '' '• . It:az. ...,....4 ,. ,0,,,. . '`•••••,,.,•..,-.•,,.,, , 2, . ,, .. 't,, ,, •,. e 7...44;','t-''7,-!,. ,• ' ' .,, -, ,.,..-' .,',• -,i ,'-• ....,-.. . .,,,,IPV n.. i/ ..., r t• :4 . t .; VA, $..•,,:.--44: i-: • "i. ,.... - • •-';..:.1-r.'...,'.%•.- ' ,: :.•t ' '' ', •.*• '''V-, ,.. , •, •-. '. . "- ,,tg- .'-:.,0,..,,, 4 - -: .. ' '... r 1..t 1_,'%.! . - -.. :.'.'•• -• ,•v. ..'%.• r . ,..• •/,‘;;r-.., *'. .,-. -,,....,;;;- . - A‘*•:4,Y 4.- ..;:',r.' ''' ,. c•...' . ., , • f '. '.. '1 fr.t• ..-.. r.'' g ):"..•‘;',,..'''NA • .',.. l' ' y • ..i-A:S,07. 4 . ... Afit..f.• ", :AV. ,, ‘1,,,ii. ..... , -•,,O.n.. ?..:...r i I.' ".1.- '.1"; . i r''.j.lt . ••• -,4:--,.. ' 1 4''''''' , .. ',':'%;rto-,- ., Att, • . -'"e'.'• :''It j,;-'' 0 u .. 'A' .- -474 ' ,ria ' . i);.,- , -• ,. ..- 4,44 , .. : :--- --,..1,7-a..1-A, ,.. .. .T., • ..; ..„,.---.. ,JATfl '„ip.;,' i'', " i''' 1 • ;'. .:A.,,...' ,:'"..1 V... 't,. ei. '' - •• ' 4r,i).-• - - r.-,:-e'''..-,--- ' ...• /.--..-2.----.--...ow*• 1•49P.• __''' • # ._,,;, . •'.....,..e....1 •- rA7 -. ,' .• - - - - ' ........."0.±-f:;...! . ' . / - - -1, ' ' - - 1,..4._--- ' :• __'1_ ' ,'-':„.;ii'.2 .:41_:.1.7. 11 : _- '..2.•;....- - k... S dp21S C away 6538.jpg S dp21S C down 6537.jpg S dp21S C up 6536.jpg , STAND 2 DATA POINT 22 ... ,,..,. . . ,. , -,--,.. , ,,.. ,,,,-. , 1---- -)...„. ,,---,-,.i .,..% - ...,...,.:,-,.. :..4.5-.-,..... ...., .,. ..-,c,it.- P •! *:;1„ ,. ..g)z....4'.k- ',,..1-'''•.-'11'.•,5•''' '" -'-'4-k,..' • ‘--.' ".e, 1 ..,,, • . .t. . .,, , • - . .. , .• •,.... ,,,,.2,,,, • - A '...„,,;.., ....:0•7.4,t -.-.:s_ •- ..*:--..,- -'-'..0.14- ts.asq_ t- .- • ' ;7 -s...5 ' 'A' ..?? . --or. :_r, ., .7,,,,,...• %. -1.1,,,'.. . . ,. . , , •-,.. t . . • -,..- -• . .vv,r•r7 • -- - -:',"2":"" ---• - . Ifii!---,--,-.,...t.f.T ••,.,---:•47-_-_--.•••.- •:_.•..--,.. --.-. -.-."-. DI --a,-,„•_. . i.., -,."-• . . -N-,,,..-:•-, - -.; r.-...._‘....--c.! ---:c '",.. . -, -1_,„...,-, .-.. -.:-; ? -'..- :_ . , •° Irdk&L __,.0. ••:-N--• "./---,--• 4-F - ._, f• ,g. .,--,!"..' :,+ ='-. ... k _, , h."..*41....,•-k• '". . 4 . • ' ': r 1'' ''" .'.' ',‘ 4,; . :-.-"_- • '"•'" ‘.-..,-;..4 4%&.,....i..?,...., "--1-4-ek`42144444.,— ,,,--- ' . A. 4' . '- . .' ,I.•:.-r.. -- l'' .. ''''. '":'ir-)14.'''Tr' . --iiiroSr-•''''' , ..--• ". - ..'-, ' '.' s . 4.441,;',1 - 1/4 - ei....t. --1011:11!,,,,, ,--.,_•_f,- ...... 0-. -.•„, :,-: --%_.-i• _ ---- ' :,... _ •'-'-',,i1•.' -' i_zasillitgr-'"r.,,,,"- - -__ __.:,•-:;. ..'.'• ''- " ' S dp22 A away 6543.jpg S dp22 A down 6544.jpg S dp22 A down 6545.jpg VV, ' -, ,. •,-4'.. Wihi.,,tV,.'.-4,.:-'''?'4 4.7eft:7-- "-'- ' 1 '...,•'3 ' •"., N'1' ''''.0, • -‘yi.;fig. V,..-. .. -- t.'•- '•- . . ••••, -.,, ,I4 , .. 3 .tr-•• is, xs,_v •• • '.°41,,A • "'' ...,t ' ' ' . i ‘,..e'e,el ' , ''... :-.. ,k,itt,i" , ' 1 . , ..- , --t..---• -‘ =7-' .., / -.:• ., ".4.7p.4..."-o :.,t ;'.? ,•-i,. Al- ,' ,1k $.:.‘1V4.-k.,., . Li: r •••-i.. , - -- :.- -- ',.•.-...,..---,•--,.. , - - it- ,,.,:, . , ,i .;, ...,so . .-1-„,:,..-..:,,..f_.r...*....,,t;,,..,,,,a?F„, -',..1.,&- 1-7.-,,'; ‘," ' i 1. .4:J.V..i -:>.''' .. t:- .;%, '4. ?44'''''-'..',1.4...-•....."‘.:i---':- it,:a. ...,' 17'1., ',IP*?"" :-.4--.:".., .,), . ,' 1-!..v!-...":,-;-• ,. , T :7-77T`•..-,„'""ilk, '4,:. ..=' ---,•:A:;','fit- :' -• ,--"itft* :r :-,.:L :-J.,.:-,--,•,1 ,_-- 4. i'f,'-,e,,,,..:,/!...1-r*--..,, .., r,..: •---':e..- --,1 .14v:e. .'*----'f A"..1“,‘-t* /,''''' • 7 •L''. :- .'_,' '• .,,,:".;14itcrt-17 '-';'*--L+1`''LL".-t'-•:"A''',"-*: '''..--..;7.'--%"P• LI-',4#.••.' •'6.1:7-;,' -:- .:.-,5:,-,Z: - *--'14'::4:11-- -: -'f'''.*fik -t-it:•*-4...,-; •-•'--''''''.- • .:-. - - , ,_ --J-8..-7q•-••,,> ' . , .,-., ..i.-,--..../ • --- _ --,-,-...;'? -- .k.-,,, .••.,,„,.2,434,c,,-.41,-,s- ,.-...'•-•?ti•-• ,- ,, -- ''''''-',",--.•-•.,-4,.=..-i -, • _-15"?....,M.o. -. • -:;:- ".... . '' '- ' ''. --•,.-44'''' i -, '.' -‘-'\., ' • '' .."T.,7_4,415. 1%-----; d.t0,44';74A-; .f.;'t- ' - ; .";,-,"-.;-* ---..,- '..„is...,-.,....--•-••.,--... ,... ';..:... --•-,:„,>•-• - • - i • --1,.-.. -....,- /4;7: .:, . ' , .- ,. t;-•-„,,: ., .*_...... , .,,,,,.--4,-,_.-4,-,-*) .,.. ; -7;,-_,.4-177_ttsc---'),--=':;:.'",-. •i, :-,,* . -.4.-;-.,*-.---„ --f.r...-.-eit;- • - - •.•-. ---,:,---• ,-.--. - „-,- ../.4-T----,-.... ----.• •,--- ...,---i'l- --,-..,.:- --•:- . -- ,--Ps'-',--.7-.7"4"7 .• . ., .:'•...-.40•.+ _''.4,: `'''..... re,..... - .,. .,:•,,,Z, _.,P' .•' ., . ,v,‘,..,._?,-••••'.it, V. '..'.:1':`• .6.3" - 1':'7, - ..,-,---.,,„„1 7)44 .•-..= !'ili,*'....-• ,,,A •;.;,‘,;:' • '•'"Ii•••-r,ii,•,;'-41iL' ' ':, ••`+`,-- ;'•-•v.,r•r":-...- •`11k,.-41:4:-: -•,,• !...,:r.1;,,.• •• ...,-. ...,..- ..- -.. ':`' •,•••u - -.,..'•.".ri,:,,4„: 4,:t.4' .°•• • • • L',. fisckz 4 • .::-...7;• -•-''',...*4.• ••••t, I- -`•••••,...•-2"- •;•• - ..r..-mml.., -.,,,- :‘,..:,---, . \., .-;,* --.,0‘.,41` -,-,.-% '•t '-, ---;:e1*- - - .---‘:----',... - '- ..)tif•-4'!'' '...d. •--, ' '- -- .• -..".Z.:"..',....7:1-7e: ';74lit ''' ' .."',- '''''-It!, .p,.... -''',...-..:!..' I. ' '-ieat:C.'^..". ' • ' 'r---'"?1,04,, • ,.' - ,'-• -•'.,- '•-i 41,, , •-,. ''.'..!.' ' y,. -''''._'_:*-'!.'Lil-•:-.--, t;14,:4.'44' .. .'-' ..7'',' : , -r ,. .:- , jai.r . " "e-=.44t : . -,.1. '„.-,-, ,A-_,..::. ''';'..'.' ; .-4‘,,e,.;-1°Noit'lf7• . • ' ''.0..,V:' ':'''''' '` 4-- .: ,•,-:?•-_--- . .. . •- , . „. -,. - 1,_ .,_ _.\_, • 'vg-,,,,•; ,.. • .---_-,,,-),. ,. .,--'- --- -,r- --4,-• ,,. 4.-0,441..-., - •;.4$(,-t..., _ ._• -_,AL, i',. „,•i, '7,. ..,-,-,,,- . . , , ..,..,.,:st„,, ...,.„,.. -.. .. S dp22 B away 6547.jpg S dp22 B down 6548.jpg S dp22 B up 6546.jpg ., )0„, . - •,,,,K.;_.14-,,,----i,-,:-.A, , .- ,--;,---.7-,,:2-. •- ,----,----_-•-...-r.-7-Tft;7:Jr,.-. 1 -N-'',,,,,..4.:•••• •iia;,'`••:,:•- ' .'—.--•''' I-- i'-'-7-c --.'aleg ,.. _•-_,,-----.--;1‘,.,,---'-, -.Z--.'::..-1k'14,-04.'P#.t!,:1--.!.':_'....F_•-'-'.'-;,_.*4-..-i14t"Ai:,,.-.,4,,-.4:N'--1 2A-..7';7. ..'7-...,,`,-,,,-',;T-,:..o.'1:,,:,-'='-'-:.Y.i't,--,,.--,.i.'i'34Lwt•,•.-.--s;-7',',,4-,''':.:'4.L,"A.-,.-r.,.L:„.-.i1'.,g.-.,,i,T.'.3-.,4„'i.:','''*''-,•.':'-'i'--'„,t;I4.,.,,,1,e,':,.Pe..'7.,t._-W-.:_-:-.-:;-...7-•,*.il•-,,,. .i,.--t,.•..•,., ','.-'s•4..'- -.:•_'_ f,,--•.•:,-,,,,,f';ri•'.ii-:. -.0,P,.1,...•,,,'!:;,'-.-,,r-d,,'...'.„'-<. --.%.'_.1`.,,;7,i•4•-,,.,,,.,..,,..,\:-„.-•.,'• 4c444!-'1--.,-'.P..,4. i--.--.-,.i.-::1•-.---:-,+-,.,,:1.f',..%..,....';.”,, - ,C - /, -'‘„.,.,,"-;s:•.e-.•\.'t''.f-.47'l-4-,'41,...l.t•-':-;"'‘'r4''--•..!:.,-4_4 e'i”.-'.'--:,•i,..e''i'.'.,,,!..-:,.,-.-,,-':-4--'.-fi-‘,L,',-..-;:.,n-".:7.'•4.•,-".,..'•iF'4A.l.:,:'s-'.N'''.17'j.' :,e-: ],...- ft: ,-.-s.*1 '.-:`-..:-.-,..--...i.' - tf.',-. rz.' ..:.:0, 40,_`-.4i5r,- -4.,'-' ',.'•-1 -7.- et,• :*'•:''-....-"1:.4,'•' .4-44. '','.4-Z.t.r.,:', : .-.": [fly' - _ 'F! • 1-. f'-, -. • • ....,-;>f,,,4. .- ...',8•-',..4. -, '• -,_;'..,.. :..,' or'-,,,,.r.. ri,-._:.LI,i1., r • , •tr r 1 - _ -.4, .. iti.,_; r - .,:-.-ti-J. r----- ,._ 'r 4 . _ L.,, _,..„..... ,. .. ,„„:i.,...._._.,. -..-on.„. x.... ...., 1.. . ,r . .. .. ?.:._:., l'A. •. -,•*.4 - .. .. ' io" d '. .-.. - :--,:'-:-.....tis:: - -3 -TA'''.- '-. =. ,..-- ' ' ..."'iti i- ,.,,-t, ,-.-:,-,,...z., .._ ,-, - -_.,-,-.2.-c*„,..,,....., .-. -... . - :0-.... ---....:,p,-7-4-,7-.4i,,,,,,-__. „,...,..,,f! ,4,, II, _ -_-...., . ,,,-. ... -.-...„..- , ?•:;:.....-z.,-._.;".::--, '' ,..— ,,r•-.0- : .,;....;.-.4--P". ;a. ——... ... .,. . -414 .- ,1.: kRIF,: ,..,.'......4i •+:10-.,...,,, , . ... -7,-, J• .4"7•YV.-•i ..•4_,,. ' - • •''''..40;:2•4' '-.4.4e ' --,F-es:_ix-,t'.. 5,9itir.iskrii.--', !.' , ;Z.- ,•; p - -14_• 1,..;-. I.! I.,,,, - .... ,, -.....T.-f': , s .-• :.--.AL,' :-• -.: '4 . ,,,:„..4 • - 0- ..,...,,,,,,,; ...,,--„ziati;,..„...,..,,z..,_-: ,-, ,,,,...tift .. 4,,,,,....c. ...•.,,,, ..,,,, ••,.. . .... 1, , .. - -- "- ,....i'i,-,--*"..:.'.;:....,,,.,•....,, ,.,'........1,..,.'....,',....-71.1,,,,:e4.•,r•:•.,_,.:::,...,•-.4 '104;." '''-'-' - *• 7:7 ." --s* . ' . - 'tar, 61, '1/4:,•*;-•'.r;`•'....:•'•`•'' • '''ST.'" - - '%-1,:leb)411/4'11'',N." - - 'r..• s'"8&:''''''''-'' ' •••.'\ 't •;-;"-'.•.. '-••''' •'')•;',--, •; :,.....,':.1:- r -...:1.I%.:1'.0 . ...,....41%.(1-••.;,..*:•.,',.!,..(1,.1,,i4.•,„44, . 4 __,..,:i-- , ....,„ -4,,,,..,_ ,-. .4 ! ... 'i A,. '1,6, ;2'1'.A•4- .7-,•-• ''' / ',,,,A--' ...."`._ _ ..,.':,7_5,‘, ...'' ' 'k';''P.,*1-" --..Z?;',, ,c,.,;;-.,e:'.7:•,,_•,,,,-r:tp.^,4,.. ,..7,..!,..., `,,, , ' --,•;:..'_''.."-• -•;.",.--*-7i 4-'...!---- -- '-- -7. --If '2-5(:.!.-`• ,'--. './. - - Xi:.-.=-4;,. . A'--4.-"? - -- ,..,--„,:•A'a*x•-•,Ar..-L...,•-•-•5si, .6...„.;,,...:,-,?,.,;*i•f.,•,:-,-',-,'4/..-,•••,'..7,.-.*:._: r .,. ,fr., .%.:-•.L..-..- .r.-,7,,,.. . - . - --:, '•t'S'-'-.•'.''L ' .• '' 1'-'• '''t"-'11' '. ' ''' P ;Mi*-12V.• ,,,i4*/,' ".4: :,;:4..itlf"...'..'..-4-:.- '*4 " • •• - 4 4/8i 0,....' 1,.....-1 • ; _or,- . '`.;„.1..- ..7'et. "° r"..t."-..''."..,s,'S.,' '• ._, ..- •.•,.._.+L' -L._-.x... .2• ---,--...-. dp22 C away 6550.jpg S dp22 C down 6551.jpg S dp22 C up 6549.jpg STAND S DATA POINT 29 7 .- 4, .•.,:„`..."1 • ,.,‘,' ' iikit 4 ''....A. • -, ••• - ,#!, -4^ 4 • ' „ -r.„.-it., :'...'"•C-,.*:.f'4_,_*„.. ',. -•'. ' - ...:.---.,""- ,I -. \_,-,,N, ....,, . 4-, ...--',,v' - ' _it, -- ,-err-,-'„ • ' --, '• .•!;•„,4,.. -'.. •-::•c'le:-‘.'11: .4',.'.4-...::' c - '-'' . .,4•1',-,-..,s,,""'„, -At...4-t,tai.441eAtiki .4k•.*. ,•••-•• , 7( ".. f---1.. ."'W '--• t .4. . ''. r-- • .- --;* .i., '. ' ,••••r--,. _,4-„N..:•• - - '11,',.:._.1.44 ts- — , ..,.. ‘,. _. • •••_^, --t.'". ••I.. --. '-_,11,.f,,"Sv,, „r-;-7, , • -._:' ..04,•,1.roll ..,„•-1. -.... -.C'_.4 • ':-,...4%-c, ....•;;;/-.4-,g'.1*.• . c.,,,''.,,,."..... 1*,..' , : .,, ._•,,,,I,. ."'k-,...,:,, -----"...-..1.„,,,„,,L77,.. • „. „.- .,-. .. 1....an•-•-• v;..t-. -,-,....•,,,'„ :', -. • •--4, . •-.•• tr .-. „ . op; 11.•••-•'7,:- •'-.414•Vt/i;i14: '3 .I. ..jitt• A• =,,,t..i, . 7,_ ...4: 's 'i":1*,:7'..'• ..At, :7*.t.::‘,... -.•• •' .2. ..3,‘. .,...._ .4,..irii•... r,..t. • .-1, .'' ' iL,.•:I)...‘‘,_ '-., - •• •*..r. 4,' '•or •-•,:-'t:,',-.--I-t‘ - '. .A•..• -,•X--'•*.. %. ----" - - ..'''.1.2"Lvv*%ft• °-4<., *--c„---''.4'"1-s* '.... -',°- , -A- . ...f.•''•'4 4,•\..'":,Ae,,.-''‘'-•••-•'•••,..* •-t•••• "'-'s • • v""fi_.1.. -L--• ',;-t _ , . '-'",' - '• '/s':•4•_,--‘,....,...' , •i• r- •.. .crte•-i.t••;',..;.' '--i' - '- J.'Will-el 1,:,,'•`$.'t,„„', 4 V...,•"•:•\,--,I4" '4 ' --N" -"" ' , ..„( ' ' 'el', -4" 4-.4x , i' ''' _;1• --,_ ,-'1,..:',"t'f'-',-,-';° ,:-.-.". -.1,,f',.",,,,,-.' -lr ""I f•e.: v ••• t.4-4,-4••• ,^....... ';, ' 't •-,,,P.- ,' ; • ' --1-11,4 ...:-.1 •.• 's• -"'.. - ' • .- •• -- at• p: - --- ,•••__.. ,,, -...;,-, - ,....„,-,---..,,,- -,- - ---• ,. ' ., -,,-a•-_-?;-•,-. •. , „; \ Wit'•'',-,:-.:s# --' -r t" , •,J..7,„•\Vv. ,, ..:;,,,,,-., . . ,v;,.-: .,....4,., _,, :...„ -, • ..---• •'•••• 4.s 1,,,,,•,, '..! • ‘'- -; 1:'. ' • ' 1-;-:?.,-6 ka,"41• ...f if , ' ..•• I, 11, , •-f. ".' -4^. 1 -.L..-...;. .• ..,,,.. . --% t- 31 • k 4", . 4 , ''', '.'••4-• '1,-— .‘t! !..)1;.• , I ._..: ,.I:''<7' l,';!•:.." -‘-' .:: :•(.4 a:•,..7,".... 4 Ir.i •l f' , • • R/ -7' WIT,, ;'. ..Stk. •,-.,..,..1 Y '. '. 't ,,P•. 7.4:4‘,..k\f,,,,,- ;1, -,40,-......, A-,-s. • 4 tic..-,, :. . s u!.. ' 4.' .:4-'47."..‘i ',." . ‘‘' .. - •-• 'k''',.ki - . oF , --'44 . • ; 41-4 " -'-"?••'-,-- .....e.,'', 4 st,r),..,:,,t_kk....-.,.'r.• ::ii. ,t,.1$4,.::A.sc.,-..:,:;":',itt•-_,..,-,„Zr-4,•-•,,."5,-,,- k‘ 1..k.+ .;.:r;,/..".-,-.4., -. ,,-;,..... • .- ,,,r ....„ ,,,,,,..-... ,-,,, - ...4,.„, ,r,-,....,,,J„...,-,..;...i . ./.._ 1.4 •-• - ..., N r-, ^. , . .4:'4''4, 4.”-.`'-:;=-\)4J, 5•1'.41-::;:.,,,,•t; '1U,PPIL:i;41 ,'' .--,,f, ----'-‘,.%,:fti t --_,.-*" ...,-,-.:,-:4_.4-: .t.',.-c-",.. ..V. ;-T. .,' •,, ''JAL* • if..4 _7 . . i'•'"•`- '-& • .•'"."'..., ''''.'"... S dp29 A away 6700.jpg S dp29 A down 6701.jpg S dp29 A up 6699.jpg . - .v wc., :3A• .0,-.47.;',..7.ai ...---. -,-," •j, - • ;(3,..„A„. , - 0 '''a '''.4.0,.... IP*,• ' . A ,4,,i. s, .,',! '2.1,:,,,;';,-y-,4V.Z777,t, ..-i....-\,--,,,,..4::, , . ,114•,-,, .. ,-.,-,, 1.- N.yi, . „I,-, ;air ,-. .1 -.. -• 4 s.....`k. • ',..`.`;.' •• • t. .. AN,. cf 4,-,,Ibi,,..,t'.93„ .1', "4,,Zrtz• "..:,-= " „ qv 4 .,-,:c.„ ..'N'AAK :.1,- ' rf";,,..r... ...y.'' ''.14.•^1'4. .,.." `le .•,•.';.'. 'li- .-4 !."t"V:e,'t s ‘khrkitifi- °•' •4 '.4 '`I • ‘: . 41),•,"e4(.4', v,''t......-.-.V. .,q:-.A;A:,..' 4.,..-.',..„ it!, "i„,f '".4-..•'' -1`-i...,„,*-•4,,," . ,ik ,. ,-..._-• A41,,,-; ,.....-,,-Irs:„.4... to,. . _4141.- w I,,e... ,, _ L''''. 'ICY.)4.‘k...1, - .rf;..,--7% '.7 i i'17), .-'A et.- i-k‘,'•_‘'1',V.fc,p--,-,,,:.:--'-'V 4„,...,1•-gc,i.j;,,;/'.. cst,,AL.,,„,_, "" 'i,, -;4' • tk• •-• •,'"e7k..."' • ''‘......-V.;,. i,, . .1.1•..' ,,..;.7 •...., ., .11. . . • , . • , a:..•'i:‘,.! At:".. ,Z.5.4.k '.....•.,......-.-- - -. .0.#,- ., • '-., .. '..•'''+‘•;Irft`,...;.•N'...:,• . l' 1.:44, -.• 4,, • , ,'.7 ,1.,-,k,,, A%-; 0,.(1* ". •..., - , .,-,1.4.,.6....4110% ...,,,ris.,..5-., -..:. A.....• ..4.,,t •.2... . .....,,.--.., '1(14 4 _- 1,-ro.-1',,, ;2- -1-.- P -^ •• •Ni -- •, • -=-• . --1•:,,.., l•-- „ ,"... ..,•tt,:t. ow..,14. '...1' ''''-,4\ ' ' , •,....,.• I....in ^''''`. 'A, '-0.•1',.,'‘'...V''., . -;.,,r'''' • ' .‘ 'X/' ' ". ' -14_, 4. 4%1 ., 4,-. ..,.,,t, i..:, 4:is 4 . .1:- ,f4a,„.., , •-:',45:, •-•_;:.•:i.... ••••`-.„.•>, - •: -., -,-; •,,,- ;:.. ...,.- :•Lt , . . -..1,,, .1' ,. .),-, • i,'..,\&,.)-t; ,;...' .,.;-.- -i: ''' ... 's: ..gf '" .1i= g; ' . '- "*Z: 14.',, is',. .:-..4i, -. .t:z4 ,..„' 1, ,i,?,34,6'.11;friV " Ok,- •'' '' • et-A..$ ' . : ' '- '''...1 rs.-,.. ......,- , -.- , -,31,4-,,,:i)' • ;11' . *:: - .:•••• :`,.., 4,,, 1/4.'..! .. ,,,,.,,, r Wr‘,' `, ,. 'i Ws.,-.6 4,* 0111k. ___,_. i.., .•,..' ••.:. '' 5.•=':-Ti.- 4-tit,'"_ 4% •'••.-,;:, •,.: ...,-•=*'" ••'+' ' •it."1', .-- • '. :,••e....-stc, ..1?-?•.,:. :,.. -•' . 't,..47.,..'i>41‘`,,, -4,,s'- ,..., ,.--7-,•-• •- -‘ 1 • - • -s..- ,c:,141„-,-- - , • , •!..-%4 ,.. i -• ..,.. • , :.;,. ‘: •.41.s.s. •.1...• ' 4.. .- i.' AI z,..-:,L „_-!2..• ,,-,--4- ,..,,•. ,,4#•-, ksf,.; y-. . „gz,),_.,..,.t"\,,--‘44,c,!:,,f...'^---1 ' ,.... ,.,... ,-,..4,. 4.-- f%:,,,,,,:-.,so,- ,•,•- ,-,,...`.... , , '1, ...-- ek : -'1-'''.: .A.'• t, i, '.. .,•-•• • -• *?*, ” .c.' •',Air,s A • -- , -..;. - r:it VA :,.%__-•--`• - it'''-, , ' _ ;•••••0'-'. '' "•4;14 lie .4 K-5,/ .. . ..,- ' '' s , -,:... •• ,-- '' l •; 1-••••:: p.,.. . ...... , _ V -5 - ,- N i , • L'r{ , -e...k.. .- e 7" \ e •• .s)• +4, ' :•a.k.. ..."' ..i.ral,!,. . " 1 • ' -411 ,- job. - - - ' . .- , , toll '','• '1'47' •A.. ,:". . '- ‘,4. ^ ' ..„-- ....-- • ,-..(......‘, 4.- '14 t at.,1 )10, 1 ' --r 4-- - • --7.• -f• - S dp29 B down 6703.jpg S dp29 B uyp 6702.jpg S dp29 C away 6705.jpg . - T . c f' AZC.- 1,'Pei, ;''' 1-#:•;i44' 4":': ‘,.‘,..*. e . x - i " Alf'L- . ; • `to k.4. 9 - ' al ''.--• . .' L".i.i• •... 7,1%1,-, ` ilk- 44% '''.., L' .....-- ','..L ..'. , ..-• 1,, ,,...."*.;- ,,,Ik.:L., ,'`.. , 1 .,e4.' . '''' ,..•it 1 -c.,••}.....,.'-•i' - ' '• . . Y &Oilit..' -•. 'at • , ..,' ,'' •". Af t.) ' .1 N,-.V.Z4V;3.,,:' '• . ",it. ., JI• , -,..t°7-.,-" . .i...', ,,.'ot -C.,,,,,.../ f.4 ,- .'"i.'''• .- ••• Z-,-- 41..1,‘-' ,,, ''.110 }...,, .•... 4 •.'ak - s"-.13,X,kt.,4,-.',c4;.ri .:.'•'' -• - 0 •!,..' •. 01•4'4•Y' - ' .L '. L'. .'; '' rt•Al/' -,f-.'•pm.....,,..-•,,,..-.,,"FE 1 a-..--, , , A.,',':,.., .,t,L., : . , -- ....e '..,,, - 1' ,4''- '..%.' ,,,,,,,r,\,.. 01 /0*,;:tili„,.'-!..,,,r1 2? :.,,t. , p.--r' '', •i.;''%:':'.: -:...A0,4•". 7,- ,“.,', i .,,..t,-,.,it•,.4. . s... tici So..zedia„..(4,,,:,1„ 41,,,•, ViS. N .ii, ., .04- .,.., - '•..k,,,A. - -. ''.-- -- . •--/...• •-• .• •, . . .- , J-- +(. ..1"k ' - ,• , .1"•,.. .• _, -v. ,. . •• • ._ , . • ,,,.4.. ... , .ktio 17.t*, • '1, ' 47.,:,-.. : ..,. .—- ..... --,,..; •-,..... -;;.,.,,,•47.0.- --.. •3" L-LL- k - ' .61'.. ›. tr&"..."....- ,,. - _ S dp29 C down 6706.jpg S dp29 C up 6704.jpg STAND S DATA POINT 30 ��j _ ,••••• •••11• '.i;/ ▪ti=. 1 ^fir .. r - AF,• f � �11411-0- "Y ', '.. `� I^fi R - 9G •,,, 1s$.k.'r A z s _,'.5t-.,f 1� gs♦i''.i,,,,. ` Iy �e '-,� `; 'r4 . y� :Ty( e !a t .ST..•:.=N it _ r .I-r` ,►�f, -27.- '3 -a..,' %-71-- a .- ,,...„,..,... .., •-:..,. .,,... .....„.. .. ...„ -. i • •.„ , ., :,,,y-„.. _• 5 ,.ac._ti`.__.y!•:.'4 _ " 6h i •2�3 ._+'rte.. - �� _ t S dp30 A away 6708.jpg S dp30 A down 6709 jpg S dp30 A up 6707.jpg • 'r {X•3! .4,• f• = ¢y�. ,/1 •'v sr• ,i '•-`ia'4s'', uf`.,"-4',ti - • • `. r ,>. r,+' r• G, t *M.y ;• Cr' r ,i:'c'•e.' «_ 4'`•.'s �!•_.. i .: ` ;7" i ,,F • 4*-0, j...'jam.•,[` •".:.•;t ,..•,`i •'t- t'r ' '.-i• ti i ^iq',, .�.• jtj T•i Vi a{0 h • f,'1 {, :� ,S•-y • .Y,o.�a�I •�' N `i 1 SA k.-.. yr% -•4 .,:-, r• w', '� i► Ji., . f ,, - �'. '6r .'2DY' } ,.. '-` • f� d 1/ .b Sr. Gi,•�f, J1� 7S'�.� k i ,1,..:-Q,...-..; $,y,S4 is t e 0+i '�t iiy.'ti. a" . r .l ry i• . �, t Fti 'iP- 3,' i 4....,:A.7.70.t ''7e. 1 ,..,••- , is t 4.0:4 „ • � _ ,t( 'a � ' 1, ti.• r} N X i�� .°� .f ..',.0,...'. - is s !:� , t '•`,+^ I ,,,.+ I �{'. ~ .•ri "� Y* �t '. ��'�1't' >, c ,rF. � �`(• ! ‘ 1” . � -"Cid .•..•7 { i -�•I �- • i�„-, ^:lea' �{ ,t e�4s a G r - A .} yi fir• T i r i fl ... x 5•.� a C� a'Rl� f�i2 i �. • 7,n�S • � w a, ,' Se:, t t^ y w *' • 1, \, . - 1.0., t43 ... 11 • ,I Id _ # ' :i`�•man .� ^ ,�f •— •7'"..-.,.."•.'...p'..'. . :.. �, r. yv,, 4, �L - s .ti • re:. -;S P I - 4. .i a. iCY \e '. ‘.•:‘,..:,a&'_,!".; , :•t_ • ti ! r�J�.�' 1 +ti .^`� :, + c�•Oj�i;� S dp30 B away 6711.jpg S dp30 B down 6712.jpg S dp30 B sown 6715.jpg -- d -'f.,3,-;”- - • ' wr 4h J • `c rr Sr ' `:a . ' ")" • �• - . t• � yti : �` . • rW �1 �L. �11•7 ,..";•f•-"A•'Cyd'. t.T' i-Y 3.•.1. 4'''N`�'1.2.y J \ �`i"r-a ▪ � R ( � r •�',./?...4.,y' �•r J I `"""� a - ...," it S fF;- ..` < _ 4•10-„y y-,Y ,, •• f •vt... • t . T7-�^� T- • a 44 rte (}� 1f . ' - 1 f' 1 ; ,.%t- �� r�1' id i-*;:',34,,,.....'„,,,,,.,t; s i a�l'�t, {: . .•�.r , •,`o',,k 4 ri # , -,`-t%\. '4 " .yA• ,.. rte r •\..'" G ,i,,,...,-...,....:., ,v, 4 • t at 'Till^•r ry +�1F+ - ,.. ...,..._,.44....„..i.. ..,..,,,,.;...,....„..,.._,. ..i.aI � 7/n6„i a, +r.,,* j=-yy .,.: -r s�J' c1 ..� h� 1 ,, . 4 s?4'1A:'%. 'P ••• , - rte` ,••••••.....e.. •• ti� ••? '�;. .;,-i...:....'t t; 'X^1 as t r°e , >t,a.. . `t`'Y�',,... v;'•,f 4.� 7• .'� •, r.,''....e!..1:4:4-.1-k-.;;:-.A.,!"(•••;:....:.:,),.,e ,,. 0 tom"'+R'il= ?1`� t �� Al' 1. y; •�;Is i • v i-:t:.:�: �'•ati•li... >:.c}ba ,•� _. - .. > ' !. _ .--#-,.x-Y t..�. •X 1:._ • .. •'•s'- =0 S dp30 B up 6710.jpg S dp30 C away 6714.jpg S dp30 C up 6713.jpg STAND S DATA POINT 31 - .. :-, . _N_''' ' ,44,0,:,&"*- . .-., •_. ,- >-.1. fise• -,:-..:.-- Aill .jI t .,,,,I, •,, •r. 11 1....._ . = 3, • , _ - - -- * 1:-•-• * •'-lt< • -*re Ar .'" + L.'. . -' •` 1:W'Shml* N. .•,‘ .144. 1-A. .. - •-. ..k, .,. 1. IZ.'IN k - ' :t'\. - - -^ .- , _ - - • .- " ' ›,•',• - ,- ,•::..., .)'''''t-',. ;r - -•.„.41,f.'s: -t' .1.3- , ': .,ig-..-t:•••• ..: , . .3..,•,,,-.0.;,- .00, .,y,,,,,, ,,.!.. , •.t,V„ s glt:'.;,,,114 , t , ".".' "r ''' '., z -.." .-,-4,.i It ,•;"•"' 4'. -,,,*-' - -)•4"-- ,1 ' ' f 2 ',•70 -Aro• ..- t ''' ' .a .. . Iii,..., .,,,1 t.,....; ..,.. ,, ,,, ..ri ,,,• ,L, N, , •-•• - P2.* alli N„,-.. 14t, ik P- - * ' .-4,,. ..411.4- ' 1 ": '' ''..,,,.'• .,. • :t.--4- - s, ;''''-i• .4 4.-1914. '••, - - ' *if-. Nakv,, - .14-:T.'"''„--A-",r•- .7.---"-r. • :‘ . .. '-t-,,,,f,,,q.. -... L.%.- - t ., '` Y - •Yit ,, ••\ -.X: ' .14.46.46(....si .4%;...,,, „.., gr ) 't,tte ..„_. -.11k 1 ....-fr l'r A••• S dp31 A away 6719.jpg S dp31 A down 6721.jpg S dp31 A up 6718.jpg -. Ik,„:‘411:. - * • . ‘.`' ---4 s-4. 1 .• ',44,-.„." ., .,4 y ,..„: ... ...1 .t);:.,;..: 4, •e•''' •I',, ,Pri,‘t,0::1-,,,,-,,,i.,4 ,•,A . ,i,,x, 4 V. i ,.. ..." .. • a',),' t 4-'4. ;•,.•'t•i . ",,A.'".: , t f,..:-4. "t„,„.4,st,14t Ir ...„.„, ,,.., :.. .pc . ,„ .,,„,,,,.... ...,. ,I i Nr• ; -- .1.3. -,,-. 7.- •... .,• .-4' 0 , -,j; ' ::. . t : i Y, iiti:',,..:11..,;.. ,• , ... : ,.,:lc.rir' ..,-,,,,.. .. s...., , ... , ,.'. . ,.... ., .., t , :.....";* :,1, r. 4r,:„....4,L. ' ''..;;* s i ‘, .. , N. , . ;• , 0,' , ,. 1... .4 1...,•PP A 7.Ck/.41*.•'VOL 44 l'ik•Aj .4 1 E n : ' t; {*4..'15'..' 'ilt: ' .1 ' -' .. :. •", .*''.‘.;. c" t •."\"S4":i • '.. " ' ^ • %4. r' C W4 t\ %. e..):1 4:,.:, Akk Pk A, ,...„..01,0;:*il:„. ' t^4 lA“..1 ' :....• ),: I 1 ,ritt.,:: ..'AA.,. ' 1 , ''. I.. .1°' . , ."yr‘ i'''`1,,:''' ", :''t'. ." .'.(''•• " . --14,,,01,:14., •U,'',,, '- -.'--.e.‘ i'' ' e • .‘ ?..-C• • 1.7,._ .,::"- • ,... 'v_ ;Et.--,7,..101t , ‘I'Y'ltit,..* 4tegni ' '`,,,...t;Ii71-Vt ' f• CV i't'.4:1",: -.; -4. --- •A-:,...c.t. ...,, ',:, , ,....-0, , -. A.;_ . ....,:q -. _ ;<,.,..1,a,F.,•,-. - .. •.,_4,. - •-c .,.,-.ti.7....f%• .,50 •: '.,• •r- .---,„ .. , - -. T.,-0- 17, •,,A, , , :lar:'-1.- :".`". -,' - -',.'•- 4,!'- •'", - 'tf. - p-i- ,- ., ',„. si-•-- ''.• • -' -,."'z .r., - ,. ,--•,---. !.',.:(,,...-,,r- (.• ,..- ......,,,. .„ •-, •, ,,,, ..- „ „,...A. oit.., ,,,._,%-,,,, -. ...i,..,,,,„:t7t• .-•.. - ..., ..btet -..-...,!. --pin4; ,-.1,-. -, - - •-,t,-,;,-...,-.r.,,--7.v- -tr.?;'. - 'A .:••- -•-•:, •-•., • ....- --- • : „, ... • •••• .0; ., --,, .24 ,t,-,,r-1.1...:.•,.,: • -,--.11/4 ji, ',.-`21...'Sii,Aff ‘t...t: ' • . ,..-t ': '..': : .; 'tit'', " al:`,:-, t,; ' '.. - ' ','...,. ... ''''.•....,je( -. 'N '-!-:,••;.. ''':i• ''-1,...4,*' , • iiip -' ' 1 • - -.: ..si- - • e,. .....' - T-r,',%Oni•.'1', '-,'• .Z-",•:,-..,i...,..,, 4: -Arc...e..", 0-' .- -, ^,t r..1.4 '''' ,\ 'e-<,c.,*•- airii,;.... - ,..,...,e. .,-, ,..--., .....-- ,E;ilie'1.•:*1:: . ,---1,...V! .. :,‘ . • '. ---rs-4k-it- f Alf, ;.:,•••_.:, - - - S dp31 B away 6723.jpg S dp31 B down 6724.jpg S dp31 B up 6722.jpg , 4V, - ,. • .4:...-. -,. -'1,"'• "'.$. -7. , . 1 4P- •.r.'-,, -..'..7:4-..,•:IN .„ :n -'.- - .. ,.,, ....,-4 . i 1 L .11,...11. 4 •• l 111**'. `• •", 1...A. •= • s--.• 5.''.'''''rti ') •1.ir: .. ‘ ,',,, - • , ,.-'1...-ti ."'4'''1 -"" '41riC.' ''". ...'7*")-,,.. : :.I.,, (4.,. ••:.* • ='.' , 1 . . .. ' ,.•• '1.4.k.14 ,..-viiii,4, .e..-t . l'' s-. :-„.•%., •yr i. ,...r' ..,.. ''e_, -",„f'I!,, ,.,.. r`„f,-;;;(4, .,,,,,,I -.. .." ra.''' Iwit'i•-- ',,...`t,i • _ ••• ' -,..,-.„ ',.,: ic :' ''.• -'''''''A•'.x.:.',',4} . tifri '•;,44a-r....-. •10;'';'" ,,4 10E. •tf PL. „tc*, 4,qt ,..,'.. .., -A -,..' ti,.._,, -- "...,` ,' ,,,. .4'4:: •-..41;,,:10' - '4- _ .,. .71 ''',`'s, °' r.) 4'.•-•„?r ..-r. '''. -'• ....121, i ' .,-.;•' r i:"`;',. .,, .-a:.' '„:'. • .7..-11,1i.",--;. „ !,..,!',.... ‘3;`,.....; ,-- .. '.. •-•:,.1a. ,'.1, ; , P-' 'a '. •' *,,. '':.'• ` •• •• • t,... r. ... ...„...111,,,,% ...,W),,..,:.:1y..Yi....-• ';;!".. '-.',-"7:4,..;:::, 4,''. 4:, .-•:,, .,,Lot,o,,.:71,:i.' •;; ,:,,,,L.:74.- . _ • 1 tg-- . , , 4 - ' I . x:,421),..L. , ,,111:.: :\-.1". ,t. -.. : •, r "-, ,• - -•;'vt. T b!• . ''." -14...e,--, ,In' ..t _ .`•.:. ,. , , .. , . -- ... , , .. ,, 1 ,.-..., _., , *Iiriot "- : ' :-..,-*,,..- - r ...,4 „, ‘ 1, i . '' : -=,, ,' 1-1 ' rit “ `---..7- f-•• ..., ...:Igs.tte.,...gAigNe I.'S'''.'"..-1 .%,?..2;,....41+,.,,.'in, ,_ ..,,,...--, ',..r',..•4- . t 1- T... .i ff 2. tettWeii.iptialii;:i.;• _ .•."r6..-L-1...:-=' ,dp31 C away 6726.jpg S dp31 C down 6727.jpg S dp31 C up 6725.jpg STAND T DATA POINT 24 ---,r- _,--,.. • , ' .. • 44 •a • 4..1 --* *.,_ ,'-c•-• , - -•.: -6.. -.... .1,.t. , . .• .. ,-.. ._ •• . .11.4, ,, . ...<1.4 , - , - •••A - 4.0-7`1....k,,:04k.•• .-.., ...,--.zz----,-- -',•• - ' '.' ' :L., ' - .-..„ _.,,,,•• . k - a...,u,' 1 •, , k:•••,`.'„.-" - ar ;MO•4'"''••,'' tl'ill.; i ::.--. , ''i' 4.4.1 . . ..4' '"--- . ''- .`1 '.1'-'-'' I-1 ' -€-?-' i , .. k ••••tii: ,?.. '-'-- . 1.7.:`:•-• • •., *ktic: • . • • • , - c• i 4 4 ‘7.7,/ ,4, ii:-..,....: ...,?,' ,.-- ,4 i It •I• ...S. ,.;12 :--:• itop,, , A,. - ,!..r.- 4. • ,,,,,-,,. . 4 t, -If " •.• ;1,..,t,,;- . , -' ,>.-4‘••:LA.%lip - ' - -t ,v„ .1„.z., .,.,,..i,44.17,r-..,...„„ -. V.,. -. - li.k. 7 L. ' •••'•- - At_ - . ,,- .._ .,,,.. - rri 1 .r....•' 41,..1%*•••*.jr. •' s 'ZS ' t ''' • .•* •••71% . •••[..„"9.•••• •••r.•• 1.,.• * 't,--.01.-r ,, '4.91.,..• e--2- '' -,.z"1, !--1,- or4 AT .-;-, --,., 40411 v -t: ..•,,,,,,: ii. ,... ..,.• --,-. . .1 „, -.:1-110*.t10- ?.. "'vs•••, ., .,:i- r -- •.,- •,-.1?-..--.- •• s-••_,,,, , ••fre.-1 -. •A,:,..t.-,*,:,,.`*•-•‘s;-ii•:.-4:ftL4 f'' ;'''.••''' 171'1'1 : ' 1 •• ::,,4. - • 141-f.fl:i',..- 2'. ''" '' -..,;-,....„,L•r-__,-;4.-:,--T.•."...,- *r T.'Irif.**,!4:`, ;:,...y,--e-•`• ',,;:":1" 4.%144t.e...,7e,cf'_---.3411.1--,5.."' % •1 L _-_-,....„ . ,4-.. ...,, ._ ,.., ,1-- „.1.,.., ., i _ ,44 Y17, :. tlA -4.'61. .',-41,...41* • ;,t., .:4-7,.'4, '7-4:it' ';',1/4.', _ 167%.'T & 11..f,e..4,'.(' ‘ - .1/4'.44.‘ '- ' %:- •'4. a:)t.4`,,,, 71ts_ , ,•*4 : .2,,.,.%'.:;!,' ', ..., gb.-- --' ,:t••••• • 17. •17-4- i.'-t '•"_•:,- ----v;,•••-c, 0-- . ' '"'.. -4' -,- .,,,\ .,,,„- ,-,- .--..,..-e--:-- -0-----s.5 , • .-- -, .e,,.. -,.;.• - „1,,,,,,:;,;.. -.. - - ,r ;',;:' •I, ... ' 44,• •.', , ,:: k.. .. ''''. '• C...•. 1. •, • C N% -•'.... - t, s k ,4s.,,. . ' .. ..,"•,,,,',.,.!.C.,.:- ..-"' ^ -on., , - --i-I'. •".•' *,2: .. -/I. --..— ,-,,,!1.' ;,-...,....411_4',41-- "e---•••• ' 4 ••••••••••-• •t •4 ..VAV,i t. - •''s .."-., .' --‘-',... .,4 '',„ •• ,.."4".r• '- ..„1,._ $_ '- 1,) ,T, :•..e.c.,6%1•- • ,:.' .. •- • *0' 4,1„ ....4:,•••„4.1 Nal- ..‘,„ . ay-. ,_,4., . , • _.• _ _ spring flow dp24 6578.jpg T dp24 A down 6575.jpg T dp24 A up 6574.jpg . .. --- ' •Kr''3-. ':••.•!.--'" ‘•..%'-- • .7.1.-,ii... '' "•!••• _ •., 0414101 ,,,'• .,..r.„,,,,, .••,„ ‘'•--; 4 i,' 1, '"-' ,•.:. ,••, 0. ",„: '• ,\;..• •-• p ' ,Is, ‘,), , r ,..! 4 'al ' x. ' • , --,,.(x•t,,-,,•..' ,•-,• .; - I .. k....•---.....1 • . /ut„‘-t,•'-.V-.-:-.,`c: , -, . '...t)•.-,4Y/4";`.;ANL' t,' ••4'..`,;.•• ... `i- •-!..* ' 1 ll - . ....,-.1- ' I. • , , , . ...1.,:i-z„, , ''..,-,....„.,-,p.,fr:,-1,-,,,7•*:^'eity ::',. Y.+•`„, ,,,-,LW - .2.,,...,.„,...,rti ".1,„4, , .••, I;k-•‘:,..."N:f.4,1,i'.1%? '•, .-- . ...." - 4 ' ' •43, ' -'‘ i .. ..... -.--- •• •••••i e li, 4....:•vg_i•It .........r..-r07..„.. -4--r • -;',7- '!-.;A:414' ,, ,z•-• '''' *I;--,r*•. IL'- 16,-,,..44 -... u-:..eX,,..: ' --;•*- it•tc=, ••,,,v*t.r`,..,•• . ,,-''• frxt.,-"i it ,• ' '114$.44 - - •;-_,--•*--• - ,- ''• • '''''4 ";:"s''''' '' '•• ...4r''Z'"''r V." .-1 .._ . I4...:::-•4 '''---...,;?.. ''', 1.0- -. - ,.. -•.....'•t ?"3 :1 F:4 '°*. . ;"-:7''.4,...- t'' 1 'P :::„.. :V:,-,:, •-•:47,:4...4 c. *4. "...,' s '..:`... -''.1;• .•;-.11.,'e ' ,r,...:0., -'.. _...0.,1, , .-rt,,,,• ..,,, . . z, .4. ,• . .„..,....„,„ ,,,,, -.,, ,,.,.. ,....1%-",44. ` — '','A.'"",,,, ti,' ' If Iii ;,, ', . "4'`r:A.s., =->"'-,.--- ,11 .."1, ; 4,Z* ''''r 7 4 '. `'‘*:.Z ''-'471/4".fli«:''',21- !:°'4. ‘'W.446 r '''.4C.' ''.;:t.n...7..': --IA qs"t.'.' '.:;-...,,' ;--' .. e ' ''''''''' 7-';':?-;.• ' ,''. _7,,:4--.1,-, _ ._, _,,,....., ...e.,.,, ._,,,... g ,r,...,,:,t,i,,,„ _j,.. •..0 .--, .- •••••''''i.,,' '''...,' '7!2''' -•, • '''•• "-..,.N.''- .„,.42424, '`'-;"":' ',.•'' 7,..04,...,-. ,,. :=.-.... - . -..;1-. ' '.••1-4',.•• a , --,--t -'.It.`, A'.4-..., ‘ *''' ..7..e.'"4.61 -•44.‘a -i <, 1 c ..'- '•, *-"'--1,7:''7:4 ; 1:4';`,F:-• •";' '. A."..:. •' •-'0'""" - '-:-. "1.,,'..,•,....:....,e''.4. ..?...-,..m: , -. - ,z,f--,:f,, -. tot 1....1 •'Y.-r' °0-'' •i :,-;,.:-- , •' ,t;•-••-,'-'1,,,,y, -5-'•• 4: , 'kig-'7,--,A,•4,-•,-e ,/•• zte--tg -,.:-...,,,,Lt. - . ,, . . ,,,.10k Ik •-'' _- - •.-,,- 0, -•*:,,,, ,. '',X.'/41,k....II:lb,Ay,-,,; ••.,„ tx:,,,121,,47, ,;t1,,p_.P- ,',.i.- ,. • • - •,,- -y„ •'.1:.!-..1.:i'l'e•'- 'r . ..4,x•-•:, ;,-4.:t• _ ), 1 ' ..••••• c.,, • ';;Al., ,-, i -4,-,, ir.. 1,4.11,14Z V,„•-• N. / ••,: 1 I .. ;11 _••,..z. ., .,...H2 "4,,...•.1,4k . - ''",.% -3",- ' ..7,;,, ,,•4, .'•J'• ••4 i '', •..','•• 1 4 ;.4+S,d-1 *I <,.'„'2,4";•titl;V 4 I" 41,• - -' 4. A k ",''''----'1.-r-" • T dp24 B down 6580.jpg T dp24 B to 6581.jpg T dp24 B up 6579.jpg • ,. ;:,- .7)- ' .4 „a"— • •-• - 1, .., '' _ ..... -.•k .....,- t' ''1'.• 41' ':, ,, .•'_, , .7 -...f.. "i • " It 11 . , . -.. 4, -, , - 3, •,. I .". ' , Ro.'.. ....,;., - ;v-C-1:t .‘4 t,,1•,-._ - '...._—• -t, --11. , -.1;-% Y•fr •";.; , 0, --,„5„.- . . • - . :„., -e s, . '.‘ '.4:fr k41-• -.: ‘t.---,i 4 - -.**sli-s-''''• - - -..-nr,-.. .7t.i. ,,-.-• ... • '"---f.;-ttc.• -----# —t--I • ici,r41... .• ..... -44,'•• , 'i! .-1,1 .. . ,,''' i .4or • ..% --150. -0:-.4,,•t;. . -.1.,'Ir:.:--,-- - --4,•__-_, 'I. -1,„„, - 6-?' -1,t •:, .• - Oak ; • . •* •-i.,'• , , ' -- 't ••,,f -- '11 - . , q 4.‘,-- . -;,.•., , ,,r„.. . - $5,,-,...., .' .,, --.. -•....--- v....,...,:f I ' 0- ..--,.. .,-• - ..1.' ... -. 4..r.."';. ..414S1 .- s• 1::-'-`:---7:' _t.— 1 *'., - ,Co.-,,,..t,,, ., e'..---.'7..--•• ... '' e-- ': '71:' ', , : ' .S.-f-4-g-+ . '`'t ",'A' -A. - • ' ' s-f- - • - -'-- ,0, i 44•'.. 0, • - - ' •-an•,.*.•:...,'. 1.:;,•-:•. ..-2,.,--',7,' --.,-, -'-- :• -- --- --- T dp24 C away 6583,jpg T dp24 C down 6584.jpg T dp24 C up 6582.jpg STAND U DATA POINT 25 • u `''1- .--.f�ia• ,'t \ 1f, x t`•'Ali '''..i1",:-^= - • '` �►. A 4. u _ .p, .-4 0..,_..-" s :r r. ',. ••� ^w 1'!; t.R.'c,,.1N Mtrt` 1t .4.r',,• ;I. fi +a_. .Y - - ` .42=r(-.ttkz_oa �",•'4 _.'4'4�i.,' 4 _ -.. _ --r'' Tr ., . -;-:*?0•4'.4- -.... ',4444ir,.464,..7--4 Air : v. 444. - 'F + 4 t .1..-z... :.._ _.n . + -v T1 x - r ' 4. } ,..is -,.y. a.pjy ,i. i`t,F,�[0.Y R t tl =� '4 4:- .. .. •.r•�_<" c i -`}.. , kz,• F * ,�. U dp25 A away 6624.jpg U dp25 A down 6625.jpg U dp25 A up 6623.jpg rk�± : STAND V DATA POINT 26 • ` r' ., .•••• •h' '• f 1-•1\.C: (Nn" 1 t r .. .1 4. i',el,:.-. _. 4 r.r.4 -,( 7.�'t 1 .4., 7 ••%-.1-4- ,-:r....v _ t ,� /'' ,'.44-k?', Yt!' 1i i IIT ' K ' `' Il"L'. t: , y ;.r 4' r `r' .%N V 1 A.'1•47,4t:‘''! . r•••-. •"EYt '' - t-. ,�c.e L #'.t !'$..4 i • K""� 3}y ' {'i ''''\:• ' y: S °• t.-ill,r r , l' _' • 1. b.¢ '•. .+. n• 9't'r ' r • T .'3-*" .,,.;;,t+ _ _ - 'is, � tt� 4 � r �': �tt. ..,--k..,„.., „ ,- , :dam x,1,1 �'1+1•.r ! �r 4 +�,'s � �C t: y .,F, ✓•ti 'i-y ',p •iir5 t. '•k :-.0...„,_„. . td, y,, a .•a•' ?i`.'f`: `" '�. r`C' r4. ..} 1 -F !"+i^._7 . ...` '" . k•^•�' "1a" ° ! •t`,q• -' �(( 1,Zi- i t ;Isis,4+1.'t �y l:,:3 t !_,,: .4 K .d1 -.,ey • { • i. x '` ,�-_... ♦✓ '1\': ..Rr r--•, '-s' l 1 '�fr � ':'C Y .''� /.t I 1 • .; • tl •}y`� � ,• 4•,. h'1.;:'• 1 � t f'�i 9 � 4 d'- •aL . '°�� K 4 !._ � r .} t`+�, t ^,t• `, a Lx:sti, +• `YI. f• !' 3• N i .` k -."--'5';'d� + • •i c ,t ' Y rr 3 a -� '-'..","_=,:: �- zi .' '' um't' ,l�t f �p41�,, jr��4 F1� r° 1:., 't++c '� • i+°` .{• Ia�+�, • '� ., C ^ _. ty it''i': STAND W DATA POINT 27 -'. -..�, - L s i • J ':' h'. J ki •y9 'S"'i •z.* 'Y i Pe '.. 1l^.16 yyy�� u.��..t 7,�y�a r, 1 } � 7d t- lig f 1 y ss s .' 2Yr'+.F'� t. AF. t .� # --- } `:,t `��f , � 1•�:.�' 4:::,--::',+,-pl t .�';4 +i rd,��y "`ti, _.-. • ••Iy{.'y ii,, � ,' .l. t�t ",Y-R F :s .:44,;••'1.. S'/x1.,+_. "`..-4,1 .',T' {F� •;F #•-11.‘..Z'' ". 't. ", I l c ate :GW4 Z y: Wr4,4**-!:•,4 roSTA t•.' ,, ?wi-f -• r`, •,1,- ,-.. '.(�' „,,,�^,j 1 Rx .4,,�x-• +te‘, • �.:�i. y.,'�t , 1 ,,,;,, .'".•i�r••. .. S�i y„•'+4y✓� :r •r- 7-w. -'- ;‹,' f 4,♦ r+ 3'..'1 r`" .f ,.. ! -..:-'t '!4i• ..+A:EaueaJt..ePQAS� �. •!..• � t;"+ •iJ '•^+`;.'7'.7";.,-x,'7 ��S't '�il + �• � >7 .""-.. W dp27 A away 6673.jpg W dp27 A down 6674.jpg W dp27 A up 6672.jpg i _ , r C 'n +K: .1`• �cl1; _f t.Ag`e' (t ., a, t7<A4 r# y'ti 4;i44•• to 1 'r ,pC � , 9 ".• }fe4} ' }{, lit s *+ '1 A n 1 ,f i r �j K Y h v 4 '. r��•,� }?yL�-•• ,;,•,...• :M Ya , r l _.. +((,,,,..,i ti's i. 'N 7' I. `r,.• Y •• , � + l:3''#t'f t ,++'' �; q 't '• ''k�+yip 1 : <S �_..:kms- LJ..,.•.._.._... G�K. 's•' �.. .a ... •-�v .-.iS: ;Fc�:.-14t_.R_ h: W dp27 B down 6676.jpg W dp27 B up 6675.jpg W dp27 C away 6679.jpg • : p i • ` µ�"! epi t�.y. t • • • • + i -.+rte 'L.kt i • 'dp27 C down 6678.jpg W dp27 C up 6677.jpg STAND W DATA POINT 28 .';r t. °A- r `L4 •..! °'_ .; .. x' '' '.+ 'L.. LRS: lii�44- r `.—: tg', •'1". • • T • r• t• •-• ,,'eX ,`0-!,:.-4,7,A4;;;.5,y . _*•..1ttr ' .c.-+M1 4• .1% '.• ,:iis. -, '{t ,%'• \ C [• i.s. .t om rr•. thfa 1 ' t'_4.,'-'1...e.-0 •i1 4 tom., aa�...'. a _ f yeiY {.-��. .":?.1.'•1 '» 447.3 - 'v t.r } ya Z.._.•1 .t.° i?, 1T.5*. •_ .• -. • IP c;, ': .._, 4 444 -_,,-.7.6.,,,,, : �r\r1` > .., - „, ., • •..M - ,. 4 v a..ems/, ;. !, 1 l y�l. r• • _•y .1.•.= T.. .6; .All., ^ �.. h' + - �' ,• ^ 1";� SSI g�fC �' ` ..f'�"T iJi�. •s.. 1 �..��4 N. i 6 f 'w. 4444 W dp28 A down 6688.jpg W dp28 A sway 6689.jpg W dp28 A up 6687.jpg \co.% tut S tt,e,,,.rt.. ., Z'r •t'• --- k r„ ^t'a 7'_ ! € *._ te.. k4. - III ,Z"•::;/ta.'� -04-,--.• . '� • „A .. 7.J 7r-...-_,...-'•:C.Ai.. { L • ,P}`4. : • •--1.„•,41,Y j!'Yr r :y � {e.r 'r.'s v8r. !”' :4•+ '2'7}�`•'•i` ,.�,Z yj`. . 4,,;"' e •044\ • ` r «r'1 . st • }. • - TT{5it• ' "'lS'.t •+ • ` to }} ` y t - ;i ' } w' £ • 1 1 ''YY. 'rt. r-'.- * • / rah �` •_ �a �•. e_ �r 1' '. ' 1 i { f ( •' Ry “Z' !C_ !..ice!•..! W dp28 B down 6691.jpg W dp28 B up 6690.jpg W dp28 C down 6693.jpg , —441111111‘4.44444,..... 'i F ii..,:. i), 10101S4,04 A. W dp28 C up 6692.jpg STAND X DATA POINT 32 . ,�.. 7 .- :moi X79 tf" ✓s,nro . .�. }, '1011 t r '� f J .1„! 000"' - •a � •+. may: • • . -.•.a} w ti"r rr r 4. rq,t 94't ` • `'4 '' 4-,:-,• �7' ;'' i v� i �' +, • .d; ,r{`yi . • . t •-L• _ ; . �"•-�J:7'y • Kin • ,.-A,-,..�' `'' tl. r• -_�r5� _ Art•- .f y `*' ✓v -I, f .. 'U • ;1-.1,.~14 ••••••6•0•-••••%,--- `e• j .�1',f •F^. !...� {,�.. 1i1. {. e'9k.r r ,y(y- r p,.* .;-?,t-r -3— . ^_ ' :-:,r—ii .'',g, :',..4-" '41,A0i,. '":.-... It.'.; A. ....... . ..,..,,. . .• ,..,...:. .. „,„„,.. . ,... ,....... .... ,,,,, ,,,...,...„-..... ...,. ...., _,, .., - , .. .:„.. ........, ,_., , .,„., . , ._,...„,.........,, -.. . ..., ir- : • „it.-az:.:•R,'c. ..... -- . -,...:-., Ar- ., - - l1r _ S Riverway shore 6485.jpgffi S Riverway shore 6486.jpg ` - ; r�:f r t 1. - Y` p y 2- r r.• f ^rT ',:'''.•"-•'-' W `t' • r4.�ctl.g'+ a ��,�` '` jam. r i +7 ;,-.-.1 Yx .. ... ••. , a'T 7t: ':..`,..--L,,' 1 ! 4-fit l! !~ 4�y� , ., -.. di�' !•'' - cis .• ` ,-r 7 4 r PI ,, • W. `.t-' '4 ..-., :i aw_ 't .K. ,rfr.S c a." ',r�' F v ;w' S +y+=a` t•�- " +4 Y "It`)" " c,. •P• ay'S kY i 2k +i r �t,zP -.:•:.-11,t-c•44.1 .4--:- F r ✓� '= y y+ g tit ,i, " y ,may, ;moi ,-- 'Y.. 4t ---,• +`F •' ,:. . vi ...,.. �i a.,,f +�' 7",t. y `s ri . "ik3 "ry,, t:4--ss�. - p' '''' •;$%' -is:,,-- 1 ,1• ' " ,,64:14 t�f r 0_ }.,lg.,j •.. j.*.r r' •i — y, fr. • < 1_ t _'i.• . St ar.. J '• -45sA f�-— sq ..-E , . t •.erice• F`�. .7P " k� f - fit x'`l r r.'� ".7.-..f_-72,- 4'7-L. •. •k S. Riverway shore 6486.jpg vacant shore S River#35219C.jpg ',' - , •:•'•••!..',.; . ';.-.. , '1.„41111,401);4.,.,1: 1,fr."--;,;H?""lilt':741. .." i t ; ?1‘. ;$' •' pt , "+ , tvd 4y'i�.,' a ir, -a `'': t . act s• ;-- I '- yr i 1<, .+A. y .�PMi- ry`nlnt :ga i-J t '.. '`t fyjr F4 '� y a f F , ire: ..,, F 4 Iii 0......,,...,...... r ,,, ,,,t:A,.....,,, ..„.,...,,,..., ,,,, .., . -,,..,.......„.„. , ..,,,, „.„, N,':1,t,„:.. _ •••-;-..: :,,44,E;A: '._- •.•-,.-:-.,f, Y K r..r rK+y _w! ".•67.11- �Iyfsa ' .. -1 ss^�t ••,.fes` a s vacant shore S River#35219E.jpg STAND X DATA POINTS 33, 34 AND 35 ��y k.74.4,;,7-14-7.--1----), n I .i ,',.!t-...„,t f .r t t ^l\ y\ y..,,. +m .1'... ,-`,--,;'':;,,,..1.:1;‘,1',.i.'•; ;;.1+.� 4 +F iC..;}h ,'‘tfl+ �_f't cow! ',:s'f �' 'SkY'- , '`>„�' Y, y•`• •i'Z'F' { , zz•,,:i ctirje°n+.,`; ��4,, , ` -. 0 '.16,,s1,„:„ •t' i T \ .t:. • - t t' a e. ',,`t.ls. 1. T r ,}.lig.:.'ya,',„ �Si y;' �.. ,7,. ts;?-'r _ A. 14y;'`i i' ` \4► 1� F. Z �• 't,�:/es .l.V„4 t i,LC�'� ..•J.�tf�`, R p '�7t� 3 . 1 ;Y i' `�'��.i., �- n -- x 'a rum �}i „ �'' "; �v1tf-,�s• ,;:•:•.•4:4 1'',..`i:•4. 4i't.,, .,•`R .i ,�:.'tL "'t"7Flti '.1‘"... • `:41. ".- y srr 4 f- Sk4ca2 z + ti✓ ,R.k, 7� .ori y • ` t- , k r, ?;+ { y r f r-r 't�k- 7t•A �.�'�?"I. �v—..' z� •?r.gy0''�,.'��, .3 ;" + *. +t 444 x� Tq • • •tY Xr• t rn� - ' '1' t - ..4°V •< :r 1 '•`„k{ .: .t . ,T77, r 'ti' 4" T'Gbr `+.,�. 8 tr !,r .'j'-'i'� At jz:t ...- 3h L g(ll _4r t �, N,�,�7e9 st { t +n' +"fir ! 4 4 t, r. K' a «. ��t +� �, a+f,, ..i T -. ..- S 3 N ,}bi �.s2s.:"V-8. 1�8.j pt.!,f'iztt�Sr; F*'+r4 JM•ren. , � <�i�, + w t t s ..+1. :=lk"* `i. h..Ja _ •• r a^-%, .-i t ai. ".rf v,V 3 ati'- - - ,` +� ' • ... ry^ Xl't TJsr -.e y. `.\, f _ 'It �.. ya r ,� �.r,.e�-c.s,- W;tr-•�.,z-. ^•�-r' _ ; � a .' r-`-.'s.7-44.o� ,s_.r _ - - t— r_ + w bulkhead S Riverway 6507.jpg bulkhead, S Riverway 6510.jpg Y•.•_ �.., �- . _1 1 mob,•_`�..4 ,* Ct '` t aA,t .4.-'' .'k9,-,,� ' r. +y f ,. ftir a st rir 'w.rr•c ...� _L_ r -.+,.ls 1 'r..� t k`'r (,�.,r •i' "IL w.G f on nf�t.• d7 ,.".,/ •'" .+ 1� iv e1 w - lit 4.„"A r ..4. y'°6� • % •4 ! M.v S, r „Lei,,,,;.-tom,,.: • ,-.-• � ''4J k,yA ,, P+.-1,, -.{ n•P, ' +• ii. ' ":�".r *AN 1474+: r' �,}. +1 XY., _ '`g It ,�,� _ „� � r r k•I. e��.s.'.),-1.°.),•,j.n ,.. , • �b , S . ah'+nc t �'�ry ^ F x� '.. a r f' Tom_'. •.s _ t� l • ';iS':''i�'� w kw ✓t. - .,_ Ip1 r 'Y S S+y j`'= .A . 1r./' _ 5 .,.+rte rc, 4 f t , .- z tr.iNt ay. ! �az'.,l t.f<,d 4.• ••• f+ - , � _? { • -`' • �. . ;,�� .�.`. .ice �• �~` '. ' �� la4 r a�s r�. 5� fir' ... Q�_• t, c. • '-I,.' .... 4F• LL ar w :�' ✓ s i1' ,1.. ''X s; , !` n i",e t ;.-14,. )" Y r !r t ,w ti S t 7 • isL ?'(mss+ ., bunkhead S Riverway 6501.jpg bunkhead S Riverway 6506.jpg STAND Y DATA POINT 36 SHELLEY LAKE , _ 1 �_ �� •"i •k ^^ . •mays r �.--.1-•-•- +�. IX , -*r•.r-� ..y •.i 7.547' F .. .-47y�•Ili I� 5 n°t.x 'dA e� , 7W% 7 L•� 1 16 y• - L •'1+= i� 7t J T t'•-yK v---,-"0-7—e. +T 4`Y. - Y, t -.1.. �4-, il'''' _; ` 1 �' --1'4'Wf‘'.4'".4t-▪ - 1.43- r'...Y>+% j .ki . 1 1 .- • F . --` '�: ••+' : A ¢ � r r rtwai. ., . - Y _• ..4.1.:-.4.. • • �•jam'- „tr I ...,,,. . S4ti f�k . ' -/ _.c, _ X' 11 — Y # Z" � LSr • . riL. • M � Tip " ^�•= - 'a f,�a3 r; T ,rtr 't.e, ;iir.4 40 c• .• inundation zone Shel#352FE7.jpg NE corner Shelley Lk 614.jpg L. �� 1111 =�: STAND Y DATA POINT 37 SHELLEY LAKE w.p..17-ip.,‘.• „inomik-)-teasa .--,IL ______ „---7-','974---pm ? - • . ___ _.....,. t .-- ... r ,f4 ' '''',7--::;• MN;rrif 114. 11,1111 ' •..P. II '11111111( 11 - • • 4,i• ...• "•rd4",',7 ' :1\.''. .4,...liZ' 0k•• ..k...".1.4.. .:Jr....747:r: L 4..g•,..,* .k‘; 4 , • .._„ .. .....V''.....',. f ' ' 4 Y . \.... r ,.. . .... , 4,- ,ok,g- 4Pl i't. _ — ,. • - 1 t.•• r•4•1 - /••• •• - - __ . i F .. . - 4.— . , ,• ‘e " -10110166 ' Z0.0.2:••••a Z.Z..4Ptit •a`1.t.‘,.... 1 .•, —....7.....-.1.1.Y\' klatt.... ..... ..V.Wiesfe 1.e,AT '''',10.N.La''',.\-,4,4k*AittS44•••,•••%...55..agae ' .talter. 41/0.41, '''..',,;.je.,4- `''' 1 ' 1' Er - -,, ..k ae Z`VI'a•%.,'g.''S"404 r` ..4.••!:t.‘.:;'.... ... ' ' 4- h,.....,_,,,,-,,,,,, , - - . . ... h.'et' .- IA".....•, '•I'''''.••••••‘........ \''''•••:'. , , ,:s,3 ...."}.X.,,,._\2,,,,..„,.....k',. -.. 51.4.-. R• 1.2... ',.?1913.?.....7474."'41:34::•:'...'- •Z-11., 'Itet‘.e,C.,,s., _„..., ‘....1",.. ,_' .... 4."Z.'''6 •...,__..`..‘.! 14.-..0:4'), . "L.4.,...., • -...4.-. r;41‘' &-- -*-...':• . :"J•......"1.1.. .2..." % ': ! t•I•s".;i'' 4..47,‘,4:i':.:•.4.)--- '.'-';4,-'1.•:+1.%A.‘......"'•• .1:ts- ' .' ' - ,...\ i':-%.'''' „4,0 tiv- ' -,:- . ..leotth, .--;••:'••:,,14.41::.:1:4•:-...;.:••-: ••••. -- . ,,14,.,q'14,/, 4,..4,,,, .-. , 40, . - _ •.1.'7", -•, •", .,...- -1, 1...z7,-.41:••••, e41`...,-*---, '''_,•''''.." r,-....—-, -:,-.,-,, .-.-;-A -,,,..,..;•A.- - • ' - • At-az., troprik. ;.-,\-••-, ,?. - ._ ,, i.,,,:eov„-..--,,,,,; . .. , • .. - • . • 740m.- .. .,-...,. •- : ;,: ,., —, , -• - .. ,-, . ci, 7..,-,,,,,•.' ,-_ ,.7..,.., "...- — --- - - . i , • ..z.,i 'r •:'''''.k ,,,, input channel 599.jpg input culvert 602.jpg '. t•ro ‘....AL". - r - ,' , ---• . , -' - .. -.---- -- 4-0,-- ....-.;, _ . ..... , --.. .7., --,,.- •-• r--........._ . -- , e.P.' .. . ''''. ''''.....• '.,'. ' *'1 r" ..ee, . ..... 4'- , , iil , .., e 'P•• 7. • - ,A;p$,. . 0... Irli.`=".7.:. 3.: " jt,.:. ,, v . -, - •<.- a , • , 1..-. 4. '..„. . Jr:14.,+f r ,....4 _ • 4" ,d, . l'''• • 0-, l' gr-fti g t,h` • 4,* , _,,. _ , . , , ' • 4 lb„ . 1 ' i• •'' W,*0 - - ' ' ' 'II " • ••:,` •• ••••,••• _. - /• - t,,' , , , ",,, . s,,,t1„..4••44, .. ;,,,:,, i t '2, ti.,T,1 ' 1 , • •• i. 1 '• ' -, *, N'''11 I.',! :. • "''• . _,.•• - t \ s 1,4t. , 1 • i 1 '"t..lt • ' ''... ,-'''f'''' ''' • .- '.. '' •' .".. .• ,i1 '7; ., : , , . ‘ . +i, , . A -,•e•.• is, 11:7':.'.''.& .4ii.,••••-4 . • . -,••••• ..-'' ' f f;.1, • t ' 1 . •'.e'-4.)i 1,;(4* \.: .1. " L. . ;".e: ;P,,,' .T.• 'A. ,. . .lite';',1°;,,41-.i.'•'-' ":.. ' 't'.'4, ;.."..''.. •.''''', ,-*4 Nr • •-r, ,,,,.1 \s,, _--,...,.r•" ,,.• sr p10 ., :F.•...,..-1:-cr.?, '•••••*. *,, r-.,AV,,l'••• 1,, ,t, ,,,,:,,,-,rr,ii.,.* :.; ,•.:..,.5.,:v ,V. . ,'.1, ,, ,, .,,,,'.1 '' ‘-'• , ' I- ,:•-• -. yi,:•,... , YT- 4..7, ' •. ,...,' - -.--..,AVI..4 I .'.):' ,. ; 1,,. ,• .. ,..% ,-,' z...t..•,+!z • , ;,;t, 4' At,-.•- .'.• 'hi;5'.:•;', '. • f, ." ‘..,'-' -i„; ',14. . V'.'z.!., ',.,.' ---.%:,-.. ' ' -'• , ..;.....,,y,..--.:.,-;:ill 4-.4.<...., 4 :.-1 't.;1.4 7..,'. ' i. • ' , '• -,•••`'`,Y,,'. ,'.''.'. .:.-s'‘''..i.r.;'-- le . ( 11, . •• •i••f 147.,,,,.. it i ' l+*.+-;'t v ::.',.'"••,` i.t's- r ..- ,'440,• '.1. ' •..A:T. :%ei, . -.,,,/,'4.):, , .. :, .:,.;,i,';‘jf!el,...1 -..:. t,"..s.,....'''.1.L:' '''.'..X.I.ra..k1 '' .i.'.4''r *•......:;...54''.'''••'..., .•7'',it t.eili ct.'.i2.1,i'lf:' • -4./•-'.-:. .7.Y.--.4....`:....'-':Gs...t.',. ._.. _I:._t.,.,........, -.,....,....1....e•....t2, i pathway Shelley Lk 598.jpg PIPO edge Shelley Lk 597.jpg .I . ,. . .,, it , , ,lbr• r--1r-,' 'fii•-::::*• S'• ,fii.g 1 r....1 . ...-0-i,...1.-....,-,...."' .4 0.:i 7 - - .' •7 _ ' -7,-- • 1 . - 4 ; • t ';*".. 'kg*. 't ,,., ,,•-• , . • • • 1 .....- - ;• , •‘,.--..• ..i -... ..• ••,:,,Y.-,6-24,,-4:f.:r is,f-., ,-*-41.,,i(o: •; ,.. .,•• , : •• 2, 's-- - --. .-;•11,v--4-,,A,,..t..r., , - .. i:kk.. , it.iP14,,s.•$!,,!-. ,,. •:,-1,-,-.:,'„1-,,, • .... --,-'-• ,. ...,,.-• • •,,,til _ ......=•••. • .lic' ',:',-.... :-...-....,..;,...: .. , ., ) ..„-,,,,,,2,a,,, ,,c404. ,... ..ii...,•••••,.,. ••. ,7,6',,,,I. ',-,--,,:: -,., •••,,,,••-•-',!...41r.,,,,” '6-^1 , 2, tkoaks•-katili.'iti A,."ctii,- -,-.r.4..'s " ..44.W.,V.:'• ''•4i.,'S•sw e,s•Dt., %.•Ss' c''I'f4 V66.P- 0,/,‘ 14'w-li S, (e"1/4: 14tIC iTeq k'f,,:'t.5'•:V4iit ';`,;, te:-,,,p.,44!4.4:44:•%,..!,::,".v.,..,-,..'....n.b..;1'0,\., ,414.0.Lisi4i-;tifi'.i.- -s. ;i't e,..18,11.,,,t41:-%--;..,,:.-.„,:,..,..r;;,v.,4.A..:,,,,:•,:,,-.;.:,-,-.:, .t......4,?.•41,,,,;:,..;‘....,•i.,41 -..,„. '''''',..s.4%; . 'T " , ' .• ' At-'P..?'....'',,,'"..T.',-.".....".;:••:-0'!".?:;,,,,, •.-'•"•r 40' t%.:.t "Cq'S ''1.*f:C.-• ''''''1"•'' Y." '.4 ,?-^%.:0/1,:%;',..l.;`:'..',. .- ."—,•:,.;,'•:'• ..',•\17''''.,K..,,f4".s'I'.; 41?Zibl*A‘10:= • -.. . f -,,-....... ,., ..% v: •'-•••••''''•,r`.".' "- '''''''..(.., A,''-.A'.., ..,' .f.;''''', `....,:Lit.-''''..c:.'•twki ..,--..... '..-- - %. . . /.,--,.....•.-.4.- ..:!.:'..?, 4. atilit. .. south arm Shelley Lk 596.jpg south arm Shelley Lk 605.jpg STAND Z DATA POINT 38 SHELLEY LAKE •- 4,4" ! - • ,,,,, L.T.L,-',.„....-, - •.' . . - - tc , T• ' . ..." 4' s _ '' 11.• i'S. •.ii 4 +.2'..7.,'--ss-54 ', t *. ,,, ,e,-;•• . , • ... -",,, , ,L '' •',,,.. ., . .,,, :;• .&.1 •i .,- I • ' , - '' 4t ';'idi„r „.„,:!" ' ..,-L-Ls -4 - ,i,-....,,..,---. 4 ..-----....,,w -. -.• -15 1- - , , , '-....- '..- ,'...s,--'.jot--- ;..ti-• -. . r ' . ---•-•-•. et--t-.- ,. • 1. 1 .411 --_-__ ,.., . __ ••••••• ..._ .... , ..---- 1... • z...._:_-,.....-- ......,,,,,,,,,* ,-, , .._. - Q.-•"..1. 411/.......... _ '- .# ` r , t i _ -,- ...44 "'' -- • -3 s • ,.:'.. t'. ....., 44: ‘-••-:.- .- - .."" -i, - 47- -.V4Ais•' .". ' ' '.'. .`• ,,:'\ ., . fi:44' .. .fit- • - • .. .r" ''•? -::'',-.re ,-.4.c. j• - 1) ,- -7. , •-. k -,,./.*::' ,7i "..., ia-_._ ." Iii--:- O2.-- ,*;› : _ u_ :I-; :.1,.• t•-.-•gt..- '-':. '- east bank 622.jpg east bank rock shore 615.jpg . • ••• ••••,-.• ... 1,•...--....-,,. .-, : •.....--4r.-.....,.. It.,-41.- • '.- ..--.1.. •L''',. -., . • '',.•:•., ...., i.,.. • . • --...,:--''•,, ., • ,„,.,:2-,'_•-.' ,• ,c. 4,4 --. .-,i-,41r,,,, ,_, 1 ,_ , .',.. •;:i-',.!'-t',:"'Zi,',.4.--4,sx-t-7:771-7-..: Ao'Fas', -.:-.-. It. ?".!".r'.' - - ''''a * 7 t '..'; •:'-r,. . .• ...,,,---::..-, . p4,-.:-„,f,'..r..=.4...r' . 4,.,:. --,:-... '0, ,,,!:',:- • „,,,,,04;-,,,::,--,--;,,- -, v. ..,.. , -3_, . .. „,..,....4.:. •-- .,...1)., ' -i-• t:::-el".:`,,-; - -._ -,kr• 1 ' - . . '-.,/%. 7-5,!1,. .1i'ra--4 1- 1,- 7'41 -'1,..•-..05?"! ;•.-_.11; -- :,--4.,-•',/ -.., ,-,, t....... _ •:' Y•:, e- •' •- 4- • -...-__ ,, • ,,.E-0-&.-,1:•,-, -,,, , , ; 4, ,-`,....,-..,: ....; li -.4 ' - ;P.'''.#.. IS•!':4-"1" ''', •' .Z'' , •(... • 4.-,; , - . ,..0.4*•:' J ,-,,,MP'*' t; ; . ,.-(- :-''-.; `f ' ''.'"7. ' •' ''. 2: 1 . '4; ...: .--„1 _ ,t 4.-. •,;:-•,.-,•''`'''"A-4#'.* ' ---4.......-. .,-, -,.- • ...';,,----.'"-.- -,s's-' 4.-k..s.,`,!.714 :.-7-,‘,,, : ..- t.4 4,,:. " ;'. .4-',., ' - - --4. V'--•;,.---. .N,r1 * ,',.,,, _ • .,.„,, •„•• _.- :, ,,,"• .-"••,-_,` --1,r,..-„„ • „ -*.,•,-•!-.'I -,-..,44...-4.—A,*,•,-;•!„-0..t...., .., %Afr -5.el; -1.•,.:-. ' %....,--'''' *-- 11:=''''tile; -• `• '1 llaeget6s: ` 1 --'':-::"s44i,i " ',A''..: 4".- '''r".' ,';:','''''. ''''-t: . 4-;fr" ,•A;14'..-4`,-.tr"---/-`:--;''' ' '• .... .:....„.7 clitifitiiiii iiiak*7-y. % :• ,•• L.-A °•", ill .--*,.,',1r--• L'' ,.'',- -., . t. -- - '-' 4,..; '1: ri V.:., I'fr' ' - ---,-.- 0.‘ •• ''' ---, ''' ' - t {-IF '._::.....-----"---"-,-;---:-.:',..----,-1.-:-" - = -,-• '''' 61`.1%.,•1!.-,,,,,,,..,.. ' - -:,".,' ••"vitti.*.17, •:.- 1"',„ • -?it,'" -fsr or t-':'•;:c*,-",,i',0:'e ',4,-....r.4e-."--, J'A.r. •_....64.-1r- . 4,..a...;',-,41,...' ...-:......- ,:r..:."..... . ''' - •0%._._ --,--.4::: . t , 4„ _,"'” ,•,.._. ,...41.14, --4P--Aak-..... - ...-:-- 7.--- ..--- '• ' ,..-0 t., - ,--4 "---4._1' ---,ow- . .---mg- — • . ',,,' . . (,,„ ..1---4' ... osillk- ---'-.._ e..-.• •'-,-., -..7.' ..,.--,,,-.,_ — . - - , ' `,....- ' ',:t-1-1, - -- ---srj, :,,•,.4if,7.. - r-1,yviir":,1---.1';'..,4 1,-...,, 1r' r' .t':;1 - :*•-•-_,-41`,"-e,' s;i'' '-','"-, .---'1.-P,4. -..,-.'4:_7„ -'' ,. : - - •-' ---. ..ile- . -•-• `-"-- *,'*-.."?7'-'2. -.114 .44,,,,.., V.' .4-,' 4°t-ki -':.,-;.1.-....: -:".•.4.4f4-i';,Akritt.i --- '1,51',,t-ks,r: 4 1 -;`; -•::!•/il' '' tr.--,...-. .1t.-:-=or ..,.. - -, - ..."-- ' '•t-4 -t• L-r....-4....44-t.''.• -:-.1 • - I.---, POTR planted 606.jpg POTR planted 607.jpg r ,r,„,-.,Evmsight-52,37v,• ,,.. _ ..,,...„,,,r.---;-, 4.,:,,,,,- p-;-,--7-;" ., ' '''';-1-,;:,!1::li :41.,-#1,-..,- .- ta. , --4,,,,,p A' . csi - ' '"•:i . • "44- 7-44 tqat'44z „, .4,4 .'FP:7? 4";i1t1:! f,'",t, ..„`... ,--%.-, ,- .••1.' , . t• :.. ,,, , •, -5,.14 , ., ;•A 1:..'-' ' fi ...4.ii::k.lel*: -.:. A' ,1 '.N.„-?'.,.. -:".*:!' . •.'-•',....-4-.1.4::., ",' !t•• 'It" ,g-'111% ; -.-- :L- c - _,7...r.-i-- • - • "is ,t--"t' -*I :.---. A ,- - - -, -',-. f.•••,te ...; -ii? .-;.•'..6.4, ...1- "-^'''Z; ;" •t)::. - • - ,_ ' fs "'il',.., -3.,,,-• ' '- - rill-'--17: -. .''-•''!aak Tgv,.." - - ' ' '''i l't.,- - .,,,:) -';'• ... .--,4 • i'.7t,' - 'lt'''. • i.- gr., .' • ' ir.''' .5il•"-- ; - .7,'-' .kt*.. , • _ .... ' '. - ''' • i-i.'"•'•.-.•--t?•••• i '4'- ''• •A ',1-:... ' •,-,e,'S ;,.. ' '' . ;N.'. """-.4,' , . - - • '1 ' ' • ' ' .4;'-'s^*'-' :' ''''':.''. * ,- I -f.." 7-, 1 „, ... - -,4. "'''' '' ' terte ''' '” . ';'-'-- - c 1.,;• ....,')•,.,•-'' , .:,,I_....` fif•''-,',I - 2 :•rf•'' .. -; ' -'.•Ne.-, --•-•"' ...7'",, ) • iq.':-•-••• . • • rir. -1,4 •--...:;-...--. ,„-.. •s:`--';-! ' -.' --1,ftli,',,r,..'...ri41,...--4,:1-'-:": s , ,::, •Als?,,,,,- ,• . ' 1.-4 ii,,'•-•-,.•' - , ;,-:•,"-%1 .6,'', z •-c-- -•:4,t.,•7,4.,-....1. - -. : . '' ••' -1--0W.,. ' . '''''' . ,14, .1,`-..r --F2.-- ----E-.-.•,-;'4,4,-..--.:•-•--, •..,''.-: :..,i,,,.. ,..,S,,- ''•• ••".s.,... ,•r_..,--'' •• 'Vs •',,, "I' • s'''-'''- • ••••-:-•..:-..c ' :::`:".. .1.: -4.1. •..,T,--*.is X' - :.,..„,,,%.?"-"•-•4:,7-•-,---•" z'sr-1 :- „,- .".."..,°`:,.; '' • ,,, ''• ,';'„•* )".-;0-- ,. ,*-,a7'.5----e,, •:-i-tb- -,'":1• -;."`At-••-.*::::•.4,,,••'?'".C..."---f--.'--.11(,•I't,-1-i--,-..41. 'Pt., • • ' --4 ' - :--• ..-- -"i• •-•%,-*- --,..-.---- t•-z.--_,. - .- --.:."'" .--- •t„' _I.,'e•-•- -••-•":.;•,-,••,-"•)1.4.:32.-.Z...s.,;.A.:kF.,•;:•:1 ,.. • • • • .• ... —- :'1.... ... ' ..:44 .,zz. 4..t ",-.,...'.,-/...yti• _ ..,, - '.1.-.1:.---:,..ii-'4.-, .. tt '- ----1`'' .1.- , - ''' 4-='''''•---'- -‘'.,"-I` ' -.IL, -•441,-'=-`°'• -. --- -,. .... . -- 4 '-44'.'"1 - '-'"'"7: ,z-'-t,'`'.'.,,,rsi". '''. - . . - -4,-',A.,..„-: -451-:-...4-.`"' . ,'.' --- , "-,y.f- , .• :.. . ' -- - ' ..--- -..,-- -, .---- ' , -e,,,,e2;-_,„-...'',,-1,-/: ,,, ...* ,:••\'‘-'4,..,„.-...'-z,,••,,! •- ";* , ;/- • ' - r. .. 44,'''''- -' -- - . ••` •-":' ......- I. --.1! ••e_l''..ni.:,,„-• -' '•,*),N;',7_''' '''' %I ..z,A"- - ,- 1.-,.,"-s,„•'''. ''-•:,. , . ,,/,-, ' ,. s. , •,,,- ,7-,_ ' i .• ispwal.' .*•s'px- • ' ''-• ' ,Cilk,7,1k•rs:.:• • 1 •-°..,,-..* rir •tt,,,;*-',-,,,, --- 4.,..Vs. , --'..i.: - -X-',.., , i , - — ‘4%,.. • • ''' .- .. 4c„s - 4-'''','-:-C,Lv- - ' "-'''.--..`''' ' '4.-"-'" ' "---'' '....'.'''''t• 1,.. -. Pt, • . \,-.-411,..- 1'•:‘).--. ' ia• — -..__ -- e‘St-AEXkthickett:fail'ir;gfi1-8-.2jpg' . - ' - '-'--— walkway Shelley Lk 612.jpg 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