The URL can be used to link to this page

13 Painted Hills FEIS and Combined Appendices_Final_5-16-23_Final Painted Hills Development Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Spokane Valley, Washington May 2023 This page intentionally left blank. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page i Final Environmental Impact Statement TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 PUBLIC SCOPING PROCESS ................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 SCOPE OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ............................................................ 3 1.5 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PUBLIC COMMENT ..................................................... 4 SECTION 2. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ...................................................................... 6 FACT SHEET ................................................................................................................................................ 6 2.1 PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................................................................ 8 2.2 LAND DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................. 9 2.2.1 Alternatives Analysis in this FEIS .................................................................................................... 9 2.2.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action ...................................................................................................... 9 2.2.1.2 Alternative 2a: Planned Residential Development—High Infiltration ................................. 9 2.2.1.3 Alternative 2b: Planned Residential Development-- Low Infiltration ................................ 10 2.2.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Consideration....................................................................... 10 2.2.2.1 Low Impact Subdivision Alternative ......................................................................... 10 2.2.2.2 Standard Subdivision Alternative ............................................................................ 13 2.2.3 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................... 18 2.2.4 Permits and Approvals Required for Implementation ................................................................. 18 2.2.5 Relationship Between FEMA and Local Review Processes .......................................................... 19 SECTION 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................... 22 3.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (GROUND AND SURFACE WATER) ............................................................ 22 3.1.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................................. 22 3.1.1.1 Existing Hydrologic Conditions .......................................................................................... 22 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................................... 28 3.1.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action .................................................................................................. 28 3.1.2.2 Alternative 2a – Planned Residential Development—High Infiltration ............................. 28 3.1.2.3 Alternative 2b – Planned Residential Development—Low Infiltration .............................. 29 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................... 30 3.1.3.1 Alternative 1 ...................................................................................................................... 30 3.1.3.2 Alternative 2a .................................................................................................................... 30 3.1.3.3 Alternative 2 ...................................................................................................................... 30 Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page ii Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.1.4 Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................................... 30 3.2 BUILT ENVIRONMENT (LAND USE AND FLOOD HAZARD AREAS) ....................................................... 31 3.2.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................................. 31 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................................... 34 3.2.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action .................................................................................................. 34 3.2.2.2 Alternative 2a – Planned Residential Development-High Infiltration ............................... 35 3.2.2.3 Alternative 2b – Planned Residential Development-Low Infiltration ...................... 47 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................... 48 3.2.4 Indirect Effects ............................................................................................................................. 50 3.2.5 Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................................... 50 3.3 TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................. 51 3.3.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................................. 52 3.3.1.1 Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 52 3.3.1.2 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................. 54 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................................... 56 3.3.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action .................................................................................................. 56 3.3.2.2 Alternative 2a – Planned Residential Development High Infiltration Rate........................ 58 3.3.2.3 Alternative 2b – Planned Residential Development—Low Infiltration Scenario ............... 64 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................... 66 3.3.4 Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................................... 68 3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL .................................................................. 69 3.4.1 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 69 3.4.1.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 69 3.4.1.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................. 70 3.4.1.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 71 3.4.1.4 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................... 72 3.4.2 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................... 72 3.4.2.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 72 3.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................... 73 3.4.2.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 73 3.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................. 77 3.4.2.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 77 3.4.2.4 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................... 78 3.4.3 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................... 78 Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page iii Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.4.3.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 78 3.4.3.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................. 83 3.4.3.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 84 3.4.3.4 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................... 84 3.4.4 Environmental Health .................................................................................................................. 84 3.4.4.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 84 3.4.4.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................. 85 3.4.4.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 85 3.4.4.4 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................... 85 3.4.5 Geology ........................................................................................................................................ 85 3.4.5.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................................ 85 3.4.5.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................. 86 3.4.5.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 86 3.4.5.4 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................... 87 3.4.6 Historic, Cultural, and Archaeological Resources ........................................................................ 87 3.4.6.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 87 3.4.6.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................. 87 3.4.6.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 88 3.4.6.4 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................... 89 3.4.7 Noise ............................................................................................................................................ 89 3.4.7.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 89 3.4.7.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................. 89 3.4.7.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 90 3.4.7.4 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................... 90 3.4.8 Public Services ............................................................................................................................. 90 3.4.8.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 90 3.4.8.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................. 92 3.4.8.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 98 3.4.8.4 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................... 98 3.4.9 Recreation .................................................................................................................................... 98 3.4.9.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 98 3.4.9.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 102 3.4.9.3 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................. 102 3.4.9.4 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................. 102 Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page iv Final Environmental Impact Statement ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................... 104 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................................... 106 APPENDIX A: SEPA CHECKLIST ..................................................................................................................I APPENDIX B: PUBLIC COMMENT INDEX ...................................................................................................II APPENDIX C: IMPACT COMPARISON TABLE – ALTERNATIVE 2A V. STANDARD SUBDIVISION ................ IV APPENDIX D: STANDARD SUBDIVISION ALTERNATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ................................ VI APPENDIX E: FLOOD CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ELEMENT FAILURE RISK AND IMPACT SUMMARY ........... VIII APPENDIX F: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ X APPENDIX G: TRUCK HAUL MEMORANDUM ........................................................................................ XII APPENDIX H: BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION(PAINTED HILLS PRD & OFF-SITE) ........................................... XIV APPENDIX I: CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY – PAINTED HILL .............................................................. XVI APPENDIX J: CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY – GUSTIN PIPE OFF-SITE .............................................. XVIII APPENDIX K: FLOOD CONVEYANCE SYSTEM DIAGRAM ........................................................................ XX APPENDIX L: CERTIFICATE OF TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY ...................................................... XXII APPENDIX M: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM REPORT – CHESTER CREEK ............................................. XXIV APPENDIX N: 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN: CURRENT VS. HEADWORKS FAILURE SCENARIO ..................... XXVI APPENDIX O: DRAFT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL .................................................. XXVIII APPENDIX P: REVISED FLOOD CONTROL NARRATIVE .......................................................................... XXX Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page v Final Environmental Impact Statement TABLES Table 1-1: Painted Hills Site Tax Lots ...................................................................................................... 1 Table 2-1. Project Purpose and Need v. Low Impact Subdivision ......................................................... 11 Table 3-1: Transportation Impact Analysis Land Use Types (TIA Table 5) ............................................ 51 Table 3-2: Level of Service Descriptions ............................................................................................... 52 Table 3-3: Year 2015 Existing Intersections Levels of Service (Table 2 of TIA) ..................................... 55 Table 3-4: Background Projects and Vested AM & PM Trips Table 4 of TIA) ........................................ 56 Table 3-5: 2025 Levels of Service, without the Project, with the Background Projects (Table 7 of TIA) ................................................................................................................ 57 Table 3-6: Estimated Trip Generation – Alternative 2a ........................................................................ 58 Table 3-7: Year 2025 Levels of Service, with the Project, with the Background Projects (Table 19 of the TIA) ........................................................................................................ 59 Table 3-8: Alternative 2A and 2B ADT Comparison – PM Peak Hour Trips ........................................... 64 Table 3-9: Background Projects and Vested AM & PM Trips ................................................................ 69 Table 3-10: Alternative 2A. Estimated Potential Annual Levy Funds Generated at Buildout ............... 94 Table 3-11: Alternative 2b. Estimated Potential Annual Levy Funds Generated at Buildout ............... 97 FIGURES Figure 1-1: Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2-1 Low Impact Subdivision ....................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2-2 Standard Subdivision ........................................................................................................... 14 Figure 2-3 Alternative 2a Site Plan including Gustin Ditch Improvements ........................................... 15 Figure 2-4: Alternative 2b Site Plan including Gustin Ditch Improvements .......................................... 16 Figure 2-5: Alternatives 2a and 2b Comparison .................................................................................... 17 Figure 3-1: Chester Creek 1997 Flood Event – Aerial Photo ................................................................. 23 Figure 3-2: Flooding West of Chester Main Channel (Viewing Eastward on Thorpe) ........................... 23 Figure 3-3: Flooding East of Chester Main Channel (Viewing Westward on Thorpe) ........................... 24 Figure 3-4: Current Drainage Features ................................................................................................. 26 Figure 3-5: Spokane Valley - Rathdrum Prairie Sole-Source Aquifer .................................................... 27 Figure 3-6: Existing FEMA Mapped Floodplain Areas ........................................................................... 33 Figure 3-7: Proposed Drainage Features .............................................................................................. 37 Figure 3-8: Alternatives 2a and 2b – Existing & Future Floodplain Areas ............................................. 38 Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page vi Final Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-9: Painted Hills Flood Management System Element Locations ............................................. 41 Figure 3-10: Study Area Intersections ................................................................................................... 74 Figure 3-11: View of the Site from S. Madison Road ............................................................................ 75 Figure 3-12: View of the Site from E. Thorpe Road............................................................................... 75 Figure 3-13: View of the Site from S. Dishman-Mica Road ................................................................... 76 Figure 3-14: Former Clubhouse and Associated Parking ...................................................................... 76 Figure 3-15: Priority Habitat & Species ................................................................................................. 82 Figure 3-16: Service District Boundaries ............................................................................................. 100 Figure 3-17: Public Recreation Opportunities ..................................................................................... 101 APPENDICES Appendix A ....................................................................................................................................... SEPA Checklist Appendix B .......................................................................................................................... Public Comment Index Appendix C ................................................... Impact Comparison Table – Alternative 2a v. Standard Subdivision Appendix D .................................................................... Standard Subdivision Alternative Environmental Review Appendix E ............................................... Flood Conveyance System Element Failure Risk and Impact Summary Appendix F .......................................................................................................................... Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix G ............................................................................................................. Truck Haul Plan Memorandum Appendix H .......................................................................... Biological Evaluation (Painted Hills PRD and Off-Site) Appendix I ...................................................................................... Cultural Resources Survey (Painted Hills PRD) Appendix J .................................................................................. Cultural Resources Survey (Gustin Pipe Off-Site) Appendix K .....................................................................................................Flood Conveyance System Diagram Appendix L ........................................................................................... Certificate of Transportation Concurrency Appendix M .............................................................................. Technical Memorandum Report – Chester Creek Appendix N ............................................................100-Year Floodplain: Current vs. Headworks Failure Scenario Appendix O ..................................................................................... DRAFT Operations and Maintenance Manual Appendix P .......................................................................................................... Revised Flood Control Narrative Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page vii Final Environmental Impact Statement This page intentionally left blank. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION The subject site of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is an approximately 99.3-acre former golf course located in the City of Spokane Valley (City), referred to herein as the “Painted Hills site.” The Painted Hills site can be generally described as within the southeast (SE) quadrant of Section 33, Township 25 North. Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian. (See Figure 1-1: Vicinity Map). The site is primarily vacant. Although no longer in operation and no longer maintained, the former golf course use is evident by the presence of former fairways, greens, and other golf course features. The former golf course driving range is now in operation as a commercial driving range that is expected to continue to operate until the City’s issuance of an approval on the Planned Residential Development (PRD) request. Table 1-1 identifies the tax lots that compose the subject site, along with the ownership and current zoning designation of the site. The golf course use terminated in 2013 prior to the site being purchased by the current owner. Table 1-1: Painted Hills Site Tax Lots Tax Lot Owner Zoning Size (Acres) 45334.0109 Black Realty, Inc. R3 0.87 45334.0108 Black Realty, Inc. R3 0.87 45334.0113 Black Realty, Inc. R3 0.27 45334.0110 Black Realty, Inc. R3 0.87 44041.9144 Black Realty, Inc. R3 8.24 45334.9135 Black Realty, Inc. R3 1.68 45334.0114 Black Realty, Inc. R3 0.60 45336.9191 Black Realty, Inc. R3 85.07 45334.0106 Black Realty, Inc. R3 0.87 TOTAL 99.34 In addition to improvements occurring on the tax lots identified in Table 1-1, the action alternatives considered in this EIS include improvements to a stormwater pond on tax lot 45343.9052, approximately 1,900 feet east of the northeast corner of the Painted Hills site and to an existing approximately 1,350-foot-long ditch located on tax lots 45344.9155 and 45344.9154. This off-site stormwater pond is referred to as “the triangle pond” due to its triangular shape. The ditch, referred to as the “Gustin Ditch” due to the historical ownership of the underlying parcel, conveys stormwater to the southeast corner of the pond. The project applicant is under contract to purchase the triangle pond property and will complete the purchase prior to construction. Access to the triangle pond will occur via East 40th Avenue, a public local access road. Easement rights to pipe and maintain the Gustin Ditch will be obtained prior to initiation of construction. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 2 Final Environmental Impact Statement 1.2 BACKGROUND On July 24, 2015, NAI Black, herein identified as the “applicant” submitted a PRD application request to the City to construct a new mixed-use development that would include single family residential estate lots, standard single-family lots, cottage or townhome units, multi-family units, commercial development, and open space on the 99.3-acre former golf course site. In its review of the application, the City determined that probable significant adverse impacts could result from stormwater and floodwater improvements and traffic generated by the project. The terms stormwater and floodwater are used to describe separate and distinct sources of water on the project site. The Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) defines a flood as complete or partial inundation of two or more acres of normally dry land or of two or more properties from overflow of inland or tidal waters, unusual and rapid accumulation, or runoff of surface waters from any source. The term floodwater in the FEIS refers to those waters originating from rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source, e.g., a storm event (25-year, 100-year, and 500-year storm event) and snowmelt. By comparison, stormwater is defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as rainwater or melted snow that runs off streets, lawns, and other sites, due to impervious surfaces such as pavement and roofs which prevent precipitation from naturally soaking into the ground. Stormwater in the FEIS refers to surface water runoff originating from impervious surfaces within the Painted Hills PRD. Figure 1-1: Vicinity Map Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 3 Final Environmental Impact Statement 1.3 PUBLIC SCOPING PROCESS On September 8, 2017, the City issued a determination of significance (DS) for the proposed action that identified that an EIS should be prepared to evaluate the effects of the project on the natural environment (ground and surface water), the built environment and transportation. Following the September 8, 2017, issuance of the DS, a public scoping period was held including a public scoping meeting on September 25, 2017. From this public scoping comment period, 251 comments were received. In the weeks following this meeting, it was determined that certain project modifications could be made that would improve the design of floodwater improvements and simplify the long-term management responsibility for these improvements. Between the Fall of 2017 and July 2018, the applicant refined the design of the PRD alternative (Alternative 2a in this FEIS document) and, on August 20, 2018, submitted a supplemental State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist that described the refined project design and included additional environmental documentation regarding the environmental effects of the applicant’s proposed action (See Appendix A). After review of this supplemental SEPA Checklist, the City issued a revised DS, dated October 26, 2018. 124 public comments were received in response to the reissued DS. 1.4 SCOPE OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The DS stated that an EIS should be prepared for the revised project that addresses the natural environment (ground and surface water); built environment (land use, including relationship to land use plans regarding flood hazard areas); and transportation, including the importation of fill. The DS further stated that the alternatives to be analyzed in the EIS should include a “No Action” alternative, the applicant’s Preferred Alternative and an “Alternative 2 Alternative Configuration.” The DS stated that this Alternative 2 Alternative Configuration was intended to evaluate “other reasonable alternatives for achieving the proposal’s objective on the same site according to the existing development regulations.” As discussed further in this document, alternative configurations were considered for the project consistent with the DS. These alternative configurations included a “low impact alternative” that substantially avoided development within designated 100-year floodplain areas and a “standard subdivision” alternative that provided standard single family detached lots throughout the site. After considering these alternatives, it was determined that the low-impact alternative did not sufficiently meet the Purpose and Need for the project which, as a private development, includes the need for a reasonable economic return to the owner and project investors. Further, it was determined that the standard subdivision proposal resulted in marginally increased environmental effects and therefore did not sufficiently meet the criteria for a reasonable alternative consistent with WAC 197-11-440(5)(b). Consequently, these alternatives were eliminated from further consideration. A summary of these alternatives that were considered and subsequently eliminated from further consideration is included in Section 2.2 of the EIS. This document is focused on evaluating the environmental impacts of two alternatives for the Painted Hills site as noted below: Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative): This alternative assumes no development of the site. Alternative 2 (PRD): This alternative represents development of the site through a PRD as permitted under section 19.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and includes significant floodwater management improvements including a gallery of infiltration dry wells. Because a final design infiltration rate within the planned ponds/drywells will not be known until a drywell is installed per City Standard Plans and tested, the precise design infiltration rate cannot be determined at this time. As a consequence, the applicant has developed one action PRD alternative with two variations (Alternative 2a and Alternative 2b) for analysis in this document. Alternative 2a assumes high infiltration rates Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement and therefore a smaller (1.4-acre) floodwater management facility and Alternative 2b assumes lower infiltration rates and therefore a larger (9.3-acre) floodwater management facility. After receiving additional public comments in response to the second DS issuance, the City determined that additional environmental elements would be addressed in the document but to a lesser degree than the primary environmental elements listed in the DS. Those additional elements are included in this document and include:  Air Quality  Aesthetics  Biological Resources  Environmental Health  Geology  Historic, Cultural and Archaeological Resources  Noise  Public Services  Recreation 1.5 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PUBLIC COMMENT AND EIS UPDATES On July 16, 2021, the City issued notice of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a 45-day public comment period. Following the close of the public comment period, the City held a virtual public meeting on September 8, 2021, to obtain further comment and to inform the public of the project and DEIS review status. In total, there were 218 written comments received on the DEIS during the public comment period. These comments are compiled in a matrix format included as Appendix B. The matrix in Appendix B includes direct responses from the EIS author and identifies DEIS sections that have been updated, where applicable. Upon review of comments received on the DEIS during the public comment process, it was determined that revisions to the EIS document were appropriate to provide the following general clarifications: Section 1.1, Introduction:  Updates have been made to clarify the ownership of the Triangle Pond and access to it. Section 3.1 , Natural Environment (Ground and Surface Water)  Updates have been made to clarify the relationship between the triangle pond infiltration and private wells adjacent to the triangle pond and the Painted Hills PRD site.  Updates have been made to clarify the relationship between on-site development and Chester Creek base flows. Section 3.2, Built Environment (Land Use and Flood Hazard Areas):  Updates have been made to clarify long-term maintenance requirements and safety redundancies for on and off-site flood control components, including the triangle pond. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 5 Final Environmental Impact Statement  Updates have been made to clarify the sources of floodwater and implications of a flood conveyance failure event, primarily at the system headworks.  Updates have been made to clarify the vegetative conditions within the upstream Chester Creek Basin for context regarding the improbability of an obstruction at the trash racks.  Updates have been made to include calculations for estimated future replacement costs of the flood conveyance system.  Updates have been made to identify the design standards for stormwater management elements.  Updates have been made to address Chester Creek overflow impacts on hydrologic and hydraulic modeling. Section 3.3, Transportation:  Updates have been made to discuss analysis of cut-through traffic through the Midilome neighborhood.  Updates have been made to discuss construction-related and trip-generated traffic effects on pedestrian and cyclist safety.  Updates have been made to clarify access on Dishman-Mica Road for construction-related traffic and elaborate on the expected number of trips per day associated with fill activities under both alternatives  Updates have been made to add new mitigation measures, including those provided by the city that discuss updating the traffic study relative to procedural reviews.  Updates have been made to add mitigation measures, including a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) crosswalk at the intersection of East 40th Avenue and South Pines/South Madison Road, installation of a two-way, left-turn on Dishman-Mica Road at the site entry, and the installation of northbound right-turn lane on Dishman-Mica Road at the site entry. Section 3.4, Environmental Elements Not Analyzed in Detail:  Updates have been made discussing the fish-bearing status of Chester Creek and implications on site development.  Updates have been made to discuss archaeological and biological surveys at the Triangle Pond property.  Updates have been made to clarify the means by which schools manage and maintain capacities in conjunction with growth.  Updates have been made to clarify the means by which utility providers manage and maintain capacities in conjunction with growth.  Updates have been made to clarify emergency evacuation routes during a wildfire. Please refer to Appendix B for a detailed list of comprehensive responses to public comments and the location of all revisions. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 6 Final Environmental Impact Statement SECTION 2. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FACT SHEET Proposal/Title: Painted Hills Development Final Environmental Impact Statement Description of Proposal: Planned development of the former Painted Hills golf course site to include a mix of residential and commercial uses integrated with open space areas. Description of Alternatives: Two primary alternatives are analyzed: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the Planned Residential Development (PRD) Alternative, which includes two variations, a “High Infiltration Alternative” (Alternative 2a) and a “Low Infiltration Alternative” (Alternative 2b). Location: 99.3 acres located at Section 33, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, West Meridian (on-site) 14.86 acres located at Section 34,Township 25 North, Range 44 East, West Meridian (off-site) Project Proponent: Black Realty Inc. Tentative Date of Implementation: Summer 2023 Name and Address of Lead Agency and Contact: City of Spokane Valley, Contact: Lori Barlow Responsible Official: Lori Barlow Required Local Approvals:  Preliminary Plat/ Planned Residential Development (PRD)  Transportation Concurrency Certificate  Street Plan Approval, Right-of-Way (ROW) Permits (COSV)  Sanitary Sewer Plan Approval (Spokane County)  Water Plan Approval (Water District 3)  Building Permits (COSV)  Landscape Plans (COSV)  Grading and Erosion Control Permit (COSV)  Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA) & Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) Air Quality Permits (as applicable) Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 7 Final Environmental Impact Statement  City Floodplain Development Permit & Land Disturbance Permit (COSV)  Floodplain Development Permit & Land Disturbance Permit (Spokane County) Project Manager and Principal Contributors to Final EIS: City of Spokane Valley Contact: Lori Barlow, Senior Planner 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (EIS Review and Approval) DOWL Contact: Read Stapleton, AICP 720 SW Washington Street; Suite 750 Portland, OR 97205 (EIS Preparation) Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Contact: Ben Goodmansen 21 S. Pines Spokane Valley, 99206 (Civil Engineering and Stormwater Hydrology) WEST Consultants, Inc. Contact: Ken Puhn, P.E. 2601 25th St SE #450 Salem, OR 97302 (Floodplain Impact Analysis) Biology, Soil, & Water, Inc. Contact: Larry Dawes 3102 N. Girard Road Spokane Valley, WA 99212-1529 (Biological Resources) Date of Issuance of Final EIS: Scheduled Date of Final Action: Location of Copies of Final EIS for Public Review: Location of Copies of Final EIS for Purchase and Cost of Copy to Public: Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 8 Final Environmental Impact Statement 2.1 PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of the proposed action is to relieve the under-supply of housing in the Spokane Valley area by implementing a mixed-use residential development that furthers the goals and policies of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and satisfies the owner’s investment return requirement. According to Rob Higgins Executive Vice President of the Spokane Association of Realtors, Spokane County has limited housing inventory. The current inventory as of November 2020 is 74 new construction single family residential properties, and 337 existing single-family residential properties, for a total of 411 properties currently on the market. This represents a supply of approximately one week of housing inventory. The City has long recognized the Painted Hills site as being subject to more intense development. The site is currently designated as Single Family Residential and zoned as R-3. The R-3 zone is the City’s “urban residential” category which allows a potential density of up to 6 units per acre and “provides flexibility and promotes reinvestment in existing single-family neighborhoods.” (SVMC 19.20.015(C). The City zoned the property R-3 to enable maximum residential buildout of the site while recognizing the potential limiting environmental factors. Consistent with the planning goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA) codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.020, development should be encouraged “in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.” Local plans and policies implement the GMA and limit new urban development to areas within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) and constrain the supply of available land. Further, Spokane County is subject to explicit limitations on UGA expansions as stipulated in Section 10 of a 2016 Settlement Agreement with parties who appealed the county’s 2013 UGA expansion. Given the limited ability of Spokane County to expand UGAs and the fact that the proposed development site is one of the largest contiguously owned buildable tracts of residential land in Spokane Valley, the Painted Hills site represents a unique opportunity to provide needed housing supply. Because the UGA constrains potential development in other areas in the region and other environmental or infrastructure limiting factors may restrict developable sites within the UGA, there are few, if any, tracts within Spokane County that allow development to occur on the same scale as the Painted Hills site. The proposed action also satisfies the reasonable investment backed expectations of the applicant. The applicant acquired the property for the purpose of redevelopment after a long-tenured golf facility became financially unfeasible. The use of the planned residential overlay allows for the applicant to develop the site in the manner preferred by the City while providing for floodwater facilities that enhance the open space and recreational value of the project. The expense of the facilities required to develop the project are financially significant and can only be offset by the development of the proposed action at the scale provided for by the applicant. The contemplated land uses, and density of the proposed action are not subject to review because they fit within the adopted development regulations of the City [See RCW 36.70B.030(3)]. This FEIS has been prepared in accordance with the Washington SEPA (RCW 43.21C). This FEIS is not a decision document. The primary purpose of this FEIS is to disclose the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed action. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 9 Final Environmental Impact Statement 2.2 LAND DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES This section describes and compares alternatives evaluated in this FEIS and alternatives that were considered for evaluation but ultimately eliminated. This FEIS analyzes a no-action alternative (Alternative 1) and one action PRD alternative with two variations (Alternatives 2a and 2b). Additional alternatives were initially considered for evaluation in this FEIS. These included a “Low Impact Standard Subdivision” alternative that avoided development within most of the 100-year floodplain areas within the site and a “Standard Residential Subdivision Alternative” with similar stormwater and floodwater management features as the PRD alternative. These alternatives and the reasons for their exclusion from more detailed analysis in this FEIS are discussed further below. This document includes a detailed discussion of impacts to environmental elements identified as a potential concern in the DS. The primary environmental categories analyzed in detail in this EIS include natural environment (ground and surface water); built environment (land use, including relationship to land use plans regarding flood hazard areas); and transportation. Secondary environmental elements that were not addressed in the DS are addressed in brief summaries in this document. These environmental elements include air quality, aesthetics, biological resources, environmental health, geology, historic, cultural, and archaeological resources, noise, public services, and recreation. 2.2.1 Alternatives Analysis in this FEIS The alternatives analyzed in this FEIS are described further below. 2.2.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for comparing the effects of the action alternatives. The No Action Alternative assumes that no on-site or off-site improvements occur in conjunction with or as a result of a residential project on the Painted Hills site. 2.2.1.2 Alternative 2a: Planned Residential Development—High Infiltration Alternative 2a (see Figure 2-3) involves the redevelopment of the Painted Hills site into a PRD within the City. The project will consist of approximately 42 estate single family residential lots, 206 standard single-family residential lots, 52 cottage-style single family residential lots, 228 multi-family residential units, 52 mixed use multi-family residential units integrated with approximately 13,400 square feet of retail/commercial use, 9,000 square feet of future stand-alone retail commercial use and the preservation of the club house and associated parking as a commercial area. Additionally, the site will include greenspace totaling approximately 30 acres including a 10-acre park and wildlife travel corridor. A network of asphalt trails will also be provided. The Painted Hills project will include the construction of streets and sidewalks to access the lots, as well as water, sanitary sewer, and dry utility facilities to serve each lot. Off-site and on-site floodwater management infrastructure improvements will be made that will result in the removal of approximately 48 acres of the site from the FEMA one percent annual-chance-floodplain (100-year floodplain). Floodwater management improvements occurring on the site and on the site frontages will include the replacement of existing culverts under Thorpe Road with a box culvert structure, installation of a concrete lined channel to a pipe system leading to treatment and infiltration facilities; and routing and disposal of flood and seasonal flows that cross Madison Road into a new Painted Hills floodwater management system. Conceptual conveyance of floodwater is illustrated in Appendix K. In addition to on-site improvements, Alternative 2a includes replacing the Gustin Ditch northeast of the Painted Hills site with a 36-inch pipe. Additionally, the proposal includes triangle pond improvements that include Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 10 Final Environmental Impact Statement deepening the pond’s detention basin and installing 18 drywells in the pond bottom to increase the pond’s capacity to infiltrate flows received from the Gustin Ditch under frozen ground conditions. These off-site improvements will eliminate 100-year and 500-year floodwater inflows onto the Painted Hills site from the east as modeled in the current FEMA floodplain insurance study. Further details regarding the design and impacts of the floodwater management improvements under the two PRD variations are provided in the individual environmental element sections of this EIS. Street frontage improvements along Dishman-Mica Road, Thorpe Road, and Madison Road will include curb, gutter, landscape planter strips and/or swales, and sidewalks and/or trails. It is expected that, upon the completion of site grading activities, a FEMA Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) will be completed that would also result in the removal of approximately 44 acres of off-site properties from the FEMA 100-year floodplain. Upon completion of the project, approximately 92 acres will be removed from the FEMA 100-year floodplain on the project site and on off-site properties. 2.2.1.3 Alternative 2b: Planned Residential Development-- Low Infiltration Alternative 2b (see Figure 2-4), like Alternative 2a, involves the redevelopment of the Painted Hills site golf course site as a PRD within the City. The primary difference between the two alternatives is that Alternative 2b significantly increases the size of the floodwater infiltration pond and drywell infiltration gallery at the northern limits of the site. The infiltration pond is larger in Alternative 2b to address recent (January 2020) infiltration testing that indicates slower infiltration might occur on the site when compared to infiltration testing conducted on the site in May of 2016. Therefore, the two variations of the PRD alternative (Alternatives 2a and 2b) provide an analysis of two floodwater storage scenarios on the site (a high infiltration rate scenario and a lower infiltration rate scenario) and the minor PRD refinements that occur on the site around the floodwater storage area. The Alternative 2b development plan consists of 48 estate single family residential lots, 224 standard single- family residential lots, 273 multi-family residential units, 52 mixed use multi-family residential units integrated with approximately 13,400 square feet of retail/commercial use, 9,000 square feet of future stand-alone retail commercial use and the preservation of the club house and associated parking as a commercial area. Additionally, the site will include open space areas totaling approximately 30 acres including a 10-acre park and wildlife travel corridor. The same off-site floodwater infrastructure improvements completed under Alternative 2a would also be constructed under Alternative 2b. Further details regarding the design and impacts of Alternative 2b are provided in the individual environmental element sections of this EIS. See Figure 2-5 for a comparison between Alternative 2a and Alternative 2b. 2.2.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Consideration Through the process of considering alternatives in addition to the applicant’s preferred alternative—PRD Alternatives 2a and 2b—the development team reviewed two other possible alternatives for evaluation in the FEIS. These alternatives are discussed further below. 2.2.2.1 Low Impact Subdivision Alternative In addition to the preferred alternative, the applicant considered a residential development on the site that would avoid development within nearly all mapped 100-year floodplain areas. This alternative is reflected in Figure 2-1. This Low Impact Subdivision Alternative would allow the development of approximately 205 small single family residential “cottage” lots with widths varying between 20 and 40 feet. After review, the applicant determined the alternative failed to meet the project purpose and need as required under WAC 197-11- 440(5)(b). Table 2-1 provides an analysis of the Low Impact Subdivision Alternative relative to the project purpose and need. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 11 Final Environmental Impact Statement Table 2-1. Project Purpose and Need v. Low Impact Subdivision Project Purpose and Need Elements Low Impact Subdivision Improve regional undersupply of housing and fulfill the City’s plan for residential development at urban densities of 6 units per acre. 205 residential units over the 99.3 acres site fails to realize the development potential on the site as designated by the City and as needed to fulfill a regional undersupply of housing. Development of the Low Impact Subdivision alternative would only achieve a gross density of approximately two units per acre, far below the plan-designated capacity of six units per acre. Therefore, this alternative fails to adequately address the housing need within Spokane Valley and the greater Spokane metropolitan area. Satisfy investment backed expectations of the applicant. The proposed project is a private development funded by private investment and, as such, requires that the developer can attain financial returns necessary to satisfy investor obligations and to fund necessary public infrastructure. These infrastructure investments include water, sanitary sewer, road, and stormwater improvements, including improvements to Thorpe Road water passages that regularly flood. The financial return gained from the development of 205 cottage lots is insufficient to satisfy these investment-backed expectations for the project. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 12 Final Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-1 Low Impact Subdivision Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 13 Final Environmental Impact Statement 2.2.2.2 Standard Subdivision Alternative The applicant also considered the development of the site as a standard subdivision. This alternative is illustrated on Figure 2-2 and would involve the same general improvements and fill requirements associated with Alternative 2a. Further, because it would be developed under the City’s standard subdivision requirements and not through a PRD, this alternative would not require setting aside 30 percent of the site for open space. The applicant conducted a thorough analysis of this alternative and concluded this alternative resulted in marginally greater environmental impacts when compared to Alternatives 2a and 2b. Consequently, the alternative failed to meet the standard under WAC 197-11-440(5)(b) which requires that reasonable alternatives should have a “lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation.” This alternative was therefore eliminated from further analysis in the FEIS. A summary comparison of the environmental impacts associated with the Standard Subdivision alternative is included in Appendix C and an unabridged version of the environmental analysis conducted for the standard subdivision is included as Appendix D. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 14 Final Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-2 Standard Subdivision Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 15 Final Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-3 Alternative 2a Site Plan including Gustin Ditch Improvements Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 16 Final Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-4: Alternative 2b Site Plan including Gustin Ditch Improvements Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 17 Final Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-5: Alternatives 2a and 2b Comparison Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 18 Final Environmental Impact Statement 2.2.3 Mitigation Measures Mitigation is intended to avoid or to minimize the potential environmental impacts related to the action alternatives that are proposed. The definition of mitigation under SEPA, that will be used for the purposes of this analysis can be found in WAC 197-11-768 and as noted below: “Mitigation” means: (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 during the life of the action; (5) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or (6) Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. Mitigation measures are addressed in the environmental elements of Section 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. 2.2.4 Permits and Approvals Required for Implementation The following local, state, and federal permits will be required to implement the development under Alternative 2. Local Permits/Authorizations  Preliminary Plat/ PRD  Transportation Concurrency Certificate (Complete dated 2-23-17)  Street Plan Approval, ROW Permits (COSV)  Sanitary Sewer Plan Approval (Spokane County)  Water Plan Approval (Water District 3)  Building Permits (COSV)  Landscape Plans (COSV)  Grading and Erosion Control Permit (COSV)  Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA) & Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) Air Quality Permits (as applicable)  City Floodplain Development Permit & Land Disturbance Permit (COSV)  Floodplain Development Permit & Land Disturbance Permit (Spokane County) State Permits/Authorizations  Construction Stormwater General Permit (CSWGP) Federal Permits/Authorizations  FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 19 Final Environmental Impact Statement 2.2.5 Relationship Between FEMA and Local Review Processes In its review and consideration of this FEIS, the City has requested that the applicant provide a summary of the relationship between FEMA’s review process and the City’s review process and how the array of possible outcomes from FEMA’s review might affect the applicant’s project and the local review process. This section offers a brief discussion of these issues. First, because the installation of dry wells for infiltration testing requires SEPA review, the applicant must complete the EIS review process prior to installing the dry wells and conducting infiltration testing. Because the dry well testing is necessary to confirm the final flood conveyance system design, the applicant expects FEMA to complete its CLOMR review after the City completes the EIS review process and makes a final local decision on the PRD request. The applicant would then install the dry wells, and make any design refinements, if necessary. Final processing of the CLOMR requires the City and County floodplain administrators to sign the Community Acknowledgment Forms (CAF). The applicant anticipates that these local agencies will sign the CAFs after the installation of the dry wells and after the applicant’s design team makes any final system design refinements, following the EIS hearing. Through coordination between the project applicant, the City, and Spokane County, FEMA has agreed to conduct a preliminary review of the CLOMR request in advance of receiving the CAFs. FEMA review of the CLOMR application is in process and FEMA has provided initial comments to the applicant on May 24, 2022, and a second round of comments to the applicant on December 21, 2022. These comments request relatively minor revisions such as expanded responses and revisions to application materials. No modification of the flood conveyance system design is required as a result of these comments; however, the technical review process is not yet complete, and FEMA may provide additional comments that need to be addressed. Because it is expected that the CLOMR review and the City construction document review will be occurring at the same time, the applicant expects that any system design revisions requested/required by FEMA to ensure approval of the CLOMR will be integrated with revisions to the construction document package as necessary before the City issues final approval of the construction documents. If the CLOMR review results in changes to the PRD, such changes would require review and consideration by the City per the provisions of SVMC 19.50.070(B), which stipulate the process for review of changes to approved PRDs. Per SVMC 19.50.070.B(1), if such revisions are determined to affect “precise dimensions or siting of buildings, but which do not affect the basic character or arrangement of buildings approved in neither the final plan, the density of the development, nor the open space requirements” they can be approved by the city manager in conjunction with the building permit and without further land use review. SVMC 19.50.070.B(1) further stipulates that “dimensional adjustments shall not vary more than 10 percent from the original” in order for the changes to be allowed without a revision to the approved PRD. If FEMA’s CLOMR review requires modifications to the approved PRD in a manner that exceeds the thresholds of SVMC 19.50.070.B(1), then such changes are considered a “major adjustment.” In such an instance, the project revisions will require submittal of the adjustment for review by City staff and for final review and approval by the City hearing examiner. If this occurs, it is anticipated that the PRD revision process would proceed concurrent with FEMA’s review of the revised design. The process for addressing SEPA compliance for project changes after the issuance of a FEIS is addressed in WAC 197-11, Sections 600-640. The array of SEPA review possibilities for project changes could include: (A) no review necessary consistent with WAC 197-11-600(2); (B) an EIS addendum is prepared that finds that the revisions do not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives per WAC 197-11- 600(4(c); or (C) a supplemental EIS is prepared documenting that substantial changes are proposed that will likely have significant adverse environmental impacts or new information is provided indicating a proposal's Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 20 Final Environmental Impact Statement probable significant adverse environmental impacts per WAC 197-11-600(4)(d). Because the analysis provided in this FEIS contemplates and addresses the range of environmental effects that can be expected to result from the range of infiltration test results, it is anticipated that the SEPA review process necessary for any design refinements needed to address FEMA’s review would be conducted consistent with (A) above and WAC 197- 11-600(2). The FEMA map revision process concludes with a final LOMR. The LOMR process is completed upon the final installation of fill and flood conveyance improvements per the specifications of the CLOMR and after as-built conditions are provided to FEMA to certify that improvements have been installed consistent with the CLOMR request. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 21 Final Environmental Impact Statement This page intentionally left blank. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 22 Final Environmental Impact Statement SECTION 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (GROUND AND SURFACE WATER) The following section provides a description of the existing conditions of ground and surface waters within the project site and the potential for the project alternatives to affect ground and surface water quality. The ecological features of Chester Creek including habitat functions of the creek and the associated riparian buffer are described in Section 3.4.3.1 Biological Resources. 3.1.1 Affected Environment 3.1.1.1 Existing Hydrologic Conditions The Painted Hills site is in the Chester Creek basin in the southeastern portion of Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 57. Chester Creek originates south of the project site in an area dominated by agricultural lands and rural home sites. The creek flows generally northward, crosses through the southwest corner of the Painted Hills site through a concrete box culvert and terminates in an infiltration basin located approximately four miles south of the Spokane River and northwest of the project site adjacent to Dishman-Mica Road (see Figure 3-4). Peak flooding in the Chester Creek basin typically occurs in winter, unlike the Spokane River system where flooding typically occurs in early spring. Warm winds and rain can melt snow rapidly, leading to low velocity short-duration runoff flooding during winter storms (Michael Baker Inc. 1990). During flood events, Chester Creek has been noted to overtop its banks south of the Painted Hills site and floodwater collects in topographically low areas east of the main channel (See Figure 3-1, Chester Creek 1997 Flood Event - Aerial Photo). Floodwater from south of Thorpe Road eventually reach the Painted Hills site through three 15-inch culverts located under Thorpe Road approximately 500 feet east of where the main channel of Chester Creek crosses Thorpe Road. Under higher flow conditions, water also flows over the road and onto the Painted Hills site at this same location as shown in Figures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 23 Final Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-1: Chester Creek 1997 Flood Event – Aerial Photo1 Figure 3-2: Flooding West of Chester Creek Main Channel (Viewing Eastward on Thorpe)2 1 Photo source: WEST Consultants, Inc.; Originally provided by Spokane County. Photo date and flood event type unknown. 2 Photo taken by WCE on March 14, 2017. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 24 Final Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-3: Flooding East of Chester Main Channel (Viewing Westward on Thorpe)3 Spokane Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer A portion of the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Sole Source Aquifer, which is the primary water source for over 700,000 people in the Spokane region, underlies the Painted Hills site. The aquifer is a large underground formation consisting of gravels, cobbles, and boulders and is reported to store 10 trillion gallons of water (MacInnis et al 2009). The aquifer extends from western Idaho to the eastern area of Washington State. This underground formation extends south from near the Bonner County-Kootenai County line in Idaho west of Lake Pend Oreille. From there, it extends south toward Coeur d’Alene Lake and then west into Washington through the Spokane River Valley as shown in Figure 3-5. The aquifer follows the valley and terminates near the confluence of the Spokane and Little Spokane Rivers west of the City of Spokane. Water is contributed to the aquifer by adjacent lakes, streams, the Spokane River, and precipitation. This highly permeable area of deposits is covered in many locations by a relatively thin topsoil layer and is therefore susceptible to pollution. The Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer was designated a Sole Source Aquifer in 1978. On the Painted Hills site, the aquifer is overlain by a relatively slow-draining topsoil layer. Groundwater depths vary on the site. Multiple geotechnical borings have been conducted on the site by Inland Pacific Engineering Company (IPEC). Field investigations and borings have been taken in different locations and at different times of the year. Geotechnical borings were taken at multiple times between April and October 2014 at locations immediately adjacent to Chester Creek along the site. These borings revealed groundwater depths ranging from 7.5 to 18 feet, with shallower depths closer to Thorpe Road (IPEC, Feb 12, 2015 / Revised Aug 29, 2016). Borings taken up to a depth of 25 feet near the Chester Creek crossing of Dishman-Mica Road failed to reach the water table. Geotechnical borings taken in January 2015 reveal groundwater depths ranging from 11 to 47 3 Photo taken by WCE on February 17, 2017. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 25 Final Environmental Impact Statement feet throughout the south-central portion of the site (IPEC, July 23, 2016). Additional borings taken in March 2016 at the north end near the planned floodwater infiltration facility found depths of 71 feet and deeper. Therefore, the composite of investigations completed for the site indicate a moderately deep to very deep groundwater table profile across the site, with the deepest locations at the north end of the site near the location of the planned floodwater infiltration facility. It should be noted that multiple infiltration tests have been conducted on the Painted Hills site. These include both full-scale drywell tests and bore hole infiltration tests to determine the potential infiltration rates expected from the proposed drywell facilities. IPEC completed a full-scale drywell test on the Painted Hills site on May 6, 2016, and the results from this analysis were documented in an August 21, 2017 report. This test determined that each drywell should be assumed to have a design “outflow” rate of 1.05 cubic feet per second (cfs) after applying a safety factor of safety of 1.1. The interface surface is between the native soil and the drywell rock placed around each drywell. This calculation results in a design infiltration rate of 1.8 x 10-3 cfs/square foot. A full-scale drywell test, as conducted with the IPEC study, is considered the best method to determine the actual operation or outflow rate that a drywell would have. The installation method involves first excavating the native soil, then lining the area with a geofabric material, covering all exposed native material, installing drywell barrels and then backfilling the voids with drain rock. Once the drain rock is placed, geofabric is installed over the top of the drain rock up to the cone of the drywell and then backfilled. This method ensures the highest infiltration rates into the native soil material and best replicates the function of the proposed drywells. In a 2019 review of the Whipple Consulting Engineers (WCE) infiltration design for the preferred alternative, the City’s third-party engineering consultant, Stantec, recommended additional infiltration testing, within the site area where the proposed infiltration pond will be located. This was due to the fact that the full-scale drywell that was tested was 230 feet from the location of the drywell gallery in Alternative 2a to avoid impacts within the 100-year floodplain. In response to this request, the applicant hired Budinger & Associates, Inc. to perform additional infiltration testing within the location of the gravel/drywell gallery. Because the future drywell gallery is within the 100-year floodplain, the City determined that the installation of a drywell in this location would exceed minimum SEPA review thresholds. Therefore, a full-scale drywell test was not conducted in this location, as was done with the May 2016 IPEC test, and instead Budinger & Associates conducted infiltration testing using bore holes. The bore hole testing used an 8-inch diameter steel casing drilled down to a depth of 60 feet. For the infiltration test the bottom 30 feet of a bore hole was filled with pea gravel. The casing pipe was then lifted 30 feet exposing the pea gravel to the native soil. It has been noted by the engineers that this method introduces a layer of fine silty material against the casing pipe. With the removal of the casing pipe the layer of silty material remains between the interface of the native soil and the pea gravel and can inhibit infiltration. Once established the bore holes were filled with water and a constant hydraulic head was maintained. The measured water provided an outflow rate for the bore hole. An average of the observed rates from three bore hole tests resulted in an infiltration rate of 4.6296 x 10-6 cfs/square foot, which is less than the IPEC full scale drywell test. This result is documented in the June 1, 2020 Budinger report. While the results of the two infiltration tests vary considerably, WCE believes that the true design infiltration rate lies somewhere in between. As a result, the applicant has prepared two alternatives under the preferred development. Alternative 2a has been designed with floodwater management facilities assuming high infiltration rates per the May 2016 IPEC study and Alternative 2b was developed to reflect the much slower infiltration rates of the Budinger & Associates, Inc. study. These two variations of Alternative 2 are discussed in greater detail throughout this document. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 26 Final Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-4: Current Drainage Features Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 27 Final Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-5: Spokane Valley - Rathdrum Prairie Sole-Source Aquifer Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 28 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences 3.1.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Under Alternative 1, there will be no physical improvements on-site or off-site that would affect floodwater flows or change ground conditions. Floodwaters that currently reach the Painted Hills site will continue to reach the site and will remain on site until they are able to infiltrate to the aquifer. Under Alternative 1, there would be no significant impact to the channel of Chester Creek. Floodwaters would continue to reach the Painted Hills site as they currently do and would remain onsite until they are able to infiltrate naturally to the underlying Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. Because no change to ground conditions would occur, Alternative 1 would have no significant impact on the Spokane Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. Under Alternative 1, there would be no significant impact on residential wells adjacent the Painted Hills site. The underlying Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer would continue, as it currently does, to supply the water for these wells. 3.1.2.2 Alternative 2a – Planned Residential Development—High Infiltration Under Alternative 2a, the widening of Thorpe Road to meet city road standards would require a 15-foot widening of the Chester Creek bridge. Additionally, a new box culvert would be installed at Thorpe Road, in the location where three 15-inch pipes currently convey floodwaters onto the Painted Hills site from the property to the south. Floodwater that enters the project site under this alternative would be collected in a series of pipes and swales and would infiltrate into the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie aquifer via an engineered infiltration basin. Although annual inflow volumes have not been determined, peak two-year storm event inflows from the Unnamed Tributary and the Golf Course Overflow Reach to the 68 drywells within the two facilities are estimated to be less than 13 cfs. These inflows are derived from mostly rural subbasins with low contaminant loads relative to developed areas with significant impervious surfaces from roofs, streets, and parking lots. For comparison, the highly developed 2.81 sq mi drainage area to the north contains 1,059 drywells that drain directly to the aquifer. This drainage area is estimated to have a peak two-year event inflow to the 1,059 drywells of approximately 167 cfs, which is 13 times greater than the estimated peak inflow from the two FEMA identified flooding sources. Therefore, floodwaters will continue to infiltrate on the site under typical conditions and no appreciable change in volumes of water that reach the aquifer via the Painted Hills site are anticipated to occur under Alternative 2a. This conclusion is supported by findings in a technical memorandum prepared by WEST Consultants March 12, 2008, and included with this FEIS as Appendix M. Under Alternative 2a, no significant impacts to the channel of Chester Creek from the widening of Thorpe Road are anticipated. If it is confirmed that the existing web girder bridge cannot be widened by adding a box culvert, Thorpe Road Bridge (SPOKV-4421) will be redesigned to satisfy the design elements and requirements outlined in the WSDOT Bridge Design Manual (LRFD) M23-50.20, dated September 2020. In this case, a new load rating for the bridge will be established. Under Alternative 2a, there would be no significant impact to the volume of the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie aquifer. Water that currently recharges the aquifer would continue to recharge the aquifer through permeable areas on-site including the infiltration pond installed in the northeast corner of the Painted Hills site and therefore no significant impacts to the existing groundwater levels are anticipated and as supported through findings in WEST’s technical memorandum (Appendix M). Groundwater mounding beneath infiltration structures such as the infiltration pond proposed under Alterative 2a can cause localized flooding in situations where there is a subsurface limiting layer at or just below the bottom of the structure. Based on the results of infiltration tests described in Section 3.1.1.1, soils underlying the Painted Hills site are alluvial soils with fine particles on top of coarse sands. These coarse sands are Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 29 Final Environmental Impact Statement reported to extend 70 feet below the ground surface. Based on the presence of this deep deposit of permeable material, groundwater mounding beneath the proposed infiltration system is not anticipated. Under Alternative 2a, there would be no significant impact to residential wells. All existing residential wells are located at least 100 feet from the drywells proposed for the Triangle Pond. WAC 173-160-171 provides minimum setback distances ranging from 5 feet to 100 feet for wells from most potential contamination sources. The proposed drywells and infiltration basin would not generate contamination that could affect the quality of water in the residential wells and under the WAC the setback distance would be sufficient to protect the residential wells even if the drywells or infiltration basin were considered sources of contaminants. Under Alternative 2a and 2b, there would be no significant impact to water quality or quantity in the channel of Chester Creek from stormwater due to the fact that stormwater from all impervious surfaces associated with new development will be treated in accordance with the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM) and directed to the stormwater management system, which is separated from the floodwater management system and is not connected to Chester Creek. The proposed flood control components are designed to convey and infiltrate flood water during a 100-year flood event and would not restrict or draw down existing flows in Chester Creek. Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces within the Painted Hills PRD site would be typical of the development types—commercial, multi-family and single family residential—occurring with the project. Stormwater from residential lots is anticipated to infiltrate on the lots, or flow from driveways to the public rights of way, where stormwater will be directed to roadside swales for treatment. Similarly, in the future multi-family and commercial areas, stormwater will be treated, detained, and infiltrated consistent with the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM). The two 48-inch pipes would end at a vertical headwall where the floodwater would be released onto a concrete pad and flow across a level spreader into a sloped, 269 cfs capacity biofiltration swale. Suspended solids in the floodwater would be filtered out by tall grasses planted in the biofiltration swale. At the end of the biofiltration swale, the water would enter a settling pond where additional suspended sediments would precipitate to the floor of the pond. Water would be retained in the settling pond until the pond depth exceeds 1 foot, at which point the water would flow through two 48-inch pipes into either a 1.4 or 9.3-acre infiltration pond that would be 2 feet below the elevation of the rock weir. The biofiltration swale, settling pond, and infiltration pond will be designed to meet standards of the SRSM and Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW). 3.1.2.3 Alternative 2b – Planned Residential Development—Low Infiltration Under Alternative 2b, as with Alternative 2a, the widening of Thorpe Road to meet city road standards would require a 15-foot widening of the Chester Creek bridge. Under Alternative 2b, stormwater quality and quantity impacts would be the same as those described for Alternative 2a. As described for Alternative 2a, under Alternative 2b, there would be no significant impacts to water quality and water quantity in the channel of Chester Creek from the widening of Thorpe Road; and there would be no significant impact to the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie aquifer. Water that currently recharges the aquifer would continue to recharge through the permeable floor of the infiltration basin proposed in the northeast corner of the Painted Hills site. As with Alternative 2a, it is not anticipated that Alternative 2b would significantly impact residential wells as WAC 173-160-171 provides minimum setback distances ranging from 5 feet to 100 feet for wells from most potential contamination sources. The proposed drywells and infiltration basin do not pose a significant risk to Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 30 Final Environmental Impact Statement the quality of water in the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Aquifer and, by association, the nearby residential wells due to the greater than 100-foot setback between the Painted Hills PRD and the nearest well. 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures 3.1.3.1 Alternative 1 There are no significant impacts with Alternative 1, therefore no mitigation measures would be required. 3.1.3.2 Alternative 2a Mitigation for Alternative 2a would consist of floodwater management methods that include the installation of grassed percolation areas, evaporation ponds, drywells, and gravel galleries depending upon soil types at the locations of the proposed facilities. Stormwater management methods from the Eastern Washington Low Impact Design (LID) manual or LID ponds may be used to minimize the extent of runoff from new on-site impervious surfaces created with the onsite development. 3.1.3.3 Alternative 2 Mitigation for Alternative 2b consists of the same floodwater management methods as those described for Alternative 2a above, except that under Alternative 2b, the permeable infiltration basin will be larger. 3.1.4 Cumulative Effects Because on-site and regional development would be required to employ floodwater quality and quantity management measures consistent with the SRSM, no cumulative effects are anticipated. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 31 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.2 BUILT ENVIRONMENT (LAND USE AND FLOOD HAZARD AREAS) 3.2.1 Affected Environment Land Uses and Zoning The current land use of the Painted Hills site is a non-operating golf course. The former club house has been repurposed as a commercial restaurant. On February 5, 2021, the City approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) request (CUP-2020-0004) that allows for the re-utilization of the former Painted Hills golf course driving range as a commercial driving range use on the site. The driving range will not require any new improvements and will occupy an approximately 7.38-acre location within the Painted Hills site. The driving range will be located northeast of the existing restaurant building and customers of the driving range facility will park in the existing parking lot. The no action alternative assumes that the driving range will continue as a land use on the property. SEPA review for the driving range facility occurred in conjunction with the City’s review of CUP-2020-0004 and the City’s SEPA documentation for the driving range is incorporated by reference. Pursuant to Condition 7 of the CUP approval, the driving range approval will expire upon the City’s issuance of an approval on the PRD request filed under SUB-2015-0001/PRD-2015-0001.The current land uses adjacent to the Painted Hills site include a mix of dense single-family residential development on former agricultural land, remaining undeveloped small tracts of agricultural land, and forested land with varying densities of residential development. Land uses surrounding the project site include, north of the property line into the City, dense residential development. A church and residential development border the Painted Hills site at the northwest (NW) corner. A Central Valley School district campus including University High school, Chester Elementary School and Horizon Middle School is located northeast (NE) of the site. From the east property line (S. Madison Road) hay fields and pasture extend 250 to 500 feet toward the toe of the surrounding forested slopes. Low density rural residential development extends east up the forested hillsides. Commercial and single-family residential development extends south from Thorpe Road except for the Chester Creek drainage and associated flood plain areas which are mainly forested and small tract agriculture. Undeveloped forested hillsides extend about 1,200 feet east to the densely developed Ponderosa neighborhood. A mixture of commercial and residential land uses extends NW along Dishman-Mica Road. The current zoning classification of the Painted Hills site is R-3, Single Family Residential, and the Comprehensive Plan designation is Low Density Residential (LDR). Sources of Flooding Floodwater has been known to enter the Painted Hills site from two separate locations: 1) from a split flow path originating from the main channel of Chester Creek south of the Painted Hills site (known as the Golf Course Overflow Reach), and 2) from the hills to the east of Madison Road which borders the eastern boundary of the Painted Hills site. The effective FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS), as shown on Figure 3-6, indicates that floodwater could enter the Painted Hills site from a third location during the 1 percent annual-chance-flood event (100-year flood). Based on the FIS, floodwater originating from an unnamed tributary to Chester Creek near State Route (SR) 27 could potentially reach the Painted Hills site from the northeast. Additional details regarding these three sources of floodwater and how they flow onto the Painted Hills PRD site are provided below. Floodwater enters the Painted Hills site from the south when the main channel of Chester Creek overflows its banks approximately 3,000 feet upstream (south) of Thorpe Road. This floodwater flows north along a topographically low area east of the main channel of the creek and reaches the Painted Hills site through three 15-inch culverts located under Thorpe Road approximately 500 feet east of where the main channel of Chester Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 32 Final Environmental Impact Statement Creek crosses Thorpe Road. Under higher flow conditions water also flows over the road and onto the project site at this same location. The floodwater originating from south of the Painted Hills site does not rejoin the mainstem of Chester Creek due to topography and the presence of a small on-site levee system located along the right bank of the main channel, as well as the Dishman-Mica Road embankment located north of the levee. Instead, the floodwater remains on the Painted Hills site until it infiltrates (WEST 2016). Runoff also reaches the project site from the east. Water from the hillside above and east of Madison Road flows to a flat area adjacent to the east side of Madison Road and is conveyed onto the project site through four 15-inch culverts (a fifth culvert exists but does not convey water onto the site because the outlet is buried), (Personal Communication with Ken Puhn, WEST Consultants 2018). The area east of Madison Road is included in the mapped FEMA 100-year floodplain as shown on Figure 3-6. There are no natural outlets for floodwater once it reaches the Painted Hills site. Once the site is inundated, water remains until it can infiltrate to the aquifer below. Depending upon the amount of floodwater present, the southern portion of the Painted Hills site can remain flooded for up to 40 days. (Biology, Soil & Water 2019) An unnamed tributary to Chester Creek near Highway 27 east of the Painted Hills site currently conveys stormwater flows towards the site via a 36-inch culvert and this culvert empties into a perched ditch that flows west across the Gustin property (Parcel Number 45344.9108). The floodwater flows through the ditch and into triangle pond located northeast of E 40th Avenue (Parcel Number 45343.9052). The existing ditch has been maintained over the years by the property owner to ensure that any floodwater that comes out of the culvert under Highway 27 will be conveyed to the existing triangle detention pond. This off-site area is included in the mapped FEMA 100-year floodplain. The south embankment of the perched ditch is considered by FEMA to be a levee that is not certified to contain the 100-year flood; therefore, the FEMA FIS also includes mapping that represents a failure of the south bank during which floodwaters flow south to a lower elevation and then flow west to the Painted Hills site, bypassing the triangle pond. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 33 Final Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-6: Existing FEMA Mapped Floodplain Areas Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 34 Final Environmental Impact Statement FEMA Floodplain Designation FEMA’s 100-year floodplain designation has both regulatory and financial implications for development on the Painted Hills site. From a regulatory perspective, any development within the 100-year floodplain in the City triggers review under SVMC Section 21.30 (Floodplain Regulations). For properties within unincorporated Spokane County, floodplain development triggers review under Spokane County Code (SCC) Section 3.20 (Flood Damage Protection). These regulations stipulate measures that must be taken in order to change site grades within a floodplain, including compensatory measures to mitigate potential off-site flooding if fill is proposed within a floodplain. The regulations also include floodproofing measures for new structures in the floodplain and other development standards. Adoption of these local standards is necessary for a community to participate in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) which enables a community to have access to flood insurance. If a property can successfully be removed from FEMA’s mapped 100-year floodplain through FEMA’s LOMR process, it can be relieved of both the regulatory burden of compliance with the local floodplain ordinance and also of the financial burden of the requirement to obtain flood insurance, which is a requirement of any Federal Housing Authority (FHA)-insured mortgage. Due to the lack of an outlet and the potential for floodwaters to enter the Painted Hills site from two separate locations, the Painted Hills site is designated by FEMA as a compensatory storage area in the 2010 Flood Insurance Study (FEMA 2010). Additionally, much of the Painted Hills site is included in the mapped FEMA 100- year floodplain. See Figure 3-6, Existing Mapped FEMA Floodplain Areas. The overall purpose of the “compensatory storage” designation is to ensure that development activities do not cause an adverse impact on flood elevations within the designated compensatory storage area, or upstream or downstream of the development. The designation is intended to ensure that there is no increase in the volume of water reaching the downstream sites due to reduced infiltration capacity or due to fill within the area that could cause an increase to flood elevations on neighboring properties. Under the compensatory storage area designation, any loss of flood storage capacity on the Painted Hills site due to placement of fill must be mitigated with an equivalent compensatory volume of storage or through a reduction in flows such that the net condition causes no adverse impact to the base flood or floodway elevations within the storage area. In addition, loss of infiltration capacity due to placement of fill or impervious surfaces must be mitigated to ensure that any decrease in infiltration capacity will cause no adverse impact to the base flood or floodway elevations within or upstream or downstream of the storage area. In summary, development activities within a compensatory storage area must be compensated or mitigated to ensure no adverse impacts to flood levels. 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences 3.2.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Under Alternative 1, there would be no modifications to the existing system of culverts and ditches that convey floodwater onto the Painted Hills site. There would be no change in the mapping of the 100-year floodplain on- site or off-site and the Painted Hills site would maintain its FEMA compensatory storage area designation. Under this alternative, when Chester Creek overtops its banks south of the Painted Hills site, floodwaters would potentially inundate the property south of Thorpe Road and flow under, and potentially over Thorpe Road to reach the Painted Hills site. Floodwater that reach the site from the south would reside on the Painted Hills site and on the property to the south, and naturally infiltrate to the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie aquifer. No significant impacts to land use or the extent of the 100-year floodplain are anticipated under Alternative 1 because no alterations would be implemented on or adjacent to the Painted Hills site. Therefore, all properties that are currently subject to the floodplain regulations and the NFIP would remain as currently mapped by FEMA. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 35 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.2.2.2 Alternative 2a – Planned Residential Development-High Infiltration Sources of Floodwater Under Alternative 2a, the Chester Creek floodwaters will continue to reach the site and will be received and managed through a series of conveyance and recharge improvements. The potential impacts of floodwater from the unnamed tributary to Chester Creek NE of the Painted Hills site will be eliminated due to placement of the existing Gustin Ditch into a pipe that connects directly to the triangle pond detention basin where floodwaters will infiltrate. Floodplain Map Modifications and Floodwater Management Improvements Under Alternative 2a, the applicant proposes to address the FEMA requirements associated with the compensatory storage area designation through obtaining a CLOMR which will seek to remove most of the floodplain from the Painted Hills site based on the proposed flood conveyance facilities and fill. Under the CLOMR process FEMA evaluates the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source on a site or sites and the result of modifications of the existing regulatory floodway, the effective Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), or the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The letter is a conditional authorization to amend the NFIP map. Once land modifications are completed, the applicant must request a LOMR to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) to finalize the removal of specific areas from the 100-year floodplain designation. "As-built" certification and other data must be submitted to support the revision request. Under Alternatives 2a and 2b, the FEMA’s CLOMR/LOMR process would result in the removal of approximately 48 acres of FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain from the Painted Hills site, and another 44 acres of 100-year floodplain from off-site properties. (See Figure 3-8, Alternatives 2a and 2b - Existing and Future Floodplain Areas.) As noted on this figure, the entire off-site area immediately east of Madison Road currently designated as 100-year floodplain would lose its floodplain designation and the impact of the potential for ponding in that area from floodwaters would be effectively eliminated. Alternatives 2a and 2b would also remove the currently designated floodplain between the northeast corner of the Painted Hills site and SR 27, including the Gustin property. The 100-year floodplain will be removed from most of the site, with the exception of portions of the northwest corner. The proposed multifamily development is located adjacent to an area that will remain in the mapped flood hazard area. As currently designed, the access route to this multi-family is located in the flood hazard area. Final design of the northwestern corner of the PRD site will ensure an access route to the proposed multi-family development that is outside of the flood hazard area, consistent with fire and emergency service design standards. The intent of the floodwater conveyance system is to permanently remove most of the flood hazards that currently exist both on and in the vicinity of the Painted Hills site. The capacity and redundancies built into the proposed flood conveyance system will have the positive impact of preventing flooding. Concerns regarding the risk to health and human safety in the event of a failure of the flood conveyance system were raised by agency staff and public commenters. In consideration of this concern, the project design team critically reviewed the potential for failure of various elements of the system, in particular elements that are critical to the intake and outflow of floodwaters. Because the on-site flood conveyance has a singular intake for floodwaters at the headworks—as opposed to the broad infiltration basin with multiple drywells and outflow pathways—it was determined that the headworks represented the most critical element to flood mitigation and would create the greatest off-site impact if it were to fail. As a consequence, WEST performed modeling to evaluate the peripheral areas that would be subject to inundation to help determine the risk associated with a complete obstruction of the headworks. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 36 Final Environmental Impact Statement With its model, WEST compared flood inundation in a headworks failure scenario to the current 100-year floodplain to determine the extent to which off-site properties would be impacted under Alternatives 2a and 2b in the unlikely event that a total obstruction of the headworks occurs. As noted in Appendix N, off-site areas subject to inundation under a total headworks failure scenario are largely the same as areas subject to inundation in a No Build Scenario (Alternative 1). Under a complete headworks failure scenario, approximately 6.89 acres of off-site properties experience reduced flood risk compared to inundation represented in present day FEMA 100-year floodplain mapping. Comparatively, 1.09 acres of off-site property could potentially experience flooding that wouldn't otherwise see flooding under present 100-year flood conditions. Therefore, some increased flooding would occur beyond present day conditions in limited areas under a total headworks failure, but the majority of the area subject to inundation in a headworks failure scenario will be the same as present day 100-year flooding conditions. Redundant safety features and operations and maintenance of the flood conveyance system are therefore critical to minimize risk to off-site properties in the vicinity of the Painted Hills PRD. One potential adverse impact that could result from the removal of the FEMA floodplain designation from the Painted Hills site or off-site properties could be that the implementation of the flood conveyance system provides a sense of security to potential homebuyers, encouraging them to purchase a home on a site they believe to be safe from flooding. In the unlikely event that the flood conveyance infrastructure fails, these homeowners could be temporarily displaced until the system failure is remedied and flood damage is repaired. Potential points of failure associated with the proposed flood conveyance infrastructure and related impacts are discussed in detail later in this section. Under Alternative 2a, floodwaters would be controlled and managed, and compensatory storage requirements would be addressed on the Painted Hills site through a combination of enhanced conveyance facilities (culverts and pipes), infiltration galleries, and imported fill. Overflows from the Chester Creek channel on the south side of Thorpe Road would be conveyed north under the road through a new 30-foot long by 3-foot-deep box culvert with capacity to pass 500-year flood flows along the Golf Course Overflow Path without overtopping Thorpe Road. This new box culvert would replace the existing set of three, undersized 15-inch culverts. On the north side of the new box culvert, floodwater would enter an open channel that connects to a sloped headwall holding two 48-inch concrete pipes. These pipes would have capacity to convey flood volumes up to the 500-year flood. The two 48-inch pipes would extend north for approximately 2,100 feet along Madison Road and would intercept and convey water from four existing 18-inch culverts that convey water from the Madison Hills under Madison Road. These connections would allow the design flow rate of 15 cfs from the Madison Hills to be added to the 91 cfs, for a total design flow rate of 106 cfs (the 100-yr levee-failure scenario). Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 37 Final Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-7: Proposed Drainage Features Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 38 Final Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-8: Alternatives 2a and 2b – Existing & Future Floodplain Areas Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 39 Final Environmental Impact Statement The two 48-inch pipes would end at a vertical headwall where the floodwater would be released onto a concrete pad and flow across a level spreader into a sloped, 269 cfs capacity biofiltration swale. Suspended solids in the floodwater would be filtered out by tall grasses planted in the biofiltration swale. At the end of the biofiltration swale, the water would enter a settling pond where additional suspended sediments would precipitate to the floor of the pond. Water would be retained in the settling pond until the pond depth exceeds 1 foot, at which point the water would flow through two 48-inch pipes into either a 1.4 or 9.3-acre infiltration pond that would be 2 feet below the elevation of the rock weir. The biofiltration swale, settling pond, and infiltration pond will be designed to meet standards of the SRSM and Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW). The floodwater infiltration system is designed to eliminate flooding impacts by ensuring that floodwater can infiltrate on-site under normal ground conditions as well as in situations where the ground is frozen and infiltration through the ground is not possible or is extremely limited. Under normal conditions, floodwater will have the opportunity to infiltrate through all permeable surfaces after exiting the two 48-inch pipes, including the biofiltration swale, the settling pond, the infiltration pond, and the gallery containing the dry wells. The infiltration pond has an outflow capacity of 730.43 cfs as provided in WCE’s flood control narrative (Appendix P). When the ground is frozen and infiltration through the ground surface is reduced and water levels within the infiltration basin rises by 1 foot in elevation, the water would crest over the rims of the 50 individual drywells and infiltrate into the native soils. The drywells would have a combined design capacity of 52.5 cfs, per the IPEC infiltration rate. Under Alternative 2a, the flood conveyance system has been designed to convey floodwater from a 100- year event in which a concurrent failure of the existing non-certified levee upstream of Thorpe Road occurs. Conveyance of floodwater during a 100-year storm in which the non-certified levee fails is feasible due to enlarged conveyance pipes, designed to include a “factor of safety” that assumes a greater capacity (145 cfs) than the modeled design storm (106 cfs) (WEST CLOMR, 2022). In addition to managing the impacts of floodwater from off-site that enters the Painted Hills site, Alternative 2a would also modify the Gustin Ditch located off-site to the northeast of the Painted Hills site, from an open ditch to a 36-inch pipe, to eliminate the potential for floodwater entering the site from sources to the east. The piping of the Gustin Ditch would remove the future possibility of the ditch flooding the lowlands to the south if the south embankment were to fail as depicted in the FEMA FIS. Alternative 2a would also deepen the triangle pond detention basin and install 18 new drywells in the pond bottom to increase the infiltration capacity of the pond and to further protect against potential flooding of the area west of SR 27 and east of the Painted Hills site. The implementation of Alternative 2a will require the flood hazard management system to remain in optimal condition in perpetuity. For conservative planning purposes, each element of the system has been designed to accommodate more floodwater than the design storm. The 48-inch pipes that convey Chester Creek overflow water to the infiltration basin at the north end of the site and the infiltration basin itself are of particular importance to the function of the overall floodwater conveyance system. To ensure that these conveyance pipes have sufficient capacity to convey floodwaters on the site, they have been designed to accommodate a “factor of safety” that assumes a greater capacity (145 cfs) than the modeled design/100-year storm (106 cfs). These pipes have been specified and designed to ensure a 100-year lifespan. The infiltration basin installed with both Alternatives 2a and 2b has been designed to infiltrate 290.76 acre-feet over a period of weeks, and the dry well galleries have been included in the design to effectively infiltrate the peak flow rate of the 100-year storm for when the infiltration capacity of the basin is compromised due to partially frozen ground conditions. The dry wells, which extend down to a depth of 12 feet below the finished ground surface have been designed with standpipes that will extend up to one foot above the pond surface to ensure that the inlets will be above any frozen surfaces and floodwaters will continue to infiltrate through the dry wells even in partially frozen ground condition situations. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 40 Final Environmental Impact Statement Individual elements of the proposed flood conveyance system have the potential to fail under extreme circumstances. However, if properly maintained, the likelihood of failure of any one element is small. Each element has been designed to withstand water volumes in excess of the 100-year storm and floodwater conveyance pipes have been sized to accommodate 1.3 and the ponds are sized at 3 times the quantity of water predicted to be produced by the 100-year design storm. While the likelihood of the flood conveyance system failing is very small, the following section describes possible system element failures, the location of potential failures, the range of severity of such failures, and the risks posed to the Painted Hills site and off-site properties from such failures. Extreme yet unlikely circumstances potentially leading to system failure include earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, extreme flood events (500-year or greater flood), intentional damage due to vandalism, and long- term failure to maintain system elements. The severity of the impacts resulting from system failure would depend upon the degree of failure. Minor malfunctions such as a leaking or partially blocked conveyance pipes would likely result in localized ponding or minor flooding in the immediate vicinity of the malfunction. Complete failure of one of the system elements, such as the headworks, during an extended, extreme flow event could result in major property damage and possibly human injury both on and off site. Appendix E includes a summary table that includes the flood conveyance system elements that, if compromised or failed, would have the potential to result in the flooding of peripheral areas. Figure 3-9 illustrates the locations of these flood conveyance system elements. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 41 Final Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-9: Painted Hills Flood Conveyance System Element Locations Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 42 Final Environmental Impact Statement Phasing Under Alternative 2a, the flood management improvements would be constructed in the first phase of Painted Hills development before any new residential or commercial development would be initiated. The first phase would include all improvements for managing floodwaters that enter the Painted Hills site from off-site sources. Specifically, it is expected that the following improvements would occur in Phase 1:  Excavate the park area and infiltration basin area and use the excavated material to fill against the existing levee adjacent to the Chester Creek channel. Fill will be placed by special inspection to the compaction requirements of the geotechnical engineer.  Excavate infiltration basin and place fabric, rock, and drywells  Form final contours of the park area, infiltration basin, settling pond, and bioswale. Seed and establish proposed grasses on the bottom of these features and on sloped surfaces.  Install a 30-foot by 45-foot and 3-foot-deep box culvert in Thorpe Road.  Form concrete open channel and headwall.  Install two (2) 48-inch pipes along the west side of Madison Road with manholes at connection points to 18-inch culverts that will receive stormwater flows from the east side of Madison Road. In addition to these improvements, it is anticipated that Phase 1 would include the clearing and grubbing of future Painted Hills site development areas, including the removal of the existing organic soil layer in the northeast corner of the site to expose the more-permeable gravel layer located immediately below it. The cleared soil will be stockpiled on site and erosion control measures would be implemented consistent with the local grading and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction stormwater permitting requirements for the Painted Hills project. Under Alternative 2a, after the Painted Hills site has been cleared, the southern open space area would be excavated, creating a depression that would serve as a temporary repository to capture any floodwater that enters the Painted Hills site during this initial construction phase. Following the excavation of the southern open space depression, excavation of the infiltration basin on the north end of the Painted Hills site would be completed. The capacity of these two basins would be designed to capture and infiltrate a 100-year storm event. The material excavated to create the two basins would be evaluated for its suitability as fill material and if it is deemed suitable, would be placed along the existing on-site levee east of the main channel of Chester Creek to bolster the flood protection capacity of this existing non-certified levee and begin the overall filling of the Painted Hills site. Potential for Failure The implementation of Alternatives 2a and 2b will require the flood conveyance system to be maintained in perpetuity. For conservative planning purposes, each element of the system has been designed with a “factor of safety” that ensures marginal greater capacity than the design storm (e.g., 100-year storm) volumes. In addition to each element of the system being designed to accommodate more water than the design storm, each element of the system is designed to have redundant safety features in the event an element fails, thereby reducing the likelihood of complete system failure and risk to adjacent properties. A description of redundant safety features is provided below and supplemented by the conceptual flood conveyance system diagram included with this FEIS as Appendix K. The primary and most vulnerable aspect of the flood conveyance system is the headworks located north of Thorpe Road, through which floodwaters entering the site from under Thorpe Road reach the floodwater conveyance system, as shown in Appendix K. In a worst-case scenario, debris could collect and fully obstruct Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 43 Final Environmental Impact Statement the headworks, preventing floodwaters from entering the flood conveyance system. The only known source of debris that could cause such a failure would be vegetative debris and the only known type of debris that would be expected to fully obstruct the headworks is large woody debris (e.g. fallen trees). To examine the potential for large woody debris to reach the headworks, it is important to review and consider the vegetative condition of the upland basin that contributes floodwaters to the site. In this case, vegetation in the upland basin is predominated by pasture grasses with noted absence of large trees that would be vulnerable to falling and being carried downstream via floodwaters. Thus, the basin that contributes floodwater to the site predominantly lacks the vegetative condition that would have the potential to send large woody debris to the headworks location. In addition, flood velocities and shallow flood depths that reach the site are not conducive to carrying large woody debris. Under the current HEC-RAS modeling, 100-year floods average 0.6 ft deep (max depth 0.9 ft) and average velocities of 1.4 feet per second (ft/s). Similar depths and velocities were observed under the HEC- RAS modeling for the 500-year flood event, with average depths of 0.6 ft (max average depth of 1.0 ft) and average velocities of 1.5 ft/s. Therefore, modeled depths and velocities under the 100-year and 500-year storm events lack the velocities and depth required to carry large woody debris capable of obstructing trash racks at the headworks. Flood waters could potentially transport some grass and sediment, both of which are able to flow through the angled trash racks and continue to the next element of the flood conveyance system without issue. Average flood depths and velocities under the 100-year and 500-year storm event are identified in Appendix N. Despite the general absence of floodwater volumes, velocities, and large woody debris necessary to create a failure event at the headworks, the PRD project has incorporated a secondary storage area that could receive floodwaters in the event of a headworks obstruction event. If such an event were to occur, floodwater would crest over the open channel wall and flow into the adjacent approximately 4-acre open space area within the PRD. This open space area will function as a secondary storage pond and temporary containment measure. The secondary storage area is overdesigned in the event of headworks failure. Specifically, the flood control narrative prepared by WCE on March 6th, 2019, provides the following analysis: “This 176,181 square foot secondary storage pond serves as a secondary measure of protection and a detention facility at the south end of the project in an area designated as future park space. Below the rim of the catch basin, the detention facility has a holding capacity of 178,699 cubic feet (cf) or 4.10-acre feet, at a final grade of five feet depth the detention facility has an ultimate holding capacity of 943,866 cf or 21.67-acre feet. As such, the area of the secondary storage park pond will be covered with grass turf and will function as park open space, with a gentle 3:1 slide slopes for easy access and maintenance.” A copy of the flood control narrative is included with the FEIS as Appendix P. Due to the prominence and visibility of the 4-acre open space area within the PRD, it is expected that overflows into this secondary storage area would be apparent to those living within the Painted Hills PRD and to the Homeowners Association representatives responsible for managing the maintenance of the system, triggering a maintenance crew to come to the site to remove any debris causing an obstruction. Therefore, the secondary storage park pond, while not designed for disposal of floodwater, will serve as a secondary containment area, detain floodwaters, and drain floodwater back into the flood conveyance system. In the event that a total obstruction of the headworks was not addressed by maintenance crews, floodwaters during 100-year and 500-year events would exceed the capacity of the secondary storage pond and would cause flooding on off-site properties, predominantly in the same areas that are subject to 100-year and 500-year inundation under the No Build alternative. WEST Consultants, the applicant’s flood and hydrology consultant, has modeled a total failure event at the headworks and the resulting inundation, included with this FEIS as Appendix N. During flood events floodwater will continue through the headworks and through dual 48-inch pipes to a grassy slope to filter sediment prior to entering the settling pond. To convey floodwater to infiltration basin, two (2) Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 44 Final Environmental Impact Statement 48-inch culverts are located within a berm on the downstream side of the settling pond. Water in the infiltration basin will percolate to groundwater through the surface of the pond and/or through approximately 50 drywells which exist to ensure that water can continue to infiltrate even during frozen ground conditions. The discharge pond and drywells are designed to accommodate more flood water than a design storm. Offsite flood conveyance elements, including the triangle pond and Gustin Ditch, are designed to accommodate approximately 2.25 times the peak 100-year storm flows coming from the east before entering the project site. The triangle pond is planned to be regraded for tiered areas and elevations as follows: 17,060 square feet at an elevation of 1,990, 35,812 square feet at an elevation of 1,995, and 84,416 square feet at an elevation of 2,000. Additionally, the triangle pond will have 18 drywells consistent with the City of Spokane Valley Standard Plan S- 101 and Spokane County’s Regional Stormwater Manual (April 2008). Similar to the drywells within the on-site infiltration pond, the drywells within the triangle pond have been designed to allow floodwater infiltration during frozen ground conditions. In the event of complete failure of the on-site headworks during a design storm, floodwaters would generally remain within the current effective FEMA floodplain boundary, as shown in the headworks failure Appendix prepared by WEST Consultants (Appendix N). Thus, as illustrated in the figures presented in Appendix N, the flood conveyance system significantly reduces flooding risk in the area even in the event of a complete failure of the headworks. Given the absence of woody debris conditions in the upstream watershed, low flood volumes and shallow flood depths to carry large woody debris, the overdesign of each flood conveyance element and secondary safety features, catastrophic flood system failures are highly unlikely to occur, particularly with the implementation of regular maintenance consistent with the draft O&M manual for these facilities. If a total failure were to occur, the most likely location would be at the headworks as illustrated in Appendix K prepared by Whipple Consulting Engineers. As modeled by WEST Consultants and illustrated in the figures in Appendix N, off-site areas of 100- year flood inundation in a total headworks failure scenario closely correspond to existing 100-year flood inundation areas under current conditions. Flood Management Facilities and Maintenance Operations and maintenance activities of the flood conveyance system and structure of the HOA are the same under alternatives 2a and 2b. According to the manufacturers’ specifications, the anticipated useful life of the conveyance pipes and drywells is 100 years. Because the conveyance pipes will be mostly underground and will not be exposed to the effects of weathering, their useful life is likely greater than 100 years. HOA Structure and Responsibility In order to maintain common areas within the PRD site and on-site and off-site flood conveyance infrastructure, a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) will be established consisting of the owners of each residential, multi-family, and commercial lot within the Painted Hills PRD project. This HOA will be responsible for the continued operation and maintenance, including repair and replacement as needed, of these facilities. The HOA will require monthly contributions from all members. In addition to funding the regular and routine maintenance of all open space areas within the PRD, these monthly contributions will establish a reserve fund only allocated for the operation and maintenance of the flood conveyance system. In the event that flood conveyance infrastructure needs maintenance or repair on or before the PRD site is fully occupied and before full capitalization of the reserve fund is established, a maintenance bond will be in place by the developer of the site and that, upon full project buildout, the bond will be maintained annually by the HOA to supplement the reserve fund. The bond will be structured to allow the City and/or a future flood improvement district, if created, to access funds to perform operation and maintenance responsibilities on the flood control system if deemed necessary. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 45 Final Environmental Impact Statement The maintenance responsibilities of the apartment owner and HOA contractor will include the off-site improvements at the Gustin Ditch and triangle pond. The reserve fund will be used to fund services to maintain the on-site and off-site infrastructure. The HOA will maintain a contract with a licensed third-party vendor to conduct all system maintenance as stipulated by a final Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manual, which will be required prior to the release of on-site and off-site construction approvals from the City and County. As the project develops and ownership of parcels is transferred from the developer to individual owners on the site, the developer will bear proportionate responsibility for maintaining the floodwater and stormwater management systems. The final O&M Manual will include a “Painted Hills Residential Development Flood Conveyance System & Plat Amenities Plan” that will provide detailed descriptions of how the facilities will be maintained and will include provisions for establishing and maintaining the reserve fund through regular HOA member deposits. The final O&M Manual will also stipulate that the HOA maintain a maintenance bond to ensure that resources are available in perpetuity for all system maintenance requirements that might exceed the reserve fund capacity. Future costs could include planned and unplanned operation and maintenance costs along with future replacement costs for the storm drainage facilities. A draft version of the O&M manual is included with the FEIS as Appendix O. The final O&M Manual will include a provision that requires the HOA to provide an annual report to the Spokane Valley Public Works Department describing the general status of the reserve fund account, and describing specific inspections, findings, and maintenance performed. Spokane County and the City and their authorized agents would be granted access rights for routine inspection and emergency repairs of the flood conveyance facilities but would not incur the responsibility to perform these functions at any time. At any point in the future, should the City or County wish to establish a flood control district that encompasses the PRD site, the PRD will enable this through the recording of “waivers of remonstrance” on the title of each lot within the PRD. These waivers of remonstrance will preclude objections from current and future owners of lots within the subdivision to the formation of the district. This would enable the City or County form a flood control district in an event in which the HOA is dissolved or deemed delinquent on monitoring, maintenance, and operation activities for the flood conveyance system. It is anticipated that the requirement for waivers of remonstrance to be recorded on the title of lots within the PRD will be a condition of approval of the City PRD application. Monitoring and maintenance activities of the Painted Hills PRD will be the responsibility of the Painted Hills PRD HOA or contracted entity. Monitoring and maintenance activities are listed as mitigation measures in Section 3.2.3 of the FEIS. Adequacy of the Reserve Fund Funding for the continued operations and maintenance of the flood conveyance system will be provided through a reserve fund, funded by monthly HOA dues. Under the CC&R provisions for the PRD, penalties will be imposed on owners within the PRD who fail to pay HOA dues. These penalties include the ability of the HOA to file liens on the properties and the ability of the City to withhold building or other requested permits for property owners on non-compliant properties. Until the HOA is fully subscribed by new owners within the PRD during project buildout, the project developer will be responsible for ensuring a minimum annual reserve fund balance. The minimum annual reserve balance will be established in the final O&M manual as a condition of approval and recorded in the final plat process in accordance with the city’s requirements. This is in addition to maintaining an initial performance bond to Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 46 Final Environmental Impact Statement ensure the flood conveyance infrastructure is completed to the specifications and standards of the construction document set and CLOMR design package. The reserve fund for maintenance, repair and replacement of flood conveyance infrastructure will be based on estimated future replacement costs that are converted to annual costs (or deposits) per the following calculation as discussed in the draft O&M manual (Appendix O). The costs assume inflation and interest rates, which will be reviewed and adjusted on an annual basis consistent with current financial conditions. The funds anticipate that the first potential system repair would occur approximately 20 years from the day of establishment. The adequacy of the reserve fund, both in terms of future replacement costs and in terms of how much money needs to be deposited each year to maintain the system is provided in the draft O&M Manual (Appendix O), and follows the calculation method noted below: 1) Estimate the value that the item will have in the future when it is time to replace it using the following equation: FV=PV*(1+i1)n, where: FV = future value PV = present value i1 = inflation rate n = number of years to replacement 2) Estimate how much money will be needed to be deposited each year in the reserve fund in order to have enough money accumulated in time to pay for the replacement using the following equation. A=FV* i2 / [(1+ i2 )n -1], where: A = annual payment (or deposit) FV = future value (stee step one, above) i2 = interest rate n = number of years to replacement The following values are the results of the calculations which are shown on pages 14 through 17 of the draft O&M manual (Appendix O).  Annual Cost for regular operation and maintenance: $152,392  Annual cost for replacements: $76,979  Total annual costs: $229,370  Total monthly costs (=total annual costs/12 months): $19,114.18  Number of units (SF lots +MF lots) + (Commercial): 596 + (18,400 SF/100SF) = 615  Monthly cost per lot (=total monthly costs/ # lots): $31.08  Total annual cost per lot/unit: $372.96 Several enforcement mechanisms will be specified in the CC&R’s and on the finalized and recorded final plat to ensure fees are paid towards the reserve fund and the system is maintained is accordance with the City and County’s requirements. These enforcement mechanisms are anticipated to include but are not limited to late fees and citations imposed on delinquent/defaulting property owners, property liens, and a moratorium on any new development requests from such property owners reviewed through the HOA’s architectural review board and/or with the City and County Planning Department. The O&M manual and reserve fund calculations will be revised and updated as necessary or on an annual basis to account for actual expenses and changes in rates and/or inflation. The developer anticipates that the completion and recording of a final O&M manual will be a condition of approval prior to City and County approval of on-site and off-site infrastructure. The O&M manual would be finalized and recorded in the final plat process in accordance with the city’s requirements and pursuant the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 65.6 (a)(12). Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 47 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.2.2.3 Alternative 2b – Planned Residential Development-Low Infiltration Sources and Extent of Floodwater The sources and extent of floodwater that have been known to enter the project site in the past will be the same for Alternative 2b as Alternative 2a. Floodplain Map Modifications and Floodwater Management Improvements The floodplain map revision for on-site and off-site areas for Alternative 2b would be identical to Alternative 2a. Under Alternative 2b, the floodplain map revision process would eventually result in the removal of approximately 48 acres of FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain from the Painted Hills site, and another 44 acres of 100-year floodplain from off-site properties. As described previously, the 100-year flood hazard area designation will be removed from the majority of the site, with the exception of the portions of the northwest corner. The proposed multifamily development is located adjacent to an area that will remain in the mapped flood hazard area, and as currently designed the access route to this multi-family is located in an area that will continue to be designated as flood hazard area. Final design of the northwestern corner of the PRD site will include a safe access route to and from the proposed multi-family development. Under Alternative 2b, as with Alternative 2a floodwater impacts would be controlled and managed, and compensatory storage requirements would be addressed at Painted Hills on-site through a combination of enhanced conveyance facilities (culverts and pipes), infiltration galleries, and imported fill. The only difference between the floodwater management systems associated with Alternative 2a and Alternative 2b is that under Alternative 2b, in order to accommodate the lower infiltration capacity of the native soils, the infiltration pond would occupy 9.3 acres, which is 7.9 acres more than the Alternative 2a infiltration pond. A potential impact of removing Painted Hills on-site and off-site properties from the FEMA 100-year floodplain is that these properties would no longer carry the requirement for flood insurance. Therefore, homeowners within the Painted Hills site and off-site property owners could experience uninsured property damage if the flood conveyance system were to fail catastrophically. Proposed system design and operational and maintenance protections are discussed throughout this document to minimize the potential for such system failures. Phasing As described for Alternative 2a under Alternative 2b, the flood management improvements would be constructed in the Phase 1 of development. Phase 1 would include all improvements for managing floodwaters that enter the Painted Hills site from off-site sources. As described for Alternative 2a under Alterative 2b, it is expected that the following improvements would occur in Phase 1:  Excavate the infiltration basin area and use the excavated material to fill against the existing levee adjacent to the Chester Creek channel. Fill will be placed by special inspection to the compaction requirements of the geotechnical engineer.  Excavate infiltration basin and place fabric, rock, and drywells. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 48 Final Environmental Impact Statement  Form final contours of the park area, infiltration basin, settling pond, and bioswale. Seed and establish proposed grasses on the bottom of these features and on sloped surfaces.  Install a 30-foot by 45-foot by 3-foot-deep box culvert in Thorpe Road.  Form concrete open channel and headwall.  Install two (2) 48-inch pipes along the west side of Madison Road with manholes at connection points to 18-inch culverts that will receive stormwater flows coming from and the east side of Madison Road.  The Gustin Pipe and Triangle Pond construction as an offsite improvement will be constructed as a part of the first construction phase. If the construction of the flood conveyance system has to be phased over a winter season, and a flood occurs during construction, construction staging, and sequencing will provide conveyance pathways, storage and outflow opportunity for floodwaters in such an event. As the infiltration basin is located in the regional low point, whatever level of flood event occurs will continue to gravity flow to the excavated pond. The floodwaters would travel as they currently do or within portions of the completed construction. It is not anticipated that construction activities will redirect floodwater where it has not been currently mapped. Further, FEMA floodplain mapping will not be revised, pursuant to a final map revision (LOMR), until all system infrastructure and grading is in place and this condition has been documented and certified as an as-built condition by FEMA. Flood Conveyance Facilities and Maintenance The flood conveyance facilities, the system maintenance requirements, and potential impacts associated with Alternative 2b would be identical to those for Alternative 2a. 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures Under Alternatives 2a and 2b, the following mitigation measures will be required to control potential impacts from floodwaters on the built environment.  An HOA would be established for the purpose of managing a short- and long-term maintenance program for open spaces and infrastructure throughout the Painted Hills project, including the on-site and off-site flood and stormwater infrastructure.  An initial settlement amount will be deposited to establish the reserve fund and provide one year of maintenance for the flood conveyance system during Phase I construction. Following the completion of Phase I construction and all system infrastructure necessary to secure the final FEMA map revision, ownership and maintenance responsibility for flood system infrastructure will be transferred to the HOA. An O&M Manual will be established for the HOA and will govern the management and maintenance of all stormwater and floodwater management facilities. This O&M Manual will provide detailed maintenance requirements for all critical storm and flood water infrastructure elements, which include: o Vegetation and erosion control maintenance of all on-site open space areas o Catch basins and stormwater manholes throughout the project o Cross culverts (18-inch) and flap gates from Madison Road o Bio-infiltration swale Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 49 Final Environmental Impact Statement o Roadside swales o Settling pond o Infiltration pond and drywells o Access roads and parking pads (to allow for the parking of maintenance vehicles) o 36-inch storm pipe within the Gustin Ditch (off-site improvement) o Triangle pond improvements including drywells and gravel access maintenance road  The HOA will review and revise the reserve fund calculations established in the O&M manual if/as necessary once the actual cost of operation and maintenance items are contracted in accordance with the city’s requirements and pursuant the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 65.6 (a)(12).  The HOA will be responsible for securing a “contracted entity” (CE) for long-term maintenance of critical infrastructure. Responsibilities of the CE will include: o Annually inspecting the pipe openings on each end to ensure there is no blockage or damage to the ends. o Every three years or after substantial runoff, performing a Telescoping Video (TV) inspection of the pipe looking for blockages, damage, etc. Visual inspection can be made at pipe manhole locations by authorized maintenance personnel. o Removing sediment build-up from the 48-inch pipes installed with the project. o Repairing any sections of damaged pipe. o Visually inspecting the concrete channel, headwalls, and trash racks for damage or corrosion that would compromise the trash rack integrity twice per year. o In August or September of each year, prior to each rainy season, inspect each trash rack to ensure that there is no debris present and, if so, clear the debris. o Following large storm events or rapid snow melt events perform a visual inspection and remove any deleterious debris and trash.  A HOA Reserve Fund for the repair and maintenance of critical floodwater management infrastructure will be established and maintained in perpetuity to ensure the long-term viability and capacity of the HOA to maintain the critical flood infrastructure. The required maintenance and replacement items for floodwater infrastructure will be included in a final O&M Manual adopted prior to City approval of the final plat. A performance surety bond will be required by the City during the construction of the facility to ensure its completion.  A maintenance bond will be secured by the HOA and maintained in perpetuity to ensure the long-term financial capacity of the HOA to maintain and repair various flood system improvements. The bond will be structured to allow the City and/or a future flood improvement district, if created, to access funds to perform operation and maintenance responsibilities on the flood control system if deemed necessary.  Proposed flood conveyance infrastructure is designed to allow access to all residential development in the event of a 100-year flood. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 50 Final Environmental Impact Statement  A waiver of remonstrance will be recorded on all lots within the PRD. This waiver will require all owners of lots within the PRD to sign and acknowledge the ability of the City, County or other governmental agency to form a flood control district at any time that would assume ownership, maintenance and repair responsibility from the HOA for the on-site and off-site flood conveyance infrastructure associated with the PRD. Further, the waiver would waive the ability of that owner to protest to the formation of such a district. Lastly, it would acknowledge that, as a part of the flood district formation, HOA reserve funds intended for flood conveyance system maintenance will be made available to the flood control district to the extent allowed under local, state and federal laws. City acceptance of the waiver of remonstrance language will be a requirement before a final plat is recorded.  An advisory note informing buyers of flood risk should the flood conveyance system fail will be added as a note to the final plat document. 3.2.4 Indirect Effects Potential indirect effects could result from the removal of the 100-year floodplain designation from approximately 44 acres of off-site properties. By reducing regulatory and financial barriers to development of these off-site properties, Alternatives 2a and 2b could indirectly enhance and facilitate the development of these off-site properties, which are predominantly zoned for low density residential use by the City and County. Environmental impacts of those off-site developments would be addressed through individual local regulatory and SEPA reviews. 3.2.5 Cumulative Effects No cumulative effects are anticipated when considering the proposed action alternatives and other activities in the project vicinity. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 51 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.3 TRANSPORTATION A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was completed on September 14, 2016, by WCE for the Painted Hills PRD project. The TIA is incorporated into this FEIS by reference and includes detailed information regarding existing (2015) and future (2025) traffic conditions surrounding the Painted Hills site. A copy of the TIA is included with this FEIS as Appendix F. Future traffic conditions were reported both with and without implementation of the Painted Hills PRD project to determine the extent to which the PRD project may contribute to level-of-service (LOS) deficiencies on the local transportation network. The TIA uses trip generation estimates for the Painted Hills project based on specific land use code categories per 1,000 square feet of floor area (KSF) from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. From those estimates, the TIA evaluates how study intersections perform under current and future conditions relative to city-adopted LOS standards. The land uses designated for the project in the TIA and the corresponding ITE codes are provided in Table 3-1. Table 3-1: Transportation Impact Analysis Land Use Types (TIA Table 5) Description Number of Units / KSF ITE Land Use Code Cottage Style Single Family Lots 52 Units Residential Townhouses — 230 Single Family Residential 206 Units Single Family Residential — 210 Single Family Residential Estate Type 42 Units Single Family Residential — 210 Apartments 228 Units Apartments — 220 Apartments (mixed use) (North) 52 units Apartments — 220 Commercial Development (North) 13.4 KSF Shopping Center — 820 Commercial Development (South) 9.0 KSF Shopping Center — 820 Existing Restaurant (South) 4.0 KSF Quality Restaurant — 931 To supplement the 2016 TIA, WCE prepared a letter, dated November 13, 2018, addressed to Ray Wright at the City, which concludes that the traffic volumes recorded for the Painted Hills PRD in the 2016 TIA remain reasonably accurate (with a variation of approximately one percent or less in volume) based on recent traffic counts collected. Therefore, the findings from the 2016 TIA continue to present a reasonable assessment of the expected impacts of the Painted Hills PRD on the surrounding road network. A summary of the 2016 TIA findings is described further below. The standards below are established by the City consistent with Chapter 5 of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 3 of the Spokane Valley Street Standards. LOS designations provide a means for evaluating operational performance of intersections. As identified in Figure 29 of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, LOS designations are described as noted in Table 3-2. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 52 Final Environmental Impact Statement Table 3-2: Level of Service Descriptions Level of Service Description A Free-flowing conditions B Stable operating conditions C Stable operating conditions, but individual motorists are affected by the interaction with other motorists D High density of motorists, but stable flow E Near-capacity operations with speeds reduced to a low but uniform speed F Over capacity with long delays As noted on page 5-85 of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, the City requires the following minimum LOS within the City:  A minimum of LOS D is required for major arterial corridors.  A minimum of LOS D is required for signalized intersections not on major arterial corridors.  A minimum of LOS E is required for unsignalized intersections (LOS F is acceptable if the peak hour traffic signal warrant is not met). 3.3.1 Affected Environment 3.3.1.1 Study Area The overall transportation network in the vicinity of the Painted Hills site consists of a state route, urban principal arterials, collectors, and local access roads as described below. Dishman-Mica Road extends south and southeast from Sprague Avenue to SR 27, for approximately 7.4 miles. Dishman-Mica Road is a northwest/southeast two-way, two-and five-lane minor-principal arterial. Dishman- Mica Road is an arterial that serves the residential neighborhoods extending from Sprague Avenue to Bowdish Road. Dishman-Mica Road intersects with 8th Avenue, 16th Avenue, 32nd Avenue, University/Schafer Road and Bowdish Road with small commercial uses located at or near the intersections of 16th Avenue, University Road and Bowdish Road. Dishman-Mica Road then winds through a rural area before intersecting with SR 27. Within the study area the posted speed limit on Dishman-Mica Road is 45 miles per hour (MPH). University Road is a north/south, two-way minor arterial, ranging from two to five lanes, that serves a large residential area south of Interstate 90. It runs south from Nora Avenue and crosses several major arterials until it intersects with Dishman-Mica Road. University Road, between Mission Avenue and Sprague Avenue, is a three-lane roadway. From Sprague Avenue to 4th Avenue, it transitions to a five-lane roadway. South of 4th Avenue to Dishman-Mica Road, it reduces to a four-lane roadway and continues to Dishman-Mica Road where the roadway transitions into Schafer Road. University Road is posted at a 35 miles per hour (MPH) speed limit within the study area. The University Road section includes bike lanes from 16th Avenue to Mission Avenue, and sidewalks from Dishman-Mica Road to Mission Avenue. Schafer Road is a north/south, two-way, two-lane, collector that serves a large residential area south of Dishman-Mica Road. Schafer Road runs south from Dishman-Mica Road to 44th Avenue. Schafer Road, between Dishman-Mica Road and 44th Avenue, is a two-lane roadway with shoulders, but no sidewalk or bike lanes. Schafer Road is posted at 35 MPH within the study area. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 53 Final Environmental Impact Statement Bowdish Road is a north/south, two-way, two-lane, minor arterial serving a large residential area south of Interstate 90. Bowdish Road runs south from Mission Avenue and crosses several major arterials until it intersects with Sands Road. Bowdish Road, between Mission Avenue and Dishman-Mica Road, is a two-lane roadway. South of Dishman-Mica Road, Bowdish Road crosses the Union Pacific Railway and becomes a local access roadway. Sands Road branches off Bowdish Road and continues to 44th Avenue. Bowdish Road is posted at 25 MPH on the local access portion, and is posted on the minor arterial as 35 MPH. SR 27 is a north/south, two-way State Highway ranging from two to five lanes. SR 27 extends south from Spokane Valley to Pullman, Washington and serves the many small farming communities of the Palouse. Within the City, SR 27 follows the Pines Road alignment between Trent Avenue and 16th Avenue. South of 16th Avenue, SR 27 shifts to the Blake Road alignment and serves the surrounding urban residential uses and a small cluster of commercial uses at the intersection of SR 27 and 32nd Avenue. From Trent Avenue to 16th Avenue, the posted speed limit is 35 MPH. From 16th Avenue to the 41st Avenue alignment, the posted speed limit is 45 MPH. Beyond 41st Avenue, SR 27 generally has a speed limit of 55 MPH. 16th Avenue is an east/west, two-way, two- and three-lane minor arterial that extends east from Bluff Drive (west of Dishman-Mica Road) through the City to Shamrock Street (South of Shelley Lake). 16th Avenue generally serves residential land uses as well as commercial land uses located at the intersections of arterials. The posted speed limit on 16th Avenue is 35 MPH with the exception of the University Elementary, McDonald Elementary, and Evergreen Jr. High School zones where the posted speed limit is 20 MPH with beacons. The 16th Avenue Road section from Dishman-Mica Road to Sullivan Road includes sidewalks and bike lanes. 32nd Avenue is an east/west, two-way principle arterial ranging from two to four lanes. 32nd Avenue extends east from Dishman-Mica Road to Sullivan Road and serves mostly urban residential uses, but also provides access for commercial uses and University High School. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH with the exception of University High School zone where the speed limit is 20 MPH when children are present. The 32nd Avenue Road section has sidewalks from Dishman-Mica Road to SR 27, and bike lanes from University Road to SR 27. Additional sidewalks and bike lanes are present from Evergreen Road to Best Road. Pines Road is a north/south two-way, two-, three-, and five-lane state route and collector that extends south from Trent Avenue to 40th Avenue. From 16th Avenue to 32nd Avenue, Pines Road is a proposed collector. From 32nd Avenue to 40th Avenue, Pines Road is a collector. Pines Road serves residential uses and a commercial land use located on the northwest corner of Pines Road and 32nd Avenue. The speed limit on Pines Road is 35 MPH, with the exception of the South Pines Elementary school zone, where the speed limit is 20 MPH with flashing beacons. The Pines Road roadway section includes sidewalks along its entire length and includes bike lanes from 22nd Avenue to 32nd Avenue. Evergreen Road is a north/south, two-way urban principle arterial ranging from two to six lanes. Evergreen Road extends south from Indiana Avenue to 32nd Avenue and intersects with eight other minor and major arterials in the City. From Indiana Avenue to Interstate 90, Evergreen Road has six lanes. From Interstate 90 to 4th Avenue, Evergreen Road is a five-lane road. From 4th Avenue to 16th Avenue, Evergreen is a three-lane road. From 16th Avenue to 32nd Avenue, Evergreen Road is a two-lane roadway. The area surrounding Evergreen Road is generally single-family residential uses and small pockets of commercial uses located at or near the arterial intersections. The posted speed limit on Evergreen Road is 35 MPH. Evergreen Road includes sidewalk from 32nd Avenue to 24th Avenue and from 16th to Indiana. Evergreen Road has a bike lane from 32nd Avenue to Sprague Avenue. Sullivan Road is a north/south, two-way, two-, three- and five-lane urban principal arterial that extends south from Wellesley Avenue to just beyond 32nd Avenue. Sullivan Road serves East Valley High School and Central Valley High School, residential, and commercial uses. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH. The Sullivan Road roadway section includes sidewalks and bike lanes from 16th Avenue to 32nd Avenue, and sidewalks from 16th Avenue to Wellesley Avenue. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 54 Final Environmental Impact Statement Madison Road is a north/south, two-way, two-lane collector road that extends south from the intersection of Pines Road and 40th Avenue, which is northeast of the site, through Thorpe Road, until eventually changing into Mohawk Drive. Madison Road is posted at 35 MPH and provides access to residential roads on its east and west side. Madison Road has no sidewalks or bike lanes. Thorpe Road is an east/west, two-way, two-lane collector that extends east from Dishman-Mica Road to Madison Road. Thorpe Road generally serves commercial land uses. The posted speed limit on Thorpe Road is 35 MPH. 3.3.1.2 Existing Conditions Consistent with City procedures, the scope of the TIA as determined after meetings with Public Works staff, the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Spokane County transportation staff and after the public scoping process, the applicant studied both AM and PM peak hour operations. The AM peak hour data was generally collected between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM, and PM peak hour data was collected between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. For the TIA, the following intersections were studied for level of service performance. See Figure 3-9 for a map illustrating the Traffic Study Intersections relative to the Painted Hills site.  32nd Avenue & University Road  Dishman-Mica Road & University/Schafer Road  32nd Avenue & Bowdish Road  Dishman-Mica Road & Bowdish  Dishman-Mica Road & Apartment. Access (Proposed)  Dishman-Mica Road & Sundown Drive (Proposed)  Dishman-Mica Road & S. Commercial. Access (Proposed)  Dishman-Mica Road & Thorpe Road  Thorpe Road & Commercial. Access (Proposed)  16th Avenue & Pines Road  16th Avenue & SR 27  32nd Avenue & Pines Road  Madison Road & Painted Hills Avenue (Proposed)  Madison Road & 41st Avenue (Proposed)  Madison Road & 43rd Avenue (Proposed)  Madison Road & 44th Avenue (Proposed)  Madison Road & Thorpe Road  32nd Avenue & SR 27 Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 55 Final Environmental Impact Statement  32nd Avenue & Evergreen Road  32nd Avenue & Sullivan Road Using methods from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual as implemented in Synchro, version 9 – Build 902, the TIA reported existing operational conditions as noted in Table 3-3. Because some of the study intersections do not yet exist and would be constructed as a part of the Painted Hills PRD project, those intersections are not included in Table 3-3. Table 3-3: Year 2015 Existing Intersections Levels of Service (Table 2 of TIA) INTERSECTION (S) signalized (U) unsignalized AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 32nd Avenue & University Road S 11.5 B 11.4 B Dishman-Mica Road &University/Schafer Road S 15.7 B 16.5 B 32nd Avenue & Bowdish Road S 13.1 B 11.7 B Dishman-Mica Road & Bowdish Road S 12.0 B 11.1 B Dishman-Mica Road & Thorpe Road U 10.7 B 10.4 B 16th Avenue & Pines Road U 20.2 C 32.4 D 16th Avenue & SR 27 S 27.7 C 25.5 C 32nd Avenue & Pines Road S 23.5 C 17.7 B Madison Road & Thorpe Road U 11.0 B 9.5 A 32nd Avenue & SR 27 S 19.6 B 23.0 C 32nd Avenue & Evergreen Road U 10.6 B 17.7 C 32nd Avenue & Sullivan Road U 11.1 B 12.1 B In addition to assessing potential project effects on the capacity of critical intersections in the vicinity, WCE’s 2016 TIA also evaluated the extent to which traffic utilizes the Midilome East neighborhood as a cut-through route between East 32nd Avenue and South Madison Road, via South Woodland Drive and East 40th Avenue. For this cut-through analysis, WCE completed traffic counts during the AM and PM Peak hour on South Woodlawn Drive to identify total volumes and used video to identify vehicles that entered and exited the neighborhood without originating or stopping at a residence. The study found that there were five cut-through trips in the AM peak hour and seven cut-through trips in the PM peak hour. WCE has theorized that cut-through traffic was likely an attempt by drivers to avoid congestion at the intersection of East 32nd Avenue and South Pines Road. Spokane County has recognized the need for additional east-west connectivity in this area and as identified on the Arterial Road Plan (Figure 9) within the County’s Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, a new arterial route is proposed within the East 40th Avenue alignment between South Pines Road and SR-27 and this improvement is identified for completion on the County’s six-year Transportation Improvement Program. Half-street improvements for East 40th Avenue have already been completed west of SR-27 for an approximately 1,060 lineal foot segment of the road constructed as a part of a new subdivision. It is anticipated that additional segments of the road will be Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 56 Final Environmental Impact Statement completed between South Pines Road and SR-27 as properties along this alignment develop, if not constructed before by the county. When the county initiates completion of this segment of East 40th Avenue, the HOA will be required to cooperate with the County with the provision of right of way through the triangle pond property. It is expected that the completion of East 40th Avenue by the County and property owners adjacent to the triangle pond will improve regional mobility in a manner that will encourage drivers to use primary county arterials rather than use S. Woodlawn Drive in the Midilome East neighborhood. 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences 3.3.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Trip Generation Impacts As a part of the 2016 TIA, WCE evaluated traffic operations at the study intersections in the year 2025 without implementation of the Painted Hills PRD project. This 2025 no-build scenario reflects the anticipated conditions that would occur under Alternative 1. In order to approximate traffic volumes under Alternative 1, WCE assumed that regional traffic volumes would grow over the 10-year evaluation period (from 2015 to 2025) at a rate of 1.1 percent per year. In addition to this general 1.1 percent growth factor, the TIA also incorporated traffic volumes from other development projects that had not been built but had been approved by the City and Spokane County for development. These approved and vested projects, and their associated traffic volumes are identified in Table 3-4. Table 3-4: Background Projects and Vested AM & PM Trips (Table 4 of TIA) Background Project Remaining Lots/ units AM Peak. Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Total In Out Total In Out Paxton Addition 13 lots 10 3 7 13 8 9 The Creek at Chester 44 lots 33 9 24 44 29 15 Pine Valley Ranch Apts. 132 units 69 14 55 90 59 31 Elk Ridge Heights 78 lots 59 15 44 79 51 28 Total Vested - 171 41 130 226 147 83 As noted in Table 3-5, acceptable LOS were projected for all study intersections in the year 2025 for Alternative 1, except the intersection of 16th Avenue and Pines Road. At this intersection, the southbound approach experienced delays that exceeded the City’s LOS threshold for the PM peak hour. However, it is anticipated that paired signalized intersections will be installed at this location that will improve conditions to an LOS C in this location. No other system deficiencies were identified under Alternative 1. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 57 Final Environmental Impact Statement Table 3-5: 2025 Levels of Service, without the Project, with the Background Projects (Table 7 of TIA) INTERSECTION (S) signalized (U) unsignalized AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 32nd Avenue & University Road S 12.2 B 11.9 B Dishman-Mica Road & University/Schafer Road S 16.4 B 17.2 B 32nd Avenue & Bowdish Road S 15.2 B 13.5 B Dishman-Mica Road & Bowdish Road S 12.8 B 11.8 B Dishman-Mica Road & Thorpe Road U 11.3 B 10.9 B 16th Avenue & Pines Road  Paired Signalized Intersections U (S) 26.2 (30.5) D (C) 66.4 (33.7) F (C) 16th Avenue & SR 27  Paired Signalized Intersections S 33.6 (42.3) C (D) 30.3 (28.4) C (C) 32nd Avenue & Pines Road S 27.0 C 21.9 C Madison Road & Thorpe Road U 12.1 B 9.9 A 32nd Avenue & SR 27 S 22.3 C 28.2 C 32nd Avenue & Evergreen Road U 11.2 B 23.6 C 32nd Avenue & Sullivan Road U 12.0 B 13.2 B In conjunction with the CUP-2020-0004 request for the commercial driving range, a trip generation and distribution letter were submitted that documented that the proposed driving range will generate approximately 219 average daily trips, with an average of nine PM peak hour trips per day. Because Condition 7 of the CUP approval for the driving range requires the closure of the driving range upon issuance of construction approvals associated with the PRD (SUB-2015-0001/PRD-2015-0001), the driving range trips would be eliminated from the system before any PRD-generated trips would occur. However, if the PRD were not implemented, it is assumed that the driving range trips would continue on the system. Construction-Related Project Impacts As no construction would occur under Alternative 1, there would be no construction-related traffic impacts that could result from this alternative. Safety Impacts As no action would occur under Alternative 1, there would be no safety-related traffic impacts that could result from this alternative. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 58 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.3.2.2 Alternative 2a – Planned Residential Development High Infiltration Rate Trip Generation Impacts The TIA analyzes the ability of the study area intersections to meet adopted LOS standards in the year 2025 after incorporating the background growth rate, background projects, and the anticipated Painted Hills PRD project trips, including the conversion of the clubhouse into a 4,000 square feet (SF) restaurant facility. It is anticipated that Alternative 2a would generate new trip volumes as noted in Table 3-6, which is a copy of Table 14 from the TIA. It should be noted that, while the 4,000 SF restaurant trips were forecasted in the 2016 TIA, the restaurant use has now occupied the clubhouse structure and is in operation (WCE, 2016). Under Alternative 2a, new trips generated on the transportation system are shown in the Table 3-6. Table 3-6: Estimated Trip Generation – Alternative 2a Land Use Code (LUC) AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Vol. per LUC Directional Distribution Vol. per LUC Directional Distribution In Out In Out LUC #230 Townhouses (Cottage Style) (Table 6) 23 4 19 28 19 9 LUC #210 Single Family Residential (SFR) (Table 7) 155 39 116 201 127 74 LUC #210 SFR (Estate Lots) (Table 8) 32 8 24 42 26 16 LUC #220 Apartment (Table 9) 117 23 94 138 90 48 LUC #220 Apartment (mixed use) (Table 10) 27 5 22 32 20 12 LUC #820 Shopping Center (Table 11) 13 8 5 40 20 20 LUC #820 Shopping Center (Table 12) 9 6 3 34 16 18 LUC #931 Quality Restaurant (Table 13) 4 2 2 30 20 10 Total 380 95 285 545 338 207 Average Daily Trip Ends (ADT) Land Use Code (LUC) Rate ADT LUC #230 Townhouses (Cottage Style) (Table 6) - 303 LUC #210 Single Family Residential (Table 7) - 1,962 LUC #210 SFR (Estate Lots) (Table 8) - 400 LUC #220 Apartment (Table 9) - 1,517 LUC #220 Apartment (mixed use) (Table 10) - 346 LUC #820 Shopping Center (Table 11) - 573 LUC #820 Shopping Center (Table 12) 385 LUC #931 Quality Restaurant (Table 13) 360 Total - 5,846 Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 59 Final Environmental Impact Statement Due to the mixed-use nature of Alternative 2a, a trip internalization factor is applied to the trip generation rates of the residential uses that would occur under this alternative. That internalization factor applies a reduction or discount factor on the typical generation rate for the residential uses to address the fact that some of the retail and service needs of the residents of the Painted Hills PRD project will be satisfied by the 22,400 SF of commercial space located within the project. This internalization factor varies by residential use type but ranges between approximately 2.4 and 3.0 percent of the PM peak hour trip generation for the residential uses. Based on these assumptions and application of the ITE manual, Alternative 2 is estimated to generate vehicular trips consistent with the figures represented in Table 3-6. As shown above, Alternative 2a is anticipated to generate 380 new AM peak hour trips, with 95 new trips entering the Painted Hills site, and 285 new trips exiting the site via the eight access opportunities previously noted. In the PM peak hour, the Painted Hills PRD project is anticipated to generate 545 new trips, with 338 new trips entering the site, and 207 new trips existing the site. When adding the trips generated from Alternative 2a to the local road system, considering background traffic volumes and vested project trips, the TIA determined that all intersections can meet City-adopted LOS standards, except for the intersection of 16th Avenue and Pines Road, which also failed to meet LOS standards in Alternative 1—No Build. Alternative 2a extends the delay experienced at this intersection from 66.4 seconds during the PM peak hour under background conditions to 99.2 seconds. These results are noted in Table 3-7. Therefore, the addition of trips from Alternative 2a does not create any new LOS failures but does result in additional delays at the intersection of 16th Avenue and Pines Road. Table 3-7: Year 2025 Levels of Service, with the Project, with the Background Projects (Table 19 of the TIA) INTERSECTION (S) signalized (U) unsignalized AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 32nd Avenue & University Road S 12.4 B 12.4 B Dishman-Mica Road & University/Schafer Road S 16.9 B 18.3 B 32nd Avenue & Bowdish Road S 15.6 B 14.7 B Dishman-Mica Road & Bowdish Road S 15.7 B 13.3 B Dishman-Mica Road & Apt. Access U 13.2 B 10.4 B Dishman-Mica Road & Sundown Drive U 12.6 B 10.8 B Dishman- Mica Road & S. Comm. Access U 11.5 B 11.3 B Dishman-Mica Road & Thorpe Road U 11.9 B 11.9 B Thorpe Road & Comm. Access U 9.0 A 9.1 A 16th Avenue & Pines Road • Paired Signalized Intersections U (S) 27.3 (31.1) D (C) 99.2 (34.8) F (C) 16th Avenue & SR 27 • Paired Signalized Intersections S 35.9 (44.6) D (D) 31.3 (28.6) C (C) Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 60 Final Environmental Impact Statement 32nd Avenue & Pines Road • NB Right Turn S 32.3 (27.6) C (C) 26.0 (24.7) C (C) Madison Road & Painted Hills Avenue U 11.1 B 10.8 B Madison Road & 41' Avenue U 10.7 B 10.5 B Madison Road & 43rd Avenue U 10.5 B 10.2 B Madison Road & 44th Avenue U 9.7 A 9.6 A Madison Road & Thorpe Road U 12.4 B 10.4 B 32nd Avenue & SR 27 S 23.2 C 29.8 C 32nd Avenue & Evergreen Road U 11.6 B 26.1 D 32nd Avenue & Sullivan Road U 12.3 B 13.5 B In addition to the LOS failure at the intersection of 16th and Pines Road, the TIA found that there are three instances in the 2025 forecast in which the stacking queues at intersections exceed allowable City standards. These are described in detail on Page 54 of the 2016 TIA and are as follows: 16th Avenue & SR 27  The eastbound through approach is expected to go from a queue length of 586 feet to 645 feet, an increase of 59 feet. This reported queue exceeds the available space by 526 feet.  The westbound through approach is expected to go from a queue length of 310 feet to 319 feet, an increase of 9 feet. This reported queue exceeds the available space by 149 feet. 32nd Avenue & Pines Road  The eastbound through approach is expected to go from a queue length of 562 feet to 708 feet, an increase of 146 feet. This reported queue exceeds the available space by 218 feet. 32nd Avenue & SR 27  The westbound through approach is expected to go from a queue length of 470 feet to 497 feet, an increase of 27 feet. This reported queue exceeds the available space by 305 feet.  The westbound left turn approach is expected to go from a queue length of 246 feet to 238 feet, a decrease of 8 feet. This reported queue exceeds the available space by 88 feet. Extension of East 40th Avenue  Spokane County identifies the extension of East 40th Avenue between South Pines Road and Highway 27 as a future urban arterial route in Figure 6 of the Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Element and “Program Item 36” in the County’s 2023-2028 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan. The extension of 40th is expected to dissuade cut-through traffic by providing a more direct east/west route with less traffic control measures comparative to the neighborhood. Section 3.3.2.2 of the FEIS has been updated to address extension of East 40th Avenue. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 61 Final Environmental Impact Statement  The PRD applicant will be purchasing the triangle pond property which the HOA will ultimately own and manage. When the county initiates right of way acquisition for East 40th Avenue the HOA will participate in the necessary dedication of right of way to engage the completion of the improvement between SR-27 and South Pines Road. As noted on Page 72 of the TIA, the study also considered traffic operations in the year 2030, which was considered “buildout plus 5 years” at the time of the study. The TIA included the following findings regarding traffic operations in 2030 resulting from the Painted Hills PRD project, including background growth and vested projects.  There is a LOS deficiency identified at the intersection of 16th Avenue & Pines Road, as the southbound approach is estimated to have 133.7 seconds of average delay.  The LOS deficiency identified at the intersection of 16th Avenue & Pines Road, originally caused by the background trips, and worsened by the Painted Hills PRD project, can be brought back to an acceptable LOS by signalizing the intersection and pairing the signal timing with the signal at the intersection of 16th Avenue & SR 27.  There are five future queue deficiencies at three intersections with two of those intersections operating at acceptable LOS. These deficiencies were the result of the background growth rate and the background projects as identified within this study and are only incrementally worsened or kept the same by this project. A review of the City of Spokane Valley Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), shows that there are no public improvement projects identified to mitigate the discrepancies at the following intersections and movements: o 16th Avenue & SR 27, Eastbound Thru, Westbound Thru o 32nd Avenue & Pines Road, Eastbound Thru  32nd Avenue & SR 27, WB Thru, Westbound Left Turn Construction-Related Project Impacts It is anticipated that the Painted Hills PRD project will result in construction-related traffic associated with site grading and site development activities. These impacts are discussed in memoranda prepared by WCE dated November 13, 2018; and February 15, 2021. As noted in the memos, it is anticipated that mass grading activities for Alternative 2a will require the placement and compaction of 328,289 cubic yards (CY) of material. This material will need to be imported to the site as “loose” dirt which will require compaction on the site. WCE estimates that, due to a 15 percent shrink/swell factor, the required loose fill import volume is approximately 377,532 CY. It is assumed that site grading will occur over an approximately four-year period and that the material will be delivered via dump trucks that carry a volume of approximately 30 CY. Based on these assumptions, it is estimated that approximately 12,584 dump trucks will be required to fill the site over a four-year period. This equates to 25,168 truck trips to and from the site. Below is a more detailed analysis of potential impacts related to importing of the fill material. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 62 Final Environmental Impact Statement Truck Volumes, Traffic Operations and Phasing Dump truck trips to the site could occur at any time throughout the year during the initial mass grading period of the project, which is assumed to occur over an approximately four year period at the onset of the project.4 During this period, fill material could be accepted year round and stockpiled when/as necessary Assuming a Monday to Friday work schedule and five working days per week spread over 260 working days per year, if truck trips were to occur consistently over this four-year period approximately 12 trucks per day would arrive at the site or approximately 24 truck trips per day. If truck trips to the site were significantly curtailed or limited during the cold weather months, then a more conservative annual work window of between April 1st and November 15th could be considered when estimating truck volumes. In this scenario, an approximately 31-week annual mass grading period could occur with approximately 155 business days. In that scenario, it is estimated that the project fill activities will result in approximately 20.3 trucks per day/40.6 truck trips per day during the initial four-year annual work window. Consequently, it can be reasonably deducted that truck volumes over the initial fill period for the project would be between approximately 11.24 and 22.3 trucks per day and between approximately 22.47 and 40.59 truck trips per day. The haul route for these dump trucks will be via Dishman-Mica Road, a Principal Arterial that experiences a total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of approximately 22,700 trips near Appleway Avenue and 4,800 ADT near Thorpe Road. Therefore, the dump truck-related trips are estimated to represent less than one percent of the ADT of this facility on average. Dishman-Mica Road has been designated by the City as a Principal Arterial. If the mass grading schedule for the project were prolonged beyond the estimated four-year window, the approximate number of truck trips per day would decrease respective to the mass grading time period. It is anticipated that truck deliveries would occur between 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Friday, consistent with the City’s Truck Haul Plan requirements. The increased truck traffic would impact non-construction related users of the local roadway system. Potential impacts to local users would include traffic delays due to additional truck traffic on the roads, and inconvenience and potential danger caused by fugitive dust and spilled fill materials on the roadways. In addition, additional traffic could result in damage to existing roadway infrastructure including pavement surfaces, signs, and guardrails. Per the City of Spokane Valley Haul plan requirements item #5, any damage to the public roadway or roadway elements is the responsibility of the contractor. Safety Truck trips will enter and exit the Painted Hills site through controlled accesses from Dishman-Mica Road. These accesses will be designed with stabilized entrances to reduce the potential for dirt and construction debris to occur on the road that could pose a hazard to motorists and bicyclists. Access points on Dishman- Mica Road will be designed to ensure safe sight distances per the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and local standards to ensure that turning movements into and out of the site will have adequate vision clearance. 4 The first year improvements will include the establishment of stormwater / floodwater conveyance and management facilities to ensure that stormwater and floodwater are managed and recharge on site. The four- year initial rough grading period is different than the full buildout period of the project, which is estimated occur over a period of 10-years, including the final construction of buildings on the site. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 63 Final Environmental Impact Statement The additional truck traffic could pose potential safety risks to local users of the roadway system due to potential delays caused by trucks waiting to turn into the site and turning movements into and out of the site. A dedicated two-way left turn lane on Dishman-Mica Road and a northbound right-turn lane would be constructed as well to provide vehicular refuges for vehicles turning into the site. To mitigate for any potential safety impacts caused by vehicular movements into and out of the site at the Dishman-Mica Road access, it is recommended that these new vehicular lanes are constructed prior to the initiation of mass grading activities on the site. The provision of these turn lanes at the initiation of the project and prior to mass grading activities will help to direct trucks off of the primary through travel lanes to improve motorist and bicycle safety. The Painted Hills site boundary along South Madison Road ends approximately 300 feet south of the existing sidewalk on South Madison Road at 40th Avenue, leaving a potential pedestrian gap in that location. The applicant intends to address this connection by extending a paved pedestrian path within the South Madison Road right of way to ensure a continuous pedestrian connection on the west side of South Madison Road between East Thorpe and East 40th Avenue. Public comments received from neighbors in the Midilome neighborhood northeast of the site have focused on existing speeding and vehicles that cut-through the neighborhood as a short cut between Madison Road and East 32nd Avenue. This issue was studied by WCE in their 2016 traffic study, which found that there were five cut-through trips in the AM peak hour and seven cut-through trips in the PM peak hour on South Woodlawn Drive. WCE theorizes that the cut-through traffic is likely an attempt by drivers to avoid congestion at the intersection of E. 32nd Avenue and S. Pines Road. The TIA revealed that this intersection would have a queuing deficiency in the Eastbound right turn movement in the future under the No Action scenario (Alternative 1). The failure was based upon existing and projected background traffic and not by Painted Hills-generated traffic. In Alternatives 2a and 2b vehicles originating from the Painted Hills PRD are not expected to significantly increase traffic flow along S. Woodlawn Drive as a dedicated right turn lane has been recommended for completion with the project and will improve LOS at the intersection for north bound traffic. Reference to the Midilome East study can be located in the TIA, under the Appendix titled “Woodlawn Drive Tube Counts” on page 364. Further, future completion of East 40th Avenue, a proposed county arterial in the Transportation Element of the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan will provide additional east-west connectivity in the region and will encourage motorists to use primary arterials to travel between South Pines Road and SR-27, rather travel through the Midilome East neighborhood via South Woodlawn Drive. It should also be noted the Spokane County Arterial Road Plan identifies that a new arterial will be constructed in the alignment of East 40th Avenue between Madison Road and SR-27. When this road is completed, it is expected that a reduction in any cut-through traffic experienced in the Midilome neighborhood would occur as the new arterial will provide a more efficient path for east-west traffic in the project vicinity. Public Comments received from neighbors have focused on pedestrian and cyclist safety concerns posed both during construction and upon full build out. The issues identified in public comments include general vehicular traffic volume concerns and concerns regarding speeding on South Pines/South Madison, Woodland Drive in the Midilome East neighborhood, Thorpe Road, and East 32nd Avenue. The issue of vehicular speed was not studied in WCE’s 2016 traffic study as speeds are controlled by the City and County and considered a local law enforcement issue rather than a transportation concurrency issue. Public comments received that identified general safety concerns noted that additional traffic resulting from the Painted Hills PRD would pose a safety concern for pedestrians, specifically school-age children walking to Horizon Middle School and Chester Elementary School. As noted in earlier paragraphs of this section, the applicant intends to provide a continuous pedestrian walkway around and through the entire Painted Hills PRD site and a crosswalk at the intersection of East 40th Avenue and South Pines Road/South Madison Road that will include a flashing beacon warning system to alert motorists to stop for pedestrians crossing the street. The addition of the cross walk adjacent to Horizon Middle School will encourage pedestrian safety and will supplement other potential measures, such as school zone speed limits, school zone signage, and cross walk attendants. It is anticipated a condition of approval would be imposed on the PRD by the City that stipulates the installation of the crossing and flashing beacon. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 64 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.3.2.3 Alternative 2b – Planned Residential Development—Low Infiltration Scenario Trip Generation Impacts The total traffic generation resulting from the land uses of Alternative 2b is nearly identical to Alternative 2a, with a slight overall decrease in the number of trips. Table 3-8 illustrates the land use differences between Alternative 2a and Alternative 2b. As a result, the trip generation impacts for Alternative 2b are assumed to be identical to Alternative 2a. Table 3-8: Alternative 2A and 2B ADT Comparison – PM Peak Hour Trips5 Land Use Alternative 2a Alternative 2b Net Difference Units / ksf PM Peak Hr Trips Units / ksf PM Peak Hr Trips Cottages 52 52 0 0 -52 SFR – Standard 206 201 224 217 +16 SFR – Estate 42 42 48 48 +6 MFR 228 138 273 174 +36 MFR–Mixed Use 52 32 52 32 0 Commercial N 13.4 26 13.4 26 0 Commercial S 9 34 9 34 0 Commercial S 4 30 4 30 0 Total 555 531 -24 Construction Related Impacts Alternative 2b is anticipated to result in construction-related traffic associated with site grading and a substantial amount of fill material to bring development areas above the 100-year base flood elevation. These impacts are also discussed in a memorandum prepared by WCE dated November 13, 2018; and February 15, 2021. As noted in the memorandum, like Alternative 2a, Alternative 2b would require a substantial amount of compacted fill material to bring development areas above the 100-year base flood elevation, however, Alternative 2b would generate significantly fewer construction-related trips than Alternative 2a. Alternative 2b would require less imported compacted fill than Alternative 2a because material excavated to create the larger Alternative 2b infiltration pond (due to greater floodplain storage volume required on the site) would be used elsewhere instead of importing fill. Specifically, Alternative 2b would require approximately 104,630 CY of imported fill material on the site compared to 328,289 CY of imported fill material for Alternative 2a. Because the total net fill volume for Alternative 2b is only approximately 31 percent of the total net fill volume anticipated with Alternative 2a, it is estimated that approximately 7,846 total dump truck round trips will occur. As with Alternative 2a, the haul route truck trips under Alternative 2b will be via Dishman-Mica Road, designated by the City as a Principal Arterial. 5 Note: All trip generation rates included in this table are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th edition, the manual in place on February 23, 2017, when the traffic concurrency approval for the PRD Alternative 2a was issued by the City. The ITE 10th edition has reduced the trip generation rate for multi-family residential from 0.65 to 0.45 PM peak hour trips per unit. This is the only ITE manual change for planned uses within the PRD. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 65 Final Environmental Impact Statement Below is a more detailed analysis of potential impacts related to importing of the fill material. Truck Volumes, Traffic Operations and Phasing Like Alternative 2a, dump truck trips to the site could occur at any time throughout the year during the initial mass grading period of the project, which is assumed to occur over an approximately four-year period at the onset of the project. During this period, fill material could be accepted year-round and stockpiled when necessary. However, as compared to Alternative 2a, the number of truck trips is less. If truck trips were to occur consistently during workdays over this four-year period, under Alternative 2b, approximately 3.9 trucks per day would arrive at the site or approximately 7.8 truck round trips per day, assuming 260 workdays per year. If truck trips to the site were significantly curtailed or limited during the cold weather months, then a more conservative annual work window of between April 1 to November 15th time frame could be considered when estimating truck volumes. In this scenario, an approximately 31-week annual mass grading period could occur with approximately 155 workdays. In this scenario, the estimated number of trips per day in each of the first four years of development is approximately 6.3 trucks per day or 12.6 truck round trips per day. As with Alternative 2a, the haul route for these dump trucks will be via Dishman-Mica Road, a Principal Arterial that experiences a total ADT of approximately 22,700 trips near Appleway Avenue and 4,800 ADT near Thorpe Road. Therefore, the dump truck-related trips are estimated to be less than one percent of the ADT of this facility on average. If the mass grading schedule for the project were prolonged beyond the estimated four-year window, the approximate number of truck trips per day would decrease respective to the mass grading time period. As with Alternative 2a, truck trips would occur generally between 7 AM to 6 PM, consistent with the City of Spokane Valley truck haul plan requirements. Safety As with Alternative 2a, truck trips will enter and exit the Painted Hills site through controlled accesses from Dishman-Mica Road. These accesses will be designed with stabilized rock entrances to reduce the potential for dirt and construction debris to occur on the road that could pose as a hazard to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Access points on Dishman-Mica Road will be designed to ensure safe sight distances per the AASHTO and local standards to ensure that turning movements into and out of the site will have adequate vision clearance. The additional truck traffic could pose potential safety risks to local users of the roadway system due to potential delays caused by trucks waiting to turn into the site and turning movements into and out of the site. A dedicated two-way left turn lane on Dishman-Mica Road and a northbound right-turn lane would be constructed as well to provide vehicular refuges for vehicles turning into the site. To mitigate for any potential safety impacts caused by vehicular movements into and out of the site at the Dishman-Mica Road access, it is recommended that these new vehicular lanes are constructed prior to the initiation of mass grading activities on the site. Public comments received from neighbors in the Midilome neighborhood northeast of the site have focused on existing speeding and vehicles that cut-through the neighborhood as a short cut between Madison Road and East 32nd Avenue. This issue was studied by WCE in their 2016 traffic study, which found that there were five cut-through trips in the AM peak hour and seven cut-through trips in the PM peak hour on South Woodlawn Drive. WCE theorizes that the cut-through traffic is likely an attempt by drivers to avoid congestion at the intersection of E. 32nd Avenue and S. Pines Road. The TIA revealed that this intersection would have a queuing deficiency in the Eastbound right turn movement in the future under the No Action scenario (Alternative 1). Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 66 Final Environmental Impact Statement The failure was based upon existing and projected background traffic and not by Painted Hills-generated traffic. In Alternatives 2a and 2b, vehicles originating from the Painted Hills PRD are not expected to significantly increase traffic flow along S. Woodlawn Drive as a dedicated right turn lane has been recommended for completion with the project at S Pines Road and E 32nd Avenue that will improve LOS at the intersection for north bound traffic and therefore encourage vehicles to remain on the local arterial system rather than cut through the Midilome East neighborhood. Reference to the Midilome East study can be located in the TIA, under the Appendix titled “Woodlawn Drive Tube Counts” on page 364. It should also be noted the Spokane County Arterial Road Plan identifies that a new arterial will be constructed in the alignment of East 40th Avenue between Madison Road and SR-27. When this road is completed, a significant reduction of any cut-through traffic experienced in the Midilome neighborhood is likely to occur as the new arterial will provide a more efficient path for east-west traffic in the project vicinity. As with Alternative 2a, pedestrian circulation around the perimeter of the site will be provided by a continuous pedestrian walkway, designed consistent with the City of Spokane development standards. Traffic design techniques and traffic calming measures to protect pedestrians and slow traffic are both addressed through the crosswalk, which the applicant plans to construct at the intersection of East 40th Avenue and South Pines Road/South Madison Road. 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures Alternative 1 No mitigation would be required under Alternative 1, as no action would occur on the site. However, it is assumed that existing background conditions on the site would result in a LOS failure at 16th Avenue and Pines Road that would require the city or others to signalize the intersection and pair the signal timing with the signal at 16th Avenue and SR 27. Alternative 2a Consistent with the mitigation measures identified in the TIA and those listed in the City’s Traffic Concurrency Conditions of Approval for PRD-2015-0001, it is anticipated that the following mitigation measures would be implemented in conjunction with the construction of Alternative 2a. A copy of the Certificate of Transportation Concurrency is included with the FEIS as Appendix L.  All improvements will conform to City of Spokane Valley Standards.  The project may have up to two new commercial driveway approaches on Dishman-Mica Road along the frontage of the project. Conditions 2a. and 2b. below are based on the current design of the Project and may be subject to review and revision if conditions change in the future. o The northernmost commercial driveway approach shall access the apartments only and shall be restricted to right-in/right-out by means of a raised median along Dishman-Mica Road or via a pork chop island within the driveway. The design of the median or pork chop shall be approved by the City. o The southernmost commercial driveway approach shall access the northern commercial site only along Dishman-Mica and may be a full movement driveway with a two-way left-turn lane along Dishman-Mica for left-turn access.  Frontage improvements are required for Madison Road, Thorpe Road, and Dishman-Mica Road prior to the final approval of the first phase of the Project. Dishman-Mica Road is designated as minor arterial. Thorpe Road and Madison Road are designated as collector arterials. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 67 Final Environmental Impact Statement  The entire Project shall be accessed by one new public local access street that intersects Dishman- Mica Road and two new public local access streets that intersect Madison Road. In addition, two new gated private streets are permitted on Madison Road.  The Project shall construct southbound left-turn lanes on a) Dishman-Mica Road at the intersection with the new public local access street and at b) the intersection of Dishman-Mica Road and Thorpe Road concurrently with the construction of the new public local access street. The two southbound left-turn lanes shall provide a minimum of 150 feet of queue storage and shall have the required gap and taper lengths per WSDOT standards.  The project will construct a new flashing beacon and cross walk at the intersection of East 40th Avenue and South Madison/South Pines to facilitate safe pedestrian and cyclist access adjacent Horizon Middle School. At any time, the City may make modifications to this intersection if it determines that such modifications are necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the traveling public.  The HOA will cooperate with the County to ensure right of way is provided at the triangle pond if/as necessary for the completion NE 40th Avenue between SR-27 and South Pines Road.  The existing commercial site located on the southwest corner of the Project site will continue to be accessed by a single full movement approach on Thorpe Road. At any time, the City may make modifications to this intersection if it determines that such modifications are necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the traveling public.  The TIA identified the need for improvements at the 32nd/Pines intersection. The TIA acknowledges that the Project contributes to the need for improvements at this intersection. As identified, the Developer shall construct a northbound right-turn lane on Pines Road prior to the City’s issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 400th unit of the Project. The storage length for the dedicated right- turn only lane shall be determined at the time of development. The Developer shall furnish the City an intersection plan substantially similar to that required by WSDOT Standards for final approval prior to construction.  The TIA identified the need for improvements at the 16th Avenue/Pines/SR 27 intersections. The TIA acknowledges that the Project contributes to the need for improvements at these intersections. As identified, additional traffic capacity is needed which requires a new southbound right-turn only lane on Pines Road and a new traffic signal at 16th and Pines. The Developer shall furnish these improvements prior to the City’s issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 200th unit. The Developer shall furnish the City an intersection plan similar to that required by WSDOT and Traffic Signal Plans for final approval prior to construction.  The City may determine to seek funding and/or complete traffic improvements at the Pines/32nd or the 16th/Pines/SR-27 intersections. If the City determines to pursue funding or complete improvements prior to the Developer completing the improvements identified in Conditions 7 and 8 above, in compliance with RCW 82.020.20, the Developer shall enter into a voluntary mitigation agreement with a proportionate contribution toward the City’s improvements. It should be noted that, since the time of the issuance of the Traffic Concurrency Conditions of Approval noted above, the local agencies and WSDOT have established that the preferred improvement to address capacity issues at the 16th Avenue/Pines/SR 27 intersection is a five-leg intersection. It is anticipated a condition of approval would be imposed on the PRD by the City that stipulates pro-rata contribution towards this improvement in lieu of completing a capacity improvement. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 68 Final Environmental Impact Statement In addition to the measures noted above, the following additional mitigation measures will be required with project implementation.  Prior to the initiation of mass-grading activities associated with the project, the applicant will install a two-way left turn lane on Dishman-Mica Road and a right-turn northbound lane on Dishman-Mica Road at the proposed new entry road into the PRD.  Bicycle and pedestrian facilities per the City of Spokane Valley Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan will be completed along the site frontages, including a continuous five-foot-wide pedestrian walkway around and throughout the Painted Hills PRD site.  A final haul route plan approved by the City will be developed and managed to ensure that truck trips to and from the site during construction use Dishman-Mica Road for site access over the duration of site construction. This plan should include a section devoted to pre- and post-construction inspections of the facility to determine any pavement failures that can be attributed to the construction trips. A draft of this Truck Haul Memorandum is provided as Appendix G.  Stabilized construction entrances will be provided to minimize the potential for dirt and debris to be carried onto the road by exiting construction vehicles.  The applicant shall install an approximately 300-foot-long paved pedestrian connection on the west side of South Madison Road adjacent to the approximately 2-acre Water District #16 property. This connection will ensure a continuous pedestrian walkway on the west side of South Madison Road between East Thorpe Road and East 40th Avenue.  After completion of the initial grading and the issuance of the letter of map revision (LOMR) and issuance of the first phase Final Plat and prior to the issuance of the building permit that would exceed 100 cumulative trips, the Applicant will complete an update to the approved Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) based on a revised build-out year and horizon year. The TIA update shall include updated turning movement counts and an update to the trips from the vested projects identified in the approved TIA as well as updated mitigation to account for changing construction costs and mitigation projects.  The approved TIA identifies a build-out year of 2025 after 7-8 years of phased construction and a planning horizon year of 2030. However, as described in this EIS, the time period for importing fill and constructing the project is at least 14 years (four years for importing fill and ten years for phased construction of the project). The traffic review should be updated to account for the inconsistency in the EIS between the original identified build-out year of 2025 and the time period estimated for project completion. Such update should include an additional horizon year analysis as determined by fill and construction parameters as well as FEMA coordination, which is estimated at 2042 or beyond. Alternative 2b It is anticipated that the mitigation measures required with the implementation of Alternative 2b would be the same as those listed in Alternative 2a above. 3.3.4 Cumulative Effects Vested and unbuilt projects were considered in the background traffic volumes that were incorporated into the TIA, thereby addressing the potential cumulative transportation effects of the action alternatives when concerned with other on-going developments. The other regional projects that were considered in the TIA and their associated traffic volumes are noted in Table 3-9. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 69 Final Environmental Impact Statement Table 3-9: Background Projects and Vested AM & PM Trips Background Project Remaining Lots/ units AM Peak. Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Total In Out Total In Out Paxton Addition 13 lots 10 3 7 13 8 9 The Creek at Chester 44 lots 33 9 24 44 29 15 Pine Valley Ranch Apts. 132 units 69 14 55 90 59 31 Elk Ridge Heights 78 lots 59 15 44 79 51 28 Total Vested - 171 41 130 226 147 83 In a similar fashion, applicants for new development proposed after the City issued its certificate of concurrency for the Painted Hills PRD, are required to consider Painted Hills-generated trips as background volumes in their traffic analysis and City concurrency requests. This system ensures that in instances such as the Painted Hills project, in which a delay in application processing occurs, that continuous re-evaluations of traffic impacts are not required. 3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL 3.4.1 Air Quality 3.4.1.1 Affected Environment Air quality can directly affect human health with cardiovascular and other health complications resulting from exposure to air pollutants. These can include human-generated pollutants (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide[CO2], and lead, from automobiles and industrial sources); naturally generated pollutants (fine particulate matter in forest fire smoke), or a combination of both. Dust and non-toxic nuisance odors are also a component of air quality. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants known to impact human health. The six criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and nitrogen oxide (NOx). In the past, Spokane has been in nonattainment for both CO and Particulate Matter (PM10). In the Spokane region currently, there are two pollutants of primary concern, fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ground-level ozone6. While industry contributes about 20 percent of the PM2.5 and ground-level ozone air pollution, most of the pollution in the Spokane area results from transportation (vehicle emissions) and home heating. Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the air like other pollutants but is produced when NOx formed by combustion processes, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from many sources, combine. These ozone- producing pollutants come from local sources, such as cars, trucks, industrial boilers, power plants, paints, solvents, and other commercial and consumer products. According to the SRCAA, during the winter months wood heating is the largest source of fine particle pollution (SRCAA 2019). Stable weather patterns typical of the winter in Spokane Valley trap smoke near the ground, intensifying the problem. SRCAA may restrict outdoor burning during periods of poor air quality. In addition, local fire officials issue outdoor burn restrictions during fire safety season. 6 https://www.spokanecleanair.org/air-quality Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 70 Final Environmental Impact Statement Air quality in the Spokane region generally becomes worse during the winter heating season due to the presence of fine particles from wood fires and during the hot, summer months in which ozone levels increase and (in recent years) regional forest fires occur. The Spokane area is not currently in non-attainment for ozone, PM2.5 or PM10; however, over the past 10 years ozone concentrations have approached non-attainment levels7. Spokane Clean Air began monitoring for PM2.5 in 1999, shortly after the PM2.5 health-based standard was established by EPA8. The health-based standard for PM2.5 has been exceeded during the winter months due to wood stove smoke in 9 of the past 19 years, including 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2017. The health-based standard for PM2.5 has been exceeded in July, August, and/or September due to forest fire smoke in 2014, 2015, 2017 (16 days), and 2018 (13 days) (SRCAA, 2017, 2019). In recognition of the effect of wood heating on air quality, Washington State has several laws addressing wood stoves including:  RCW 70.94.450, which establishes the policy of the state to control, reduce, and prevent air pollution caused by wood stove emissions; encourages Ecology to educate the public about the effects of wood stove emissions and other heating alternatives; and promotes the desirability of achieving better emission performance and heating efficiency from wood stoves.  RCW 70.94.455, which establishes standards for solid fuel burning devices and provides for the state building code to require an adequate source of heat other than wood stoves in all new and substantially remodeled residential and commercial construction.  RCW 70.94.473, which provides that, during an air pollution episode, alternatives to wood burning will be used in buildings with alternative sources of heat, and for those without alternatives, only certified wood stoves can be used. The City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code (Section 7.05.040 Nuisances Prohibited) requires the control of dust that could potentially cause a nuisance to City residents. Under the current vegetated, undeveloped conditions, minimal air pollutants are generated from the site. 3.4.1.2 Environmental Consequences 3.4.1.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Under Alternative 1, no changes to current air quality conditions are anticipated. The existing on-site vegetation would continue to function as a carbon “sink” rather than a source of atmospheric carbon. 3.4.1.2.2 Alternative 2a – Planned Residential Development—High Infiltration Under Alternative 2a, impacts to air quality would occur both during construction and during the operational lifetime of the project following construction. 7 https://www.spokanecleanair.org/documents/our_air/Ozone%20Trends%20Chart%20Jun%202017.jpg 8 The PM2.5 health-based standard is 35 micrograms per cubic meter of air (equivalent to 100 on the AQI) averaged over 24 hours, midnight to midnight. Prior to 1999, monitoring was done for smoke and dust particles combined (PM10- Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter and smaller). Particulate matter (PM) has been measured by Spokane Clean Air since health-based air quality standards were established in 1971. The first standard was for Total Suspended Particulates, then revised in 1987 to Particulate Matter 10 microns and smaller (PM10). In 1997, EPA established an additional standard for Fine Particles (PM2.5). Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 71 Final Environmental Impact Statement During construction, there would be tailpipe emissions from on-site construction equipment, and construction- related on-road vehicles including dump trucks, delivery trucks, and the personal vehicles belonging to construction workers. These tailpipe emissions will add VOCs, NOx, CO, CO2, and ground-level ozone to the air. During construction, some fugitive dust could be expected, although wind-erosion control prevention measures will be implemented to minimize these effects. In addition, some construction elements, such as asphalt paving operations may cause odors detectible to some people away from the project site. The effect of such odors would be short-term. Once the project has been constructed, the additional approximately 300 single family residential units, 280 multi-family units, and 26,400 SF of commercial use would generate air emissions that could include carbon dioxide, CO, NOx, and VOCs. Sources of these emissions could include natural gas and electricity-powered home appliances and space-heating systems, gasoline or electricity-powered yard maintenance equipment, gasoline or electricity-powered vehicles generated by the project. Additionally, wood stoves, if used within the project site, could also be a source of fine particulate (PM2.5) emissions. It is unlikely these emissions would cause ambient concentrations to exceed the NAAQS for NOx, CO, SO2, and Pb because historically these pollutants have not approached non-attainment levels in the Spokane area. Emissions associated with the project could potentially result in ozone and PM 2.5 concentrations that exceed NAAQS because the area has had concentrations of ozone that approach non-attainment concentrations for the past 10 years and has exceeded the health-based standard for PM 2.5 for 9 of the past 19 years, including 2017 and 2018. The emissions associated with a residential development would be consistent with the planned intent of the project site, which is designated for residential development by the City and for urban development within the Spokane County UGA. 3.4.1.2.3 Alternative 2b – Planned Residential Development—Low Infiltration Impacts to air quality under Alternative 2b will be similar to those described for Alternative 2a with the following exceptions:  Alternative 2b provides 18 more single-family residences than Alternative 2a, and the additional single-family residences may result in the production of slightly more fine particulates from wood burning stoves than under Alternative 2a.  Construction-related impacts to air quality will likely be less with Alternative 2b due to the reduced amount of imported fill material required and the fewer number of truck trips to and from the site. 3.4.1.3 Mitigation Measures Construction: During construction, the following best management practices will be followed to ensure that air quality effects are minimized to the extent possible:  Well-maintained construction equipment and trucks will be used to reduce emissions; vehicles and equipment will be fitted with emission-controlling components such as air filters and catalytic convertors.  Prolonged periods of idling vehicles and other engine-powered equipment will be avoided.  During construction, areas of exposed soils will be regularly sprayed with water or other dust suppressants. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 72 Final Environmental Impact Statement  Cleared area that will be exposed for prolonged periods will be paved, planted with a vegetation ground cover, or covered with gravel.  Loads in trucks will be covered to ensure that dust and soil does not fly off and pollute the air.  A program and schedule for road sweeping will be submitted concurrent with submittal of an application for the first phase or sub-phase of development.  Woody vegetation cleared from the site will not be burned but will instead be ground or chipped on- site or hauled to an off-site location. Operations: The following measures could reduce air quality effects associated with either Alternative 2a or 2b:  Implementation and enforcement of Spokane Clean Air burn bans/restrictions by the HOA to minimize the length and intensity of poor air quality conditions during the winter months.  Incorporation of open spaces, such as in Alternatives 2a and 2b, and retention of vegetation and planting of trees within the project can help mitigate atmospheric carbon indirectly generated as a result of the project.  Revegetation of open space areas and other areas of the site disturbed by construction, and the planting of street trees. 3.4.1.4 Cumulative Effects Local air quality, which is already compromised at times during the winter months in most years due to current levels of wood smoke-generated pollution would likely be further diminished for potentially longer periods of time during the winter months due to the added emissions from the project. The incremental air quality impacts of the project are consistent with the anticipated implementation of the City’s comprehensive plan, which designates the site for residential development. 3.4.2 Aesthetics 3.4.2.1 Affected Environment The Painted Hills site, which was previously a golf course, is currently a vacant field with scattered trees associated with the former golf course. The former golf course clubhouse located at the southwest corner of the site remains and is currently operated as a restaurant with associated parking. Vegetation on the site is primarily field grasses with intermittent deciduous and evergreen trees that line the former fairway areas. Uses surrounding the site include:  Low density residences located to the east and on the east side of South Madison Road;  A single-family residential subdivision located adjacent to the northern limits of the site;  A convent, the “Carmel of the Holy Trinity”, located adjacent to the northwest boundary of the property; Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 73 Final Environmental Impact Statement  A church, owned by the Chester Community Church, also adjacent to the northwest limits of the site; and  Vacant land, zoned Corridor Mixed Use, located west of the site on the opposite side of South Dishman-Mica Road. In addition to the views from these surrounding properties, the site can be viewed by passing motorists from the surrounding roads: South Madison Road (Figure 3-10), East Thorpe Road (Figure 3-11) and South Dishman- Mica Road (Figures 3-12 and 3-13). The site is not designated as a scenic resource and there are no scenic by- ways or other scenic areas designated on or adjacent to the site. There are currently no sources of noise or light on the site, except for the commercial use of the former clubhouse and the parking lot area (Figure 3-14), which includes overhead parking lot lighting. 3.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences 3.4.2.1.1 Alternative 1 – No Action No aesthetic impacts are anticipated to result from the No Action alternative. In this scenario, site conditions would remain in their state. 3.4.2.1.2 Alternative 2a – High Infiltration Scenario Under Alternative 2a, large portions of the site would be converted from ungroomed prairie into single-family residences, commercial retail development, apartments, landscaped open space areas. Due to the nature of the proposal as a PRD, the project is required to provide a minimum of 30 percent of the site in public open spaces. 3.4.2.1.2 Alternative 2b – Low Infiltration Scenario Under Alternative 2b, the project would be developed as a PRD and the minimum 30 percent open space requirement would still apply. Development impacts would be similar to Alternative 2a as areas of the site would be converted from ungroomed prairie into single-family residences, commercial retail development, apartments, and open space areas. 3.4.2.3 Mitigation Measures Under the build alternatives 2a and 2b, project compliance with the City’s landscaping and open space standards in conjunction with site development will ensure that the aesthetic impacts of the project are addressed. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 74 Final Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-10: Study Area Intersections Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 75 Final Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-11: View of the Site from S. Madison Road Figure 3-12: View of the Site from E. Thorpe Road Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 76 Final Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-13: View of the Site from S. Dishman-Mica Road Figure 3-14: Former Clubhouse and Associated Parking Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 77 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences 3.4.2.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Because Alternative 1 would not result in any changes to the site, no aesthetic impacts are expected to result from this alternative. 3.4.2.2.2 Alternative 2a – Planned Residential Development—High Infiltration Development of the site under Alternative 2a would convert most of the central, east, and northwest areas of the site into a mixed-use community. Remaining undeveloped areas of the property would be retained as community open space. Under the City’s development standards for the R-3 zone, the maximum height of a residence is 35 feet. It is anticipated that new homes within the community would adhere to this maximum height standard. Open space areas would be landscaped and would include community amenities such as trails, benches, playground equipment, and other features. Streetlights conforming to the City’s public works standards would be incorporated into the development along perimeter public routes and new local roads. Parking lot lighting in the commercial area at the southwest corner of the site would be designed to meet City requirements. No aesthetic impacts are anticipated from off-site stormwater infrastructure improvements because these improvements will be at or below the existing ground surface and are not anticipated to result in any significant change in the character of these affected areas. During the initial public review of the PRD application, representatives of the Carmel of the Holy Trinity convent reviewed and commented on the application. As noted in their November 15, 2018 letter addressed to the City, convent representatives indicated a concern regarding a potential “influx of noise, traffic and other disturbances that are likely to arise both during construction of the project and upon its completion.” As noted in the November 15, 2018 letter, the project applicant has met with representatives of the convent to come to an agreement regarding specific measures that will be implemented to minimize and reduce aesthetic impacts of the project on this neighboring property. 3.4.2.2.3 Alternative 2b – Planned Residential Development—Low Infiltration As described for Alternative 2a, under Alternative 2b, most of the central, east, and northwest areas of the site would be converted into a mixed-use community. Remaining undeveloped areas of the property would be retained as community open space. As with Alternative 2a, under Alternative 2b, building heights, and streetlighting site would be designed to meet City requirements, and no aesthetic impacts are anticipated from off-site stormwater infrastructure improvements. 3.4.2.3 Mitigation Measures Alternative 1 No mitigation measures would be necessary under the no action alternative. Alternatives 2a and 2b  Streetlights and parking lot light fixtures would incorporate shields to ensure compliance with City foot-candle lighting requirements, mounting heights, and wattage.  Mitigation measures would be implemented consistent with those listed in the November 15, 2018, letter received from the Carmel of the Holy Trinity convent. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 78 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.4.2.4 Cumulative Effects City and County development standards governing screening, setbacks, landscaping, light, glare, building height, and other provisions are expected to adequately address the aesthetic effects of individual development projects. Therefore, no significant cumulative aesthetic effects are expected to result when considering the action alternatives in conjunction with other potential development in the project vicinity. 3.4.3 Biological Resources 3.4.3.1 Affected Environment The affected biological environment of the Painted Hills site is defined in the February 28, 2019 Biological Evaluation (BE), Critical Areas Report and Habitat Management Plan, prepared by Biology, Soil & Water, Inc. (Biology, Soil, and Water Inc. 2019), and in a letter from Biology, Soil & Water, Inc. Dated June 5, 2022. The BE study area evaluated the biological resources within a half mile radius of the Painted Hills site and the potential impacts from Alternatives 2a and 2b. The June 2022 letter described conditions at the Triangle Pond and Gustin Ditch. As identified in the BE, the subject property is located within the Chester Creek valley with forested foothills on the east and west sides of the valley. The BE describes the habitats within the study area as a “mosaic of urban developed, fragments of conifer forest, and small tract agriculture.” As described in the BE, undeveloped forested hillsides extend about 1,200 feet east of the densely developed Ponderosa neighborhood. The BE notes that “large mammals that are willing to cross highways and residential developments interspersed with open farmland will find connectivity to a few hundred acres of wooded and sparsely populated foothills extending south and west from the Painted Hills site to Dishman Hills.” When the Painted Hills site operated as a golf course, the entire property was planted in non-native turf grasses with sparse conifer and deciduous trees lining some of the fairways. The turf grass was maintained by treatment with herbicides and regular mowing and maintenance of the golf course grounds. These practices virtually eliminated the native herbaceous plant community. Since the golf course operations and maintenance have ceased, noxious weeds have invaded the site. Honey willows were planted below the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) of Chester Creek whose channel was historically dredged and maintained for flood conveyance. The banks of the channel are covered with Reed canary grass. Outside the OHWM of the stream channel where the vegetation was not mowed or maintained, the vegetative community is dominated by Reed canary grass, teasel, tansy, thistle, wormwood, and lettuce. The creek is separated from the Painted Hills PRD site by a levee and the embankment of Dishman-Mica Road. The outer edges of the Triangle Pond are characterized by a narrow band of Ponderosa pine, snowberry and rose. Cheatgrass, bulbous bluegrass, and wormwood dominate the pond bottom. Vegetation on the banks and on the ditch bottom of the Gustin Ditch consists entirely of weedy upland plant species. Threatened or Endangered Species As identified in the BE, listed threatened and endangered species that occur in Spokane County include the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis), Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Water Howellia (Howellia auqatilis) and Spalding’s Silene (Silene spaldingii). The BE presented the following findings regarding the potential presence of these species on the site:  Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus): These birds nest in areas with at least 25 acres of contiguous riparian woodland. Because the largest area of this habitat type on the site is less than one tenth of the minimum size suitable for the Yellow-billed Cuckoo, the BE concluded that there is no suitable habitat for the yellow billed cuckoo existing on the site. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 79 Final Environmental Impact Statement  Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus): Waterfalls and dams prevent the upstream and downstream migration of bull trout into the Spokane River and its tributaries in the vicinity of the Painted Hills site. There is no known population of bull trout in the project area; therefore, no Bull Trout habitat exists.  Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis): Typical lynx habitat is dense coniferous forest areas with sapling/pole thickets, rock outcrops, and wetlands at elevations of around 4,000 to 4,500 feet. The Painted Hills site is at an elevation of approximately 2,015 feet. Lynx dens typically occur in mature old growth stands with substantial deadfall and in areas where they can predate on snowshoe hare. No lynx on the site were observed in the field visits to the site and the Painted Hills site does not provide lynx habitat conditions.  Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii): Spalding’s catchfly is a plant species that is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as threatened in Washington State. Field studies conducted in support of the BE for the project failed to identify the presence of this plant on the site and the BE notes that “previous years of cultivation, followed by the planting of turf grasses, years of mowing and herbicide applications” have likely impacted the ability of the plant to grow on the site.  Water Howellia (Howellia aquatilis): Howellia is an aquatic plant that is often found in seasonal wetlands, ponds, and lakes. No evidence of this plant was observed through field visits conducted to support the preparation of the BE. Species of Concern The project BE also evaluated the presence of USFWS-listed species of concern on the site and evaluated the site for the presence and/or habitat of the following species that are listed in Spokane County.  Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): The BE found that bald eagles do not routinely forage in the Action Area and no nest sites were observed on the Painted Hills site.  Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia): No historical observations have occurred in the project vicinity and no individuals, nests, or other signs were observed during the site survey.  California Floater (Anodonta californiensis): This is a freshwater mussel and there are no instances on the site.  Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis): This raptor nests on rocky ledges or high ground vantage points and would not occur on the site.  Giant Columbia Spire snail (Fluminicola Columbiana): This species occurs in cold, unpolluted medium to large streams, which do not occur within the project area.  Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus): This robin-sized gray, black and white bird prefers nesting in big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush. The BE determined that development at the Painted Hills site would not have an effect on this species.  Longeared Myotis (Myotis evotis): This species of vesper bat is sometimes found in crevices in small basalt rock formations. This species often roosts in Ponderosa pine trees over 30 centimeters (cm) in diameter and over 12 meters high. The BE identified that no significant effect would occur to this species.  Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis): Goshawks select relatively closed canopy coniferous/boreal forest habitat for nesting. Therefore, the Painted Hills site does not provide nesting goshawk habitat. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 80 Final Environmental Impact Statement  Olivesided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi): This species is found in boreal and western coniferous forests and the Painted Hill site does not provide this habitat.  Pallid Townsend’s Bigeared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens): This species is found in eastside mixed conifer forest, shrub-steppe areas and riparian-wetland areas. In Washington, old buildings, silos, concrete bunkers, barns, caves, and mines are common roost structures. The Painted Hills site does not provide this habitat.  Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus): Two subspecies of peregrine falcons occur in Washington state at present, Falco peregrinus pealei (Peale’s peregrine falcon) and Falco peregrinus anatum (Continental peregrine falcon). Peale's peregrine falcon is a coastal subspecies and are not found in eastern Washington. Therefore, the BE evaluated the potential presence of Continental peregrine falcon on the site. Historic use of Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, more commonly known as “DDT”, throughout eastern Washington eliminated this subspecies from former breeding sites in eastern Washington. Since the ban of the use of DDT in 1972, attempts have been made to re-establish the Continental peregrine falcon in eastern Washington and captive-reared young birds have been released at several sites in Spokane County. The process of re-introducing falcons into the wild is called "hacking". Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) does not currently use any hack sites in the vicinity that could be impacted by the project. Further, because Peregrine falcons nest on cliffs or even man-made structures such as buildings or bridges, the Painted Hills site does not provide nesting habitat.  Redband Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Chester Creek does not provide cool water habitat required by redband trout.  Sagebrush Lizard (Sceloporus graciosus): As suggested by its name, the Sagebrush lizard occupies habitats where sagebrush is prevalent, and the Painted Hills site does not provide such habitat.  Westslope Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi): Chester Creek does not provide cool water habitat required by Westslope cutthroat trout.  Palouse Goldenweed (Haplopappus liatriformis): The Palouse goldenweed is a perennial grassland forb found in the Palouse bioregion of Idaho and southeastern Washington and does not occur on the Painted Hills site. WDFW Priority Species  White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus): As illustrated on Figure 3-15, the Painted Hills site is not mapped by WDFW as White-tailed deer habitat, which is mapped to occur on wooded lands to the east and south. However, deer use the site as they do with all undeveloped parcels in the area.  Elk (Cervus canadensis): The Painted Hill site falls within the northern extent of the mapped Elk Habitat polygon in the Spokane Valley. The site does not provide cover or refugia required by elk and is therefore not elk habitat, but elk moving through the general area between Mica Peak and Dishman Hills could potentially cross the Painted Hills site to travel between these habitats. However, there is no documented record of regular use of the site by elk.  Gray Wolf (Canis lupus): The Painted Hills site is mapped as Gray wolf habitat and it is possible that wolves could travel through the site in search of prey. Because of the presence of small, domesticated mammals in the residential areas proximal to the site, the wolves could present a hazard to these neighboring residences. On May 5, 2011, wolves were delisted from the federally endangered species list in the eastern one-third of Washington state. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 81 Final Environmental Impact Statement Wetlands National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps indicate the possible presence of two wetlands on the Painted Hills site. Field studies evaluated these sites and included seasonal hydrologic monitoring at test pits in these locations. The results of the on-site evaluation concluded that, although seasonal high-water conditions occur in the winter when snow or frozen ground conditions occur, wetland hydrologic conditions do not occur during the growing season and these sites therefore did not meet the hydrologic conditions necessary for these areas to be considered jurisdictional wetlands. This determination was verified by the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE), who conducted a field visit on June 8, 2016. Chester Creek and Riparian Areas Chester Creek infiltrates into the soil at its terminus northwest of the PRD site and is therefore hydrologically isolated from surface waters outside its watershed. The upper portions of the Chester Creek watershed are dominated by forests, pastures, row crops. Urbanization and livestock grazing in the lower portions of the watershed have severely restricted the historic floodplain of the creek. Summer baseflows in the creek are primarily maintained by groundwater inflows which typically remain consistently cool. There are anecdotal reports of fish occurrences in Chester Creek. Little submerged aquatic vegetation occurs in the creek. The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Type Map defines Chester Creek as a Type F waterway—a stream used by fish or that could potentially be used by fish. Chapter 21.40 of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code designates Chester Creek, as a Type F stream with a width of greater than 15 feet at bankfull stage, requiring a standard riparian buffer or “riparian management zone” of 100 feet. Biology, Soil & Water, Inc. (2019) delineated the Chester Creek OHWM in the field on March 31, 2015, to establish the extent of this buffer. Threatened or Endangered Species (Chester Creek) As identified in the BE, listed threatened and endangered species that occur in Spokane County include the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis), Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Water Howellia (Howellia auqatilis) and Spalding’s Silene (Silene spaldingii). Specific to Chester Creek, the BE presented the following findings regarding the potential presence of these species on the site:  Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus): Waterfalls and dams prevent the upstream and downstream migration of bull trout into the Spokane River and its tributaries in the vicinity of the Painted Hills site. There is no known population of bull trout in the project area; therefore, no Bull Trout habitat exists.  Water Howellia (Howellia aquatilis): Howellia is an aquatic plant that is often found in seasonal wetlands, ponds, and lakes. No evidence of this plant was observed through field visits conducted to support the preparation of the BE. Species of Concern (Chester Creek) Specific to Chester Creek, the BE presented the following findings regarding the potential presence of these species of concern on the site:  California Floater (Anodonta californiensis): This is a freshwater mussel and there are no instances on the site.  Giant Columbia Spire snail (Fluminicola Columbiana): This species occurs in cold, unpolluted medium to large streams, which do not occur within the project area.  Redband Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Chester Creek does not provide cool water habitat required by redband trout. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 82 Final Environmental Impact Statement  Westslope Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi): Chester Creek does not provide cool water habitat required by Westslope cutthroat trout. Figure 3-15: Priority Habitat & Species Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 83 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.4.3.2 Environmental Consequences Calculation of the extent of impacts to the Chester Creek riparian buffer was completed in 2019 and was based on the proposed lot configuration that was presented as Alternative 2 in the 2019 FEIS submittal. As described in Section 2.2 Land Development Alternatives, the 2019 Alternative 2 has been replaced by Alternatives 2a and 2b in this current SEPA documentation. The extent of permanent impacts to the riparian buffer resulting from Alternatives 2a or 2b would be less than those calculated for the 2019 Alternative 2. Once an alternative is selected, the exact extent of riparian buffer impact and required mitigation would be calculated for that alternative prior to the submittal of permit documents to the City. 3.4.3.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Under Alternative 1, there would be no physical changes to the site. Vegetation established and maintained under the former golf course use would continue to exist on the site but would not receive the extent of maintenance that occurred under golf course operation. Existing built features on the site, including the restaurant, maintenance building, former cart paths, and two cart path bridges would continue to occupy the regulated riparian buffer of Chester Creek. No other impacts to biological resources are anticipated to occur under Alternative 1. 3.4.3.2.2 Alternative 2a – Planned Residential Development—High Infiltration Under Alternative 2a, portions of the existing cart path that currently occupy the regulated riparian buffer would be demolished, removed from the buffer area, and revegetated, resulting in an increase in the areal extent of vegetated riparian buffer. New permanent riparian buffer impacts would occur as a result of a planned expansion of the restaurant parking area and for the required expansion of Thorpe Road. These improvements would result in approximately 4,000 SF and 1,400 SF of permanent buffer loss, respectively. Permanent impacts to the riparian buffer would be allowed under the SVMC through a combination of buffer averaging and buffer reduction. All impacts to riparian buffers due either to permanent removal or through buffer averaging would be mitigated at ratios either equal to or greater than what is required in the SV critical areas ordinance to ensure that these impacts do not result in a reduction in the ecological function and values of the riparian area. Alternative 2a is not expected to negatively impact the Chester Creek channel. The widening of the Thorpe Road bridge over Chester Creek under Alternative 2a would result in additional shading of the creek channel, potentially reducing summer stream temperatures. Stormwater generated on the PRD site will be collected and treated in the stormwater management system and will not discharge directly to Chester Creek and therefore will not significantly impact water quality. As described above, neither the Triangle Pond nor the Gustin Ditch provide unique or important habitat for fish, wildlife, or native plants. The project-generated site disturbance from installation of drywells in the bottom of the Triangle Pond, and the piping of the Gustin Ditch under Alternative 2a are not expected to negatively impact biological resources. Chester Creek Base Flows and Fish Habitat Chester Creek has not been reported to support special status fish or protected plant species according to the Biological Evaluation (BE) for the Painted Hills PRD and Triangle Pond/Gustin Ditch site prepared by Larry Dawes in November 2021. The BE report concludes that there are no listed species present in the vicinity of the project site and that waterfalls and dams prevent the upstream and downstream migration of fish into the Spokane River and its tributaries in the vicinity of the Painted Hills PRD site. Potential risks to Chester Creek and fish habitat could include scouring in the event of a 100-year flood event or contaminations resulting from stormwater runoff. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 84 Final Environmental Impact Statement Under Alternative 2a, no significant negative impact on Chester Creek or fish habitat is anticipated due to riparian corridor mitigation/buffer enhancements and erosion control measures implemented in conjunction with construction. Buffer enhancement along the southern shore of Chester Creek will include the planting of native vegetation that will provide multiple benefits, including shading the creek, improving biodiversity, and reduce the potential for scouring and erosion along the creek. The flood conveyance system is designed to contain and convey floodwaters that overtop the banks of Chester Creek south of the Painted Hills site. Therefore, the flood conveyance improvements would not impact the fish-bearing capacity and habitat of Chester Creek. Additional information regarding the design of the flood conveyance system can be located in Section 3.2 of this FEIS. 3.4.3.2.3 Alternative 2b – Planned Residential Development—Low Infiltration Impacts to riparian buffers under Alternative 2b would be the same as those described under Alternative 2a and would be mitigated as described for Alternative 2a. 3.4.3.3 Mitigation Measures  Impacts to City-regulated riparian buffers will be mitigated to ensure no net loss of overall buffer area consistent with the applicable City critical areas ordinance.  Water quality will be protected in Chester Creek during construction through the implementation of standard construction stormwater best management practices.  Protected buffer areas that are inadvertently disturbed during construction will be replanted with native riparian vegetation.  Permanent signage will be placed along the limits of the riparian buffer indicating that the area is not to be disturbed. 3.4.3.4 Cumulative Effects No cumulative effects on biological resources are expected to result from the project. 3.4.4 Environmental Health 3.4.4.1 Affected Environment Because the site has primarily been used as open space as a golf course, the site does not have a known history that would indicate the presence of environmental health hazards. Further, no evidence exists of environmental health risks on the site. Ecology’s online “What’s in My Neighborhood” mapping tool indicates that there are no designated clean-up sites on the site or in the immediate vicinity of the project (DOE, 2018).9 The nearest site is approximately 1.5 miles to the north. Further, the Ecology Spills Map does not indicate any history of hazardous spills on the site.10 Lastly, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services TOXMAP Environmental Health Maps (2018) doesn’t show any other toxic chemicals in the area and indicates that the nearest landfill to the site is approximately 2.25-miles to the southeast. 9 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/neighborhood/ 10 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/storymaps/spills/spills_sm.html Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 85 Final Environmental Impact Statement Site surveys have not revealed any past septic fields on the property. There is one known well on the site. Well logs from the Washington State Department of Conservation and Development indicate that this well was dug in 1950. It is expected that this well will be decommissioned and capped with future site development. 3.4.4.2 Environmental Consequences 3.4.4.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action The No Action alternative is not anticipated to have any environmental health impacts as no changes would occur. 3.4.4.2.2 Alternative 2a – Planned Residential Development—High Infiltration Alternative 2a would have the potential to cause environmental health effects due to the following:  Dust and construction equipment emissions during site construction.  Noise from construction equipment. 3.4.4.2.3 Alternative 2b – Planned Residential Development—Low Infiltration Similar to Alternative 2a, Alternative 2b would have the potential to generate environmental health effects from dust and construction equipment emissions and from construction noise. 3.4.4.3 Mitigation Measures It is anticipated that environmental health effects from Alternatives 2a and 2b would be mitigated through the following measures:  Site construction will be conducted consistent with SVMC Section 7.05.040 (Nuisances Prohibited) which includes limits on smoke, soot, toxic substances, noise, and other public health hazards.  Site construction will abide by the maximum allowable levels for environmental noise related to site construction as governed by Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Section 173-60. 3.4.4.4 Cumulative Effects No cumulative effects on environmental health are anticipated to result from the project. 3.4.5 Geology 3.4.5.1 Affected Environment The Painted Hills site is generally flat, sloping less than one percent from south to north with some localized short, steeper slopes associated with remnant golf course features including tee boxes, greens, and road embankments. The majority of the site is mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as Narcisse silt loam, zero to three percent slopes, prime farmland. The edges of the site are mapped as Hardesty ashy silt loam, zero to three percent slopes, prime farmland; Urban land-Springdale, disturbed complex zero to three percent slopes; Endoaquolis and Fluvaquents, zero to three percent slopes, prime farmland if drained; and Phoebe shay sandy loam, zero to three percent slopes, prime farmland if irrigated. Across most of the project site beneath the topsoil, there is a layer of somewhat poorly drained alluvial soils, and below this layer are glacially deposited sands and gravels. There is no known history of unstable soils on the site or within the immediate vicinity. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 86 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.4.5.2 Environmental Consequences 3.4.5.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action No significant impacts to surface soils are proposed under Alternative 1. 3.4.5.2.2 Alternative 2a – Planned Residential Development—High Infiltration Under Alternative 2a, the native soils will be covered by imported fill and developed for residential or residential and commercial uses. The property will be graded to create the streets, drainage ponds/swales, building pads, parking lots, and park features. Grading may require up to 377,532 CY of imported material after accounting for a 15 percent shrink factor. This material will come from the nearest source approved per City and County standards and brought to the site following City guidelines. Approximately 30 percent of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces after completion of the project. Due to the placement of fill and the site development features proposed under Alternative 2a, the opportunity for surface water and precipitation to recharge the underlying aquifer will be limited to the proposed infiltration basin, roadside swales, and dry wells. Some erosion from wind and minor erosion from rain could occur on-site during construction. Because of the flatness of the site, the potential for erosion caused by surface water is limited and would be localized to the area of work. 3.4.5.2.3 Alternative 2b – Planned Residential Development—Low Infiltration As described for Alternative 2a, site grading activities associated with Alternative 2b would cover most of the site with imported fill. The property would be graded to create the streets, drainage ponds/swales, and areas future residences. Alternative 2b is expected to require the import of approximately 117,697 CY of “loose” fill material prior to compaction on the site. Approximately 25 percent of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces after completion of the project. As described for Alternative 2a, due to the placement of fill and site development features under Alternative 2b, the opportunity for surface water and precipitation to recharge the underlying aquifer will be limited to the proposed infiltration basin, roadside swales, and dry wells. Some erosion from wind and minor erosion from rain could occur on-site during construction. Because of the flatness of the site, the potential for surface water erosion is limited and would be localized to the area of work. 3.4.5.3 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce or control erosion under the two action alternatives, Alternatives 2 and 3.  Measures as required by the SRCAA and WDOE permits would be followed.  An erosion control plan that complies with the Eastern Washington Stormwater Management Manual (EWSWMM) and SRSM would be developed for the project and will be implanted during construction. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 87 Final Environmental Impact Statement  Erosion control measures to be implemented during construction may include using silt fences, wattles, sediment basins, inlet protection, watering and hydro-seeding as allowed/required by the SRSM and the EWSWMM.  Following construction, soils would be stabilized by paving, building, and landscaping/vegetation. 3.4.5.4 Cumulative Effects Alternatives 2a and 2b are not expected to result in cumulative effects to surface geology, as there are no known on-going or concurrent projects that, when considered in conjunction with the action alternatives, could generate cumulate effects. 3.4.6 Historic, Cultural, and Archaeological Resources 3.4.6.1 Affected Environment The affected environment of the Painted Hills site is described in detail in an April 2018 Cultural Resource Survey, prepared by Plateau Archaeological Investigations, LLC (PAI) and incorporated into this FEIS by reference (PAI, 2018). As described in the study, PAI conducted an intensive pedestrian survey over the Painted Hills site and supplemented that with desktop research. Upon completion of the study, PAI concluded that development of the Painted Hills PRD project (Alternatives 2a and 2b) “will result in No Historic Properties Affected, and no further archaeological investigations are recommended prior to, or during, execution of this project.” Although this survey revealed no indication that cultural or historic materials would be encountered during construction, PAI recommended that all ground-disturbing activities associated with the project be conducted under the guidance of an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) due to interest expressed in the project by the Spokane Tribe of Indians. The IDP is included with the cultural resources survey, which is included with this FEIS as Appendix I. 3.4.6.2 Environmental Consequences 3.4.6.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action No potential impacts to historic, cultural, or archaeological resources would result from Alternative 1 as no site disturbance would occur. 3.4.1.2.2 Alternative 2a--Planned Residential Development—High Infiltration As noted in the cultural resource survey, subsurface probing on the Painted Hills site revealed irregular sediments that “generally did not fit those predicted by the NRCS model” due to the extensive landscaping and site grading that occurred with the construction of the Painted Hills Golf Course. Due to the site disturbance that has occurred on the site and the lack of evidence of any Native American or historic-era cultural materials or features, no significant impacts are anticipated to result from the construction activities associated with Alternative 2a. However, site construction activities will occur under the guidance of an IDP as outlined in the Cultural Resources Survey included in Appendix I of the Cultural Resources Survey to ensure that any potential inadvertent discovery is promptly addressed. A March 2022 supplemental report prepared by Plateau Archaeological Investigations LLC is included in Appendix J. As noted in that report, no archaeological resources were found within the area of potential effects associated with the off-site improvements proposed at the Gustin Ditch and the Triangle Pond. Therefore, no impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated on off-site areas under Alternative 2a. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 88 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.4.6.2.3 Alternative 2b – Planned Residential Development—Low Infiltration As described for Alternative 2a, areas of site disturbance for Alternative 2b would occur within the same site limits as those evaluated in the cultural resources survey. As a consequence, no significant impacts to Native American or historic-era cultural materials would be expected to result from Alternative 2b. However, site construction activities would occur under the guidance of an IDP as outlined in the Cultural Resources Survey in Appendix I to ensure that any potential inadvertent discovery is promptly addressed. A March 2022 supplemental report prepared by Plateau Archaeological Investigations LLC is included in Appendix J. As noted in that report, no archaeological resources were found within the area of potential effects associated with the off-site improvements proposed at the Gustin Ditch and the Triangle Pond. Therefore, no impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated on off-site areas under Alternative 2b. 3.4.6.3 Mitigation Measures On-site and off-site ground disturbance activities would follow the IDP included in the April 2018 Cultural Resource Survey document. This IDP includes the following measures:  If ground-disturbing activities reveal potential Native American or historic-era cultural materials or features, a professional archaeologist will be contacted immediately. The archaeologist will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for a professional archaeologist as defined at 36 CFR 61 (See Appendix I). Construction within 200 feet (60 meters) of the discovery will stop, and the area will be secured to protect the find from additional damage. The archaeologist will document the find, prepare a brief written statement, and take photographs of the find for submission to the lead agency and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). The find will also be reported to the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) of the Spokane Tribe of Indians. It is the responsibility of the lead agency, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, to contact the affected Tribes. This consultation process will take place even if the pre-contact or historic-era cultural materials appear to have lost their depositional integrity. Work within 200 feet (60 meters) of the find will not resume until a plan for management or preservation of the materials has been approved. Following the project, the archaeologist will provide a report detailing the procedures and results of the investigation.  During the investigation, the archaeologist will observe rules of safety and will comply with any safety requirements of the excavation contractor and project engineers. Entry into any excavation will only be done under the direct supervision and approval of the construction foreman (or his or her agent) and verification that entry and exit is safe.  If a burial, human remains, suspected human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or items of cultural patrimony are encountered during any aspect of this project, operations will cease in accordance with the RCW Chapters 27.44, 68.50, and 68.60. All work within 200 feet (60 meters) of the find will cease, the area around the discovery will be secured, and any requirements of the lead agency shall be followed. Work within 200 feet (60 meters) of the find will not resume until a plan for management or preservation of the materials has been agreed upon by all parties. o If the lead agency does not explicitly state procedures, the Spokane Valley Police Department, the Spokane County Medical Examiner, and the SHPO at the DAHP will be notified in the most expeditious manner possible. The find will also be reported to the THPO of the Spokane Tribe of Indians. Reporting is to be done by the lead agency (DAHP), or a federal or state funding or permitting agency. The find will be treated with dignity. People who have contact with the find will not take photographs, contact the press, call 911, or discuss the find with the public in any manner. The find will be covered, and the location kept secure. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 89 Final Environmental Impact Statement o The coroner and law enforcement agency with jurisdiction will evaluate the find to determine whether it is a crime scene or a burial. If human remains are determined to be associated with an archaeological site (burial), and if there is any question of the cultural affiliation of the burial, or whether the burial is prehistoric, the DAHP and any affected tribes will be notified to assist in the determination prior to beginning any extensive excavations. 3.4.6.4 Cumulative Effects No on-going or future activities are expected to occur on-site that would result in cumulative effects when considered in conjunction with any of the project alternatives. 3.4.7 Noise 3.4.7.1 Affected Environment Noise levels in the project area are relatively low, as would be expected in a low-density semi-rural setting. Noise in the area is typically generated by vehicular traffic on the surrounding roads, and residential equipment such as lawn mowers and chain saws. Noise from recreational vehicles and snowmobiles, in season, may also be present. The proposed project is subject to State of Washington and City of Spokane Valley noise standards and regulations. State of Washington noise regulations are found in WAC 173-60. Traffic traveling on public roadways is exempt from the State of Washington’s maximum allowable noise levels, as is construction noise that occurs between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Section 7.05.40 K. of the SVMC provides thresholds and standards for controlling the nuisance impacts of noise within the community. This section includes exemptions regardless of time of day for normal use of public rights-of-way, sounds created by motor vehicles when regulated by Chapter 173-62 WAC (noise emission standards for new motor vehicles and noise emission standards for the operation of motor vehicles on public highways), sounds created by surface carriers engaged in commerce or passenger travel by railroad, and sounds created by safety and protective devices where noise suppression would defeat the intent of the device or is not economically feasible. In addition, sounds originating from temporary construction sites as a result of construction activity are exempt from the provisions of SVMC 7.05.040(K)(1) between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., or when conducted beyond 1,000 feet of any residence where human beings reside and sleep at any hour: 3.4.7.2 Environmental Consequences 3.4.7.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Under Alternative 1 noise levels on and near the project site would remain at current low levels typical of rural residential areas. 3.4.7.2.2 Alternative 2a – Planned Residential Development—High Infiltration Under Alternative 2a, noise levels would increase beyond current noise levels both during the construction phase and indefinitely once the project construction is completed. During the construction phase noise from construction, land clearing, fill delivery, and placement equipment as well as structure construction would increase for the short term. Following completion of construction, noise would be generated by residential traffic and other residential sources including yard maintenance equipment, domestic pets, occupants, and park use for the long term. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 90 Final Environmental Impact Statement The increase in population under Alternative 2a would likely lead to noise levels that are higher than current levels. It is unlikely that the increase would be measurable, but it may be perceived by residents in terms of the frequency to which they experience noise disturbance. 3.4.7.2.3 Alternative 2b– Planned Residential Development—Low Infiltration Under Alternative 2b, noise levels would increase beyond current noise levels both during the construction phase and indefinitely once the project construction is completed, to approximately the same degree as described for Alternative 2a. 3.4.7.3 Mitigation Measures Under either Alternative 2a or 2b, construction will be limited to times prescribed in City code. 3.4.7.4 Cumulative Effects There are no known off-site sources of noise that could present cumulative effects when considered in conjunction with the action alternatives. 3.4.8 Public Services The location of service districts, including schools, irrigation, water currently serving the project vicinity are identified on Figure 3-15 Service District Boundaries. 3.4.8.1 Affected Environment Schools The Painted Hills PRD Site is located in the Central Valley School District (CVSD) which currently has a population of over 14,000 students. According to the CVSD webpage, enrollment is projected to increase by over 3,000 students by 2029. The nearest schools in proximity to the project site are Horizon Middle School, Chester Elementary School and University High School, which are located together on an approximately 75-acre campus immediately northeast of the Painted Hills site on the east side of South Pines Road and between East 32nd Avenue and East 40th Avenue. The Painted Hills Site currently contains no residences and therefore has no direct impact on school capacity in the CVSD. The funding of public K-12 schools in Washington State comes from a variety of sources including retail sales tax, business and occupation tax, property taxes and other sources distributed by the state to local school districts. In addition, local school districts have the ability to supplement funding for maintenance and operations and capital improvements through local levies and bonds. School districts also have the ability under the Growth Management Act and pursuant to RCW 82.02.050(4) and RCW 82.02.090(7) to establish a capital facilities plan that can be integrated into the county’s comprehensive plan and serve as the basis for the collection of school impact fees. As acknowledged in Spokane County’s January 2020 Capital Facilities Plan, “Since capital facilities plans are not mandatory for special districts under GMA, Spokane County has no way of compelling a school district to prepare a plan unless they want a school impact fee.” To this date, CVSD has elected not to pursue school impact fees on new residential development as allowed under state law and has instead opted to pursue bond funding for capital improvements when necessary. As reported by the Spokane County Assessor’s office, in 2021 CVSD obtained $29,211,000 from an enrichment levy and $17,130,000 from a bond levy for new improvements. These revenues were based on an assessment of $2.32 per $1,000 of assessed property value for the enrichment levy and $1.36 per $1,000 of assessed property value for the bond levy. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 91 Final Environmental Impact Statement According to the Spokane County tax records, the approximately 84-acre parcel within the Painted Hills Site in which single family and multi-family residences would be located, Parcel 45336.9192, is currently classified by the county appraiser as a recreational use, due to its historic golf course use and on-going use as a golf driving range. The total taxable market value for this parcel in 2021 was $1,827,910 and the total annual tax assessment for this parcel was $21,102.73. Based on the current CVSD enrichment levy rate of $2.32 per $1,000 of taxable value and the CVSD bond levy rate of $1.36 per $1,000 of taxable value, the 84-acre site that comprised a majority of the project site will contribute $4,241 in enrichment levy revenue and $2,486 in bond levy revenue towards the CVSD levies in 2022. Fire The Painted Hills PRD site is located in the Spokane Valley Fire District, approximately 0.6 miles from Spokane Valley Fire Department Station 9. Access to the site by emergency vehicles is provided from multiple avenues including S Madison Road, SE 32nd Avenue to S. Bowdish Road and S Dishman Mica Road. Spokane Valley Fire District operates under a Maintenance and Operation (M&O) levy. Public Safety The Painted Hills PRD site is provided emergency medical services by the Spokane Valley Fire District. Emergency medical services are anticipated to transport patients to the nearest hospital, Multicare Valley Hospital, approximately 4.2 miles from the project site. The City of Spokane contracts with the Spokane County Sheriff’s office to provide public safety services. The Spokane County Sheriff’s department operations and facilities are funded by taxes levied on properties within the district. Therefore, district resources grow as assessed values within the district grow. Water Water service is provided by Spokane County Water District #3. Existing water lines run throughout the developed portions of the Painted Hills PRD site. Water lines on Thorpe Road are eight-inch steel and 20-inch ductile iron lines. Water lines on Madison are 10-inch and 18-inch ductile iron lines. Waterlines along Dishman- Mica are 12-inch steel lines. Water service is funded by connection fees, monthly base charges, and consumption charges per cubic foot. Therefore, funding for services is anticipated to be commensurate with development. Sanitary Sewer Sanitary sewer service to the site is provided by Spokane County Environmental Services. A sewer main is located along the western property line fronting Dishman Mica Road. A pump station identified as Midilome #5 is located in the northwestern corner of the property. Sanitary sewer lines range from 10 to 12 inches on Thorpe, and 24 inches on Dishman-Mica. Additional sewer lines of varying sizes are available north of the site, as identified on the existing conditions plat. Sanitary sewer utilities are funded by monthly rates and connection fees. Funding for services is anticipated to be commensurate with development. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 92 Final Environmental Impact Statement Energy Electrical utilities will be provided to the Painted Hills PRD site by Inland Power Company. According to a map received from Inland power, existing utility lines run throughout the developed portions of the Painted Hills PRD site. Existing electrical lines include 3-phase overhead power on Dishman-Mica and Thorpe Road, and 3- phase underground power along the northern property line and Madison Road to a point of termination on Parcel 45343.9059. The Painted Hills PRD site has several existing junction boxes and transformers. No substantial transmission improvements are necessary to provide an adequate level of service. Electric utilities are funded by residential rates and other charges, commensurate with development. Power design and distribution lines internal to the site will be coordinated with Inland Power’s Senior Field Engineer, consistent with the service provider and city standards. 3.4.8.2 Environmental Consequences 3.4.8.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action No significant impacts to public services (schools, public safety, and public and private utilities) are anticipated to result from the no-action alternative as no appreciable additional demand on services would occur. Existing demand on public services would remain relatively static and contributions towards public services through property taxes and utility rates would be expected to remain roughly in-line with inflation and any other market adjustments. 3.4.8.2.2 Alternative 2a – Planned Residential Development—High Infiltration Alternative 2a would result in approximately 300 single-family residential units, 228 multi-family units, and 52 mixed-use residential units. Approximately 13,400 SF of commercial use will occur within the mixed-use buildings and approximately 9,000 SF of new retail use will occur within a newly created 92,865 SF lot located along Dishman-Mica Road. The 4,000 SF former clubhouse building will be retained in restaurant use and, as a result, would not represent a change in impact on public services. Based on current demographics, it is expected that approximately 1,377 people would reside in the project at full project buildout. Further, it is anticipated that approximately 45 employees would work in the 22,400 SF of new retail space that would result with Alternative 2 .11 Similar to the projected schedule of residential development, it is anticipated that development of the commercial retail uses will be market-driven and would occur over the approximately 10-year buildout period of the project. The following paragraphs summarize the anticipated effects of these uses and the new residents and employees on schools, parks, fire, public safety, water and sanitary sewer services. Schools Based on the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimate data, approximately 15.2 percent of Spokane Valley’s population is between the ages of 5 and 17 years old. Extrapolating this number to the Painted Hills project results in an estimated 209 students who would reside within the project upon completion of Alternative 2a. 11 Assumes approximately 1,000 square feet of retail space per employee and two shifts per day, or approximately 500 square feet of retail area per employee. (U.S. Energy Information Administration (2016) - https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/bc/cfm/b2.php) Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 93 Final Environmental Impact Statement While the precise cohort of elementary school, middle school, and high school students is not known, if general student population were proportionately distributed to the number of grades in elementary (six grades), middle school (three grades), and high school (four grades), it is assumed that the development of Alternative 2a would result in the following increases in student population:  Elementary School – Approximately 10 new students per year or 96 total students over the approximately 10-year buildout of the project.  Middle School – Approximately five new students per year or 48 total students over the approximately 10-year buildout of the project.  High School – Approximately six new students per year or 64 total students over the approximately 10- year buildout of the project. It is expected that the future development under Alternative 2a would provide increased school tax revenues commensurate with the demand on facilities and operations created by additional school children residing within the PRD. For example, if the current CVSD enrichment levy and bond levy were to be maintained at its current rate, it is estimated that, at full buildout of the project, approximately $483,645 per year in enrichment funding and $283,516 in bond levy funding would be generated by the project. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 94 Final Environmental Impact Statement Table 3-10: Alternative 2A. Estimated Potential Annual Levy Funds Generated at Buildout Land Use # Units / Acres Estimated Present Day Market Value1 2022 Enrichment Levy Rate Potential Annual Enrichment Levy Funds2 2022 Bond Levy Rate Potential Annual Bond Levy Funds* SFR 300 $150,000,000 0.00232 $348,000 0.00136 $204,000 MFR 228 $45,600,000 0.00232 $105,792 0.00136 $62,016 COM 52 units / 3.29-A $12,867,500 0.00232 $29,853 0.00136 $17,500 Total $483,645 $283,516 1. Values based on $500,000 per SFR unit, $200,000 per MFR unit and $750,000 per acre for Commercial land. 2. Assumes current levy rates are maintained through project buildout. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the local school district—in this case CVSD-to ensure that adequate facilities are in place for student populations as they grow over time. If revenue streams are inadequate to expand to build new facilities at any given point when capacities are stretched, districts have the responsibility of accommodating students through other means including redrawing the boundaries for schools within their system and/or finding auxiliary facilities to even the distribution of populations until any needed capital facilities can be built. The district has the ability to supplement revenue received by the state with supplemental funding and currently exercises that ability through two levies, one for enrichment (programs) and one for capital improvements (bond levy). While these levies expire over time, if renewed at their current rates, it is anticipated that the project would generate approximately $283,516 per year at project completion towards capital improvement funds. Also, if CVSD determined it was in their best interest, they could elect to collaborate with Spokane County to adopt a GMA-compliant capital facilities plan and establish a school impact fee program for new development. Such a fee would be a one-time assessment on new residential construction that would be used to fund new school facilities identified in the capital facilities plan. In summary, it is not anticipated that the Painted Hills PRD will result in significant impacts to schools for the following reasons:  Student population increase from the project will occur slowly over time—approximately 21 students per year over the 10-year buildout horizon of the project—giving the district time to plan for any necessary adjustments to alter its population distribution and facilities as needed.  Prior to the 10-year buildout, it is expected that approximately two (2) years of site development would occur before any new residential structures would be constructed and any students would reside on the site. Therefore, the district would have at least one (1) to two (2) years following an approval of the Painted Hills PRD to make any initial adjustments necessary to accommodate expected near term changes in student population represented by the project.  Capital facilities revenues received by the district under current and future levies and/or other capital revenue streams will grow from the project, helping to off-set the impact on school capacity and providing the CVSD with additional means of building new facilities if needed.  The CVSD has other revenue-generating mechanisms that it could pursue if desired including the establishment of school impact fees. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 95 Final Environmental Impact Statement Fire In response to the submittal of the Painted Hills PRD application, the Spokane Valley Fire District submitted a letter, dated August 31, 2015, that provides development-specific recommendations for ensuring adequate access provisions are made for the fire department to access the site. Incorporation of these site design measures into the design of the project will ensure that adequate fire access is provided on the site. During the public comment period on the FEIS, comments were received regarding a concern that the project could interfere with evacuation routes in the event that a wildfire occurs in surrounding rural residential areas with significant tree canopy. The FEIS preparer is aware of a fire event in 1991 in the Ponderosa residential area to the west. Such events are rare and the potential for such events stems from the combination of densely forested Ponderosa pine trees in the area and prevailing winds from the west/southwest. Because the prevailing winds that help fuel such an event are generally from the west/southwest, the logical escape route for residents from the Ponderosa residential area or from the forested hillside east of South Madison Road, if such an event were to occur again, would likely be to the north. For residents within the Ponderosa community to the west, the logical escape route would be South Dishman Mica Road either via Schafer Road or via South Bowdish Road. Both of these access points to South Dishman Mica Road are north of the Painted Hills access to South Dishman Mica Road. Therefore, future development of the Painted Hills subdivision would not interfere with either access point. For areas east and southeast of South Madison Road, the escape route would likely be South Madison Road or SR 27 farther to the east. The Painted Hills PRD will not introduce any stop-controlled intersections on South Madison that would interfere with northbound travel in the event of a fire. Furthermore, the Painted Hills PRD would not be landscaped with dense combustible landscape materials. Future buildings and infrastructure would be built to fire code and would include all required suppression features that would protect the subdivision if a fire event approached from the west, south, or east. Finally, the Painted Hills PRD will improve cross circulation between South Dishman-Mica Road and South Madison Road by providing a new east-west local circulator through the site. This will improve access to either South Madison Road or South Dishman-Mica Road and provides alternate routes of travel should fire events occur either to the east or west, where forested low density residential development exists. For these reasons, the project is not expected to have an impact on wildfire safety and may have a net benefit due to the addition of a new east-west vehicular route between South Madison Road and South Dishman-Mica Road. Public Safety It is expected that additional service calls for police, fire and emergency services will occur from future residences and businesses within the site, but these uses are not anticipated to create a significant increased demand for public safety services. Per communications with City staff, it is not anticipated that Alternative 2a would generate a significant impact to City services.12 The City regularly reviews large development proposals and, in instances where a significant new user, such as a big-box retail project, creates enough demand to warrant special adjustments in service, the City will make those adjustments to its service contract with Spokane County. It is anticipated that the gradual increase in population, employment and business activity on the site can be commensurately addressed through adjusted service levels. 12 Pers comms with Morgan Koudelka, City of Spokane Valley, January 14, 2019. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 96 Final Environmental Impact Statement Water In conjunction with the Painted Hills PRD submittal, a Certificate of Water Availability was filed with the Spokane Valley Planning Department on July 24, 2015. This certificate, signed by the site’s water purveyor, Spokane County Water District #3, acknowledges that the proposed project is consistent with the district’s Department of Health (DOH) approved water system plan. Sanitary Sewer Service to the site is provided by Spokane County Environmental Services. As noted in the July 24, 2015 certificate of sewer availability letter provided by the county, the district acknowledges that sanitary sewer service is available and can be provided to serve the project. 3.4.8.2.3 Alternative 2b – Planned Residential Development – Low Infiltration Alternative 2b would result in approximately 272 single-family residential units, 273 multi-family units, and 52 mixed-use residential units. Approximately 13,400 SF of commercial use will occur within the mixed-use buildings and approximately 9,000 SF of new retail use will occur within a newly created 92,865 SF lot located along Dishman-Mica Road. The 4,000 SF former clubhouse building will be retained in restaurant use and, as a result, would not represent a change in impact on public services. Based on the 2013 to 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, it is anticipated that each single-family unit would be occupied by approximately 2.5 residents, and that each of the 280 multi-family units would be occupied by approximately 2.24 residents. As such, it is expected that approximately 1,408 people would reside Alternative 2b at full project buildout. The number of employees who would work within the project would be identical to Alternative 2a. The following paragraphs summarize the anticipated effects of the uses and residents of Alternative 2b on schools, parks, fire, public safety, water, and sanitary sewer services. Schools Based on the U.S. Census Bureau ACS 5-year estimate data, approximately 15.2 percent of Spokane Valley’s population is between the ages of 5 and 17 years old. Extrapolating this number to the Painted Hills project results in an estimated 214 students who would reside within the project upon completion of Alternative 2b. While the precise cohort of elementary school, middle school, and high school students is not known, if general student population were proportionately distributed to the number of grades in elementary (six grades), middle school (three grades), and high school (four grades), it is assumed that the development of Alternative 2b would result in the following increases in student population:  Elementary School – Approximately 10 new students per year or 98 total students over the approximately 10-year buildout of the project.  Middle School – Approximately five new students per year or 46 total students over the approximately 10-year buildout of the project.  High School – Approximately seven new students per year or 70 total students over the approximately 10-year buildout of the project. Like Alternative 2a, development under Alternative 2b would provide increased school tax revenues commensurate with the demand on facilities and operations created by additional school children residing within the PRD. For example, if the current CVSD enrichment levy and bond levy were to be maintained at its Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 97 Final Environmental Impact Statement current rate, it is estimated that, at full buildout of the project, approximately $472,045 per year in enrichment funding and $276,716 in bond levy funding would be generated by the project under Alternative 2b. Table 3-11: Alternative 2b. Estimated Potential Annual Levy Funds Generated at Buildout Use # Units / Acres Estimated Present Day Market Value 2022 Enrichment Levy Rate Potential Annual Enrichment Levy Funds* 2022 Bond Levy Rate Potential Annual Painted Hills Bond Levy Funds* SFR 272 $136,000,000 0.00232 $315,520 0.00136 $184,960 MFR 273 $54,600,000 0.00232 $126,672 0.00136 $74,256 COM 52 units / 3.29-A $12,867,500 0.00232 $29,853 0.00136 $17,500 Total $472,045 $276,716 Values based on $500,000 per SFR unit, $200,000 per MFR unit and $750,000 per acre for Commercial land. 2. Assumes current levy rates are maintained through project buildout. As stated in the effects discussion above for Alternative 2a, development under Alternative 2b is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to schools for the following reasons:  Student population increase from the project will occur slowly over time—approximately 22 students per year over the 10-year buildout horizon of the project—giving the district time to plan for any necessary adjustments to alter its population distribution and facilities as needed.  Prior to the 10-year buildout, it is expected that approximately two (2) years of site development would occur before any new residential structures would be constructed and any students would reside on the site. Therefore, the district would have at least one (1) to two (2) years following an approval of the Painted Hills PRD to make any initial adjustments necessary to accommodate expected near term changes in student population represented by the project.  Capital facilities revenues received by the district under current and future levies and/or other capital revenue streams will grow from the project, helping to off-set the impact on school capacity and providing the CVSD with additional means of building new facilities if needed.  The CVSD has other revenue-generating mechanisms that it could pursue if desired including the establishment of school impact fees. Fire In response to the submittal of the Painted Hills PRD application, the Spokane Valley Fire District submitted a letter, dated August 31, 2015, that provides development-specific recommendations for ensuring adequate access provisions are made for the fire department to access the site. These recommendations would not be substantially altered by the design modifications of Alternative 2b. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 98 Final Environmental Impact Statement Public Safety It is expected that additional service calls will occur from future residences and businesses within the Alternative 2b development scenario, but these uses are not anticipated to create a significant increased demand for public safety services similar to Alternative 2a. Water In conjunction with the Painted Hills PRD submittal, a Certificate of Water Availability was filed with the Spokane Valley Planning Department on July 24, 2015. This certificate, signed by the site’s water purveyor, Spokane County Water District #3, acknowledges that the proposed project is consistent with the district’s DOH approved water system plan. The project changes proposed under Alternative 2b do not alter the scale of a development in a significant manner to suggest any concerns regarding water serviceability. Sanitary Sewer Because the scale of development under Alternative 2b is approximately the same as Alternative 2a, no additional impacts on sanitary sewer service are anticipated and the certificate of service availability received for Alternative 2a represents a reasonable assurance that the Alternative 2b can be developed without significant impacts on sanitary sewer service. 3.4.8.3 Mitigation Measures There will be no significant effect on public services from Alternatives 2a and 2b. As development occurs on the site, tax revenues and utility fee revenues will increase relative to the increase in demand for public services. 3.4.8.4 Cumulative Effects There are no known cumulative effects from other on-going projects or activities that, when considered in conjunction with the action alternatives, could result in any discernible effects on public services. 3.4.9 Recreation 3.4.9.1 Affected Environment While the Painted Hills site is a former golf course, it has not been in operation since 2012 and the site is not designated for public recreation purposes. In the interim period and before site development would begin for the proposed PRD application, the applicant plans to re-open the former driving range from the golf course as an interim source of revenue from the site. It is expected that the driving range operation would cease once the PRD site is under construction. Public recreational opportunities near the Painted Hills site include two city parks, Browns Park (8.2 acres) and Castle Park (2.7 acres) (Figure 3-17), both of which are within one mile of the site. Per the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, these parks are categorized as neighborhood parks, which are intended to generally serve residents within a half-mile radius, provide ample recreational opportunities for children, and be accessible by walking and bicycling. As noted in Figure 50 of the City’s comprehensive plan, Browns Park offers sports fields, sand volleyball courts, playgrounds, picnic areas, shelters, and restrooms, while Castle Park provides open space. In addition to these city-managed neighborhood parks, additional recreational open space areas are located at the school complex immediately northeast of the Painted Hills site, where University High school, Chester Elementary School, and Horizon Middle School are located. This complex occupies approximately 76.7 acres and includes a large outdoor recreation area with tennis courts, multiple baseball/softball fields, and soccer and football fields. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 99 Final Environmental Impact Statement Per the Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2013 Update, Table 5-2, the City has adopted a level of service standard for public parks to achieve an equivalent of 1.92 acres of park land per 1,000 residents. According to the 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, the average household size in Spokane Valley is 2.50 people for owner- occupied households and 2.24 people for renter-occupied households13. Proposed Trails Per the City of Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2013 Update, there are two trails proposed near the site (Figure 3-16). The Spokane Valley Loop – Southern Segment is a 3.5-mile segment that runs east- west from Sullivan Road to Dishman Road along 32nd Avenue. The Chester Creek Connection is a proposed one-mile segment connecting the Spokane Valley Loop at 32nd Avenue with Chester Creek. 13 U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 100 Final Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-16: Service District Boundaries Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 101 Final Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-17: Public Recreation Opportunities Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 102 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.4.9.2 Environmental Consequences 3.4.9.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Under Alternative 1, no site development would occur that would generate new residents. Therefore, no additional demands would be placed on parks and recreation facilities in the community. 3.4.9.2.2 Alternative 2a – Planned Residential Development—High Infiltration Alternative 2a is anticipated to generate approximately 300 single-family residential units, 228 multi-family units, and 52 mixed-use residential units. Based on the 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, it is anticipated that each single-family unit would be occupied by approximately 2.5 residents, and that each of the 280 multi- family units would be occupied by approximately 2.24 residents. This would result in a total population of approximately 1,377 residents upon completion of the project, which is anticipated to occur over a period of approximately 10 years or longer as the housing market dictates. Based on the City’s comprehensive plan level- of-service target of 1.92-acres of park space per 1,000 residents, the project would create demand for approximately 2.64 acres of park space in the community. As noted in the site plan included on Figure 2-5 of this document, Alternative 2a incorporates approximately 30 acres of open space, including a 10-acre park which will fulfill the recreational demands of the new development. 3.4.9.2.3 Alternative 2b – Planned Residential Development—Low Infiltration Based on the 2013 to 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, it is anticipated that each single-family unit would be occupied by approximately 2.5 residents, and that each of the 280 multi-family units would be occupied by approximately 2.24 residents. As such, it is expected that approximately 1,408 people would reside Alternative 2b at full project buildout. Based on the City’s comprehensive plan level-of-service target of 1.92-acres of park space per 1,000 residents, the project would create demand for approximately 2.70 acres of park space in the community. Alternative 2b incorporates approximately 30 acres of open space, including a 10-acre park which will fulfill the recreational demands of the new development. 3.4.9.3 Mitigation Measures As a Planned Residential Development, Alternative 2b must comply with SVMC Section 19.50.060, which requires at least 30 percent of the gross land area be dedicated for “common space for the use of its residents.” 3.4.9.4 Cumulative Effects The City conducts periodic reviews of its parks and recreation needs for the broader community and last updated its Parks and Recreation Master Plan in 2013. Through regular review and update of the community plan, the City anticipates and plans for necessary recreational needs throughout the community. Therefore, any cumulative effects of population growth within the broader community have been considered and integrated with the City’s parks and recreation system planning efforts. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 103 Final Environmental Impact Statement This page intentionally left blank. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 104 Final Environmental Impact Statement ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACS American Community Survey ADT Average daily traffic BE Biological evaluation BFE Base flood elevation CAF Community Acknowledgment Form CE Contract entity cfs Cubic feet per second CLOMR Conditional Letter of Map Revision CM Centimeter CO Carbon monoxide CO2 Carbon dioxide CSWGP Construction Stormwater General Permit CUP Conditional Use Permit CVSD Central Valley School District CY Cubic yards DAHP Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement DNR Washington Department of Natural Resources DOE Washington Department of Ecology DOH Department of Health DS Determination of significance EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency EWSWMM Eastern Washington Stormwater Management Manual FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHA Federal Housing Authority FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FIS FEMA Flood Insurance Study GMA Growth Management Act HOA Homeowners’ Association IDP Inadvertent Discovery Plan IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers KSL Per 1,000 square feet LDR Low Density Residential LID Low Impact Design LOMR FEMA Letter of Map Revision LOS Level of service LUC Land use code M&O Maintenance & Operations MPH Miles per hour NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NE Northeast NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NOx Nitrogen oxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 105 Final Environmental Impact Statement NW Northwest NWI National Wetland Inventory O3 Ozone OHWM Ordinary highwater mark O&M Operation and maintenance (manual) PAI Plateau Archaeological Investigations Pb Lead PM2.5 Particulate matter, generally 2.5 micrometers in diameter (fine) PM10 Particulate matter, generally 10 micrometers in diameter PM Particulate matter PRD Planned Residential Development RCW Revised Code of Washington ROW Right-of-way SCC Spokane County Code SE Southeast SEPA Washington State Environmental Policy Act SF Square feet SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area SFR Single-family residential SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SO2 Sulfur dioxide SR State Route SRCAA Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency SRSM Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual SVMC Spokane Valley Municipal Code SWMMEW Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer TIA Traffic impact analysis TIP Transportation Improvement Plan TV Telescoping Video UGA Urban Growth Area USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VOC Volatile organic compounds Vol. Volume WAC Washington Administrative Code WCE Whipple Consulting Engineers WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDOE Washington Department of Ecology WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area WSDOT Washington Department of Transportation Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 106 Final Environmental Impact Statement LITERATURE CITED Biology, Soil & Water, Inc. 2019. Biological Evaluation, Critical Areas Report and Habitat Management Plan. February 28, 2019. Biology, Soil & Water, Inc. 2021. Biological Evaluation, Critical Areas Report and Habitat Management Plan. November 26, 2021. Biology, Soil & Water, Inc. 2022. Gustin Ditch and Triangle Pond Addendum to the Biological Evaluation for the Painted Hills PRD. June 5, 2022. CH2MHILL. 1995. Spokane County Stormwater Utility Chester Creek Watershed Plan Technical Appendices. 106950.C1.ZZ. August 7, 1995. FEMA. 2010. Flood Insurance Study. Spokane County, WA and Incorporated Areas. Study number 53063CV000A. July 6, 2010. Koudelka, Morgan. 2019. City of Spokane Valley. Personal communications. January 14, 2019. MacInnis, J.D., et al. 2009. The Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Atlas 2009. Northwest Indian Fish Commission (NWIFC). 2015 – 2023. Statewide Washington Integrated Fish Distribution. (SWIFD) map. Retrieved from https://geo.nwifc.org/swifd/#. PBS&J. 2009. In-Depth Wetland Restoration Studies WRIA 55 &57. Spokane County division of Utilities, Public Works. Plateau Archaeological Investigations, LLC. 2018. Cultural Resource Survey of the Painted Hills Residential Development Project. April 1, 2018. Plateau Archaeological Investigations, LLC. 2022. Cultural Resource Survey for the Painted Hills Residential Development Project, Gustin Pipe Off-Site Survey Project, Spokane County Washington. March 1, 2022. Spokane Association of Realtors. 2008-2017. Comparable Statistics: Residential Site Built and Condo in Spokane County. Presented by Sabrina Jones-Schroder, J.D. Spokane-Kootenai Real Estate Research Committee. 2018. The Real Estate Report: Regional Research on Spokane, Kootenai, Bonner Counties. Volume 42, Number 1. Spring 2018. Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency. 2019. Air Pollutants of Concern. https://www.spokanecleanair.org/air- quality Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency. 2017. Spokane Air Quality Report – July 2017. https://spokanecleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/AQ-July-2017.pdf Spokane Valley Public Works Traffic Engineering. 2017. Certificate of Transportation Concurrency. US Census Bureau. American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates. US Department of Health & Human Services. 2018. TOXMAP, Environmental Health Maps. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/toxnet/index.html US Energy Information Administration. 2016. Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. Released December 2016. https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/bc/cfm/b2.php US Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Draft Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2016. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks Washington Department of Ecology. 2018. Spills Map Online Mapping Tool. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/storymaps/spills/spills_sm.html Washington Department of Ecology. 2018. “What’s in my Neighborhood” Online Mapping Tool. https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/neighborhood/ Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 107 Final Environmental Impact Statement Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2016. Traffic Impact Analysis, Painted Hills PRD. September 14, 2016. Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2018. Traffic Impact Analysis Supplemental Letter. November 21, 2018. Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2021. Truck Haul Memorandum Supplemental Letter. February 15, 2021. Painted Hills Residential Development | Spokane Valley, Washington Page 108 Final Environmental Impact Statement This page intentionally left blank. APPENDIX A: SEPA Checklist This page intentionally left blank. APPENDIX B: Public Comment Index This page intentionally left blank. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 1 Public Comment #1 – Doohan, Beth (07-16-21) Response to Comments: To Whom It May Concern, As a property owner who lives on 40th avenue, I have deep concerns about this environmental impact statement. While we do not object in concept to the development we object strongly to the omission of the consideration of the impact on our property. The “Triangle Pond” with the dry wells as stated in the study is only about 100 feet from our well. This well supplies water for 3 households. There is no mention of our private well or the 4 others in close proximity, supplying 7 preexisting households. There seems to be no concern or thought for the impact this may have on our water flow or quality. There is also no mention of the traffic impact on 40th avenue, which continues to be a point of frustration, as we have been vocal in our comments and at meetings regarding this. While it is nice to study the traffic impact on 32nd and Pines, the fact is A LOT of cars use McDonald and Woodlawn to cut across to 40th. This is particularly true during school traffic times, where people will turn right out of University High School, to turn right on Woodlawn to turn south.40th continues to be an unmarked road with no lights, no posted speed limits or school zones and is unsafe. While walking my dogs and young children a car drove by to cut through at least 50 miles an hour just a couple of weeks ago. People regularly drive 45 down this road, and rarely stop completely at the stop sign at 40th and Woodlawn. I do not think it is unreasonable for these roads to accommodate more traffic, but it really is unreasonable they are not mentioned for planning or improvement in any way as part of this proposal. Additionally, 40th avenue becomes a private road and it is not equipped for heavy loads. I just want to make sure that it is clear that the "triangle pond" does not have an easement to use our road, which runs along the fence line on the southern border. I know that in the process of posting and surveying we have seen vehicles on our private property. Should they need to run trucks or traffic this way, there would need to be discussion with us as the property owners about compensation 1. Water Quality and Flow (Residential Wells): Section 3.1.1 of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been updated to discuss the existence of private wells adjacent to the triangle pond. In addition, Section 3.1.2 of the EIS has been updated to explain that Triangle Pond infiltration is not expected to affect water flow and water quality in residential wells adjacent the Painted Hills site. As noted in that section, the infiltration pond is not anticipated to impact “flow”/water quantity or water quality because the proposed project drywells will be located at least 100 feet from the local wellheads. In addition, the groundwater level in this area is located approximately 70 feet below the proposed project drywells. 2. Traffic on S. Woodlawn Drive (Midilome Cut-Through Study): The commenter concern regarding cut-through traffic is addressed in Section 3.3. of the EIS and supported by an analysis of cut through traffic on S Woodlawn Drive conducted by Whipple Consulting Engineers (WCE), which concludes no significant adverse traffic impacts to the Midilome East neighborhood will result from the proposed PRD. Specifically, the traffic engineer for the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development (PRD) applicant conducted an analysis of existing traffic along S. Woodlawn Drive between E. 32nd Avenue and E. 40th Avenue to determine the volume of suspected cut-through traffic. The results were included in the 2016 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and have been incorporated into Section 3.3.1.2 of the EIS. As noted in that section of the EIS, WCE completed traffic counts during the AM and PM Peak hour using tube counters to inventory total trips along that stretch of S. Woodlawn Dr. and they also used video to discern cut-through traffic from local traffic. The study found that there were five cut-through trips in the AM peak hour and seven cut-through trips in the PM peak hour. It is believed that cut- through traffic is the result of an attempt by drivers to avoid congestion at the intersection of E. 32nd Avenue and S. Pines Road. Spokane County identifies the extension of East 40th Avenue between South Pines Road and Highway 27 as a future urban arterial route in Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 2 or preparation of the roadway. Thanks, Beth Doohan Figure 6 of the Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Element and “Program Item 36” in the County’s 2023-2028 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan. The extension of 40th is expected to encourage the use of primary arterials for traffic between SR-27 and South Pines which would disincentivize cut through traffic through the Midilome East neighborhood. Further discussion regarding this issue is included in Section 3.3.2.2 of the EIS. In Alternatives 2a and 2b, vehicles originating from the Painted Hills PRD are not expected to significantly increase traffic flow along S. Woodlawn Dr. given the orientation of the school sites relative to the project site. New vehicle trips from the project will travel through S. 32nd Ave. and S. Pines St. intersection. Additional daily trips will not significantly impact Level-of-Service standards (LOS), specifically WCE notes in their traffic study (Appendix F) that new traffic generated from the PRD will keep the same queuing deficiency identified under the No Action alternative. In further support of the TIA’s conclusion that adequate levels of transportation service can be met with Alternatives 2A and 2B, the applicant obtained a Certificate of Transportation Concurrency for the PRD that reserved 545 new PM peak hour trips for the project. A copy of this certificate in included with the EIS as Appendix L. With regard to comments regarding potential speeding, it should be noted that speeding was not evaluated in this study and is considered a local law enforcement issue rather than a concurrency issue. Should the City and project neighbors determine that speeding presents a safety issue through the existing subdivision to the east, there are options available for the City and the residents to work together to lobby towards speed reduction design measures including signage and installation of speed bumps through on S. Woodlawn Drive, if deemed necessary. In response to concerns that have been raised about pedestrian safety on S Pines Road in the vicinity of the school complex north of the Painted Hills Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 3 site, a flashing beacon and cross walk south of the intersection of East 40th Avenue and South Pines/South Madison Road is proposed. Section 3.3.3 of the EIS has been updated to include reference to a new flashing beacon and crosswalk at the intersection of East 40th Avenue and South Pines/South Madison Road. 3. Access to and within Triangle Pond and Gustin Ditch: Public right of way exists for East 40th Avenue to a point approximately 2,196 feet east of Madison Road, including approximately 197-feet of frontage of the commentor’s property (See image below). The commentor is incorrect in their statement that this road is private. No easements are needed for pond access. Since the initiation of the draft EIS the project applicant has secured rights via contract to purchase the triangle pond property and will complete the purchase prior to construction within the pond. Section 1.1 of the EIS has been updated to address access and use of the triangle pond in the context of the Painted Hills PRD site. Section 3.2.2. of the EIS has been updated to address long-term maintenance and safety redundancies at the triangle pond. Easement rights to construct and maintain the Gustin Ditch are anticipated to be obtained prior to initiation of construction. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 4 Public Comment #2 – Lochte, Elizabeth (07-16-21) Response to Comments: Please reconsider the impact of the density on this area. 300 SFD with approximately 2 cars per home and minimum of 1 car per 280 rental units is an additional 880 cars on Pines and Dishman Mica. Cars already speed along Pines to Madison and I’ve had multiple cars not stop for me when attempting to cross from Chester to Loretta. The schools are already full, we never seem to plan our school remodeling for future growth and apartments do not pay property taxes to help with schools, roads, services. Less density would be a compromise. I’m extremely disappointed the City failed to buy this as a park. Cramming 580 units onto this small area is going to change the character of the south Valley Elizabeth Lochte Sent from my iPhone 1. Land Use: Land use and zoning for the Painted Hills site and surrounding properties are addressed in Section 3.2.1 of the EIS. The density of housing proposed in the Painted Hills PRD is consistent with the underlying zoning, which allows a density of up to six units per acre, and the City has already considered the general growth impacts of residential development with its long-range comprehensive plan. Therefore, no change in the EIS document has been made. 2. Traffic on S. Pines Road The speed limit along S. Pines Road between E. 32nd Street and E. 40th Street is marked at 35 miles per hour, except when school speed zones are activated. The speed limit is set for and enforced by the City and cannot be resolved by the applicant. This comment does not address technical elements of the EIS. Therefore, no change to the EIS has been made. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 5 The TIA identified the need for improvements at the 16th Avenue/Pines/SR 27 intersections. The TIA acknowledges that the Project contributes to the need for improvements at these intersections. As identified, additional traffic capacity is needed which requires a new southbound right-turn only lane on Pines Road and a new traffic signal at 16th and Pines. The Developer will furnish these improvements prior to the City’s issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 200th unit. The Developer will furnish the City an intersection plan similar to that required by WSDOT and Traffic Signal Plans for final approval prior to construction. The City may determine to seek funding and/or complete traffic improvements at the Pines/32nd or the 16th/Pines/SR-27 intersections prior to the developer completing improvements anticipated in the TIA. If this were to happen the Developer will enter into a voluntary mitigation agreement with a proportionate contribution toward the City’s improvements. In response to public and City comments about potential improvements for pedestrian safety on S. Pines Road, the developer is proposing a flashing beacon and cross walk south of the intersection of East 40th Avenue and South Pines/South Madison Road. Section 3.3.3 of the EIS has been updated to include reference to the new flashing beacon and crosswalk at the intersection of East 40th Avenue and South Pines/South Madison Road as an additional mitigation measure for pedestrian safety. Traffic control design techniques in addition to those noted in Section 3.3.3 of the EIS were not deemed necessary due to projected ADT and LOS in WCE’s 2016 transportation impact analysis. Additionally, speeding was not evaluated in this study because it is considered a local law enforcement issue rather than a concurrency issue and there are measures available for the City to help remedy these issues through greater enforcement, signage and installation of speed bumps, among other design mitigation measures. 3. Schools: Section 3.4.8.1 has been added to the EIS and addresses the means by which the Central Valley School District (CVSD) generates revenues to Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 6 fund student enrichment and capital facilities to augment additional revenues channeled to the district from the state. This section also addresses the various means by which districts plan for and accommodate student population increases associated with urban growth. Sections 3.4.8.2.1 through section 3.4.8.2.3 address the impacts of the three alternatives on school capacity. Public Comment #3– Bean, Sally (07-16-21) Response to Comments: This seems like too much development. Why do planners and builders have to put is so much commercial, houses and apartments?? Where is the park? Greenbelt? Dog park? These are things families need too. PLEASE CONSIDER THESE AND MAKE THEM FIT IN! 1. Parks/Greenspace: Public open space areas are provided pursuant SVMC Section 19.50.060, which requires at least 30 percent of the gross land area be dedicated for “common space for the use of its residents”. Based on the City’s comprehensive plan level-of-service target of 1.92-acres of park space per 1,000 residents, the project would create demand for approximately 2.70 acres of park space in the community. Approximately 30-acres of the 100-acre Project site will be open space area under Alternatives 2a and 2b, including a 10-acre park and wildlife travel corridor, which will fulfill the recreational demands of the new development. Recreational amenities are specified in Section 3.4.9 of the EIS. Therefore, no change to the EIS has been made. Public Comment #4 – Blood, Angela (07-17-21) Response to Comments: Hello Ms. Barlow. I would like to express my concerns regarding the housing development plans for the Painted Hills Golf Course area. When you consider the numbers, you'll be bringing the population of an entire small town to this little space! I can only imagine the traffic nightmare it will bring to that area and crowding in our schools. This excessive summer heat has brought attention to the fact that our electric grid isn't up to par to support the needs of Spokane County as we've seen Avista have to have forced power outages and calls for citizens to conserve electricity wherever possible. Additionally, people who have moved into that area did so with the idea that they would live off-the-beaten-path 1. Land Use: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 1. 2. Transportation: Transportation design techniques and mitigation measures are provided in Section 3.3.3 of the EIS. Traffic design techniques and pass- through traffic calming measures are expanded on in the response to Public Comment #1, Item 2 and Public Comment #2, Item 2. 3. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 4. Utilities: Section 3.4.8 of the EIS has been updated to include an affected environment section which discusses existing Inland Power and Light power Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 7 in an area surrounded by nature and a quiet golf course - not a massive housing development. They've paid their property taxes and should get what they've paid for! There is already enough destructive building going on in that area - filling wetlands with buildings and displacing wildlife from important habitat. Meanwhile, there are plenty of vacant lots and abandoned buildings/homes around the valley that are just eyesores and nuisances. Maybe instead of destroying more natural areas, developers should get creative and consider reusing the abandoned spaces that are already sitting around looking hideous with no useful purpose. People move to the suburbs for a suburban kind of living - not to be squished in between and crowded out by massive cookie-cutter housing developments! We don't want the traffic, the crowding in the schools, the added stress on our resources, the rise in crime that is bound to come with more people packing into a small area, or any more displaced wildlife! Build it somewhere else - Don't turn the Valley into the very type of place we moved away from in Spokane proper.. Thank you for your consideration. Angela Blood service to the site. As a public utility, Inland Power and Light bears the responsibility to update and maintain its power grid commensurate with urban growth. As confirmed in discussions with Inland Power and Light, no power supply improvements are necessary to service the site and the project will only require distribution line improvements to serve the future development. 5. Wetlands: As stated in Section 3.4.3 of the EIS no wetlands, as defined by the City of Spokane Valley, the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE), or the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), have been identified on the Painted Hills site. Therefore, no change to the EIS document has been made. 6. Wildlife: Section 3.4.3.1 and Appendix H of the EIS describe biological resources on the Painted Hills PRD site. No federally-listed or state-listed species or other species of concern were identified on the Painted Hills PRD site. The existing habitat is degraded, having been planted in non-native turf grasses with sparsely-spaced conifer and deciduous trees lining some of the fairways when the site was a golf course. Alternatives 2a and 2b will retain a corridor of open space both along the south edge of the site, and through the riparian area of Chester Creek, allowing wildlife to safely cross the site. Public Comment #5 – Ferris, Candy (07-17-21) Response to Comments: Can you please help us understand how the school capacity would be impacted. The schools are already overwhelmed, adding 100s of students would not be good for the current school system. Thank you Candy Ferris 44th ave 1. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. Public Comment #6 – Ferris, Candy (07-17-21) Response to Comments: How can we safely let our children walk to school with 100s of additional vehicles in the area. What is being done to address this? Candy Ferris 44th ave 1. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: Pedestrian and cyclist safety will not be significantly impacted by the proposed development for the following reasons, and through the following mitigation measures:  Frontage improvements will include new continuous sidewalks constructed throughout the project and along the site frontages of Madison Road, Thorpe Road, and Dishman-Mica Road. Upon completion of the Madison Road improvements, a roughly 300-foot long gap in sidewalk will exist between the northern limits of the Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 8 Painted Hills PRD site and the existing sidewalk which terminates at E. 40th Street and S. Pines Road. The applicant intends to address this connection by extending a paved pedestrian path within the South Madison Road right of way to ensure a continuous pedestrian connection on the west side of South Madison Road between East Thorpe and East 40th Avenue. The proposed pedestrian connection is illustrated in the figure below.  The Project will construct new turn movement lanes on South Dishman-Mica Road at the primary site entry prior to the initiation of mass grading activities on the site.  A beaconized crosswalk will be constructed at the intersection of East 40th Avenue and South Pines/South Madison Road, immediately south of Horizon Middle School to facilitate safe pedestrian crossings of South Pines/South Madison Road near the northeast corner of the site. Section 3.3.2 and of the EIS has been revised to address potential effects of construction-related and trip-generated traffic on pedestrian and cyclist safety. The EIS has been updated to include a new mitigation measure in Section 3.3.3, including the new beaconized crosswalk at the intersection of East 40th Avenue and South Pines/South Madison Road specific to this public comment, the pedestrian walkway will connect on the west side of South Madison Road between East Thorpe Road and East 40th Avenue including the 300-foot-long gap located adjacent to the approximately two-acre property owned by Water District #16 abutting the northeast corner of the Painted Hills PRD site. Vehicular speed and impacts to children/pedestrian safety were also noted as a concern in this public comment. The proposed beaconized crosswalk/new mitigation measure outlined in Section 3.3.3 of the EIS will serve as a redundant pedestrian safety measure in addition to those existing traffic control measures in school zones, including school zone speed limits, school zone signage, and cross walk attendants. Speeding on off-site facilities was not evaluated in the 2016 traffic study and is considered a local Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 9 law enforcement issue rather than a concurrency or specific impact mitigation issue. Public Comment #7 – Rustad, Cheryle (07-19-21) Response to Comments: "Respectfully, Deanna From: Comcast <ethncher@comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2021 2:26 PM To: City Hall <cityhall@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Painted Hills development In response to the notification of proposed development of the Painted Hills area by Black Realty Inc. I would like to submit my NO VOTE for the following reasons: 1.It’s a wetland area that consistently holds water run-off for the surrounding area. Every single year it nearly floods Thorpe Rd. 2.Because of the high water levels it is also used extensively by wildlife. 3.The proposed housing is too dense. Existing services will be overwhelmed. Much of the traffic would go by 3 schools which already have a very heavy road usage. 1. Wetlands: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 5. 2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. 3. Land Use: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 1. 4. Traffic Impacts on Thorpe Rd and Dishman-Mica: Section 3.3.1 of the EIS addresses traffic estimates on Dishman-Mica and Thorpe Road. Section 3.3.2 of the EIS discusses the potential effects of construction-related and trip-generated traffic on Dishman-Mica and Thorpe Road. Posted speeds on roadways are set by the city and/or county. Adjustments can be made pursuant to their standard methods regardless of new development in the areas. As this Item does not require a technical revision, no change to the EIS document has been made. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 10 4.The schools themselves would carry a heavy impact. Thorpe road exiting the west side onto Dishman-Mica is already heavily traveled. The road merges at a curve with no center turn lanes which will greatly increase the likelihood of serious accidents in a 45 MPH zone. Both fire stations that service this area are already in high demand – I hear the sirens! 5. In years past when we have experience fire danger the escape routes are already limited. The proposed density will aggravate this situation and compromise safety for the entire communityThank you for considering this information. I have not spoken to even one person in the neighborhood who thinks this development is a reasonable proposal. The only one who stands to benefit in Black Realty by pocketing the profits while they live away from the problems they create Cheryle Rustad 3809 S. Loretta Dr. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Sent from Mail for Windows 10” 5. Traffic Design Techniques and Traffic Calming Mitigation: A flashing beacon and crosswalk is proposed at the intersection of East 40th Avenue and South Pines/South Madison Road. The addition of the beaconized cross walk adjacent Horizon Middle School will serve as a redundant pedestrian safety measure that will augment other measures, such as school zone speed limits, school zone signage, and cross walk attendants. It is anticipated that a condition of approval would be imposed on the PRD by the City that stipulates the beaconized crosswalk will be added prior to construction. As such, revisions to Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 of the EIS have been made to reflect the newly added beaconized cross walk. Traffic control design techniques/traffic calming mitigation measures in addition to those noted in Section 3.3.3 of the EIS were not identified as a required mitigation measure in WCE’s 2016 transportation impact analysis. Additionally, speeding was not evaluated in this study and is considered a local law enforcement issue rather than a concurrency issue. 6. Fire Safety and Evacuation Routes: The EIS preparer is aware of a fire event in 1991 in the Ponderosa residential area to the west. Such events are rare and the potential for such events stems from the combination of densely forested Ponderosa pine trees in that area and prevailing winds from the west/southwest. Because the prevailing winds that help fuel such an event are generally from the west/southwest, the logical escape route for residents from the Ponderosa residential area or from the forested hillside east of South Madison Road, if such an event were to occur again, would likely be to the north. For residents within the Ponderosa community to the west, the logical escape route would be South Dishman Mica Road either via Schafer Road or via South Bowdish Road. Both of these access points to South Dishman Mica Road are north of the Painted Hills access to South Dishman Mica Road and future development of the Painted Hills subdivision would not interfere with either access point. For areas east and southeast of South Madison Road, the escape route would likely be South Madison Road or SR 27 farther to the east. The Painted Hills PRD will not introduce any stop- Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 11 controls on South Madison that would interfere with northbound travel in the event of a fire. Furthermore, the Painted Hills PRD would not be landscaped with dense combustible landscape materials. Future buildings and infrastructure will be built to fire code and will include suppression features that would protect the subdivision if a fire event approaches from the west, south or east. In addition, the Painted Hills PRD will improve cross circulation between South Dishman Road and South Madison Road by providing a new east- west local circulator through the site. This will improve access to either South Madison Road or South Dishman Mica Road and provides alternate routes of travel should fire events occur either to the east or west, where forested low density residential development exists. The EIS preparer has updated Section 3.4.8.2.2 of the EIS to include this discussion on wildfire safety. Public Comment #8– Owen, Cody (07-17-21) Response to Comments: "Hello Lori, I grew up in this area my whole life. These wetlands and wildlife have been a huge part of my life and my now children’s. You can’t build over our wetlands. This area can’t sustain growth like this let alone the community that has been built here. My kid’s start junior high next year and will be walking to schools. They have always been so happy to grow up in an area where we have many wild animals and the water ways. Please do everything in your power to allow this not to happen and it will greatly impact my family and all the other families in the area. This is a small beautiful community and don’t want it ruined with what Black has planned. Thanks for your time. Get Outlook for iOS" 1. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5. 2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 12 Public Comment #9 – Boyer, Stacie (07-17-21) Response to Comments: "Hi, my name is Stacie Boyer. I grew up in The Painted Hills area. My parents live at 5713 S. Mohawk Dr. their home since 1974. I am absolutely appalled that units for almost 600 people would reside on the land that used to be Painted Hills golf course! The impact this will have environmentally for the deer, birds, moose and countless other wildlife will be substantial. I can't even fathom how Chester Elementary, Horizon and U-Hi would be able to handle the influx of this many more students..it will crowd this entire area beyond capacity! I understand that development and growth needs to occur, but the scale of this project is much too large for that plot of land, I am not privy to the building flood requirements, but this land is also a known flood plain, a huge reason why so many animals frequent this area for a water source. Hopefully those with the ability to do so, recognizes all of these concerns and either stops this development, or largely scales this project back. Thanks for your time, Stacie Boyer Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android" 1. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. 2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 3. Flooding (general): Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 of the EIS have been revised to address design redundancies of the flood control system that reduce the likelihood of system failure and reduce significant consequences in the event of system failure. Risk of failure and risk to adjacent properties is unlikely for the following reasons and through the following measures:  Flood models and the supplemental flood control narrative (March 6, 2019) prepared by WCE concludes that flood water velocities and depth of flooding during a 100-year storm event are shallow and slow: o Flood depths in the event of a headgate failure scenario range average 0.9 feet deep with deeper flood volumes concentrated in flood control system elements (secondary storage park pond and the discharge basin lowpoint pond). o Flood velocity was determined to be relatively low (main flow at Chester across Thorpe Road and golf course flow combined has a peak flow rate of 91 cubic feet per second (cfs)). In addition to the overflow from Chester Creek, the hillside above Madison Road has a peak design inflow of 15 cfs through the four operational 18” culverts under Madison Road. Therefore, the total peak 100-year event flow rate for conveyance and infiltration design is 106 cfs. In support of this conclusion, the average flood velocity during a 100-year storm is 1.4 feet per second. Tables indicating flood depth and velocity among several river stations are included with the EIS as Appendix N.  At least one public comment raises a concern about vegetation and woody debris clogging flood control system components, specifically the system’s trash racks at the headworks. Vegetation within the Chester Creek watershed upstream of the site is largely devoid of trees and large woody debris that could be carried to the site by floodwaters. Further, the flood velocities and depths of flooding that reach the Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 13 project headworks are not of a velocity or depth that would be able to carry the large woody debris, if it existed in the upstream basin. The EIS describes this issue in detail and provides context behind the findings that a total headworks obstruction from large woody debris is highly unlikely.  In the unlikely event the trash racks are obstructed during a 100-year storm, flood waters will fill a secondary storage pond located within adjacent PRD open space.  Overflow under this scenario will be readily apparent to those living within the Painted Hills PRD and to the Homeowners Association representatives responsible for maintenance and repairs. Due to the velocity and shallow nature of flooding in the basin reasonable time would exist to remove debris from the trash racks.  After passing through the headworks, flood waters will continue through a series of 48” culverts with 5 feet wide manholes to a grassy slope to filter sediment prior to entering the settling pond.  The Gustin Ditch and Triangle Pond are off-site components of the flood control system. The Gustin Ditch and Triangle Pond are designed to retain all 100-year storm flows from the east and prevent flood waters from overtopping South Madison Road and converging with additional 100-year flood hazard area on the Painted Hills PRD site. It is also of note that any development activities located in a flood hazard area are subject to review and approval through FEMA’s Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and eventual approval via a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). The applicant has submitted all flood and stormwater designs to FEMA for preliminary review, as established during a meeting with FEMA and other reviewing agencies on October 14, 2021. Comments were received from FEMA on August 22, 2022, and December 21, 2022, as part of a preliminary review. These comments request relatively minor revisions such as expanded responses and revisions to application materials. No modification of the flood conveyance system design is required as a result of these comments; however, the technical review process is not yet complete, and FEMA may provide additional comments that need to be addressed. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 14 Public Comment #10– Blegen, Colby (07-19-21) Response to Comments: "Hello, my name is Colby Blegen, it has recently come to my attention the people like Dave Black are seeking to develop the old painted hills golf course into new neighborhoods. This is NOT a good decision and should never be approved. Not only does it cause an enlarged environmental impact on the city of Spokanr Valley with increase housing causing more greenhouse gases will would also produce exceedingly clogged traffic in the future. Additionally, as a high school student, I have seen first hand the overpacking of local school, especially in the Spokane School District and the Central Valley School District. The addition of over 300 homes would be incredibly stressing to our schools and it could not be sustainable for long. If you seek to keep Spokane in the splendor it is today, the building of new neighborhoods is not going to assist in that Thank you Colby Blegen 509-904-9075" 1. Air Quality: Section 3.4.1.1 of the EIS describes existing air quality in Spokane Valley. Section 3.4.1.2 of the EIS discusses effects on air emissions from the Painted Hills PRD and concludes that the anticipated air quality impacts from the construction and operation of the project are consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan, which designates the site for residential development. Recommended mitigation measures to minimize air quality effects are provided in Section 3.4.1.3 of the EIS. 2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 3. Transportation (general): A 2016 TIA was prepared by WCE in which existing vehicular average daily trips were compared with new trips resulting from the proposed Painted Hills PRD. The TIA concluded the following:  Development of the proposed project will generate new trips on the existing transportation system and that those trips, while affecting level of service (LOS), will generally not degrade LOS below concurrency levels, except at the intersection of 16th Avenue and Pines Road/SR 27. However, it is anticipated that paired signalized intersections will be installed at this location that will improve conditions to an LOS C in this location. No other system deficiencies were identified under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1).  The following mitigation measure is outlined in Section 3.3.3 of the EIS “The TIA acknowledges that the Project contributes to the need for improvements at these intersections. As identified, additional traffic capacity is needed which requires a new southbound right-turn only lane on Pines Road and a new traffic signal at 16th and Pines. The Developer will furnish these improvements prior to the City’s issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 200th unit. The Developer will furnish the City an intersection plan similar to that required by WSDOT and Traffic Signal Plans for final approval prior to construction”.  Additionally, any queueing deficiencies that have been identified are the same under the no action/Alternatives 2a and 2b in the EIS. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 15 As noted in the response to Public Comment #1, Item 1, Spokane County identifies the extension of East 40th Avenue between South Pines Road and Highway 27 as a future urban arterial route in Figure 6 of the Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Element and “Program Item 36” in the County’s 2023-2028 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan. The extension of 40th is expected to disincentivize cut-through traffic by providing a more direct east/west route between SR-27 and South Pines Road. The applicant will be purchasing the triangle pond property and will cooperate with the County if/as necessary to provide right of way necessary for NE 40th Avenue when the county initiates a project to complete the arterial connection between SR-27 and South Pines Road. Section 3.3.2.2 of the EIS has been updated to address the extension of East 40th Avenue in the context of the concerns regarding cut-through traffic. Public Comment #11– Andrews, Ike (07-19-21) Response to Comments: Thank you for sending the draft environmental impact statement for the above project. I was very interested in the traffic impact analysis and appreciate the attention to detail that it included. I would like to alert the City of Spokane Valley and the applicant of an additional detail to the traffic analysis that was not included but warrants some further study due to the potential safety impact. At the intersection of Dishman-Mica and Thorpe is a commercial establishment (Craft & Gather). During peak commercial hours for the establishment, vehicles traveling southbound on Dishman-Mica heading to Craft & Gather must make a quick left turn into the establishment’s parking lot after turning left off Dishman-Mica and heading eastbound on Thorpe. When multiple vehicles make the turn, and westbound traffic on Thorpe prevents the turn into Craft & Gather, a car can be left blocking the intersection for northbound traffic on Dishman-Mica. Therefore, as frontage improvements are planned for Thorpe, I would recommend widening the road enough 1. Traffic Impacts on Dishman-Mica and Thorpe/Access to Craft and Gather: The concern noted in this comment will be addressed with proposed mitigation. Specifically, as noted in Section 3.3.3, a westbound left turn lane on Thorpe Road will be completed by the project, which will shorten queues and avoid queues that back beyond the commercial driveway that currently serves Craft and Gather. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 16 to allow either a left-turn lane into Craft & Gather or enough room on the south side of Thorpe to allow vehicles to go around cars waiting to make the turn into Craft & Gather Thank you for considering this input. Yours truly, Isaac “Ike” Andrews 5911 S. Lochsa Ln. Spokane, WA 99206 509-795-6540 Public Comment #12 – Rudmann, Karina (07-19-21) Response to Comments: I am writing to oppose the proposed Painted Hills PRD. The area surrounding this property is not made to support this much added residential home and multi family units. The roads next to Horizon Middle School and Chester elementary school and University High School will be dangerous with the construction traffic followed by the significant increase in residential traffic upon completion. I am not opposed to expanding residential areas, but adding more multi-family units is not a desirable addition to the area Sincerely, Karina Rudmann 1. Land Use: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 1. 2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. 4. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See Public Comment #1, Item 1. Public Comment #13 – Christian, Steven B. (No date) Response to Comments: This is in reference to the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development located in the Spokane Valley. After reading the proposed flood zone mitigation plan, I can only assume that the developer believes they can control the will of GOD and natural occurrences. From what I can tell the proposed development lays approximately 80% within a FEMA designated AE fold zone which will require FEMA flood insurance. I am stunned that development is even remotely being considered for approval. Given the location and the flood zone status, the highest and best use would be a park or other facility, where no housing would be built. {screen shot of flood map, see word doc or pdf} AE flood zones are areas that present a 1% annual chance of flooding and a 26% chance over the life of a 30-year mortgage, according to FEMA. These regions are clearly defined in Flood Insurance Rate Maps and are paired with detailed information 1. Flooding: See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 17 about base flood elevations. Most AE flood zones are located in close proximity to floodplains, rivers and lakes, though low-lying regions without large bodies of water may also be classified under this designation. Since these areas are prone to flooding, homeowners with mortgages from federally regulated lenders are required to purchase flood insurance through the NFIP.I respectfully request that this project NOT be approved based on proven flood zone information and potential unnecessary financial burden to any potential homeowner. Respectfully, Steven B. Christian 3915 S. Sunderland Dr. Spokane Valley, WA 99206-8629 509-995-8953 Steveb.christian@gmail.com Public Comment #14 – Wolfrum, Erik (07-21-21) Response to Comments: Hi Lori…Thank you for taking public comments on the Painted Hills development. As a member of the community, parent with children that attend the close by schools and educator, I believe developing Painted Hills in the way stated, is the wrong use of the property. My concerns are for the schools, traffic and safety (mainly student safety). Our local schools are already at capacity and would not have space to accommodate the additional students coming in with 300 single family homes and 280 multifamily units. University High School is already the largest high school in Central Valley and the new boundary lines don’t seem to be easing the student load. Adding more students (to all the local school) will only increase the already bulging student population and class sizes. Neither are conducive to a productive learning environment. Students walking or riding their bikes to school (Chester, Horizon and U-High) use Madison and adding additional traffic and students would be huge safety concern as the road is already tight in the mornings and afternoons. Finally, traffic on Dishman-Mica and Madison/Pines will come to a stop more than it already does. The infrastructure is not made for the number of cars we currently have and adding a development of this size will bottle neck the already stressed roads. The intersection of Dishman-Mica and Thorpe is a on a curve with limited visibility. Adding the number of vehicles to the roads will increase the chance for accidents at this one intersection among others. 1. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 2. Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1. 3. Traffic on Dishman-Mica and Thorpe: See response to Public Comment #7, Item 4. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 18 Again, I hope this property can be used for something other than a development that would stress the community. Thanks for taking comments and if there is anything else I can answer, please let me know. Erik Wolfrum Ponderosa Community Member Director of Teaching and Learning: NEWESD 101 Public Comment #15 – Swan, Ian (07-21-21) Response to Comments: "Dear Ms. Barlow, I am a life long resident of the Spokane Valley and tax payer. It is as such that I am writing to voice strong opposition to the proposed construction of 580 dwellings on the old painted hills golf course. Here are some of the issues I see. 1. Traffic both during construction and after. 2. Noise pollution, mostly during construction. 3. Destruction of a wetland. Loss of habitat for deer, moose, eagles, frogs, ducks, geese, hawks and bear. 4. Lack of school infrastructure. As I understand it, Ponderosa, Chester, Horizon and University High School are all at or above capacity. 5. Too many homes. Not sure if you or any other city planners have been by what used to be the Bergman tree farm, but what a disaster. Amazing what happened to that neighborhood almost over night. Most neighbors to that property have sold or are in the process of selling. It used to be one of the most coveted areas of the valley, unfortunately no longer. 6. Loss of one of the few remains green tracks in the valley. It seems that this property could be used to build homes on 1/2 acre lots with the preservation of the existing wetland in-mind. I would assume the developer could sell the lots at a premium. I know this would possible cut into the the anticipated tax rolls of the city, but that should be the last of your concerns. Please inform me when a public comment period is as I would like to speak on the record about this. Sincerely, Ian Swan 11315 E 18th Spokane Valley Wa 99206 Sent from my iPhone" 1. Transportation: Both construction-related traffic and development generated traffic are discussed in Section 3.3 of the EIS. Supplemental technical documents including the Transportation Impact Analysis and the Truck Haul Memo are included as Appendix F and G, respectively. This comment does not address technical elements of the EIS. Therefore, no changes were made. General traffic concerns such as volumes, queueing, and mitigation measures are also addressed in Public Comment #10, Item 1. 2. Noise: Section 3.4.7 of the EIS describes current noise levels on and around the Painted Hills site. In addition, Section of 3.4.7.2 of the EIS discusses the potential noise levels during construction and throughout the lifetime of the PRD. Construction-related noise will be limited to times prescribed in the City of Spokane Valley’s Municipal Code (SVMC) 7.05.040(K)(1), as noted in Section 3.4.7.3 of the EIS. Therefore, no EIS changes are warranted. 3. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5. 4. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. 5. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 6. Land Use: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 1. 7. Recreation: Section 3.4.9.1 of the EIS discusses existing recreational opportunities near the Painted Hills site. In addition, Section 3.4.9.2 of the EIS describes that the amount of park and open space provided in the Painted Hills PRD proposal satisfies the requirements of the SVMC. Therefore, no EIS changes are warranted. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 19 Public Comment #16 – Reamer, John (07-23-21) Response to Comments: We were looking for the map of dwelling locations. My wife found one that gave us what we needed. Are the cottage properties going to be zoned for rental? We live in the Greens at Midilome and are concerned there may be some impact on property values. I’m also wondering about fencing or barriers between our property and the development. Thank you for your quick response. John Sent from my iPhone On Jul 23, 2021, at 12:14, Lori Barlow <lbarlow@spokanevalley.org> wrote: Mr. Reamer, thank you for taking the time to review the project. Can you clarify what map you are referring to? Thanks – Lori Lori Barlow, AICP | Senior Planner, Community and Public Works Department 10210 E. Sprague Avenue | Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5335 | LBarlow@spokanevalley.org www.spokanevalley.org This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State’s Public Record Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. From: John Reamer <reamerj@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 9:36 AM To: Lori Barlow <lbarlow@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Painted Hills Planned Residential Development project Ms. Barlow, I'm reviewing the email regarding the planned development for the Painted Hills Development. The quality of the attached map of the plan is too poor to read. Is it possible to get a copy of that map at the City Hall? Thank you, John L Reamer 3829 S Eagle Lane 509-991-9635 reamerj@mac.com 1. Land Use: This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #17 – Berkseth, Barbara (07-24-21) Response to Comments: Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 20 Once again I want to voice my disapproval of the high density building proposed by Bryan Walker of Black Realty and Todd Whipple of Whipple Engineering. The area should not be exploited for the economic gain of these realtors and builders. The area is an obvious wetland, flood plain and no amount of fill dirt is going to change this for the long term. The instability and future settling of the area will add to problems down the road and can't help but affect our aquifer. Cementing over wetlands for new roads and driveways can only be detrimental to the needed drainage in that area. Traffic in and around this area would be horrendous and not in keeping with the current rural type setting that original homeowners wanted when they settled in the area. Evacuating in times of emergency will be slowed due to the sheer number of new builds in that area. More school personnel will be needed to keep children safe going to and from schools within a mile of the new development. Arrival and leaving times at the high school nearby already cause a lot of traffic congestion. What is the figure for added cars due to building in Painted Hills? I would think at least 1000 additional cars could be expected on the roads in the area. Do not allow this high density building to further pollute our valley, affect our water supply, and make further demands upon our roadways and schools. Their intent is to develop, build and sell units to unsuspecting buyers who aren't familiar with the area and the ramifications of a high- density building plan there. If impact fees were assessed and charged to these developers, they would find out that it wasn't profitable to even consider such a development. As we all protested against this 6 yrs. ago - no amount of fill dirt is going to make building in Painted Hills "okay!" The return of this area to a golf course would be the logical solution. I was at the driving range behind Craft & Gather in June of this year and there definitely are people who favor the return to golf. At three o'clock the parking lot begins to fill and people enjoy doing what the area was intended for. Barbara Berkseth Sent from Outlook 1. Wetlands: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 5. 2. Flooding: See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. 3. Transportation: See response to Public Comment #1, Item 2. 4. Recreation: This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS. 5. Water Quality (SVRP Aquifer): Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of the EIS discuss the potential effects of the project on the Spokane Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. No significant water quality or quantity impacts to the aquifer are anticipated for the following reasons and through the following measures:  Floodwater will be directed through elements of the flood control system prior to infiltration, including the tall grassy slope and settling pond  Floodwater and stormwater will percolate through 50 drywells in the lowest point of the discharge basin prior to infiltration and discharge to the ground/SRVP.  All other stormwater runoff not directed to the flood control system would have the same water quality characteristics of waters during a heavy rain event under the No Action/development alternative and Alternatives 2a and 2b (Painted Hills PRD) in the EIS. Therefore, no EIS changes have been made.  Floodwater inflows to the site are received from mostly rural subbasins with low contaminant loads relative to developed areas with significant impervious surfaces from roofs, streets, and parking lots. For comparison, the highly developed 2.81 sq mi drainage area to the north of the Painted Hills site contains 1,059 drywells that drain directly to the aquifer. This drainage area is estimated to have a peak two-year event inflow to the 1,059 drywells of approximately 167 cfs, which is 13 times greater than the estimated peak inflow from the two FEMA identified flooding sources. Therefore, floodwaters will continue to infiltrate on the site under typical conditions and no appreciable change in volumes or quality of water that reach the aquifer via the Painted Hills site are anticipated to occur under Alternative 2a or 2b. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 21 6. Geotechnical (general): The commenter raises a concern about “instability and future settling of the area…”. There are no known geotechnical hazard areas within the Painted Hills PRD site or evidence to support the commenter’s claims. Therefore, no EIS changes have been made. Public Comment #18 – Swett, Megan (07-24-21) Response to Comments: Hello, I am writing in regards to the planned development of the Painted Hills area. It is a great concern to me the amount of homes that will be constructed. That area is accessible by only single lanes roads and will lead to congestion, crowding, and increased crime in the area with the multi-family units that are being planned. In addition, it will lead to additional overcrowding of the schools as well as a significant loss of habitat for the abundant wildlife. I ask that this project be denied and would request either significantly fewer homes being built or the land being turned into a public park area Thank you for your consideration! Megan Swett Megan Swett Indirect Underwriter II Numerica Credit Union 509-536-6127 Life Moves. Live Well.™ 1. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. 3. Transportation. The comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #19 –P, Dan (07-20-21) Response to Comments: Unfortunately this happened. You should consider a new sign. Dan {photo of vandalized sign, please see word doc or PDF} 1. Miscellaneous: This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Public Comment #20 – Pavelich, Dan (07-27-21) Response to Comments: Dear Ms. Barlow and Mr. Hohlman, On behalf of the Painted Hills Preservation Association we are requesting a 15 day extension of time for comments on the DEIS and related Exhibits. In addition we will be requesting in other communications to you that the City hold a Public Hearing on the DEIS. The DEIS and related exhibits are comprised of 648 pages. Given the volume even an additional 15 days will pose a significant challenge for a thorough review by our members, legal counsel and other experts. Given the process that the City has been though, that commenced on September 19, 2019, with a DEIS Coordinating and Kick off Meeting, and numerous letters following involving Reed Stapleton, DOWL and Todd Whipple, by which, the City communicated 1. Public Involvement: The City provided an extended public comment period in August and September of 2021, including a public hearing on September 8, 2021. No EIS changes are necessary. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 22 deficiencies and clarification speaks clearly of the difficulty the City itself had in identifying the environmental impacts and proposed mitigation of such. It took the City and the Developer nearly two years to achieve a DEIS that was then released to the public for comment on July 16, 2021. Besides what appeared on the City's website as to documents released to the public, I can only imagine the amount of time the City and its expert spent in internal communications, analysis, research and study of the critical disturbance of the environment that the proposed development will cause if the project is ever permitted to begin construction. Please advise me as to whether you will grant the 15 day extension. Thank you, Dan Pavelich, President Painted Hills Preservation Association Public Comment #21 – Pavelich, Sandy (07-28-21) Response to Comments: I would like to request the 15 day extension.I did not receive a notice and the only way I knew about t his is seeing the signs posted around the golf course. AlsoI would like to have a public hearing so we have more time to discuss thiswith our environment al lawyer. 1. Public Involvement: The City provided an extended public comment period in August and September of 2021, including a public hearing on September 8, 2021. No EIS changes are necessary. Public Comment #22 – Desgrosellier, Mandy (08-02-21) Response to Comments: "I would like to express my concern with the Painted Hills subdivision proposed development. I have lived in this area for the past 45 years and have seen substantial growth during this period. I am not opposed to growth but have some true concerns for the proposed development on the Painted Hills golf course land. This area has always been considered a flood plain and has flooded year after year. Almost every year Thorpe Road is closed for period of time due to the flooding. I am even more concerned now with the proposal for the cut and fill plan to try to eliminate the flooding. This is not a resolution that makes sense for the environment, wet lands, wildlife or the future homes they propose to build on it. The negative impact this will bring to our community is unfathomable. I live on Woodlawn Drive in Midilome East. Our street has become a main arterial for people wanting to avoid the lights and congestion on 32nd and Pines. The volume of traffic and high speeds people drive is very dangerous to our kids, pets, and our general population. This has 1. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. 2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. 3. Traffic on Woodlawn Drive (Midilome Cut-Through Study): See response to Public Comment #1, Item 2. 4. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 5. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5. 6. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. 7. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See Public Comment #1, Item 1. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 23 progressively gotten worse/dangerous in the last few years, as other developments have been completed. It's scary to imagine the impact 580+ new housing units. It is also very dangerous currently to turn left onto Thorpe Road off of Dishman Mica. Having a development on the corner including apartments will be increasingly dangerous/deadly with the proposed increase of traffic. I am highly opposed to the increased traffic this development will bring into our area. My kids attend the local schools including Chester, Horizon and University. The schools are already overcrowded and are having to bus kids to other schools. I am opposed to the negative impact all of the existing students will face with the severe overcrowding this development will create. Please consider paring down this project considerably to preserve our wetlands, wildlife, schools, and keep the traffic flowing safely. Better yet, maybe the City of Spokane Valley can purchase it back from the developer and turn it into something the public can use and enjoy. Thank you, "" ier 13004 E. 34th Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509-869-9624" Public Comment #23 – Kendall, Tom (07-30-21) Response to Comments: After watching floods in two years in the early 1990's in this area, I do not believe that any mitigation mentioned will handle that volume of water. It is classified as a flood plain and should remain so. Leave it alone! 1. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. Public Comment #24 – Caine, Jamie (08-02-21) Response to Comments: "August 2, 2021 Lori Barlow Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Opposing the Proposed Painted Hills Project Dear Lori, 1. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. 2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. 3. Traffic Impacts on Dishman Mica and Thorpe Road: See response to Public Comment #7, Item 4. 4. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 5. Recreation: This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 24 I would like to express my concerns with the Painted Hills subdivision proposed development. This area has always been considered a flood plain and has flooded year after year. Almost every year Thorpe Road is closed for period of time due to the flooding. I am even more concerned now with the proposal for the cut and fill plan to try to eliminate the flooding. This is not a resolution that makes sense for the environment, wet lands, wildlife or the future homes they propose to build on it. The negative impact this will bring to our community is unfathomable. I am highly opposed to the increased traffic this development will bring into our area. The increased volume and high speeds people drive is very dangerous to our kids, pets, general population and wildlife in the area. This has progressively gotten worse/dangerous in the last few years, as other developments have been completed. It's scary to imagine the impact of 580+ new housing units. It is also very dangerous currently to turn left onto Thorpe Road off of Dishman Mica. Having a development on the corner including apartments will be increasingly dangerous/deadly. My children attend the local schools (Chester Elementary, Horizon Middle School and University High School). The schools are already overcrowded and are having to bus kids to other schools. I am opposed to the negative impact all the existing students will face with the severe overcrowding this proposed development will create. Please consider paring down this project considerably to preserve our wetlands, wildlife, schools, and keep the traffic flowing safely. Better yet, maybe the City of Spokane Valley can purchase it back from the developer and turn it into something the public can use and enjoy. Respectfully, Jamie Caine 12738 E Apache Pass Road Spokane, WA 99206 509.999.2008" 6. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5. Public Comment #25 –McKinley, Brenda (08-04-21) Response to Comments: "As a local homeowner I am AGAINST this development. We already have traffic issues on all of the roads around this area. If you add another 1000 ppl to the road system, it will be overloaded. AND, this is all wetlands, wildlife roam freely here. I would hate to see all the animals shoved out of their environment. Why not put it back to a golf course? Spokane Valley doesn’t have a golf course. City should buy this and put it back to a golf course. Then we could continue to use the land for recreation and wildlife can continue to flourish there. DO not build more homes or multi family there. Brenda McKinley" 1. Wetlands: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 5. 2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. 3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. Public Comment #26 – Meier, Don (08-04-21) Response to Comments: Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 25 HI LORIE… I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING CONVERTING WET LAND/ FLOOD PLANE LAND INTO USEABLE BUILDING PROPERTY…IS THERE A REQUIREMENT THAT IF THIS LAND IS DEVELOPED THAT AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF LAND MUST BE PROVIDED TO OFFSET THIS EXCHANGE.?. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 THANKS ….DON MEIER 1. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5. 2. Floodplain (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. Public Comment #27 – Lobdell, Eric (08-04-21) Response to Comments: "I have been following this project proposal from its beginning. While I no longer live close to the area where this development is proposed, I do still live in Spokane Valley and have a legitimate interest in the health of the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. I also spend time in and around the area where the proposed development would be and I am very familiar with it. I would like to voice two concerns, listed below. 1. As it exists in/near a wetland area, with significant seasonal flooding, water management would be a critical situation for any development there. The floodwater management failure mitigations described in Appendix E of the Environmental Assessment require significant ""routine maintenance"" measures as well as other long-term maintenance responsibilities. To whom will these responsibilities fall? Will the City of Spokane Valley own this, passing the cost to taxpayers? If not, will there be an HOA responsible for all of the maintenance costs and management? If so, what oversight will exist to ensure this development is properly handling everything on a regular basis into the foreseeable future? What public funds will be used for this oversight? With its proximity to the aquifer and the dry wells proposed, will there be any measures enacted and enforced to prevent pollutants such as lawn chemicals, petroleum-based products, and other unhealthy substances from being washed into these dry wells and seeping into the aquifer? 2. Traffic impacts in the 2016 analysis were unrealistic when the report was originally released back in 2016. In particular, predicted increases in traffic on Bowdish Rd. are too low, and the related impact to the Midilome neighborhood from high school student travel is completely overlooked. This is already an issue today. There is signage in place intended to reduce it, with limited effect. That traffic volume would grow significantly and presents a true safety concern for the families living in the neighborhoods between the proposed development and University High School. 1. Wetlands: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 5. 2. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 of the EIS have been revised to expand on how the flood control system will be owned and maintained by the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) , what will be done to maintain the solvency of the HOA and the reserve fund, presence of a maintenance bond. Other public comments raise concern with who will maintain the flood control system, monitoring, funding, enforcement, and alternative responsibilities in the event of HOA insolvency. All minor repairs will be handled by a licensed and bonded third party contractor, designated by the HOA. An example of minor maintenance and operation requests might include removing vegetation from trash racks, removing silt from the settling pond, and aesthetic repairs to flood control system components. Major repairs, or those requiring technical knowledge in engineering and stormwater design will be designated to a licensed professional based on the level of repairs. The maintenance and operation of the flood control system will be funded through HOA dues, paid by residents in the Painted Hills PRD and stored as a reserve fund for the flood control system. Therefore, all costs associated with repairing, maintaining, and operating the flood control system will not result in significant costs to taxpayers. Enforcement mechanisms that ensure fees are collected and are adequate for funding the reserve fund will be specified in the Covenants, Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 26 There have already been changes in the surrounding area that change the parameters of that outdated analysis in the 5+ years since it was completed. These include businesses at Dishman- Mica and Bowdish and at least one new apartment complex (on Bowdish near 40th Ave.) as well as new homes on South Madison Road and other nearby areas. At a minimum, a new traffic impact analysis is needed. Will the developer bear the cost of widening roads in the area? Will intersection redesigns be required? If so, who will bear that cost? Thank you, Eric D. Lobdell Spokane Valley" Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) for the Painted Hills PRD. These enforcement mechanisms used to ensure fees are collected for the reserve fund might include, but are not limited to:  Late fees and financial penalties for overdue fees  Property liens  Restrictions on new development permits, through the City of through the HOA’s architectural review committee. HOA fees are anticipated to be evaluated on an annual basis to determine whether they are adequate for annual costs to operate and maintain the flood control system. The calculation for how the annual HOA fees are outlined in the O&M manual (Appendix O) and in Section 3.2.2 of the EIS. In conjunction with the recording of the final plat, waivers of remonstrance from formation of a flood control district will be recorded on the title of each lot created with the plat. These waivers will require owners to acknowledge the ability of the local government entities to establish a flood control district that would assume the ownership and maintenance of on-site and off-site flood conveyance infrastructure. This would provide City recourse in the event that the HOA either fails to perform its maintenance responsibilities and/or becomes insolvent. Revisions to Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 of the EIS have been made to address HOA maintenance and operation of the flood control system as well as outline precautionary measures in the event of HOA insolvency. A draft version of the PRD O&M manual is included with EIS. Clarification has also been added to note that the maintenance bond will be structured to allow the City and/or a future flood improvement district, if created, to access funds to perform operation and maintenance responsibilities on the flood control system if deemed necessary. 3. Water Quality (Aquifer): See response to Public Comment #17, Item 5. 4. Midilome Cut-Through Study: See response to Public Comment #1, Item 2. The EIS has been updated to include a brief discussion of the potential for cut-through traffic on Midilome Cut-through traffic. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 27 Public Comment #28 – Parker, Francis (08-04-21) Response to Comments: The loss of land, increased traffic,impact on schools and utilities is staggering. Property values will decrease and developers are not charged any impact fees as they line their pockets. 1. Land Use: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 1. 2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 3. Utilities: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 4. 4. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. Public Comment #29 – Simon, George (08-04-21) Response to Comments: “George Simon 3952 S Eagle Ln Spokane Valley, WA 99206 August 4, 2021 Lori Barlow, Senior Planner City of Spokane Valley 10210 E Sprague Ave Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 Subject: Public Comment on the DEIS for the Painted Hills Residential Development Dear Ms. Barlow: My concerns for this development are many, but in this letter I will only focus on one: Responsibility for the flood mitigation plans associated with the development. As I understand the plan, the water that currently percolates through the 99 acres of land is to be channeled to the very northern end of the development and return to the aquifer via a drywell gallery that may cover the area of approximately one acre. Furthermore, it has been stated that frozen ground will not affect the ability of the water to drain through the dry wells. To me that assumption is questionable. I have special concern regarding this, as my home and those of my neighbors is adjacent to this infiltration gallery. The homes at the Greens that border the proposed development have a basement slab elevation of 2011.5 feet, while the high-water level has been 2009 feet. We have never been considered in a flood plain, but if there is a failure of the infiltration gallery (even outside of a 100 year event) we could be facing risk of flooding. 1. Flooding: Section 3.2.2 of the EIS discusses the infiltration rates adjacent to the infiltration gallery under frozen ground conditions. Section 3.2.1 of the EIS discusses the site’s sources of flooding and FEMA designation as a compensatory storage area. Section 3.2.2 discusses fill and grading activities that will remove areas of the site from the mapped FEMA 100- year floodplain and the on- and off-site floodwater management infrastructure that is intended to remove the existing flood risk from the site and surrounding area. Proposed changes to the floodplain will be reviewed and approved by FEMA prior to project construction. Design revisions will be made (if necessary) to satisfy FEMA requests. 2. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. 3. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 28 More disturbing is the notion that a Homeowners Association will have the managerial and fiscal resources to be successful in the maintenance and operation of a complex flood mitigation system. I pose the following questions to you and the city: • The plan speaks of a bond. How large is this initial bond? Is it also designed to cover losses to those that could be impacted by the failure of such a flood mitigation system? Or even the premiums on liability insurance? • What happens if the HOA fails to adequately fund the reserves? According to the plan they are to provide the Spokane Public Works Department the general status of the sinking fund annually. What will the City do if the funding appears inadequate? • What are the required credentials of the contractor? What if the designated contractor fails to succeed at their duties? Who enforces the necessary next steps? • What happens if upon the inspection by the City, necessary corrections are not addressed, what is the City’s scope of authority and plans for remedy? • The plan says that the City would not be responsible, but according to the plan the city is involved in substantial oversight of ongoing O & M. If you are providing oversight, how do you deal with non-compliance with a residential development at full build out? • So who is ultimately responsible? A possibly ineffective or insolvent HOA? • I thought that the city has previously denied the possibility of an HOA taking on such a responsibility. Is this not a fact? • I was also under the impression that FEMA would not allow an HOA to take on such responsibility. Correct? I worked in The Washington State Department of Health’s Drinking Water Program for nearly 20 years. Much of my time was spent in the compliance program. There were and continue to be situations where HOA organizations could not successfully manage a drinking water system, either due to lack of fiscal resources (inadequate budgeting, or customers not paying their bills), technical knowledge, or ineffective contract operators. Can you imagine an HOA not being able to ensure that they have the basic necessity of safe drinking water? And yet the developer is confident that these potential homeowners in the Painted Hills Residential Development can take on the responsibility of a complex flood mitigation system and thrive. The following is a quote from the most recent DEIS, page 35: “One potential adverse impact that could result from the removal of the FEMA floodplain designation from the Painted Hills site or off-site properties could be that the implementation of the flood management system provides a sense of security to potential homebuyers, encouraging them to purchase a home on a site believed to be safe from flooding. In the unlikely event that the flood control infrastructure fails, these homeowners could be temporarily displaced until the system failure is remedied and flood damage repaired.” Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 29 If the site would be removed from FEMA’s floodplain designation, there wouldn’t be any flood insurance available, so who is paying for the flood damage? Once again, the developer is trying to place a huge burden on future homeowners living in this development, and for their neighbors as well. And what is my recourse if my property floods? Where does my compensation come from? And I wonder to what extent potential buyers will be informed of their collective responsibility. Another quote from the DEIS, page 39: “Individual elements of the proposed flood management system have the potential to fail under extreme circumstances. However, if properly maintained, the likelihood of failure of any on element is small”. Please note that everything should be just fine if properly maintained. And whose responsibility is that again? This DEIS is contains several statements that talk about the potential for failure of the flood management system. Since there is not a governmental agency that will be responsible for this project in perpetuity, I feel it is too great a risk. Why would the City of Spokane Valley approve a development on a flood plain and as a result place their residents, their homes, and belongings at risk? We as a community cannot say yes to such an endeavor just so that a determined developer has a satisfactory return on investment, while he sings his noble refrain about providing much needed housing in the Valley. Going in to this project, the developer knew what he was buying. The city does not owe him a return on his investment, nor should we build more houses at locations that are unfit and pose a potential risk to many, because there is a need. Site suitability for construction should be a primary determination for development, not just the need that we are all aware of. Respectfully, George Simon 3952 S Eagle Lane” Public Comment #30 – Simon, George (08-04-21) Response to Comments: Hello Ms. Barlow, Due to the complexity of the DEIS for the proposed Painted Hills Residential Development, I am requesting that a public hearing be held. An article regarding the proposed development in the July 29th Business Journal reads: The development company submitted an updated draft environmental impact statement early this year that laid out multiple development scenarios that CEO Dave Black contends “answers any questions that would ever come up on that development.” I find the above remark from Dave Black outside of reality. I know I have many concerns and questions after reviewing much of the DEIS that remain unanswered. I’m sure other residents, 1. Public Involvement: A public hearing was held on September 8, 2021. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 30 and even you have unanswered questions as well. I believe a public hearing would provide a welcome avenue for enlightenment of all parties. Thank you. Respectfully, George Simon Public Comment #31 – Lawless, Isaac (08-04-21) Response to Comments: I am writing too have you be aware of my opposition to the Painted Hills Gofe Course addition of over 500 housing units. I believe there will be a major traffic issue, especially during school days from U Hi to the Middle school. It becomes un safe for traffic and especially walkers or bike riders. Deer crossing Madison are going to be impacted negatively. Most all people living south in the Painted Hills area will be affected. Thank you, Isaac J Lawless 1. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. 2. Transportation (pedestrian safety): See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1. 3. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 4. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. Public Comment #32 – Mercer, Kathy (08-03-21) Response to Comments: “8/03/2021 Lori Barlow Senior Planner/SEPA Official City of Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear Lori Barlow: I am writing regarding the development of the Painted Hills golf course. I am very concerned with this development as I live “upstream” from the location and I know what the water in this area can do when it can’t flow where it is supposed to. It is very concerning that the city and developers would want to fill in this natural area where the flowing water supports an array of purposes for our community. The water ways need to be maintained and kept up for the water to do its job. Building on the wetlands directly tampers with the natural flow of the environment by blocking the water passages which were naturally instituted by the free flow of the water. Because wetlands are an ecosystem, they play an essential role in the environment. The amount of wildlife that use this area is unreal. Why is this area marked as a natural wetland/flood plain in the beginning? Because it is! The golf course was a great addition to the area and a more natural way to keep the land doing its job. When wetlands are filled, the water that makes them wet has to go somewhere. Where will that be? The development just southeast of there on Madison is adding homes to the claimed “housing shortage”. Is that extra traffic and head count added into what will be residing in the area? Also, what about the proposed development just south on Dishman Mica. More houses, more people, more traffic, more strain on services. 1. Wetlands: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 5. 2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. 3. Floodplain (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 31 I really hope the city considers all the reasons this area can not support 500+ more homes and another 1300 people with police protection, schools, current road systems and destruction of our natural filter for our most valuable resource…WATER. Sincerely, Kathy Mercer” Public Comment #33 – Landa, Teresa (08-04-21) Response to Comments: “I am writing to request that the City hold a public hearing regarding the draft of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Painted Hills proposed development. Specifically, I have strong negative feelings about an HOA being responsible for the maintenance and safe operation of something so critical as the water mitigation system. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Teresa Landa 3946 S Eagle Ln Spokane Valley 99206” 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. Public Comment #34 – Carey, Ann (08-05-21) Response to Comments: “Regarding the development of the Painted Hills Area, and the two options presented by the developer. I urge council members to proceed cautiously with the overdevelopment of Spokane Valley. Please consider the voices/wishes of your individual constituents vs. big name developers – especially as you face re-election. I share the opinion of many of my Ponderosa and Painted Hills neighbors in preferring single family homes versus multi-family. It’s how this area was originally designed and why many of us chose these neighborhoods instead of Spokane or Liberty Lake. It appears the developer is willing to sweeten the deal with trails, a park, and a wild life corridor – only if mixed use units are approved. It is a failing of the City of Spokane Valley to not require things like that for any large development. At this rate, we will soon need to change the City logo from trees and water to stacks of apartments etc. With either decision, before 500+ residences are added to an area with limited infrastructure – PLEASE consider the fact that Spokane Valley is already getting a failing grade for traffic flow (https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/jul/19/getting-there-new-fees-to-aid-failing- central- spok/). And reducing developer fees for multi-family is counter-intuitive as more housing units create density in an area, which will increase traffic (unless they are closer to urban services or are near bus routes which this area is not). Thank you for allowing, and listening to, public comment. Ann Carey 1. Recreation: This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS. 2. General Transportation Concerns: Section 3.3.1 of the EIS describes the evaluation of existing transportation facilities that has occurred and the mitigation proposed to address system deficiencies and pedestrian safety improvements. See Section 3.3.1 of the EIS for a detailed description of impacts and mitigation measures. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 32 11317 E Sundown Dr, Spokane Valley, WA 99206” Public Comment #35– DeChenne, Monte and Donna (08-05-21) Response to Comments: “I live at The Greens at Midilome and I am concerned about the proposed development planned for what was the Painted Hills Golf Course. My wife and I moved to this location for the serenity it offers. We like seeing the deer wandering around, we find it quite peaceful. We enjoy the open space presently afforded and do not wish to see it change. Additionally, I believe I’ve seen comment regarding who will maintain the flood plane, It seems a shedding of responsibility for the developer to pass on that responsibility to some future HOA. Should this project ever be approved the developer should be held accountable for the full installation and 32chool32ance of said flood plane. Also, we have three (3) schools along Pines that may not be adequate, as is, to handle the additional student load such a large development would surely put upon the schools. Must we shoulder that additional burden or will the developer be contributing to that issue. Another issue I foresee is the huge increase in traffic on all the streets surrounding this proposed development. The streets as they presently are were not designed for the amount of traffic they presently have and would surely need to be upgraded for the future traffic load brought about by this development. The intersection of Thorpe and Dishman-Mica would certainly require a traffic light and upgrading to accommodate the extreme increase in traffic flow. Who exactly will be paying for all these necessary upgrades? Surely the developer should be required to shoulder the majority of financial responsibility for these and other upgrades just to maintain the quality of life we presently have. As you might guess, I and my wife oppose this development for these and other reasons and we would gladly attend a public hearing in regards a Draft Environmental Impact this proposed development would bring about. Thank you, Monte R. and Donna M. DeChenne 3818 S. Eagle Ln. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 H (509) 535-2710 or C (509) 869-3145” 1. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. 2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 3. Traffic on Dishman-Mica and Thorpe: See response to Public Comment# 7, Item 4. 4. Floodplain (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. Public Comment #36 – Goff, Robert (08-02-21) Response to Comments: “August 2, 2021 To: Lori Barlow RE: Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Opposing the proposed Painted Hills Project COSV Public Works AUG 05 2021 Rec eived 1. Flooding: See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. 2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. 3. Traffic on Woodlawn Drive (Midilome Cut-Through Study): See response to Public Comment #1, Item 2. 4. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 5. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 33 I would like to express my concern with the Painted Hills subdivision proposed development. I have lived in this area for the past 20 years and have seen substantial growth during this period. I am not opposed to growth but have some true concerns for the proposed development on the Painted Hills golf course land. This area has always been considered a flood plain and has flooded year after year. Almost every year Thorpe Road is closed for period of time due to the flooding. 1 am even more concerned now with the proposal for the cut and fill plan to try to eliminate the flooding. This is not a resolution that makes sense for the environment, wet lands, wildlife or the future homes they propose to build on it. The negative impact this will bring to our community is unfathomable. I live on Woodlawn Drive in Midilome East. Our street has become a main arterial for people wanting to avoid the lights and congestion on 32nd and Pines. The volume of traffic and high speeds people drive is very dangerous to our kids, pets, and our general population. This has progressively gotten worse/dangerous in the last few yea rs , as other developments have been completed. It’s scary to imagine the impact 580+ new housing units. It is also very dangerous currently to turn left onto Thorpe Road off of Dishman Mica. Having a development on the corner including apartments will be increasingly dangerous/deadly with the proposed increase of traffic. I am highly opposed to the increased traffic this development will bring into our area. My kids attend the local schools including Horizon and Un ivers ity. The schools are already overcrowded and are having to bus kids to other 33chool ls . I am opposed to the negative impact all of the existing students will face with the severe overcrowding this development will create . Please consider paring down this project considerably to preserve our wetlands, wildlife, schools, and keep the traffic flowing safely. Better yet, maybe the City of Spokane Valley can purchase it back from the developer and turn it into something the public can use and enjoy. Sincerely yours, Robert H. Goff, CFSP 3410 S. Woodlawn Dr Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509-710-4517” Public Comment #37 – Bean, Sally (08-05-21) Response to Comments: “Please do as good of a job as possible when building this project. Make SURE you include a park, green belts and a dog park. Please do not try and get as many apartments and houses as you possibly can jam in one area. That is what people hate about new projects, not much esthetic thought goes into what it will look like at the end!! Our forefathers when developing Spokane made sure the people had parks to go to. Thank you, Sally Bean” 1. Recreation: This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS. Public Comment #38– Barnes, Kristy (08-04-21) Response to Comments: “August 4, 2021 Lori Barlow (Lbarlow@spokanevalley.org) Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department 10210 E Sprague Avenue 1. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. 2. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5. 3. Flooding Upstream: Although the project involves fill and grading that will remove areas of the site from the mapped FEMA floodplain, floodwaters Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 34 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Comments for Painted Hills PRD PRD-2015-0001, SUB-2015-0001, EGR-2016-0066, FPD-2016- 0007 Dear City of Spokane Valley, I am writing to express several concerns I have with the Painted Hills Golf Course Development. As a local landscape architect resident, I drive by this property every day and I am deeply disappointed that the Painted Hills Golf Course is being considered for such high density development and destroying one of Spokane Valley’s natural jewels, especially with it being a flood zone. Deer, fish, moose, and eagles use this land as their habitat. The mature trees sparkle during the Fall. The amount of imported material proposed is excessive and will likely destroy existing mature trees. What does FEMA and United States Army Corps of Engineers think of this proposal in respect to floodplains and wetlands? I’m really quite astonished this proposal is still being considered, especially since 1000 year floods are taking place in several different countries. China, Germany, England, and now Denver, Colorado are all having flash floods disrupting homes and causing infrastructural problems. At least 25 are dead as rains deluge central China’s Henan Province. The condos in Florida collapsed partially due to developers filling in a wetland and caused 11 people to die. I don’t think a floodplain should be treated with such little regard. Capturing, redirecting, and infiltration of the flood flows will need to be considered for 100 year to 1000 year floods. Both type of flood events are happening more frequently. By adding fill to move the building areas above the floodplain will cause the flooding to increase upstream. It isn’t right that current land owners have to take on the extra flood waters for this new development. Placing fill in the floodplain forces the water into a narrow channel, which will result in creek flows incising the creek channel. When this happens the floodplains’ purpose to redistribute over a flat plain is hampered. The floodplain no longer works properly and continues to cut down making the problem worse and worse. This incising may also create creek channeling in areas where the creek waters currently infiltrates, causing creek channels to develop downstream where it wasn’t found before. This creates a problem that is difficult to impossible to correct without removing the fill and allowing water to flood as nature intended. In addition, the loss of shallow areas destroys fish habitat. Previously, the City of Spokane Valley dredged Chester Creek due to flooding, especially on Thorpe Road. This fill-in of sediments is a natural process that is already occurring under existing that enter the site under existing conditions will continue to do so via the flood control infrastructure. As discussed in Section 3.1.2 of the EIS, no change in the volume of water that will reach the aquifer is anticipated. Therefore, no impacts to water quantity/flooding upstream of the project site are anticipated. 4. Chester Creek: Section 3.4.3.2 of the EIS has been updated to discuss potential impacts to Chester Creek. It is not anticipated that the project will impact water quality or quantity in Chester Creek. The main channel of Chester Creek is physically separated from the project site by the presence of levees and the Dishman-Mica Road embankment; therefore, the proposed development will neither increase nor decrease flow to the creek. Under proposed conditions, surface flow draining to the site will still discharge to groundwater, as it does under existing conditions. 5. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. 6. Water Quality and Flow (Residential Wells): See response to Public Comment #1, Item 1. 7. Construction-Related Traffic: This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS. 8. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 9. Noise: See response to Public Comment #15, Item 2. 10. Chester Creek, Fish Habitat: See response to Public Comment #43, Item 2. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 35 conditions. This project will accelerate and worsen this condition. We already have a flooding problem, why are we making it worse both up and downstream? It doesn’t sound like this projects meets FEMA regulations. The Flood Management System Element Failure Risk and Impact Summary discusses mitigation by removing sediment and installing trash racks to prevent pipes from getting clogged. All of this doesn’t matter if we have a 1000 year flood that would cause the whole system to be over capacity. Residents in the Sundown/Bowdish area next to the flood plain have complained about flooding getting worse behind houses. Storm-water treatment facilities that are proposed to reduce pollutant loads and concentrations will not eliminate all the contamination from the fish that live in the stream. How is this development going to affect all the residential wells in the neighborhood? The amount of trucks needed to fill the golf course would be dangerous for all the school children attending Horizon, Chester and University High school. The Truck Haul Plan Memorandum states that the trucks will use Dishman-Mica. Even if the trucks don’t use the neighboring roads, the noise from that amount of soil being dumped required will be substantial and cause traffic on Dishman-Mica to increase and for how long? Where will all the new school children go from this development? They just updated the local elementary schools and still lack space for children who move into the area. I understand how the project would be helping to “relieve the under supply of housing in the Spokane Valley, but I believe this under supply should be addressed in areas NOT located within a flood plain. Sprague Avenue has a vast amount of land not occupied. The Spokane Valley should focus their development in areas where it makes sense to have high density with close access to stores and services. Please do not replace our wetlands/floodplain and animal sanctuary with this development. Please consider the neighboring terrain containing open space. The proposal is completely out of character with the surrounding area and I strongly feel that this property would be more valuable to the City of Spokane Valley as a park and for recreational activities, which is something the Valley needs more of for all the new people moving into it! Thanks for the opportunity to voice my opinion. Sincerely, Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 36 Kristy Barnes 11615 E View Ridge Lane Spokane, WA 99206” Public Comment #39 – Cobb, Frank and Jill (08-09-21) Response to Comments: “Dear Lori Barlow, System Maintenance & Operation. The developer is proposing that “”the DEIS assigns responsibility for flood control system Maintenance and Operations to the project’s homeowners association””. This cannot possibly be approved no matter how large the sinking fund, given that “”the system is adequately maintained in perpetuity and that the liability for system maintenance and performance will not fall to the general public or to any governmental agency, including the City of Spokane Valley or Spokane County””, (pp 4, letter dated 09/19/2019, City to Read Stapleton). Gustin ditch and triangle pond. The ‘triangle pond’ currently is the property of Timothy and Joanne Comer. The developer does not currently hold title to this property. It seems that proposed engineering on this property is not viable as long as the developer does not hold title. If this property is not purchased or leased by the developer, can the project proceed? 400,000 cubic yards of fill. What is the point of all this fill if the system fails? Water is then diverted to contingent properties. Who becomes responsible and liable for damages to those property owners? This property is best suited as a golf course, park or some other use considering the risk of flooding at some future date. Frank & Jill Cobb 3922 S Eagle Lane Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509.993.2216” 1. Flooding: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. 2. Public Access on East 40th Avenue to the Triangle Pond and Gustin Ditch Site: See response to Public Comment #1, Item 3. Public Comment #40 – Swett, Marcus (08-09-21) Response to Comments: “Good Morning Lori, I ask that please do not develop this area and place 300 single family homes and 280 multi family units. This area will be way too crowded with all of those people. Can it be fewer houses to not over crowd the schools and roads. I thank you for your time. Marcus” 1. Land Use: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 1. 2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1. Public Comment #41 – Potts, Taylor (08-16-21) Response to Comments: “To whom It May Concern: Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 37 Due to the recent environmental survey on the development of the Painted Hill Golf course, I would like to voice my concern as a family who lives and works in the area as well as kids that attend the schools next door. I am hoping there will be another hearing on this matter as the current residence would NOT like to see this be developed into a ton of housing. The real estate market in the area is starting to slow down and there would be no need of a development this size and would greatly increase the traffic and density in a negative manor for the people living in these close neighborhoods. We all love the South Valley, and I think we can agree there are more than enough rentals, duplex, and apartments in this area, we do need more housing for purchase eventually but the real estate market is starting to normalize so we don’t need any more housing with only two streets in and out of what could be a development, especially when there are 3 schools all on the same street that are already being funneled into one exit point. Please keep our kids safe and reconsider this development project. Thank you ! -Taylor Potts” 1. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #6, Item 2. 2. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1. Public Comment #42 – Weinand, Kathleen (08-12-21) Response to Comments: “Thank you for the opportunity to review the Painted Hills Residential Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The proposal includes 280-325 multifamily residential units. Multifamily residential generally generates demand for transit and requests for close transit service. The closest bus stops are located approximately a mile away at E 32n d Ave at Bowdish and Pines. Bus service closer to the subject site is not identified in any current STA plans. However, the placement of potential future bus stops should be considered in the design of sidewalks, stormwater storage, and landscaping for frontage improvements along the arterial st reets. This will help avoid costly retrofits if this area were to become a reasonable candidate for bus service should ridership demand develop, and funding is available. Consistent with Spokane Valley Street Standards 7.6.1, side walks along both sides for all street classifications will promote safer access by residents to current and future bus stops. Pedestrian pathways should offer safe and direct connections to the art erials . A grid street network is most conducive for the successful integration of transit into communities, provides shorter travel distances for all modes, and discourages unnecessary vehicle trips . Where proposed streets cannot connect through to complete the street grid, direct pedestrian connections should be provided to shorten travel distances. Please let us know if there are any questions on these comments.” 1. Public Transportation: Both build alternatives considered in the EIS provide ample locations for bus stops on South Madison Road East Thorpe Road and South Dishman-Mica Road should STA decide to extend bus service along these frontages in the future. No changes have been made to the EIS as no effects on transit service are anticipated. 2. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1. Public Comment #43 – Van Herk, Andrea (08-09-21) Response to Comments: “Ms. Barlow, I just finished reading the DEIS for the Painted Hills planned residential development. I’m writing you with several concerns regarding the planned development. 1. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 38 My first concern is wildlife. The 99 acre area that is being proposed is habitat to multiple species of animals. Driving by that area daily, I see deer, and with their fawns in the summer, almost every day. I’ve also seen moose in that area as well. In addition to deer and moose, that area has a large bird presence and is part of the Pacific Flyway Migration Path. Decimating and disturbing that natural habitat could have devastating impacts on migrating birds as well as the other wildlife that inhabit it. Chester Creek has also been designated as a fish bearing stream and this proposal could have devastating impacts on the creek. My next concern is that this development is being planned on a known flood plain. While the builders have plans to help mitigate the risk of building on flood plains, there is really no way to know how effective their plans will be until it may possibly be too late. I’m also worried about the current residents that don’t currently have flooding issues. Will this new development change the course of yearly flooding in a way that has a negative impact on them? Also, will the new residents in this plan be made aware that their new home is built on a floodplain? Another concern is the amount of residents this plan intends to add to the area. The plan states that it intends to be home to nearly 1,400 people. Apart from my worry that they will be cramming 1,400 residents into an area that is not nearly big enough to support that amount of people, I am seriously worried about the strain that this will put on the area and the current people that live there. Our schools already have an overcrowding issue. Adding that many more students to the area would create a huge burden with classroom sizes, bussing issues and the likelihood that new schools would need to be built/funded in order to support the huge increase in students. This planned development will also put a serious strain on the roads nearby. The roads are not currently equipped to handle that amount of traffic and the increase in traffic could create a significant safety issue if there were a fire in the Painted Hills considering there are only 2 routes out. As a resident of Painted Hills I truly hope that you take all of our concerns into consideration. There are too many serious red flags as to why this type of planned development is not right for that location. Thank you. Andrea Van Herk” 2. Chester Creek, Fish Bearing Stream: Section 3.4.3.1 of the EIS has been updated to reflect that the onsite reach of Chester Creek is potentially fish-bearing. In addition, Section 3.4.3.2 has been updated to discuss potential impacts to fish habitat of Chester Creek. No impacts on water quality or fish habitat in Chester creek are anticipated due to vegetation preservation and restoration mitigation measures along Chester Creek. Specifically, no significant impacts on Chester Creek and fish habitat are anticipated for the following reasons and through the following measures:  Impacts to the riparian zone of Chester Creek will be mitigated on the east side of Chester Creek. As such, the applicant intends to establish a 100-foot-wide buffer along the entire east bank of Chester Creek. It was determined in the BE that these buffer enhancements and vegetated Park/Wildlife Travel Corridor, and significantly greater area of open space far outweighed other mitigation alternatives (see BE for additional details). The applicant intends to manage invasive plant species through control measures that do not adversely impact native vegetation, including monitoring, herbicide control, and other measures contracted by a weed control specialist.  The 100-foot-wide buffer will be restored by planting native herbaceous plants, shrubs and trees. Recommended plantings and buffer impact areas to be enhances are outlined in Section 8.0 of the BE.  The applicant intends to place permanent signage indicating the riparian buffer area and that natural areas cannot be disturbed.  The applicant anticipates that any peripheral buffer areas that are inadvertently disturbed during construction will be planted with the specified native seed mix to prevent erosion.  Irrigation will be provided to support vegetative growth during the growing season up to when vegetation is established.  All work will be completed in strict accordance with the IPEC Operations and Maintenance Best Management Practices.  Monitoring will occur within the 100-foot buffer area along Chester Creek, consistent with state and local monitoring requirements. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 39 Section 3.4.3.2 of the EIS describes the methodology for assessing and establishing the 100-foot buffer along the eastern side Chester Creek on the Painted Hills PRD site. Mitigation measures are provided in Section 3.4.3.3 of the EIS and in the BE (Appendix H). 3. Flooding: See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. 4. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 5. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. 6. Fire Evacuation Routes: See response to Public Comment #7, Item 5. Public Comment #44 – Schmedding, Steve (08-09-21) Response to Comments: From: Schmedding, Stephen <sschmedding@ewu.edu> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 2:09 PM To: Deanna Horton <dhorton@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Painted Hills proposed project [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. PC 44 Good afternoon Deanna: Adam Jackson is a friend of mine and he directed me to you regarding the subject project. I was involved in some of the negative feedback from the effort in 2015 to develop the old golf course site. I just saw in the Journal of Business that it has again surfaced. Unfortunately, I am going abroad soon and have little opportunity to dive into this revised SEPA and design prior to the date which comments are required to be returned by. How has the general response been by local residents to the revised package so far? I’m not necessarily against development but I don’t believe that the surrounding area and infrastructure can support such an influx of new houses without significant improvements. How does Spokane Valley public works, police, fire, and other depts feel about this revision? Have they made significant changes from the original submission? Has CVSD opined on the revision? I am going to try to make a formal comment but with little time I was hoping you could give me an idea of the overall feeling of this revision. Thank you for your time, Steve Schmedding, P.E., LEED AP Facilities Engineer/Sr. Project Manager Construction & Planning Services Eastern Washington University | www.ewu.edu This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 40 101 Rozell, | Cheney, WA 99004-2464 p 509.359.4205 | f 509.359.4224 | c 509.359.0455 EWU expands opportunities for personal transformation through excellence in learning" Public Comment #45– McGuire, Charlie (07-21-21) Response to Comments: "To the City of Spokane Valley- Planning Commission, Regarding the development of the old Painted Hills Golf Course into a residential community, it is bad for our city for the following reasons. First, I am the house that looks directly down on Madison Street that runs between Thorpe and 40th street. While most drivers are careful to maintain a safe speed, there are regular speeders who cannot resist the straightaway that Madison provides. Very easy to hear the loud mufflers on the cars that exceed the speed limit. We are talking three schools that these speeders pass. Some students walk south to get home and head toward Madison. To increase the traffic flow is to also increase the number of speeders. Who wants to take responsibility for a child getting hit? Ages Kindergarten to twelve grade. The city can put speed bumps along Madison but that will be a nuisance for the local residents who now enjoy a beautiful smooth road. Second, I have witnessed a 100 year flood where nobody expects a small river to flood a large area. In the center of Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base there is a helicopter airfield. Next to the airfield is a creek named Santa Margarita river. To everyone's surprise one day a strong rain came in the area East of the airfield. In a few hours the airfield had several feet of water. There were many million dollar helicopters helplessly getting flooded and no way to evacuate them. The date was around 1990. The 100 year flood happens unexpectedly and very fast. Sometime in the future the old Painted Hills Golf Course can expect it's 100 year flood. Lastly, this project is about 93 acres. The whole area is naturally absorbent of rain and snow. To prevent this rain and snow from going directly into the ground by developing this area is simply to send it to the people who live at a lower level along Dishman Mica Rd. Treat others as you want to be treated. All the Best, Charlie McGuire / Resident of Spokane Valley" 1. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. 2. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1. 3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. Public Comment #46 – Fifeld, Jolene (08-10-21) Response to Comments: Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 41 "I would like to express my concern with the Painted Hills subdivision proposed development. I have lived in this area since 1978. I have witnessed substantial growth during this period. I am not opposed to growth but have some true concerns for the proposed development on the Painted Hills golf course land. This area has always been considered a flood plain and has flooded year after year. Almost every year Thorpe Road is closed for period of time due to the flooding. I am even more concerned now with the proposal for the cut and fill plan to try to eliminate the flooding. This plan is not efficient in any way. This is not a resolution that makes sense for the environment, wet lands, wildlife or the future homes they propose to build on it. The negative impact this will bring to our community is unfathomable. I live on East Lenora Drive., which is approximately 2 blocks long. My street has become a main arterial for people wanting to avoid the lights and congestion on 32nd and Pines. The volume of traffic and high speeds people drive is very dangerous to our kids, pets, and our general population. I do not have school aged children any longer, but I would not allow them be in the front yard during the school year. The amount of speeding students is outrageous. I really enjoyed the quiet time on this street during the pandemic and summertime. Once school started back up, so came the problem of excess traffic. This has progressively gotten worse, dangerous in the last few years. It’s hard to imagine the impact 580+ new housing units. The traffic congestion at the light at 32nd and Pines is unbelievable. At times it takes 3-5 light sessions to get through the intersection. In addition, the drivers are not driving responsibly. They are all “in a hurry”. It is also very dangerous currently to turn left onto Thorpe Road off of Dishman Mica. Having a development on the corner including apartments will be increasingly dangerous/deadly with the proposed increase of traffic. I am highly opposed to the increased traffic this development will bring into our area. Out roads out here are not designed to accommodate the increase in traffic. The schools at Chester, Horizon and University High School are already overcrowded and are having to bus kids to other schools. I am opposed to the negative impact all of the existing students will face with the severe overcrowding this development will create. Please consider paring down this project considerably to preserve our wetlands, wildlife, schools, and keep the traffic flowing safely. Perhaps the City of Spokane Valley can purchase it back from the developer and turn it into something the overall public can use and enjoy. Thank you, Jolene Fifield 12509 E Lenora Drive Spokane Valley, WA 99216" 1. Flooding: See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. 2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. 3. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5. 4. Traffic on Pines Road: See response to Public Comment #154, Item 3. 5. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. Public Comment #47 – Pavelich, Sandy (08-11-21) Response to Comments: "I would like to request a public hearing concerning the DEIS proposal for the Painted Hills golf course development that have our comments required by August 31. Also because of our working neighbors could we please arrange it the evening. 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 42 Thank you Sandy Pavelich Sent from my iPad" Public Comment #48 – Cobb, Frank and Jill (08-11-21) Response to Comments: "Dear Lori, I would like to request the City hold a public hearing concerning the DEIS. Frank & Jill Cobb 3922 S Eagle Lane Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #49 – Hixson, Andrea (08-11-21) Response to Comments: "To Whom it May Concern, I am glad to see multi-family units and a commercial center included in this plan, both of which are sorely needed in the south valley. I am not opposed to the project. I am submitting a comment/request to take into consideration traffic load on our arterials, particularly Dishman Mica. The addition of 580 housing units will have a noticeable impact on traffic during peak commuting hours. As development extends south, our arterials are seeing heavier and heavier traffic, and plans for increased capacity and upgrades to our streets, including expanded bus services, need to be included when adding new residential housing to minimize the negative impacts of increased congestion on current residents. Thank you, Andrea Hixson, resident, Spokane Valley." 1. Traffic on Dishman-Mica Road: See response to Public Comment# 7, Item 4. Public Comment #50 – P, Dan (08-11-21) Response to Comments: "Good day Lori, I am requesting that the City hold a Public Hearing on the DEIS. Evening timing would be beneficial for those in the work place. Dan" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #51 – Simon, George (08-11-21) Response to Comments: "George Simon 3952 S Eagle Ln Spokane Valley, WA 99206 August 11, 2021 Lori Barlow, Senior Planner City of Spokane Valley 1. Flooding: See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. 2. Construction-Related Traffic and Fill: See response to Public Comment #149, Item 2. 3. Mosquitoes: Infiltration basins are designed to allow stormwater to quickly percolate into soils and would not retain water. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 43 10210 E Sprague Ave Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 Subject: Public Comment on the DEIS for the Painted Hills Residential Development Unaddressed Concerns/Comments Dear Ms. Barlow: My concerns for this development are many, and I (among many others) outlined several of them back in 2018. To date I do not see them being discussed or addressed by the applicant. I thought that was the point of being provided an opportunity for public comment. Shouldn’t the concerns of the surrounding community have been addressed in this DEIS? I still seek answers on: A past administrator with FEMA did not endorse fill as a way to mitigate a flood plain as it just moves the risk of flooding to surrounding areas. Which concerns me as my property borders this planned development. How will my property be protected? In Todd Whipple’s responses (August 20, 2018) to the City of Spokane Valley comments he said: “For any flood event beyond the 100 - year event the proposed finish floor of the residences and the commercial buildings are graded above the BFE, so any flooding would be maintained in the streets, with minimal incursion into the structures”. In the current DEIS he also states that people may be displaced and damage to the homes could occur if everything were not properly maintained. For this reason alone, why hasn’t this project been shut down? It gives me the impression that some flooding is acceptable. How could this potentially impact the City’s National Flood Insurance Certification? Will potential buyers and lenders alike be aware of the risks and costs (the HOA fees have to be expensive) associated with owning a home in this development? Should there be a flood event, will people just walk away from their homes leaving an undesirable, wasting neighborhood? But by then the developer will have fulfilled his promise of providing more homes for our community. How noble. More homes, whatever the risks. Four years of cut and fill? That’s outrageous. The wear on roads to move 377,000 cubic yards of soil, the noise, the dust, and the traffic. Then when we’ve lived through that, there is a 10 year build out plan. This is real pollution and can’t be candy coated. This project will add an increased risk on mosquito breeding grounds. In addition to the original drywell infiltration gallery, there will be a settlement pond. Water will not flow into the drywell gallery until the PC 50 pond is over a foot deep. We had a neighbor that had a small koi pond at one time which proved to be a problematic breeding ground for mosquitos. How will this not generate the same problem? (Once again see the information that I included in 2018 from the State Department of Ecology and a PhD zoonotic professional with the Department of Health). If this development were ever to move forward, we need assurances that the City of Spokane Valley or the County will oversee a mosquito control district. I’m sure that Washington State Department of Health and Spokane County Health would be interested in the flood mitigation system that by design will have standing water. 4. Reciprocal Use of the Triangle Pond Site: See response to Public Comment #39, Item 2. 5. Chester Creek, Fish Habitat: See response to Public Comment #43, Item 2. 6. Midilome Cut-Through Study: See response to Public Comment #1, Item 2 7. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 44 Why does the developer continue to reference the gravel pit west of HWY 27 in his plan? He has no rights to it. The owner has stated that no deal has been struck with David Black having any access to it. Department of Fish and Wildlife does not concur with the City or the Developer in the DEIS that Chester Creek is non fish bearing. Can you explain why the City and the developer has more knowledge in this matter than the Department of Fish and Wildlife? There was no traffic study conducted at the intersection of 40th and Madison or Woodlawn. About 30% of traffic from south Madison turns east on 40th to avoid the schools and the light at 32nd. This regular residential area (Midilome East) was not designed as a main thoroughfare, that would only become worse. In a letter dated October 2, 2015 sent from Sean Messer, PE, Senior Traffic Engineer with the City of Spokane Valley, Public Works Department – Traffic Engineering, to Todd Whipple, that an analysis of cut through traffic via 40th/Woodlawn needed to be provided. To date I have not seen any such data. In addition, I understand that some of the traffic studies that were conducted at other areas of concern, were done on a Holiday: Martin Luther King Day. Schools were out, and many workers had the day off. Seems deceiving at best. Central Valley School District has stated that there is no room in the three schools nearby for any children in the proposed development. They will need to be bussed to other schools outside the area. Not a great way to build community. This volley of submittals and City comments has been going on since 2015, and I don’t see a viable plan as of yet. I am concerned when I see the City’s comment that the DEIS meets minimum submittal requirements when so many concerns have not been adequately addressed. What does that mean? In the DEIS the developer states that The City of Spokane Valley will not be the responsible party for the flood control infrastructure. But if the DEIS is accepted by the City (and all of the M&O oversight) the City will become the owner and will be responsible for identified, or the lack thereof of the environmental impacts and mitigation. In a court of law, I don’t see how the city could approve the project, and be a part of the ongoing checks and balances, and yet somehow escape responsibility for same. Can the City make an argument otherwise? I believe that the planned residential development is poorly thought out, is entirely self-serving for the developer, represents a deterioration of the living standard we enjoy in the area, and more importantly presents a real risk to our health and safety. To protect our community and prevent liability for the City, option A must be adopted as described in your October 26, 2018 letter. Respectfully, George Simon 3952 S Eagle Lane" Public Comment #52 – McNeice , Randy (08-11-21) Response to Comments: I am requesting a public hearing concerning DEIS for the old painted hills golf course Thank you, 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 45 Randy McNeice Intermountain Leasing LLC PO Box 14758 Spokane Valley WA 99214 888.308.5327 509.924.0280 509.924.0294 fax www.intermountainleasing.com Public Comment #53 – McNeice, Randy (08-11-21) Response to Comments: "I would respectfully request that there be a public hearing on the DEIS for the Painted Hills Golf Course project. Thank you, Ryan McNeice Ryan McNeice McNEICE WHEELER, PLLC 221 W. Main #100 Spokane, WA 99201 www.mcneicewheeler.com www.facebook.com/mcneicewheeler 509.928.4141 p 509.928.9166 f" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #54 – McNeice , Janet (08-11-21) Response to Comments: "I am requesting a public hearing on DEIS painted hills golf course -- Thank you, Janet McNeice janet@intermountainleasing.com www.intermountainleasing.com 1.888.308.5327" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #55 – McNeice , Janet (08-11-21) Response to Comments: "Janet McNeice 5811 S Mohawk Drive Spokane, Wash 99206 Respectfully requesting a public hearing on DEIS Painted Hills Golf Course property 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 46 On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 1:37 PM Janet McNeice <janet@intermountainleasing.com> wrote: I am requesting a public hearing on DEIS painted hills golf course -- Thank you, Janet McNeice janet@intermountainleasing.com www.intermountainleasing.com 1.888.308.5327" Public Comment #56 – Fiedler, Rick (08-11-21) Response to Comments: "Dear Ms Barlow. I request a public hearing on the Painted Hills DEIS. My concerns are the traffic that will inundate the immediate area and management of the future community, or the potential lack of it. Thank you. Richard Fiedler 3941 S Eagle Ln Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Transportation: This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS. Public Comment #57– Patterson, Jim (08-11-21) Response to Comments: "My name is Jim Patterson 3947 S Eagle Ln Spokane Valley 99206 Would like to be included among those who are requesting a public hearing on the development in painted Hills. Thank you Sent from my iPhone" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #58– Lu (08-11-21) Response to Comments: "From: Lu To: Lori Barlow Subject: Painted hills development. 40th Avenue be addressed. It already carries all the painted hills traffic that is he’s dead east on 42nd. The cars routinely go 40-45 Date: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 1:44:59 PM [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Morning the painted hills golf course area runs across 40th Ave at the 40th and Pines intersection that short level that shirt back up Get Outlook for iOS" 1. Transportation: This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 47 Public Comment #59– Lu (08-11-21) Response to Comments: "40th Ave that connects to Pines Ave at 40th get so much traffic that it's a real problem already all the people in the painted hills that want to go east on Sullivan go across 40th and up Woodlawn to 32nd the average speed is 4550 miles an hour along that stretch on 40th there are no signs there are no school signs there are no speed bumps there are there is not a normal width of a road there's only like 2/3 of a road because across from the junior high they never finished extending the road to the full length yay for the sidewalks but there's still a real problem on 40th and turning off and on to Pines at 40th in the morning especially when the school buses are lined up there can be a real challenge thank you for considering this Get Outlook for iOS" 1. Transportation: See response to Public Comment #1, Item 2. Public Comment #60– Matlack, Loretta (08-11-21) Response to Comments: "I am requesting a public hearing regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted to the city of Spokane Valley for review. This is about the planned development to be built on the property that was previously occupied by the Painted Hills Golf Course on the wetlands being fed by Chester Creek. Sincerely, Loretta Jeanne Matlack, 3822 S. Eagle Lane, Spokane Valley, Wa" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5. Public Comment #61– Meier, Don & Sharon (08-11-21) Response to Comments: "AS A RESIDENT IN THE AREA OF THE DEVELOPMENT I'M REQUESTING A HEARINGS MEETING ADDRESSING ALL OF THE ISSUES OF CONCERN...I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD AN ISSUE THAT HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY ANYONE... IT IS FOUND IN THE SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN...CHAPTER 5- HOUSING...5.0 INTRODUCTION...THE 2ND PARAGRAPH IN TOTAL NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED...AND VERY IMPORTANT ""NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SHOULD PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF EXITING NEIGHBORHOODS"" THE CURRENT PROPOSAL DOES NOT MEET THIS CRITERIA IN MANY AREAS...THIS MUST BE A TOPIC DISCUSSED AT THE MEETING....WE LOVE OUR VALLEY AND DON'T WANT IT DESTROYED BY AN UNCARING DEVELOPER.. DON & SHARON MEIER 3910 S. EAGLE LANE SPOKANE VLY 99206 509-928-3700" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Aesthetic Impacts: Section 3.4.2.1 of the EIS discusses current aesthetics of the City of Spokane Valley and the required City development standards associated with aesthetics. EIS Section 3.4.2.2 discusses aesthetic impacts resulting from the Painted Hills PRD project. No significant aesthetic effects are anticipated when considering the action alternatives in conjunction with other potential development in the project vicinity. Therefore, no EIS changes are warranted. Public Comment 62 – Fletcher, Rod (08-11-21) Response to Comments: "Mrs. Barlow I am writing to request that the county have a public hearing to discuss the Painted Hills DEIS. There are many concerns with this planned community and a lot that would negatively effect our existing neighborhood. I feel a public meeting would be very beneficial. 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 48 Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Rodney Fletcher 3810 S Eagle Ln Spokane Valley WA. 99206" Public Comment #63– Zagelow, Vivian (08-11-21) Response to Comments: "I request a public hearing regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted to the City of Spokane Valley for review. It’s for the development that would be built on the property directly south of The Greens development that use to be a golf course. Sincerely, Vivian Zagelow 3935 South Eagle Lane, Spokane Vly The Greens" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #64 – Simon, Marla (08-11-21) Response to Comments: "I submitted a letter to you on November 13, 2018, stating tne concerns I nave wItn tne tramc voIume. Of course we were not in the middle of a pandemic, so it was unbelievable to me the amount of traffic there was on 32ⁿᵈ Pines, Madison, Thorpe and 40ᵗʰ especially during peak am and pm times. Between the number of students on the sidewalks and crossing the streets by the schools, the buses, the parents waiting in their cars to pick kids up and delivery trucks and service trucks, it is overwhelming. Adding 580 new homes will definitely impact traffic in a very negative way. In that letter I also stated that I noticed in the Traffic Impact Analysis, there were many questions and comments about the ""cut through"" from Madison road, down 40ᵗʰ east, and then a north tum on Woodlawn. There were no traffic counts taken at Madison and 40ᵗʰ In a letter dated October 2, 2015 sent from Sean Messner, PE, Senior Traffic Engineer from the City of Spokane Valley, Public Works Dept-Traffic Engineering, to Todd \Nhipple, the following is a direct quote from that letter: re: Painted Hills Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Review ""5. General: Cut-through traffic was identified by the public. The executive summary and conclusions (one in the same) provide recommendations, however the report does not contain any analysis or discussions of cut-through traffic via 40th/Woodlawn. Please provide appropriate analysis and document accordingly."" There are still no counts or analysis provided for this intersection. And taking traffic counts at 1. Midilome Cut-Through Study: See response to Public Comment #1, Item 2. 2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 3. Noise: See response to Public Comment #15, Item 2. 4. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1. 5. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 49 this point in the summer on that intersection, would not provide the correct perspective of the traffic situation. We have a direct view of that intersection and in the morning and evening, cars and trucks are backed up to make turns in all directions. Page 41, Table 14, in the DEIS document, states a total of 5,846 daily trips in and out of the development. WOW!! That much more traffic on top of what exists during normal traffic times (not during COVID-19) will absolutely be impossible. No need to put sidewalks around this development," NOISE- "In addition, sounds originating from temporary construction sites as a result of construction activity are exempt from the provisions of SVMC 7.05.040(K)(1)between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. or when conducted beyond 1,000 feet of any residence where human beings reside and sleep at any hour." \/\/hat is key, the word "temporary'' and "short term" are used in the stated WAC, the DEIS, and SVMC, but never defined. Most people would agree, that short term or temporary does not mean construction over a 10-15 year period. That is more than a stretch of the WAC and SVMC codes and regulations. On one of the agency reports from Central Valley School District, Jay Rowell, who at that time was CVSD Deputy Superintendent , sent a letter to Christina Janssen at the city, dated 9-09- 2015, stated very clearly that any students who live in that development will not be attending any of the three schools nearest the site. The letter stated that even with the planned upcoming construction projects which have mostly been completed (the new high school at Liberty Lake and the renovations at Horizon Middle School), these students will not be going to the nearby schools. So now we have situation where students will have to ride buses or rely on parents to drop them off at school. There will need to be crossing guards near the bus stops to help safely get the students on their buses. Public Comment #65 – Simon, George (08-11-21) Response to Comments: "I already submitted this request, but was told I needed to include my home address. Amended below in signature block. From: George Simon <bekasimo@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 1:02 PM To: 'Lbarlow@spokanevalley.org' <Lbarlow@spokanevalley.org> Cc: Frank & Jill Cobb (fccobb@gmail.com) <fccobb@gmail.com> Subject: PAINTED HILLS DEVELOPMENT - Public Hearing Request Hello Ms. Barlow, Due to the complexity of the DEIS for the proposed Painted Hills Residential Development, I am requesting that a public hearing be held. 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 50 An article regarding the proposed development in the July 29th Business Journal reads: The development company submitted an updated draft environmental impact statement early this year that laid out multiple development scenarios that CEO Dave Black contends “answers any questions that would ever come up on that development.” I find the above remark from Dave Black outside of reality. I know I have many concerns and questions after reviewing much of the DEIS that remain unanswered. I’m sure other residents, and even you have unanswered questions as well. I believe a public hearing would provide a welcome avenue for enlightenment of all parties. Thank you. Respectfully, George Simon 3952 S Eagle Lane Spokane Valley, WA" Public Comment #66–Linda (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Stop this crazy growth in Spokane county!!! Here in the valley the traffic.alone is scary not to mention the lack of upgrading of the older infrastructure.. this population growth has to stop!! Your allowing some of us to get squeezed out of our neighborhoods. Taxes are rising, streets are overcrowded, brand new schools will be overcrowded when they open!! Barker rd needs to be widened, more roundabouts are needed.. and all of this is due to the greedy contractors finding every piece of ground available to build on!! Its gone to far people!!!! Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device" 1. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 2. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. 3. Utilities: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 4. Public Comment # 67– Mayer, Kent (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community for the majority of our lives. Thank you, Kent Mayer 4308 S. Locust Rd." 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #68 – Mar, Jef (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "I'd like to be added to the list of neighbors requesting a hearing on the EIS for Blacks Painted Hills Golf course proposal. We are Jeff and Laurie Marshall, 6303 S. Eagle Crest Dr, Spokane WA 99206. We've lived up here starting in 1982, and had a dental practice at Pines and Broadway until 2019. When we moved up here, Madison wasn't paved! And the Senske's bought the old farm property, 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 51 cleaned out the remains of the collapsed barn, and built the golf course. That was because it was a flood zone, no residences allowed. Great use of the property, especially with the schools so close the kids could walk there for practice and golf team activities. Thanks!" Public Comment # 69– Clarizio, John (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Hello Lori, I am requesting a public hearing on the DEIS. Thank you for what you do and thank you for your time. John Clarizio 4021 S. Madison Rd. Spokane, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #70 – Pierson, Frank (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "It is extremely important this development be done right, this will impact the south valley for years to come. Each side should have ample time and opportunity to express their thoughts. This will overcrowd schools, roads, traffic and change the peacefulness that people move to the Valley to enjoy. Please be very careful with your decisions, you could make a mistake that will impact many. Thank you Frank Pierson Valley Resident" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. Public Comment # 71– Briggs, David (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. I’ve read the Environmental Impact Statement and believe there is quite a bit of misinformation and errors in the report that need to be fully vetting and brought to light. I implore you to get on the right side of this before its too late. Thank you, David Briggs 6102 S Lochsa Dr Spokane, WA 99206 509-9908447" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment # 72– Schindler, Tammy (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Ms Barlow We need a hearing so that the many voices of this neighborhood being affected by this one developer can be heard. Please setup a meeting so the community has a voice. Thank you Tammy Schindler Sent from my iPhone" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 52 Public Comment # 73– Bridges, Taylor (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "I would like to request a public hearing and a DEIS study immediately- this 600 building might made will be a true detriment to our community and wish for more voices to be heard Taylor Bridges 12914 E Apache pass rd Spokane 99206 Sent from my iPhone" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #74 – Kristy, O'Connell (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Painted hills development is a massive mistake and will greatly negatively affect the whole neighborhood. The schools nor the roads can handle the large impact that this many homes will have. Thank you Kristy" 1. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 2. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. Public Comment #75 – Francis, Chelsea (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I live near the proposed Painted Hills Development. I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community for the majority of our lives. Thank you, Chelsea Francis 3708 South Reeves Rd Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment # 76– Kelley, Rhonda (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "________________________________ Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development will have enormous implications for our entire community in many different ways. Thank you, Rhonda Kelley 4603 S Ponderosa Lane" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #77 – Walters, Susan (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Hello, Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 53 Greetings from a local resident regarding the Painted Hills golf course development. Please hold a public hearing on this so citizens can voice their concerns about 600 new buildings on wet lands. On another note… I just retired here after being away 30 yrs…..Sprague avenue looks like a run down town what has happened to the charming valley??? Thank you! Susan Walters 5506 S. Bates road Spokane valley, WA 99206 Sent from my iPhone" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5. Public Comment #78 – Catalano, Kathy (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community for the majority of our lives. Katherine Catalano 10901 East 11th Lane Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Kathy Catalano Word Processor | Witherspoon • Kelley KathyC@witherspoonkelley.com | vCard" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #79– Dowling, Jeanne (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community for the majority of our lives. Sincerely, Jeanne Dowling 11913 E. 38th Ave. Spokane Valley,WA" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #80– Alexander, Jan (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "I am requesting a public hearing on the Painted Hills Development Project. Jan Alexander 13004 E 37th Lane, Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #81 – Bravinder, Richard (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Please ensure that there is a public hearing about the proposed development at the Painted Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 54 Hills Golf Course. The long term impact on the general environment and the neighborhood needs to be addressed before this development proceeds." 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #82 – Schneider, Lori (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the planned development of the former Painted Hills golf course. The number of negative issues with this development are overwhelming. If the land must be built on, there are much smarter and more responsible ways to do so." 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #83 – Wallis, Nita (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community for the majority of our lives. Thank you, Nita Wallis 12321 E Emory Ln Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Nwallis58@yahoo.com Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #84 – Rauf, Jennifer (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community and needs further discussions and input. Thank you, Jennifer Rauf 5815 S Cree Drive Spokane, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #85 – Lawver, Jamie (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Hi Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the proposed development of the Painted Hills golf course land. This development will change everything surrounding the area and will impact roads, schools, environment among many others. I grew up in Midilome and vividly remember the wildlife that inhabited the area and the large floods that came every year. Thank you, Jamie Lawver 13208 E. San Juan Ln. Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. 4. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 55 Public Comment #86 – DePew, Tessa (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "I am writing to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the former Painted Hills Golf Course. The enormous implications of this 600+ site will change the standard of living of all surrounding community members. Our infrastructure is not set up to handle the traffic influx. Our schools aren't prepared to accommodate students from the new residences. The wetland area of Chester Creek has already been impacted and moved to allow other developments in the area, pushing area wildlife (to include bald eagles, moose, deer, hawks, and turkey vultures to name a few) into residential areas and creating hazardous conditions on our roads when they're pushed out of their habitat. Montessa DePew Childears 12714 E Apache Pass Rd. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 tessadepew@rocketmail.com (509) 590-5576" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Transportation (Infrastructure): Truck volumes, operations, and phasing are detailed in Section 3.3.2.2 of the EIS. Specifically, the increased truck traffic could impact non-construction related users of the local roadway system. Potential impacts to local users would include traffic delays due to additional truck traffic on the roads, and inconvenience and potential danger caused by fugitive dust and spilled fill materials on the roadways. In addition, additional traffic could result in damage to existing roadway infrastructure including pavement surfaces, signs, and guardrails. Per the City of Spokane Valley Haul plan requirements Item #5, any damage to the public roadway or roadway elements is the responsibility of the contractor. Supplemental technical documents including the Transportation Impact Analysis and the Truck Haul Memo are included as Appendix F and G, respectively. The following measures are proposed in order to mitigate for transportation impacts on infrastructure:  All improvements will conform to City of Spokane Valley Standards.  The project may have up to two new commercial driveway approaches on Dishman-Mica Road along the frontage of the project: o The northernmost commercial driveway approach will access the apartments only and will be restricted to right-in/right-out by means of a raised median along Dishman-Mica Road or via a pork chop island within the driveway. The design of the median or pork chop will be approved by the City. o The southernmost commercial driveway approach will access the northern commercial site only along Dishman-Mica and may be a full movement driveway with a two-way left-turn lane along Dishman-Mica for left-turn access.  Prior to the initiation of mass-grading activities associated with the project, the applicant will install a two-way left turn lane on Dishman- Mica Road and a right-turn northbound lane on Dishman-Mica Road at the proposed new entry road into the PRD. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 56  A final haul route plan approved by the City will be developed and managed to ensure that truck trips to and from the site during construction use Dishman-Mica Road for site access over the duration of site construction. This plan should include a section devoted to pre- and post-construction inspections of the facility to determine any pavement failures that can be attributed to the construction trips. A draft of this Truck Haul Plan is provided as Appendix G.  Stabilized construction entrances will be provided to minimize the potential for dirt and debris to be carried onto the road by exiting construction vehicles.  Access points on Dishman-Mica Road will be designed to ensure safe sight distances per the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and local standards to ensure that turning movements into and out of the site will have adequate vision clearance. Section 3.3.3 of the EIS addressed transportation mitigation measures, including those that apply to construction/transportation impacts on public infrastructure. Therefore, no changes to the EIS were made. 3. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 4. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. 5. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. Public Comment #87 – Lunden, Steve (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Good afternoon Ms. Barlow, As a resident of the Ponderosa neighborhood since 1991, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and development plans for the old Painted Hills golf course. A project of this size and scope will have significant impacts on our neighborhood and general area. I'd like the opportunity to express my many concerns. Thank you. Steve Lunden 4221 S Hollow Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #88 – Allen, Andie (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Dear Ms Barlow, Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 57 I would like to request a public hearing on the on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community and the lives of all that live here. Thank you, Andie Allen 3607 S Fox St Spokane Valley WA 99206 Sent from my iPhone" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #89 – Russell, Leanne (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Thank you Ms Barlow for recording my request for a public hearing to review and discuss the 600 unit development currently under advisement for approval in the Painted Hills area. I believe there are many issues that require discussion before the council makes further decisions. Sincerely Leanne Russell Ruslsroost@msn.com Sent from my iPhone" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #90– Allen, Justin (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Dear Ms Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community and the lives of all that live here. Thank you, Justin Allen" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #91– Danielson, Kelly (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. I am extremely concerned with the impact this could have on our surrounding community, schools, traffic, safety, and environment. Thank you, Kelly Danielson 12914 E. 35th ave. Spokane Valley Washington 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. 4. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. 5. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1. Public Comment #92 – Ayers, Robert (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Dear Ms. Barlow, Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 58 My wife and I are requesting that a public hearing be held concerning the Painted Hills DEIS. We are Carol and Robert Ayers residing at 3930 S. Eagle LN Spokane Valley, WA 99206. We have a myriad of concerns regarding the proposal and feel that a hearing is needed for all concerns to be expressed. Among our concerns, in no particular order of importance, is the question of traffic congestion (as it stands now, with the three schools adjascent to one another, traffic congestion is considerable with parents dropping off and picking up their children during the day; not to mention what the addition of dump trucks bringing in fill will add to the traffic embroglio that already exists). As an ex-educator of 36 years it has been brought to my attention by connections in the school district that if the housing construction takes place, the students from those new homes will not be going to the neighborhood schools due to lack of room but will be bussed to schools further east - this is information that I am sure will not be shared with potential home buyers and will cause considerable consternation, thus resulting in poor PR for the school district and the city (we witnessed this exact thing on 5 Mile when we lived there - the anger generated was considerable). We are also concerned about the noise factor that would present itself in a 10 to 15 year project. We are also saddened by the potential destruction of a natural wildlife sanctuary (on a daily basis we watch deer, coyotes, an occasional moose, and even bald eagles from our deck). We also are fearful that the plans to build on this wetland with the proposed water abatement system opens the door for disastrous results regarding maintenance and repair of said system. To put the monetary responsibility for repair and maintenance in the hands of proposed HOA's seems to us to be reckless and foolish and ultimately non-workable. There are other issues of concern that need to be expressed before the decision to allow the possibility of construction. Please allow for a hearing from concerned constituents before making a decision. Sincerely, Robert & Carol Ayers" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. 3. Construction-Related Traffic: See response to Public Comment #149, Item 2. 4. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 5. Noise: See response to Public Comment #15, Item 2. 6. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. 7. Wetlands: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 5. 8. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. Public Comment #93– Buckner, Margaret (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow I wish to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development has huge impact and implications for our entire community for the majority of our lives. Thank you. Margaret Buckner 9921 E. 44th Ave Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #94– Myers, Michael (08-12-21) Response to Comments: ""Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 59 golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community for the majority of our lives. Thank you, Michael Myers 4510 S. Woodruff Rd. Spokane Valley, WA 99206" Public Comment #95 – Penn, John (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "I am requesting that we have a public hearing on the proposed Painted Hills development so all parties have an opportunity to participate in the discussion regarding the impact this will have on our community. John and Melody Penn 4411 S Woodruff Rd Spokane Valley 99206 Sincerely, John Penn" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #96– Currer, Bruce (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "We need to have a public hearing regarding this development and their environmental report. There are too many unaddressed issues and perhaps incorrect information. Please consider. Bruce Currer 12102 E Nez Perce Ln Spokane 99206 Thank you Sent from my iPhone" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #97– Edwards, Nicole (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Greetings, I am emailing to officially request a public hearing is held regarding the development of the painted hills golf course. Many among my valley community (myself included) are already feeling a surge in traffic and our neighborhood streets have become more dangerous in recent years. There are other concerns but this is primary. Thank you for your consideration, Nic Edwards 1600 block South Bowdish Road Spokane Valley, WA 99206-5442 Sent from my iPhone" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. 3. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1. Public Comment #98– Ragan, Don (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "I am requesting a public hearing regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 60 There ae many reasons why this project should not be allowed to progress and I am anxious to provide my input. Thank You, Don Ragan 3902 S. Eagle Ln Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 924-1578 Sent from Mail for Windows" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #99 – Vrabel, Jana (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Dear Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a hearing on the DEIS and development of the Painted Hills Golf Course property. This development has serious implications for our Painted Hills community (and neighboring communities) and many of us are very concerned. Thank you, Jana Vrabel 6204 S Eagle Crest Dr Spokane, WA 99206 Sent from my iPhone" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Public Comment #100– Munt, Pat (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "From: pat@inlandnwgardening.com To: Lori Barlow Subject: We need hearing for the Painted Hills development Date: Thursday, August 12, 2021 7:53:07 PM [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. The developer is shoving this past you. We don’t need housing that bad Pat Munt, She/her Columnist, Author, Garden Coach Co-author of Northwest Gardeners Handbook 4903 S Mohawk Ln Spokane WA pat@inlandnwgardening.com 509 998 9769" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #101 – Wurst, Cara (08-12-21) Response to Comments: Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 61 "Dear Ms Barlow: I respectfully request a public hearing on the DEIS and the Painted Hills PRD. The proposed actions and outcomes have so many ramifications for our family, none of them beneficial at this point. We live south of the golf course along Dishman Mica Rd, and this is our main access to EVERYTHING in town. I cannot imagine the horror of traffic trying to get to work, school and essentially everywhere in town for us with that area developed as proposed. Anyone trying to drop their child at Chester Creek, Horizon or at University knows traffic in the is area is already a huge problem and safety of children as they go to and from school is already risky. Thank you - Cara Wurst 6405 S Dishman Mica Rd" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. 3. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1. Public Comment #102– Gonzales, Carol (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Ms Barlow I am requesting a public hearing for the Huge Painted Hills golf course development. This is completely an unreasonable size development for the acreage and being in a 100 year flood plain, especially since the same developers are already working on another development one block to the south of The Painted Hills development with at least 40 homes on a 12 acre parcel. Between the two developments it is a huge impact on our community. Please consider a public hearing. Thank you Carol Gonzales 4621 S Lapwai Lane Spokane Valley,Wa 99206 Sent from my iPad" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. Public Comment #103 – Wilderding, Kasey (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Hello Ms. Barlow, As a member of the south valley community that would directly impacted by the development in the proposed Painted Hills area I am requesting a public hearing. We live on S Pines across the street from Chester Elementary and UHi and observe speeding cars on a daily basis. In the 3 years we have lived in this home the traffic has steadily increased. I have concerns about the safety of my children as well as concerns regarding overcrowding of our schools if this development occurs. I appreciate your time regarding this matter. Best, Kasey Wilberding 3426 S Pines Rd" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. 3. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1. 4. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 62 Public Comment #104– DeVries, Melanie (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community and our day to day lives. Thank you, Melanie DeVries 12735 E Apache Pass Spokane Valley, Wa 99206 Sent from my iPhone" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #105– Turner, Tiffany (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "I would like to request a hearing on the Painted Hills development. Thank you, Tiffany Turner 12104 E Lenora Drive Sent from Mail for Windows" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #106 – Scott, Kelly (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Dear Ms. Barlow: As a resident of the Ponderosa area, I am very concerned about the planned development at the site of the old Painted Hills Golf Course. The addition of 600 housing units in this area will overwhelm the existing infrastructure, the roads, the schools and the way of life of the residents of this area. I request that a public hearing be held regarding the impact of this development to the residents of the surrounding area. Sincerely, Kelly Scott 10615 E. Pierce Ln. Spokane, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Transportation (Infrastructure): See response to Public Comment #86, Item 2. 3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. 4. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. Public Comment #107– Bodhireddy, Hari (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Hello Lori, My address is 4105 S. Madison Rd., Spokane Valley, WA 99206. We live across from the proposed development area in Painted Hills. My wife and I are requesting a public hearing on the DEIS. The proposal, which I have reviewed with many neighbors, has several oversights that everyone involved should be aware of. The biggest area of concern is the funding for maintenance of the flood mitigation system. The HOA fees would be prohibitively expensive, so affordable housing this is not. If the HOA is unable 1 Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 63 to cover the cost of maintenance of the flood mitigation system, the burden falls on the city. There are many more points to be heard. Thanks, Hari Bodhireddy" Public Comment #108 – Briggs, Theresa (08-12-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community. Thanks you, Theresa Briggs 6102 S Lochsa Drive Spokane, WA 99206 Sent from Theresa's iPhone" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS. Public Comment #109 – Bisson, Diane (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "I am writing in support of a community hearing to address the issues of a large scale development in the Painted Hills. Diane Bisson 10108 E Cimmaron Dr Spokane Valley, 99206 Diane Sent from my iPad" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS. Public Comment #110 – Chandler, Marci (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community for the majority of our lives. Thank you, Marci Chandler 10921 E Hallett Rd Sent from my iPhone" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS. Public Comment #111– Robbins , Barbara (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Ms Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing of this planned development as it severely impacts my community in a negative way. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Barbara Robbins 11014 E 42nd Ct Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Sent from my iPad" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS. Public Comment #112– McKinley, Brenda (08-13-21) Response to Comments: Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 64 "Good Morning, I had sent you a previous email, but now I understand I needed to request a hearing on this development. As a neighbor and Realtor I am against this development. This development will impact the value on the homes in the area. This development will impact the schools and roads. We are not built for the amount of vehicles and people that this would bring. Please schedule a hearing so the public can be heard. BRENDA MCKINLEY Real Estate Advisor" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. 3. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. Public Comment #113– Swan, Nicholas (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community for the majority of our lives. Thank you, Nicholas Swan 11310 E 35th Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Sent from my iPhone" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS. Public Comment #114 – Owen, Cody (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the Painted Hills Development. This will have major implications on our community and wildlife. Thank you Cody Owen 5506 S Mohawk DR Get Outlook for iOS" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. 2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. Public Comment #115 – Anderson, Jerry (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a hearing to consider the planned development in Painted Hills. My email address is navoffsf@yahoo.com. Thank you, Jerry Anderson" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #116–Anton-Galietti, Kathy (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Dear Ms. Barlow, Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 65 I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development has real environmental implications. Thank you Kathy Anton-Galietti" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #117 – Schroeder, Joyce (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I am requesting that a Public Hearing be held regarding the DEIS for the Painted Hills Golf Course Development. This development would have a major impact in many ways on the surrounding neighborhoods. Joyce Schroeder 5205 S Cree Dr, Spokane, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #118– Carey, Ann (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I understand it is not too late for there to be a hearing regarding this development. As such, I would like to add my request for a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our neighborhoods and the entire community. Thank you, Ann Carey 11317 E Sundown Dr, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 On Aug 5, 2021, at 10:34 AM, Ann Carey <bobandann03@gmail.com> wrote: Regarding the development of the Painted Hills Area, and the two options presented by the developer. I urge council members to proceed cautiously with the overdevelopment of Spokane Valley. Please consider the voices/wishes of your individual constituents vs. big name developers - especially as you face re-election. I share the opinion of many of my Ponderosa and Painted Hills neighbors in preferring single family homes versus multi-family. It’s how this area was originally designed and why many of us chose these neighborhoods instead of Spokane or Liberty Lake. It appears the developer is willing to sweeten the deal with trails, a park, and a wild life corridor - only if mixed use units are approved. It is a failing of the City of Spokane Valley to not require things like that for any large development. At this rate, we will soon need to change the City logo from trees and water to stacks of apartments etc. With either decision, before 500+ residences are added to an area with limited infrastructure - PLEASE consider the fact that Spokane Valley is already getting a failing grade for traffic 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 66 flow (https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/jul/19/getting-there-new-fees-to-aid- failingcentral-spok/). And reducing developer fees for multi-family is counter-intuitive as more housing units create density in an area, which will increase traffic (unless they are closer to urban services or are near bus routes which this area is not). Thank you for allowing, and listening to, public comment. Ann Carey 11317 E Sundown Dr, Spokane Valley, WA 99206" Public Comment #119– Johnson, Jeremy (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Hello Ms. Barlow, Hello Ms. Barlow, I would like to request another meeting regarding the painted hills golf course development project. The public and planners need more time to consider the impact and implications of the plan. Thank you, Jeremy R. Johnson 12805 E 35th Ave Spokane Valley, WA 99206. The public and planners need more time to consider the impact and implications of the plan. Thank you, Jeremy R. Johnson 12805 E 35th Ave Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #120– McDonald, Stacia (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. I’m incredibly concerned about how this will impact our community for many years. Thank you, Stacia McDonald staciaandnatemcdonald@gmail.com" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #121– Everett, Kate (08-13-21) Response to Comments: Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 67 "Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community for the majority of our lives. Thank you, Kate Martin 2525 E. Everett Spokane, WA 99217" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #122– Patten, Ramona (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Please consider this my request for a hearing on the Painted Hills Development. Housing in the Spokane Valley is growing at a much larger, faster rate than the infrastructure can handle. A golf course or natural areal would blenefit the quality of human and animal life in Spokane Valley. 600 additional homes with over a thousand new residents and cars will only deteriorate the area and quality of life for all. Thank you for recognizing my request, Ramona Catherine Patten 16321 E. Whirlaway Ln Veradale, WA 99037" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Response to Comments: Response to Comments: "Lori, I request a hearing for the proposed development in Painted Hills. Let me know when that is scheduled. Regards, Jeff Pearce 4027 S Forest Meadow Dr. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 850-0574" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #124– Bean, Sally (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Please let us have a say in what is happening with the development of 600 units. Many of these new ones are not very well planned; hence, no green belts, children play areas and dog areas. It 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Parks/Greenspace: See response to Public Comment #3, Item 1. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 68 seems to me the developers jam as many units as they can. Take a look at what is going on in these new developments all over the valley. It is a sea of homes and apartments. Our forefathers did better with all the parks they left for us. Thank you for looking into this and I hope you give us a meeting to have a say. Sally Bean 4228 S Terra Verde Dr Veradale, WA 999037 Sent from Mail for Windows 10" Public Comment #125– Brooks, Kimberly (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Hello Ms. Barlow, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the planned development of the Painted Hills Golf Course. I am writing to express my concerns over of this plan due to increased risk to the general safety of the public that lives surrounding this area. Currently, traffic is growing due to developments without any consideration for traffic management for wildlife fires or other natural disasters. There is 1 way in and out of this area, high density housing would put numerous families at risk. Additionally, such a large development will impact our already overwhelmed school systems and available resources (e.g. hospitals, grocery stores). Please accept my comments as a voice for declining to allow this development to occur. Sincerely, Kimberly Brooks 4813 S. Low Way Ct. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509-370-0644" 1. Fire Evacuation Routes: See response to Public Comment #7, Item 5. 2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. Public Comment #126– Connors, Kyle (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Ms Barlow, Thank you for taking this time to read this email. I hope the day is finding you well despite all the smoke and heat. I am just learning about a rather large development over in the painted hills area. While new developments can be exciting… I feel this particular one will not be a great addition to our area. With the recent influx of bad behavior and crime, I only feel like it will get increasingly worse with the added dwellings in the area. Not to mention with the added population adds to traffic congestion, traffic safety near our schools (we already have a problem with people racing up and down pines at alarming speeds) and makes me think that the schools may not be able to handle the added influx of potential new students. It also concerns me that with such a population increase also increases pollution from motor 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Transportation (General): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. 3. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1. 4. Public Services: Section 3.4.8 of the EIS addresses public services, which includes waste management services. Franchise utilities such as internet bear the responsibility to update and maintain infrastructure commensurate with urban growth, as planned for in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 69 vehicles, litter and human waste management. Also our internet infrastructure and power demands will also not be able to handle the loads that will be thrown at it. We already experience power outages, internet service interruptions that are not going to get better with the increase in population. At 580 new dwellings the math is kind of staggering when you break it down. Single persons being only 580 new people to the area Couples and Single Parents is 1160 more people Parents with 1 child is 1740 Parents with multiple children is anywhere from 2320-3480+ more people in the area To myself and others I think the numbers alone can show that such a boom is not sustainable in this area. I would request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development on the Painted Hills as it has serious implications for our entire community. Thank you for taking the time to read this email. -Kyle Connors 12021 E 34th Ave Spokane Valley WA" Public Comment #127– Wendel, Farryle (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Dear Ms Barlow: I respectfully request a public hearing on the DEIS and the Painted Hills PRD. The proposed actions and outcomes have so many ramifications for my daughter's family, none of them beneficial at this point. They live south of the golf course along Dishman Mica Rd, and this is their main access to EVERYTHING in town. I cannot imagine the horror of traffic trying to get to work, school and essentially everywhere in town for them with that area developed as proposed. Anyone trying to drop their child at Chester Creek, Horizon or at University knows traffic in this area is already a huge problem and safety of children as they go to and from school is already risky. As the mother and grandmother, the increased traffic will make it very difficult for me to visit. Please review all the possible designs of future development as well as the environmental impact for this area. Thank you for your time and consideration. Farryle Wendel 4117 N Farr Rd Spokane WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Transportation: See response to Public Comment #15, Item 1. 3. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1. Public Comment #128– Ragan, Paulette (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "I am requesting a hearing regarding the DEIS. There are numerous reasons why this project should not be allowed to progress and there needs to be serious discussion regarding this matter. Paulette Ragan Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 70 3902 S. Eagle Ln Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #129– Krogh, Hallie (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I am requesting a public hearing on the DEIS in relation to the development of Painted Hills. Thank you, Hallie Krogh 11306 E Ponderosa Drive Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #130– Krogh, Ryan (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I am requesting a public hearing on the DEIS in relation to the development of Painted Hills. Thank you, Ryan Krogh 11306 E Ponderosa Drive Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #131– Brewer, Ricci (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Dear Ms. Barlow, As a homeowner, tax payer, and parent living in the Painted Hills Neighborhood I am just devastated to hear about Dave Black’s development plans for the former Painted Hills Golf Course, and wetlands area. As our elected representative I am reaching out to you to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development on the Painted Hills area as this needs to be stopped as it has serious impacts to so many facets of our local community. As of this time our schools are already at capacity. How can this school system safely add children from 580 new dwellings? Classrooms were at capacity before COVID restrictions, and with the addition of social distancing, need for small class sizes, and a shortage of teachers our children’s education will suffer if this significant increase of children is added to an already maxed out school system. 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 3. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: Public Comment #6, Item 1. 4. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. 5. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5. 6. Transportation (General): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 71 Traffic: Our current two lane road to and from the Painted Hills neighborhood (Along Madison) has no sidewalks, this road boasts a beautiful population of deer who travel throughout the area, and these roads are already attracting car races, speed pushing drivers, and putting our animals, runners, walkers, and children at risk. My boys are entering middle school next month and I am already concerned about their safety as they plan to walk to and from school on occasion. The increase in dwellings with make an already growing problem too much to handle with the added traffic congestion. Not to mention school drop up and pickup for the elementary takes nearly a half hour with the current school traffic flow issues. I know you have many emails to read, and I could go on and on with reasons why this project needs to be stopped, traffic, school, energy, wildfires, A FLOODPLAIN, wetlands, and the devastation to our wildlife! Please look past the builders need for money, and more, more more… and be an advocate for the community members who’ve elected you and will re-elect you. Thank you for your time in advocating for our community, and putting a stop to this plan as our elected representative. Best, Ricarda Brewer 5506 S Mohawk Dr Spokane, WA 99206 Ricci.brewer@gmail.com" Public Comment #132– Simmons, Amanda (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "I would like a public hearing on the DEIS. The 600 unit proposed housing plan will have a huge impact on our community. It will over run our schools and roads. Not to mention the negative impact on the environment. Thank you, Amanda simmons 9615 e 43rd Ave spokane valley wa 99206 Sent from my iPhone" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #133– Taylor, Mary (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development will cause so many issues, including traffic that the roads just won't be able to handle, school over-crowding, loss of habitat for much of our surrounding wildlife that is already suffering... the list goes on. Our entire community is opposed to this and has been for so many years. Please allow a public hearing on this matter. Thank you, Mary Taylor 11605 E. 48th Ave 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. 2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. 3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. 4. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 72 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android" 5. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. Public Comment #134– Van Herk, Amanda (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I’m writing you to request that there be a public hearing on the Painted Hills DEIS. This planned development will have significant negative effects on our community, but most importantly the environment/wildlife. Thank you. Andrea Van Herk" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. 2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. Public Comment #135– DeVries, Patrick (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Subject: Painted Hills Public Hearing Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community and our day to day lives. I own and live in my home in the immediate area. Thank you Patrick DeVries | President / CEO Patrick@devriesinc.com 509-838-1044 Ext. 321 | 866-433-4691 Ext. 321 | devriesinc.com" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #136– Ingraham, Wayne (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "I would like to have another public hearing on the development at painted hills. My name is Wayne Ingraham 11317 E. 48 Ave. Spokane Valley 99206 wayneshirlene@msn.com Thank you" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #137– Scott, Rylan (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Hi I'm writing as a resident nearby the poderosa area, and I am concerned about the environment, and infrastructure impacts that will come with it. Please hold a public hearing in order to allow public input on this development. My address is 10615 E Pierce Ln Spokane Wa" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #138– Verity, Sue (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community for the majority of our lives. Thank you. Sincerely, 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 73 Sue Verity 4222 South Hollow Street Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Email: lancesuev@gmail.com Sent from my iPhone" Public Comment #139– Deyarmin, Sasha (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Dear Ms. Barlow-I would like to request a hearing on the proposed development on the former Painted Hills Golf Course. The proposed development will have long lasting and negative implications on the South Valley Community. A development to this magnitude would put an undo burden on our roads, our maxed out Central Valley schools, and would propose a major safety hazard for walkers, bikers, and drivers. In addition, it would endanger the wildlife in the area. The golf course added to the quality of lives of the people in this community. We now need to drive at least 30 minutes to play golf. This area would better serve the community as a golf course and park, which was the promise of the Spokane Valley City Council when they told the neighbors across the street of their plans so that the neighbors would not purchase it. Please consider this request. Sincerely, Sasha Deyarmin 5916 S. Lochsa Lane 99206 and Candace Jordan 10214 E. 40th Ct. 99206 Sent from my iPhone" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. 2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. 3. Transportation (Infrastructure): See response to Public Comment #86, Item 2. 4. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1. 5. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. Public Comment #140– Rausch, Leonard & Debbie (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of Painted Hills Golf Course. The development has huge implications for our entire community. Once completed, the damage to our area will be irreversible. Thank you, Leonard and Debbie Rausch 10510 E 20th Ave Spokane Valley, Wa 99206 Sent from my iPad" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #141– Verity, Lance (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, LBarlow@spokanevalley.org. Ref: Project Name: Painted Hills PRD - 2015-0001Proposal Description: A planned residential development with 300 single family homes, 280 multifamily units and a neighborhood commercial center. Questions: 1. Who will be performing Operational and Maintenance of structures in and around the development. I.E trash racks, pipe openings, swales. 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Flood Management System Element Failure Risk and Impact Summary (Appendix E): See response to Public Comment #209, Item 3. 3. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 74 2. Appex. E: ""Pipe openings clogged by debris during a flood event"". ""Vegetation in and near the ditch that enters the pipe is non-woody and would not contribute a measurable amount of debris."" In my 10+ years of working in and around CSO tanks and sewer lines I have witnessed many different objects blocking control gates and racks. Everything from tree branches to large rocks. It does not depend on vegetation in the local area of the rack-it's more dependent on the Items upstream in the Chester Creek Watershed and the amount of energy forced by heavy rains. This was recently shown by a microclimate downpour in the north Spokane area within the last year. Because of these reasons and other concerns that will be addressed more fully, I would like to request a public hearing on this project's DEIS. Thank you, Lance Verity (PC385) 4222 South Hollow Street Spokane Valley, WA 99206" Public Comment #142– Kang, Jill (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Lori, I am requesting a hearing regarding the Painted Hills Golf Course. Jill Kang Jill.Kang@comcast.net Sent from my iPhone" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #143– Taggart, Damon (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development has enormous implications for our entire community for the majority of our lives. Thank you, Damon Taggart 3809 s union rd Spokane valley wa 99206 Get Outlook for Android" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #144– Hyndman, Alexandra (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Dear Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the development of the Painted Hills golf course. This development has the ability to impact our community in a drastic way that I would like the opportunity to comment on. Thank you, Alexandra Hyndman 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 75 12735 E Apache Pass rd Spokane, WA 99206" Public Comment #145– Sisser, John (08-14-21) Response to Comments: "Please add me to the list of people requesting a public hearing on the Painted Hills project. My address is 3909 S Robie Road Spokane Valley Thank you John Sisser Get Outlook for iOS" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #146– Martin, James (08-14-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, This Email is to request a Public Hearing on the DEIS for the proposed Painted Hills Development. This project has so many negative implications: schools, roads, environment, wildlife and is being proposed on a flood plain that the developer wants others to be responsible for the water mitigation system. This developer lives in an excusive neighbor hood on the South Hill and could care less about the mess and chaos he leaves behind here in beautiful Spokane Valley. This is no time for the City of Spokane Valley to give in to a developer who only cares about $$$, let’s develop this City properly. Regards, James M. Martin 3919 South Eagle Lane Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Sent from Mail for Windows" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. 2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. 3. Transportation (Infrastructure): See response to Public Comment #86, Item 2. 4. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. 5. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 6. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. Public Comment #147– Bieker, Michelle (08-14-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I would like to request a public hearing on the DEIS and the developement of the Painted Hills Golf Course. This development has caused multiple concerns and will have enormous implications for our entire community. I thank you for your consideration in this matter. My address is 11206 e 48th ave. Sincerely, Michelle Bieker" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #148– Flatt, Rachelle (08-14-21) Response to Comments: "Hello Mrs Barlow, I am writing today to join my fellow neighbors in requesting a public hearing regarding the Painted Hills Development. The impact report must be addressed. This development will have a 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 76 severe impact to our wildlife, schools and the future occupants of the area if built. Please honor our request of a public hearing regarding this matter. Regard, Rachelle Flatt Sent from my iPhone" This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. 2. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. 3. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. Public Comment #149– Martin, Mardy (08-14-21) Response to Comments: "RE: Painted Hills PRD / DEIS Dear Lori: As a resident of the south valley for over 40 years, and a tax paying citizen of the City of Spokane Valley, I believe the approval of the Painted Hills PRD would be irresponsible. The property is a designated flood plain. We have watched this land flood multiple times. It will happen again. The complex hydraulic abatement system proposed by the developer in the DEIS can not be maintained and operated by a Home Owners Association. It is not realistic to assume that a group of neighborhood volunteers would have the knowledge or financial resources to manage, maintain and operate the proposed water control system. When the system fails, the failure will be the responsibility of the City of Spokane Valley and the the resulting liability and costs incurred will ultimately be shouldered by the tax payers. The idea to bring in 377,000 cubic yards of fill dirt (37,000 truck loads) is ludicrous. To say this would not have an impact on the existing roads, neighbors and adjacent three schools is not reality. Who is going to monitor the quality of the proposed fill dirt to make sure it does not contain contaminants that will leach into our aquifer? Who is going to pay for damages caused to neighbors when water is diverted onto their properties? The Traffic Impact Study included in the study has many omissions and is outdated. It should not be considered as valid and current information. Central Valley School District has stated that they do not have room at University High School, Horizon Middle School, and Chester Elementary School to accommodate the new students generated by 580 new residences. Will the developer notify prospective purchasers that their children will need to be bussed out of the area for school? Of course, the answer is no. Will the developer pay for the cost of bussing thechildren? The answer is no. As proposed, this development is doomed to failure for so many reasons. Please do not allow this to become a liability for the citizens of the City of Spokane Valley. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 1. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. 2. Construction-Related Traffic: Section 3.3.2 of the EIS and the Truck Haul Plan (Appendix G) discuss construction-related traffic, fill quantity, timing, routes, and impact to local roads. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Section 3.3.3 , in particular the mitigation requirement to finalize a truck-haul plan, approved by the city will ensure that the traffic-related effects of on-site fill activities are sufficiently mitigated. Minor refinements to Sections 3.3.2.2 and 3.3.2.3 of the EIS have been made to the transportation section of the document to clarify the expected number of trips per day associated with fill activities. Mitigation measures in Section 3.3.3 of the EIS include the requirement for a truck-haul plan approved by the city. The City’s certificate of concurrency for the Painted Hills PRD project remains valid and any development proposals that have occurred after the issuance of the certificate of concurrency are required to consider background trips from the Painted Hills project. Therefore, the delay in approval for the Painted Hills PRD will not result in unaccounted for impacts on the system due to the fact that subsequent development proposals have included trips from the proposed project as background volumes in their traffic studies to obtain certificates of concurrency. 3. Water Quality (Aquifer): See response to Public Comment #17, Item 5. 4. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 5. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 77 Mardy Martin 3919 S Eagle Lane Spokane Valley, WA 99206" Public Comment #150– Sisser, Kathy (08-14-21) Response to Comments: "Please add my name to the list of people who are requesting a public hearing on the Painted Hills Project. My mailing address is Kathryn J. Sisser, 3909 S. Robie Rd., Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509- 994-2584. Thank you Kathy Sisser" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS. Public Comment #151– Martin, Mardy (08-14-21) Response to Comments: "Lori, It is imperative that the City of Spokane Valley recognizes the concerns of it's citizens. I am requesting a public hearing on the Painted Hills PRD. Thank you, Mardy Martin 3919 S. Eagle Lane Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS. Public Comment #152– Berkseth, Barbara (08-14-21) Response to Comments: "I am signing on to request another hearing regarding the massive undesirable go at developing the old Painted Hills golf course. Please include me in the request! Barbara Berkseth bberkseth@msn.com Sent from Outlook" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1 This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #153– Schroeder, George (08-14-21) Response to Comments: Dear Ms. Barlow: Please have a public hearing on the above development due to the complexity and issues associated with it. The Painted Hills Golf Course project will have a major impact on our community. Thanks very much. Sincerely, George Schroeder 5205 S Cree Dr, Spokane, WA 99206 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #154– Sisser, John & Kathy (7-16-21) Response to Comments: "We are writing this memo to express our concerns on the proposed Painted Hills Development. We live at 3909 South Robie Road in Spokane Valley. We are within 400 feet of the northern boundary of the development. 1. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 78 A major concern is the affordability of these homes. We foresee these this project being marketed as “affordable “homes, but they will not be. The developer will list the selling price as affordable, but will they list what the HOA fees are and what the HOA will be responsible for when the HOA assumes ownership. Probably not because they do know what these fees will be. With what the developer wants to do to wash his hand of any liability after the project is completed, the cost is unpredictable. There will need to be some insurance for these repairs. There will need to be a contingency fund built to cover these unexpected repairs if insurance cannot bmet. What happens when the HOA declares bankruptcy? Look at the condo disaster in Florida, the lawsuit Phillips vs King County or a flooded development in Harris County Texas because of poor drainage the developer put in. The result is the taxpayers of Spokane Valley will be paying the bill, not the developer because he has washed his hand of the project. Who is going to monitor the developments HOA Board to see that it is covering all day-to-day maintenance? The use of the Triangle Pit has been identified as a water storage and infiltration area from the development. This is about a half a mile for the development. There needs to be right away acquired to move the water between the two points. Roads and private property will have to be crossed. Who will be providing maintenance if needed? When you start adding up all this potential cost and dividing them out amongst the possible homeowners and adding them to the normal maintenance (mowing and snow removal) affordable housing this is not. The city does not want these liabilities, do they? Now let’s look at the impact on the school on Pines Road. This is a unique situation where we have a Middle School, Elementary, and High School all along Pines Rd. It was stated to the consults back in 2001, when the comments were made regarding Woodlawn Rd being extended to 40th. Currently, it was under county control. We made the comment that pushing Woodlawn thru would create a perfect scenario for people from the east to go down Woodlawn, turn right on 40th and have a right hand drop off at Horizon Middle School or Chester Elementary. Whipple’s people said this would not happen. This has happened. It was also stated that the students from University High School would find Woodlawn a way to get to South Madison, bypassing the light. This would not happen. It has. When the initial traffic study was done, we questioned the validity of the numbers because they did not include all the school hours, just “standard hours”. School traffic starts about 7:15 AM and continues to after 9 AM and on late start days, 10 AM. Dismissal starts about 2:30 PM and continues until 3:30 PM, not normal traffic hours. This development will also increase the number of trips on Madison/Pines to where it will make it a lot more dangerous for kids to cross in front of Chester from thee Midilome Development for school. The crossing at 37th and Pines Road is a blind crossing for cars going north coming up the curve and hill. Who is going to pay for the road repairs after the developer brings in all the dirt to bring elevation of the round to get above the flood plain? There is going to be a lot of dust and noise pollution 2. Triangle Pond: As described in Section 2.2.1 of the EIS, the project will replace Gustin Ditch with a 36-inch pipe, will deepen an existing detention basin (“triangle pond”), and will install drywells in the pond bottom to increase the infiltration capacity. Water will infiltrate at the pond and there is no proposal to move water between the pond and the project site. Public right of way exists for East 40th Avenue to a point approximately 2,214 feet east of Madison Road and connects to the triangle pond. No easements are needed for pond access. 3. Traffic on Pines Road: Section 3.3.1 of the EIS describes current LOS on Pines Road. Section 3.3.2 of the EIS discusses the potential effects of construction-related and trip-generated traffic on Pines Road. Implementation of mitigation measures identified in EIS Section 3.3.3 will ensure a continuous paved pedestrian connection on the west side of Madison Road to provide safe connections from development to adjacent schools. In addition, a northbound right turn lane off S Pines Road will be provided as a condition of approval prior to the City’s issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Painted Hills PRD project. Clarification on these two mitigation measures has been added to Section 3.3.3 of the EIS. 4. Traffic on Woodlawn Drive (Midilome Cut-Through Study): See response to Public Comment #1, Item 2. 5. Erosion Control: Section 3.4.5.1 of the EIS discusses existing geology of the Painted Hills site. In addition, Section 3.4.5.2 of the EIS discusses fill quantities, extent of impervious surfaces, and source for imported material. As stated in this section, “Material will come from the nearest source approved per the City and County standards and be brought to the site following City guidelines”. No significant erosion on the Painted Hills PRD site is anticipated when considering the mitigation measures recommended in Section 3.4.5.3 of the EIS. Therefore, no EIS changes are warranted. 6. Noise: This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS. 7. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1. 8. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 79 associated with this part of the project over several years. Are you going to place someone on site for the duration of the project to monitor the developments use of controls? My last comments are directed towards the City Council. The developers support your election to the council, most do not live in the city. We are the taxpayers; we are the ones you should be listening to. The developer will show up the meetings, convince you to approve the project, build the project out and leave the city with the bill to fix their screwups. You accept their money, and they have no loyalty after project is done. We are not against developments. We spent 10 years in the fastest growing area of Southern California in the 90’s. We saw growth from less than 10,000 people to over 80,000 during that time. The county, city , and school district all worked together to get a GREAT product. Developers had to help pay for schools, parks, and other city infrastructure. Everyone benefited. All followed the rules. Sincerely, John and Kathy Sisser" Public Comment #155– Inks, Charles & Vicki (08-14-21) Response to Comments: "Dear Ms. Barlow, On behalf of my husband Charles and I, I would like to request a public hearing regarding the planned 600 unit housing development of the Chester Golf Course. We believe there is more input needed before this should go through. Thank you for your consideration. Charles and Vicki Inks 4929 S Coyote Creek Lane Spokane Valley. 99206 Get Outlook for iOS" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #156– Baker, Sandra (08-15-21) Response to Comments: My address is 4928 S Coyote Creek Lane. Thank you, Sandra Baker 1. Public Involvement: Comment noted. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #157– Kougl, LuRicka (08-14-21) Response to Comments: "Hello Lori, We wanted to express our serious concerns about the PRD for the Painted Hills area. This planned development is a huge impact to an area that is strained now and with a planned increase of a significant number of living units, the area will be facing 1. Transportation: This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. 2. Fire Evacuation Routes: See response to Public Comment #7, Item 5. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 80 very real safety issues. There are daily traffic backups from the train crossings and just enough traffic to cause people to run red lights because they can't get through the lights. Evacuation routes are very limited and if and when the area requires residents to evacuate, it will be very hazardous. The schools are also in no position to expand with this level of living units added. It only jeopardizes the ability to properly manage a school system already being negatively impacted by high enrollment. It appears this PRD is not a well-planned community development. Just because this developer (Black Realty) has dollar signs in their eyes, it doesn't mean this community and it's current residents should be impacted negatively with an unsupported infrastructure. I hope the City of Spokane Valley will hear the concerns of the current residents and decline Black Realty's proposal. Thank you for taking the time to hear our concerns. LuRicka & Gary Kougl Aspen Creek" 3. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. Public Comment #158– Baker, Sandra (08-15-21) Response to Comments: "From: sanraybaker To: Lori Barlow Subject: I am a home owner in the Creek at Chester development and am requesting a public hearing on the DEIS for the proposed development of the previous Painted Hills Golf Course. Date: Sunday, August 15, 2021 8:24:55 AMMy address is 4928 S Coyote Creek Lane. Thank you, Sandra Baker Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #159– Oyler, Carol (08-15-21) Response to Comments: "We are requesting a public hearing on the DEIS for the Painted Hills Development in our area. We are very concerned about the impact of this development on the infrastructure and environment in our area. Thank you. From: Jeff and Carol Oyler, 11120 E 48th Ave, Spokane Valley Sent from Mail for Windows" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #160– Sorensen, Ashley (08-15-21) Response to Comments: "To whom it may concern; I live at 4913 S Coyote Creek ln and I am writing to request a public hearing of the DEIS in regards to the proposed development of the old Painted Hills Golf course. I am opposed to this development as it will affect my property value, traffic in the neighborhood and safety. Ashley Sorensen" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #161– Gowdy, Frank & Mary (08-15-21) Response to Comments: Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 81 "Ms. Barlow, My wife and I have lived in Painted Hills for 21 years and would like to voice our opposition to the planned development at the old golf course. Has anyone really thought about what it’s going to be like when we add some 1200 cars, 1200 kids and 1200 adults to this area? We would like to request a hearing so that we would know that these and many other questions are being asked and answered and that this decision is not just based on a bunch of money being made by a few people while the rest of us have to foot the bill for possible flooding, new schools and infrastructure not within the developments boundaries but affected non the less. This should be about community not making a few people richer. Please feel free to respond to this email. Thank you, Frank and Mary Gowdy" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Transportation (Infrastructure): See response to Public Comment #86, Item 2. 3. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. 4. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 5. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. Public Comment #162– Reisinger, Derald (08-15-21) Response to Comments: "Dear L Barlow: I am concerned about the impact of the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development project by Black Realty and would like the city to hold a public hearing of the DEIS for the proposed Painted Hills Golf Course development. Sincerely, Derald Reisinger 4721 S Coyote Creek Ln Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #163– Carney, Heidi (08-15-21) Response to Comments: "I would like to request a public hearing of the DEIS for the proposed Painted Hills Golf Course development. This development will severely impact our neighborhood at Chester Creek. Thankyou, Heidi Carney 4703 s Coyote Creek Lane Spokane Valley WA , 99306 Sent from my iPhone" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #164– McElroy, Mary (08-15-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I am a registered voter of Spokane Valley and I live within a mile of the proposed Painted Hills Development. I respectfully request a public hearing on the DEIS. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 82 Sincerely, Mary McElroy 12013 E. 34th Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #165– Fisher, Arleen (08-15-21) Response to Comments: "1. New Traffic Scoping Meeting necessary due to other new County and City developments that affect Dishman Mica, Madison Rd, and 32nd Avenue. At the last Traffic Scoping Meeting conducted Whipple's voice recording which available on the the City of Spokane Valley website stated that the Painted Hills PRD development would ""shelter in place"". According to Fire District #8, there is no such thing as ""shelter in place"". Plus, there is lack of egress onto Madison Rd and Dishman Mica due to the current & proposed surrounding developments and traffic flow on two lane roads. Madison Road is filled with young students walking and older students driving to University High School. The students driving are backed up in traffic due to lack of entrance off of Pines Rd on the west side of University, which makes it impossible for people to get to work with long delays. 2. The HOA proposal for mitigation of stormwater or floodwater does not address HOA's financial failure of mitigation maintenance and which government entity will be responsible if hundreds of people upstream and downstream of the golf course are flooded and roads and current stormwater along Dishman Mica or Madison is destroyed. 3. The Chester Creek that runs through this development is a 'Fish Bearing Stream'. No engineer can state in documents that it is not so without approval of Washington State DFWD declaring it so. 4. The bridges on the Dishman Mica (runs east to west), University Road that runs into Pondondersa, and Thorpe Rd lack adequate One Foot Freeboard required during high winter melt off. I have in my possession videos and photos from Feb 16th, 2017 and Feb 17th, 2017 documenting the lack of FEMA Freeboard and widespread flooding in both the County and City of Spokane Valley. 5. With the current historic drought and all of the hills surrounding the Painted Hills Golf Course being surrounded are Wildland-Urban areas. The fire danger is very high. Consider a large wildfire, mudflows, rainfall, rapid snow melt off, after such a wildfire that affects all the hills, including Painted Hills, Horizon Hills, Ponderosa Hills, and Madison Hills and one or more extreme event as described above covering the entire golf course in flash flooding and debris after a wildfire. This is extremely important since the HOA mitigation remains questionable and the extreme amount of added fill that has been requested by the developer 1. Fire Evacuation Routes: See response to Public Comment #7, Item 5. 2. Traffic on Pines Road: See response to Public Comment #154, Item 3. 3. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. 4. Chester Creek, Fish-Bearing: See response to Public Comment #43, Item 2. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 83 would inevitably make the situation worse. Then the financial responsibility will be directed to the County and more than likely to the City of Spokane Valley that approved this PRD, when the next extreme weather event occurs in the future, as Mother Nature is unpredictable. Sincerely, Arleen Fisher 6121 S Zuni Dr" Public Comment #166– Fisher, Arleen (08-15-21) Response to Comments: "RE: Follow up to my previous email. I hit send before completing my address. Arleen Fisher 6121 S Zuni Dr Spokane, WA 99206" 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #167– Robertson, Lisa (08-15-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow and Mr. Holman: I am writing to request a public hearing on the Painted Hills Golf Course development. I have several concerns regarding the proposed development 1. Management and maintenance of the drainage and flood control system 2. Traffic study that is based on old data 3. Fire safety & evacuation routes for residents living on Painted Hills Management and Maintenance of the drainage and flood control system The proposed development is on a flood plain. My understanding is that the proposed solution to manage water drainage during winter melt is to build a filtration and drainage system to allow water to seep directly into the aquifer. My understanding is that the HOA will be responsible for the management and maintenance of this system. The HOA will lack the knowledge and experience to determine the appropriate costs, frequency, and type of contractor to perform this type of work. What happens if the HOA goes bankrupt or does not maintain the system properly? I have had direct experience being part of running an HOA. It can be extremely hard to find reliable, reputable contractors for basic maintenance. I would not want to be part of the Board having to make decisions on a complex drainage system. Just look at what happened in Florida with the condominium collapse. The HOA was ultimately responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the building and no-one understood the risks or the structural issues of the building. Traffic Study Based on Old Data The traffic study is well out of date as it was conducted a number of years ago (2015). There is another development just started on the East of Madison Road as well as the continual build out of existing developments in neighboring areas. I understand the land to the South of the 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. 3. Midilome Cut-Through Study: See response to Public Comment #1, Item 2. 4. Evacuation Routes: See response to Public Comment #7, Item 5. 5. Transportation (Infrastructure): See response to Public Comment #86, Item 2. 6. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. 7. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 84 Cemetery has also been given approval for housing development as well as two large sites in Ponderosa. I am requesting that a new traffic study be performed that includes the impact of ALL of the new developments. Are there plans to upgrade the local road infrastructure to deal with the increase in traffic, or will we be faced with increased traffic congestion and an increase in road traffic incidents. I am concerned with the increased risk to school children safety with the increased traffic along Madison, 32nd, and through the Middleome housing developments. The article in the Spokesman Review 'Getting There' on 19th of July highlighted significant congestion issues already being endured by Valley residents due to infrastructure struggling to cope with the massive influx of residents. Fire Safety and Evacuation Routes for Painted Hills. The other major concern I have is safety in the event of a Fire Evacuation to Painted Hills residential housing area. We live at the top of Painted Hills with one road in and out from houses above Cree and Apache. Below Cree and Apache there are only 2 exit routes via Mohawk. Mohawk to the south exits onto Dishman Mica, and to the North onto Madison. With a new housing development about to start on Madison (south of Thorpe) there is going to be increased traffic between Mohawk and Thorpe. We have already had road closures along this section due to construction of a new access road into the new development. The impact of this was to reduce the entire Painted Hills residential area to a single emergency exit route. This was a serious risk to health and safety of the Painted Hills residents. In the event of a fire people may not have been able to get off the hill. With the increase in traffic and housing being planned for the former Painted Hills golf course there is a much higher risk of an accident or incident resulting in a road closure or blockage at the junction of Thorp and Madisson that would effectively block one of the two exits from Painted Hills. I am asking for a risk assessment study to be carried out for the Painted Hills housing development. Sincerely, Lisa Robertson" Public Comment #168– Robertson, Lisa (08-15-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I realized I didn't include my mailing address. 5924 S. Lochsa Lane Spokane Valley WA 99206 I also got a delivery failure for Mr. Holman. I trust you will pass my concerns onto him Thanks, Lisa Robertson" 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 85 Public Comment #169– Clark, Tom (08-15-21) Response to Comments: "Ma Barlow, I am writing to request that there be a public hearing to review the DEIS that has been submitted on the proposed painted hills development. Thank you, Tom Clark 5214 S. Cree Dr Spokane, WA 99206 Get Outlook for iOS" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #170– Brandle, George (08-15-21) Response to Comments: "Hi Lori, I request a public hearing for the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development DEIS, which notice was released on July 16, 2021. Regards, George Brandle 12906 E 40th Ave Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #171– Brandle, Betty (08-15-21) Response to Comments: "Hi Lori, I request a public hearing for the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development DEIS, released on July 16, 2021. Sincerely, Betty Brandle 12906 E 40th Ave,Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #172– Alberti, Sobert & Sonja (08-15-21) Response to Comments: "We are requesting a public hearing of the DEIS for the proposed Painted Hills Golf Course Development. We are very concerned about this development and how it will change our lifestyles in the Painted Hills area. We just recently bought a home and moved into this area this Spring because it was very quiet and serene. This huge development will significantly change our quality of life because it will affect the quality of our schools, increase traffic congestion, as well as noise and air pollution. We understand development is a necessity but this is extremely large and will drastically alter a way of life. Thank you! Sincerely, Robert and Sonja Alberti" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #173– Giannini, Lon (08-15-21) Response to Comments: "Hello, Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 86 I’m very concerned and opposed to the proposed painted Hills development project. This email is, in writing request my for a public hearing. Lon Giannini Sent from my iPad" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #174– Coalson, Alan & Rose (08-16-21) Response to Comments: "Dear Lori Barlow, We are requesting that a public hearing be held in regards to the DEIS that was released recently re: the old Painted Hills golf course property. We feel that several issues were not addressed adequately and would like further discussion on the matter. Several issues we are concerned about are: An HOA's financial ability to handle any flooding problems that could arise, the increase in traffic the project will incur, an evacuation plan in case of fire in the Painted Hills neighborhood and why are things proceeding before FEMA has given their report. These are only 4 issues. There are more. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours, Alan & Rose Coalson 5419 S. Cree Drive Spokane, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. 3. Transportation: See response to Public Comment #15, Item 1. 4. Fire Evacuation Routes: See response to Public Comment #7, Item 5. 5. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. 6. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. 7. CLOMR Process: See response to Public Comment #210. Public Comment #175– Henderson, Kelli (08-16-21) Response to Comments: "Dear Ms. Barlow, I am so concerned for the community effecting the Painted Hills development. I believe more research needs to be done, traffic studies road updates ect. I would like to request a hearing for the community to be heard again. Thank you in advance, Kelli Henderson (508)954-7544 Sent from Kelli B’s iPhone" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #176– Watts, Gary (08-16-21) Response to Comments: "Dear Ms. Barlow, I would like to add my name to those requesting a public hearing regarding the Painted Hills Development. It is my understanding that there are some significant questions that need to be asked regarding the environmental impact of this development. Sincerely, Gary Watts 4309 S. Darcy Dr. 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 87 Spokane Valley, WA 99206" Public Comment #177– Mowe, Alisa (08-16-21) Response to Comments: "Hello Lori, I am writing to request a public hearing for the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development DEIS, which notice was released on July 16, 2021. Thank you, Alisa Mowe 13811 East Bellessa Lane Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #178– Mowe, Shuyler (08-16-21) Response to Comments: "Hi Lori, I request a public hearing for the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development DEIS, which notice was released on July 16, 2021. Regards, Shuyler Mowe 13811 E Bellessa Ln Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #179– Bailey, Alisha (08-16-21) Response to Comments: "Hi Lori, I request a public hearing for the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development DEIS, released on July 16, 2021. Sincerely, Alisha Bailey 12810 E 40th Ave,Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #180– Abou-Harb, Christine (08-16-21) Response to Comments: "I’d like a public hearing to discuss the development of the former Painted Hills golf course. There is no way the neighborhood could support the traffic or school needs for the size of development proposed. Thank you, Christine Abou-Harb 509-954-3571 3422 S Melissa Dr 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. 3. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 88 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Sent from my iPhone" Public Comment #181– Rosenoff, Julie (08-16-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, Thank you for your time explaining many details about the Painted Hills DEIS and comments this afternoon. I appreciate your kind patience and clear explanations very much. Julie Rosenoff jrosenoff@gmail.com Spokane Valley, WA Here are my comments. I have highlighted key words and phrases to add clarity to my long letter and hope it will make tallying my comments easier. I have also attached it as a pdf document for your possible convenience. Painted Hill DEIS Documents One of my biggest issues is how to protect the wetlands values as well as the flow to Chester Creek and our valuable Dishman Hills natural area is not compromised in any way. I will personally miss the peaceful bucolic aspects of my daily walk in the future. We need clarification (education) on why this area does not include wetlands. Those of us familiar with this area for many years know that a pond forms on the south side of 40th Ave. that frequently covers the roadway. Redwing blackbirds have lived in the area. It appears to many of us that the surface water is significant there and nearby, although it is not permanent. I respectfully submit that the public needs to be educated on how this general area is not classified as a wetland. The report is contrary to wide-held beliefs of the area. Conclusions of Larry Dawes in the Environmental Assessment, page 16, states: “No wetlands occur adjacent to Chester Creek because it is not influenced by a high water table. … Chester Creek loses water to the underlying sands and gravels all year long preventing wetlands from forming.” Another one of my major concerns is that the increase in traffic and in school children will be underestimated. How accurate are the projections of increase in people, cars, and children? Projections somehow must reflect how nearby areas are building up. Somehow the future growth seems to outpace careful long-term planning. I have seen this repeatedly in my life time where schools are full the minute they are opened. I read the anticipated occupancy of 1. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5. 2. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. 3. Lighting/Crime: This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS. 4. Flooding (Chester Creek): Public Comment concerns regarding water quality entering Chester Creek and fish habitat are addressed in the response to Public Comment #43, Item 2. For response regarding general flooding concerns and floodwater as it relates to flooding on Chester Creek, please see response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 89 the multi-family units would be 1.77 persons per apartment. Really? In this area? The documents stress that this project will just effect things incrementally when it comes to traffic being made worse or stay the same. Yes, there are other factors involved, but projected growth in one small area is likely to be quite different than using general projections. I am also concerned that the environmental impacts might be much greater than projected. I would like to know of other examples in our area where diverting waters elsewhere has a neutral impact. I read that exterior lighting will be included (with shields), but will there be unlit areas at night that draw undesirable activities? That was originally a problem with Browne’s Park. I agree that the intersections of Highway 27 with 32nd avenue and 16th avenue will continue to be areas of concern. 16th Avenue and Pines (just west of highway 27) is already a problem. There are many days when it is difficult to turn because of so much traffic. In the future, will we be able to see a drawing of a possible E-W 10-acre wildlife travel area through property plus 30 acres of open green? I personally would prefer a mixed use of the area that includes green acres to solely single-family dwellings with no open land." Public Comment #182– McDonald, Judi (08-18-21) Response to Comments: "We as long time citizens of the valley want to have a hearing on this painted hills housing stuff. I moved to the valley because of the more rural feeling, now i feel like a crammed up person. We certainly don't need houses in a flood plain. What we really need is a sports complex to bring some money into here instead of all in town." 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. 2. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. 3. Parks/Greenspace: See response to Public Comment #3, Item 1. Specific facilities provided as part of the greenspace requirement are unknown at this time. Public Comment #183– Wurst, Cara (08-20-21) Response to Comments: "August 20, 2021 Lori Barlow Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Comments for Painted Hills PRD Dear Ms Barlow and City of Spokane Valley, I”m writing to express strong points AGAINST the Painted Hills PRD in its’ current proposed form. There are so many areas of concern that it’s hard to pick which one to discuss first. 1. Traffic on Dishman-Mica Road: Public Comment# 7, Item 4. 2. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1. 3. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 4. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. 5. Chester Creek, Fish-Bearing: See response to Public Comment #43, Item 2. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 90 First I will make comment on the traffic issue. We live on Dishman Mica Highway proper and thus drive past this PRD daily, often several times. I cannot imagine the traffic snarl that will ensue between Thorpe exiting 500+ homes worth of drivers, often 2 or more, onto Dishman Mica Highway or Madison. The current road system is certainly not equipped for this increased traffic and I have a hard time believing the developers will adequately address this. There’s also a new development of homes directly off Madison currently being constructed. This will bring more traffic still. Which brings me to a related subject - SCHOOL SAFETY. I implore one of the council to drive along Madison during AM school (and essentially going to work) hours and see the children, parents, and local residents all trying to get to their destination at the same time. The traffic burden that this development would put in this already heavy use area for 3 schools is unthinkable. Oh, and by the way I saw the engineers putting out their “traffic study” bands DURING SCHOOL BREAK WEEK - if this is the data they used to gauge traffic through the area that was DISINGENUOUS and purposely misleading indeed. This leads to the next serious area of concern — schools themselves. My daughter has had to endure not one, but two school constructions now, and the classrooms are already at capacity. WHO is going to build more schools AND PAY for this increase?? I for one have had enough of school levy’s and property taxes but I”m fairly certain the developer has not allocated the money for the new schools(where will they be built??) and the money for the bussing and all the school staff. Honestly, this is crazy to think that our kids’ education won’t be affected adversely by adding this many more households, who are sure to have children into our already maxed out Valley school system. Next let’s discuss the flooding. As a daily driver up Dishman Mica Highway, I see the seasonal flooding. I also know that the golf course has always been a contingency for the eventual 1000 year fold. I know this area is in the 1000 year flood plain and I’m not sure the fill plan from Whipple and Co will adequately address this eventuality. The idea of an HOA being both financially patent and handling this properly is a stretch to say the least. Having moved across the country as a military spouse, I can tell you that rarely are HOAs run well and managed well. This burden then will fall on the City in some fashion and the hapless homeowners whose homes are sure to beflooded and left without recourse. What a greedy and short sighted thing to do to citizens and the City. We only have to look to the recent HOA negligence and the catastrophe in Florida with the condo to have an idea of how well HOAs handle thing such as this. Does the City want this kind of liability in allowing development in a floodplain? I can tell you with absolute certainty that Chester Creek is in fact fish bearing. The creek runs through our property and both my child and the neighbors chase the fish in the creek all summer long. You are welcome to come and take a look yourself, bring your net. Also, our area of the creek has never dried up in the years that we have lived here, there is always some amount of water. I remember the fill process is slated to be ongoing for 4 years??? What about the current 6. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. 7. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. 8. Parks/Greenspace: See response to Public Comment #3, Item 1. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 91 residents and communities all around this who are expected to put up with dusty noisy and intrusive work for nearly 1/2 a decade?? This on top of regular construction work? This also is another safety issue for all the children going to and from school twice/day. As of yet, I don’t believe any regulatory agencies have approved this PRD in any fashion. This leaves the flood and wildlife issue still very much unresolved. I know wildlife and conservation do not generate tax revenues, but these are important issues that bring people to this wonderful city, and make them want to stay and be invested in it. Please please do not let the developers pressure allow you, our elected officials with whom we’ve entrusted our best interest as homeowners in the Valley, to be pressured or worn down. This golf course area could be so many wonderful things that the Valley needs rather than a menace to the wildlife, the flood control, the neighbors and schools. Having to drive many times up north for sporting events with my child, I’m of the mind that we could use some baseball and soccer fields for recreational leagues on this end of town. Surround that with SOME homes, with larger lots that are on the high areas, out of the flood elevation, combined with even more parks or green spaces, a dog park perhaps — what a jewel to add to this part of the Valley!! Thank you for the opportunity to express our dire concerns, this issue has been heavy on many of our hearts – we love our area and want only the best for it, and this PRD is NOT in the best interest of the region. Sincerely, Cara Wurst 6405 S Dishman Mica Rd Spokane, WA 99206" Public Comment #184– Mcelroy, Mary (08-21-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I am a registered voter of Spokane Valley and live within a mile of the former Painted Hills golf course. I take regular walks around the perimeter of the golf course and am familiar with the area. I am opposed to the residential development of this land. I do not feel the impact on the environment - specifically, increased traffic - has been adequately addressed. Have any of the decision makers waited in traffic at the intersection of Pines and 16th? Or Pines and 32nd when school is starting/ending? This is under current conditions. The study has not explained how the additional traffic of 600+ homes and apartments in front of a 2-land road will be addressed to avoid even bigger issues. I expect the leaders of the City of Spokane Valley to think about the future. They need to explain how traffic flow will be changed to ensure expediency and safety. Also, this should be paid by the developers, not the public. We are already behind the curve on our infrastructure according to the latest city report. Regards, 1. Traffic on Pines Road: See response to Public Comment #154, Item 3. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 92 Mary McElroy 12013 E. 34th Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206" Public Comment #185– Mcelroy, Mary (08-21-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow, I am a registered voter of Spokane Valley and live within a mile of the former Painted Hills golf course. I take regular walks around the perimeter of the golf course and am familiar with the area. I am opposed to the residential development of this land. I do not feel the impact on the environment - specifically, the wetlands - has been adequately addressed. There are so few natural areas left in this part of the valley. There is value in having these natural areas. Once they are gone, they are never coming back. I expect the leaders of the City of Spokane Valley to think about the future. Filling wetlands with junk materials is not a solution and is irresponsible. I want to know how the wetlands will be maintained or replaced to ensure wildlife have access. I also want to know where citizens will have access to natural areas. Regards, Mary McElroy 12013 E. 34th Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Wetlands: See Response to Public Comment #4, Item 5. Public Comment #186– Landa, Teresa (08-20-21) Response to Comments: "Dear Lori, I live in The Greens HOA and wish to express my concerns regarding the plan to develop Painted Hills Golf Course. My fear is with Black's plan to have the HOA be responsible for the water mitigation system in the proposed development. A task as important as flood control should not be left to an HOA. Neglect by the HOA contributed to the disaster in Florida. Bad plan. Thank you for passing this along. Teresa Landa 3946 S Eagle Ln, Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. Public Comment #187– Sandon, Kirk (08-22-21) Response to Comments: "Mrs. Barlow, The Painted Hills Planned Residential Development is unfortunate. It seems like it is only being done to make Black Realty even richer than they already are by bulldozing through another real-estate project where they make money and the city is left holding the bag. The city is being left with figuring out how to teach the additional 1. Construction-Related Traffic: See response to Public Comment #149, Item 2. 2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 93 students that will come with this development and how to keep it safe with emergency services. The only reason the project was held up last time was enough people complained and made them actually do an environmental study. The city didn't seem to care, they were ready to rubber stamp the deal, like they seem to do with all real estate projects, especially if they come from Black Realty and others like it. To build it they are going to do significant damage to the roads with all the dirt they are having to bring in. Are they going to pay or rebuild the road? My guess is not, we will have to. Are they going to replace or keep one of the few good restaurants in the valley (the Craft & Gather)? Probably not, that doesn't make enough money, bull doze it down. After all, it as all about the money for them, not building a community we want to live in (they don't even live here). I would not be as opposed to this if they reduced the number of houses to a more reasonable number, but again it is all about money for them so they are either going to jam as many single homes in as legally possible, or do there mixed housing idea and only keep some green space so they can average out the density to meet the requirements. They aren't doing the green space out of the kindness of there hearts, it is all about putting in as many homes as possible to make themselves even richer. Does the city even need this many more houses? Yes we are seeing an influx right now but that is not likely to last, especially with all of the other construction going on. In summary this project should not go forward as planned. Make them reduce there density to something more in the lines of Midelome or Midelome East. Thank you for your time, Kirk Sandon" 3. Emergency Services: Emergency services are addressed in Sections 3.4.8.1 and 3.4.8.2 of the EIS. It is expected that additional service calls for police, fire and emergency services will occur from future residences and businesses within the site, but these uses are not anticipated increase demand for public safety services in a manner that would significantly outpace local agency capacity to provide such services. Per communications with City of Spokane Valley staff, it is not anticipated that Alternative 2a would generate a significant impact to City services. The City regularly reviews large development proposals and, in instances where a significant new user creates enough demand to warrant special adjustments in service, the City will work with the county and make necessary adjustments to its service contract(s). It is anticipated that the gradual increase in population, employment and business activity on the site can be commensurately addressed through adjusted service levels. 4. Parks/Greenspace: See response to Public Comment #3, Item 1. 5. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. Public Comment #188– Ferris, Candy (08-23-21) Response to Comments: "Please do not approve the new building. The area is beautiful and doesn't need this type of growth. Traffic and everything will hurt the area. Thank you Candace Ferris 11010 e 44th Ave, Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. Public Comment #189– Pavelich, Dan (08-17-21) Response to Comments: "Painted Hills Proposed Development Comments on Painted Hills PRD DEIS Public Release Date July 16, 2021 • Having an HOA assume the financial responsibility of the Operation and Maintenance of the flood control and stormwater system is a perfect storm that will drench the City in Liability. The estimated HOA fees in the DEIS would not begin to cover significant costs associated with the failure and maintenance of the system. I have read and analyzed the 1. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. 2. Reciprocal Use of the Triangle Pond Site: See response to Public Comment #39, Item 2. 3. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 94 computation of fees to be assessed to the HOA participants and they are a rounding error in the reality of the cost associated with the failure. The condo disaster in Florida is a lesson on HOA lack of responsibility. Additionally, the HOA would not be equipped with the necessary knowledge to even collaborate with a contracting firm as to actions and monitoring. HOA’s go bankrupt. I suggest that you have the City Attorney and your Risk Assessment people read the Phillips vs King County Case. We have an internal record by a City official involved in the review of the proposed PRD stating that HOAs go bankrupt on a frequent basis. Not only is the City taking on a significant financial liability they could also lose their ability to continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. This would be a disaster for property owners that could experience uninsured property damage and flood insurance premiums that would be significantly impacted. • In a letter from Spokane County to Whipple Consulting and City of Spokane Valley, dated January 27,2017, it states, “This work primarily benefits the Painted Hills PRD, thus Spokane County believes the City of Spokane Valley should be ultimately held responsible for facility maintenance and an appropriate CSV official listed in the O&M manual”. It requires identification in the DEIS that such will be done. Explain how you will monitor the financial stability of the HOA, its membership, leadership, and expertise in dealing with a contracting organization to assess the ongoing needs of maintenance and replacement. • The use of the Triangle Pit has been identified as a water storage and infiltration area, both from the proposed development, and what is referred to as the Gustin Ditch which runs east west from Highway 27. The pit and Gustin Ditch area are privately owned. No information is available as to the accessibility of this property by the developer for this purpose. It is my understanding that the owner has not granted legal access to the developer for the purpose of use for flood control. I have a draft of a document not finalized that I have attached to this memo, which appears to be eventually incorporated into a HOA. How will the City monitor the HOA’s responsibility and their financial viability? Please produce the documentation from Tim Comer or Spokane County as to the use of any easement granted. • The traffic study needs to be revised with new developments being approved and those under construction. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand the significance of traffic congestion and safety with projected daily trips of over 5,000 per day. You are exposing school children and other users of Madison Rd to danger. There is no provision for paved sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians. Fire evacuation is put into peril. Not covered in the DEIS. • School overcrowding. The Central Valley School District responded in their letter back to the City that everyone needs to understand that even with adjusted new construction 4. Evacuation Routes: See response to Public Comment #7, Item 5. 5. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 6. Chester Creek, Fish-bearing: See response to Public Comment #43, Item 2. 7. Erosion Control: See response to Public Comment #154, Item 5. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 95 that the students in the new development will likely attend a school other than Chester Elementary. DEIS makes assumptions of additional students that will occur that are not realistic. Does not take a demographic expert to refute their count. • The area is a Compensatory Water Storage area that will no longer exist with the flood waters being diverted into the Aquifer without filtration. • The Department of Fish and Wildlife in a letter dated November 16, 2018, disagreed with the City as to Chester Creek not being fish bearing. The City has stated it is not fish bearing since it dries up at times. Fish and Wildlife recognizes this. Inadequate mitigation response by the applicant and acceptance of such by the City.. • DEIS does not cover monitoring of the cut and fill as to contaminants in the fill, dust control, being able to haul until 10:00 pm at night as to additional traffic safety control. Their comment as to using 30 cubic yard dump trucks is a stretch. Heavy duty dump trucks without a pup carry about 10 yards. They acknowledge many of the significant safety problems but do not address the mitigation. As to dust control one only must look at Black’s development on the corner of Thorpe and Madison and observe there is none. One lone water tanker that is significantly underused. And the proposed PRD cut and fill is intended to go on for four years. How will the City mitigate the impact upon the failure of the developer to do so if this is approved? • The flood control system and cut and fill has not been approved by FEMA to remove the property from its flood plain designation through a CLOMR and an eventual LOMR. The developer has proceeded to run the permitting process concurrently. FEMA could deny or require substantial modifications as to the flood control and floodplain fill. So, the City wants the public to spend momentous time and resources reviewing a document that may become extinct. Too late to turn back the clock but what a potential waste of everyone’s time. • The Public Works Department of Spokane County, wrote a detailed comment letter authored by Marianne Barrentine, PE, CFM to Whipple Consulting Engineers and the City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering regarding the PRD Floodplain/CLOMR Submittal Review #2. Please identify where the appropriate revisions, or lack thereof, have been incorporated in subsequent submittals by the Developer or the City’s lack of response. • The City received 443 Public Comments over two scopings which are included in Exhibit A to the DEIS. It is obvious from the DEIS that the concerns that were expressed were not adequately addressed or in many cases not even acknowledged. It appears that it was a pick and choose process without a complete review by the City. The sheer number of respondents clearly demonstrates that the community is not in favor of the proposed development not withstanding a weak DEIS. • Attached is a copy of an internal email thread amongst city employees relative to a Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 96 concern expressed by a citizen over site flooding and the potential livelihood of future homeowners, stating.…” perhaps we need some sort of canned response….”. It is a poor reflection on the professional and political administration of the City. It troubles me, wherein, the cumulative effect on the natural and human environment is, forever, going to be negatively impacted. And in finality, I was informed by a City official that the City was tired of dealing with the developer, which has been ongoing for two years, on the DEIS and their lack of cooperation, so the decision was made to release it. The result of which has caused the public and various jurisdictional agencies to bear an unreasonable responsibility and burden as to the adequacy of identified negative environmental impacts and proposed mitigation. Cc: John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Honorable Mayor Ben Wick Carry Driskell, City Attorney Council Members of the City of Spokane Valley Marianne Barrentine, PE, CFM Spokane County Environmental Programs Manager Bricklin and Associates Painted Hills Preservation Association" Public Comment #190– Pavelich, Sandy (08-17-21) Response to Comments: "John Hohman Lori Barlow When your residents experience more flooding we will use your own information about how this property should be retained for the welfare of our community. Spokane County has already allowed a home to be built in a floodway. So, I am not surprised that they want the City of Spokane Valley to do this project so you can take full responsibility for the outcome. Also, I have contacted Fish and Wildlife telling them they might as well close their department. When they designate a wildlife corridor and then allow the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County to pump water out of the Chester Watershed area and try to eliminate a water source for that Wildlife Corridor things are really bad and the whole system needs to change. Sincerely Sandy Pavelich" 1. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 97 Public Comment #191– Edlund, Richard (08-13-21) Response to Comments: "Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner City of Spokane Valley, 10210 E. Sprague Ave, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Subject: Painted Hills PRO Draft Environmental Impact Statement As a resident near the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development (PRO) I have comments to offer on the draft Environmental Impact Statement description of impacts to the neighborhood and southwest Spokane Valley. The negative effects on traffic density, safety of traffic flow, safety in school zones and travel corridors to them, critical aquifer recharge, air quality from additional PRO traffic and heating emissions, concentrated and potentially polluted rain and snowmelt runoff from non-absorbing surfaces, aesthetics in the PRO and the southwest valley, and wildlife are substantial and in my opinion unable to be mitigated. First among my concerns are impacts of increased traffic, especially with the school facilities adjacent to the PRO. With over 5000 projected additional vehicle trips per day the study authors acknowledge the current inadequacy of streets to handle the flow citing 32nd avenue and Pines road and 16th avenue and Pines road as intersections of concern, but that number of additional vehicle trips will certainly increase congestion in areas such as 32nd avenue both east and particularly west toward Dishman-Mica Road. The 32nd avenue and Dishman-Mica intersection is an unsignaled congestion point, especially in recent years with new development to the east which funnel flows on 32nd to Dishman-Mica as arterials to access Sprague avenue, 1-90, Spokane, the airport, and points west. Also on 32nd the traffic associated with student drop off and pick up for University High School, Horizon Middle School, and Chester Elementary schools is quite congested with elevated hazards to through-traffic and pedestrians, so in my opinion the addition of dedicated turn lanes on Pines as the DEIS authors suggest falls short of the current need much less several thousand additional vehicle trips per day from the PRO. Likewise, additional traffic ouflows to Dishman Mica Road from the west side of the PRO would diminish capacity of a corridor that is already congested. The proposed additional turn lanes into the west area of the PRO and onto Thorpe Rd and widening of Thorpe Rd and Dishman intersection will create safety hazards as traffic merges into 45 mile per hour traffic in the blind and lengthy road curve from Bowdish to beyond Thorpe. Pedestrian and bicycle safety is a concern there and with relatively narrow adjacent strips of land along Dishman-Mica bounded by Chester Creek and the railroad on the west and vulnerable habitat on the east there is little room for additional turn lanes plus the planned pedestrian-bike lanes. Further complicating the matter 1. Traffic Impacts on Dishman-Mica and Thorpe Road: Public Comment# 7, Item 4. 2. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1. 3. Air Quality: See response to Public Comment #10, Item 1. 4. Water Quality (Aquifer): See response to Public Comment #17, Item 5. 5. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 98 is the expressed interest by the City of Spokane Valley in purchasing the nearly 20 acres due west and slightly south of the PRO for a new city park, which will inevitably lead to visits by PRO residents who cross Dishman-Mica in the blind road curve with widened turn lanes creating considerable hazard to pedestrians and motorists. Environmental qualities and the threat to them from the PRO also count strongly among my concerns. Chief among these are the effect of extensive impermeable surfaces on the aquifer recharge functions in this high susceptibility area of the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area. In contrast to the current vegetated landscape that infiltrates rain, snowmelt, and runoff in wet areas the PRO will cover as described nearly 25 acres with roofs and paved roads, sidewalks, and parking lots. The revised plans use a series of concrete channels and discharge areas to the north end of the PRO to carry the known flood and overflow events from Chester Creek and south of Thorpe road which in my opinion is an artificial device to circumvent the natural landscape runoff and infiltration occurring now in areas around the creek. Also there is the question of operation and maintenance of any such floodwater transport and disposal system since over time sediment and vegetation will encroach on any constructed works, limiting their capacity and creating backed up or overflow situations in high runoff conditions. The authors of the DEIS in my opinion do not appear to adequately account for the estimated 25% of the current landscape being roofed or paved. As happens in residential settings there will be subsequent development of additional impermeable surfaces in the form of sheds, decks, pools, driveways, recreation courts, with such additions done in a haphazard manner with regard to disposal and infiltration of runoff. Although municipal and other development standards will require catchments for planned runoff, that runoff will be from artificial surfaces with vehicle and residential- generated pollutants in the PRD and these chemical pollutants will have no barrier to entry into the aquifer. With groundwater found through test borings to be as close as 11 feet of depth and the gravel and sand offering no resistance to infiltration any pollutants from the PRD will easily enter ground water. As a resident who regularly walks and bikes around the PRD I view wildlife using the site not only including songbirds, deer, elk, and rabbits and squirrels, but also possibly important species like Bald Eagles, various raptors and owls. All of these would be displaced by the PRD. Further, the less visible resident animal populations that burrow and occupy ground level in the PRD would be displaced. Less tangible, but still important in this unique area, the quality of aesthetics has been enhanced by the open space of the former Painted Hills Golf Course which provides a transition from dense development near Bowdish Rd. to the rural character of the Chester Creek valley. Although scattered development has been permitted to occur in and uphill from Chester Creek to the south the rural character of the area is largely intact. The PRD will diminish if not remove the aesthetic qualities of the transition to open lands south of Bowdish road especially given the other development occurring southeast of the PRD and the planned development due south adjoining Dishman-Mica Rd .. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 99 Finally, the soil qualities found in the PRD area merit consideration. The area contains soil types considered prime farmland which will be irrevocably disrupted by the widespread excavation and subsurface installation of sanitary, utility, water, and other infrastructure leaving the soil matrix in much more than 25% of the PRD unable to function as a carbon storehouse, biological and microbiological habitat, substrate for vegetation growth, and infiltration resource for precipitation to replenish the aquifer. Taken together these negative effects on quality of life in the south valley are substantial but when other adjacent development is already occurring at the intersection of Thorpe and Madison, and yet another residential development is proposed on Dishman-Mica due south of Thorpe this represents a wholesale change in the rural character of south Spokane Valley with negative effects on roads, schools, wildlife habitat, safety, water regime, and environmental quality for generations. Sincerely Richard Edlund 11616 E. 47th Ave, Spokane Valley, WA 99206" Public Comment #192– Schroeder, George (08-23-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow - I have read the DEIS for the above. Very short on school impact, drainage concerns at north end and HOA responsibility for potential liability of flooding with little in the way of the City of Spokane Valley to depend on should the HOA go broke and become the City responsibility. HOA's are not well funded for an event such as flooding. Also, Fish & Wildlife has not addressed the fact that Chester Creek has fish. Thanks very much. Sincerely, George C. Schroeder 5202 S. Cree Drive Spokane, Wash. 99206" 1. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 2. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. 3. Chester Creek, Fish-bearing: See response to Public Comment #43, Item 2. Public Comment #193– Startzel, Karol (08-05-21) Response to Comments: "I would like to comment on the proposed Painted Hills development and appreciate there has been an extension to do so. Trying to be informed requires getting through all the documents which is time consuming to say the least. I live just east of this area and have been here for 17years. The 9 hole golf course that existed prior was awesome and we are so sad it is gone. The space has since become and impromptu dog park and is still a valuable green space for those that live in the area. We have witnessed many changes over the past years and appreciate that the valley is going to do nothing but grow. This is a city in its infancy with so much to offer and if done right will be come a very valuable place to live. But development can be done with the well being of its citizens in 1. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 2. Transportation (general): See response to Public Comment #10, Item 3. 3. Parks/Greenspace: See response to Public Comment #3, Item 1. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 100 mind and consideration for a future where that continues. Or it can be in the hands of people who have no other goal then to make as much money as possible. Two examples are the Elk Ridge Heights development who used its required green spaces and a bit of land here and there that added up to meet their requirement. These are not parks, places to gather or even spots to enjoy nature or views. They met the required land space and that is all. There are apartments on highway 27 that have walking paths through the complex that also connect to the grocery store. An official dog park and community spaces for it's tenants to enjoy. Very different approaches! After reading this proposal and its impact I felt like this is being done by people who don't really care much about the roads, schools, existing neighborhoods, wildlife or the future of this new city. It feels like just the right words and numbers are being chosen to shove another development through. I am not against developing this space but this feels like the wrong approach. Ask the people of New York the value of Central Park. Incredibly valuable property that was wisely set aside for the need of humans to connect with the natural world. I sure hope those in charge are wise enough to make the same difficult choices that are not just based on making money. Thank you for your time and consideration. Karol Startzel 4310 S. Horizon Hill Lane Spokane, WA 99206" Public Comment #194– Pavelich, Sandy (08-15-21) Response to Comments: My comments on the DEIS are many. For one, I cannot believe a Realty Company (Black Realty) can keep submitting a DEIS over and over again. I cannot believe you will not use your legal powers to deny this. Also, do you know if what they sub_mitted to FEMA is truthful. This should not be allowed to be done simultaneously. The biggest disaster is fill. I am including a statement by Frank Thomas, former Deputy Associate Director of FEMA's Mitigation Directorate. In 2000 he writes "I recommended barring flood map changes for development that use fill". He called it "egregious and akin to a cancer eating at the foundation of the National Flood Insurance Program." Thomas argued that "the use of fill merely displaced flood risk to surrounding communities". I have also gone on to read that when FEMA removes a designation of a flood plain the very people we are trying to provide affordable housing to are the most hurt. The cost of knowing that you should still have flood insurance is costly. So, they are left with cracked foundations, mold, etc., that they do not have the means to deal with or the ability to move. 1. Maintenance of Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. 2. Chester Creek, Fish-bearing: See response to Public Comment #43, Item 2. 3. Traffic on Woodlawn Drive (Midilome Cut-Through Study): See response to Public Comment 1, Item 2. 4. Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1. 5. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 6. Water Quality (Aquifer): See response to Public Comment #17, Item 5. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 101 Here I will include information that shows with Global Warming our flooding is only going to increase. Page 1 and 2 The HOA for this development is ridiculous. Homeowners Associations do not have the expertise to even begin to handle the problems of maintaining this flood containment area and the plan. If you allow this development to proceed Black needs to set up a three-million-dollar irrevocable letter of credit or performance bond to protect the homeowners and the surrounding homeowners. I have been reading it is usually five years after a development is completed that problems arise. You only have to look at the collapse of the condominium in Florida (the Surfside) to realize a homeowner's association is not capable of maintaining the flood control systems of this project. I really feel from reading the DEIS that no one can really guarantee that this is going to work. Now just for your information: The last seven years I (we) have learned a lot researching this project. From going to the County, especially Marianne Barrentine, we have learned about the floodways and flooding. The County approved the house on the corner of Dishman Mica Rd and Thorpe Rd. That is my usual running route. This last flood season I took a picture of the floodway piling up debris (but mainly soil) on the corner of the retaining wall of that house. I sent it to Marianne to show her what building in a floodway was doing. Within two days it was removed. This is the worst flooding I have seen affecting houses to the South of Thorpe Rd. We are all aware of the upstream and downstream repercussions that can occur with this development. Remember the Phillips vs King County precedent. My other observations are that you still allow falsehoods to remain in this submittal. 1. Fish Bearing Stream: I have included The Department of Fish and Wildlife letter. Previously I included an email to Lori Barlow that confirmed this from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Page 10 and 11 I have pictures from 2012 to 2021 of Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley pumping water out of the Chester Watershed area or the Chester Wetlands and pumping in canary grass. I was told you can do this because canary grass is compatible with a wetland. I am surprised the City of Spokane Valley is still trying to eliminate Chester Creek. I have copies of years of Grant Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 102 money given to maintain this vital watershed area and the compensatory storage area that helps to clean the water that is ultimately deposited directly into the Aquifer. Of course, this development will need a new traffic study. One of the previous traffic studies for this development was done on a holiday. Another traffic study did not include Woodlawn. With More development approved in this area a new traffic study is crucial. a. 331 homes off of 32nd and Highway 27. Lexington Homes purchased the property from Fairmont Cemetery. b. 13 lots of the Paxton property. c. The new development that Black is doing on the corner of Madison and Thorpe Rd. It was approved years ago by the County for SO structures. We have not been able to get information from the County to the exact number of units that will be built there. They have removed half a mountain so I am sure the number will be greater than SO. The City of Spokane Valley does not have the infrastructure to deal with all of this new development. S80-Black Painted Hills Golf Course 331-Lexington Homes Plan 220-Lutheran Church apartments off of Dishman Mica Road ???-Black development on the corner of Madison and Thorpe 13-Paxton development on Madison 27-?? If you approve development off Thorpe and Dishman Mica Road ???-Plus the development west of Bowdish and Dishman Mica Road. There is no acknowledgement of the safety of children going to school. There are 3 schools where children walk and ride their bikes to school. The school district has already stated there is no room for children in these 3 schools. They will have to be bused someplace. How is this protecting the well being of your citizens and their children. Noise Control. This DEIS states that noise is allowed from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. How can that be allowed to remain in this submittal? Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 103 Flooding occurs in winter. All of my pictures are dated February and March. I have historical pictures and only one has snow. I would have Henry Allen pull up the archived pictures to determine if this is truthful. Fill and Dust. The current development by Black Realty on Madison and Thorpe has little dust control. I have dirt every day that I have to breathe and clean. I am located at least 900 feet away. I cannot believe you think it is okay to subject our school children to 4 years of fill and more when the dirt is moved around. It is already detrimental to my health. I pray for our children. The Aquifer. I have included information from Water District 3 and the SVRP. If you allow water to be directly deposited into the Aquifer you will not allow this compensatory storage area to filter out the contaminates. The Chester Watershed and the Compensatory storage at the Painted Hills Golf Course was supposed to be protected in perpetuity to protect this vital area that flows directly into the shallow end of the Aquifer. The Scope of this development needs to be downsized. The development should only be built on areas currently above the flood plain. We are in need of senior housing. Since our schools have no room for more children this would be an ideal location of a 55 and older community. I am including maps of predictions of more flooding because of Global Warming. Thank you, Sandra Pavelich 4311S. Madison Rd 99206 Public Comment #195– Startzel, Todd (08-06-21) Response to Comments: "Ms. Barlow – I am opposed to a 550 plus residential development because there has been no assessment of the impact on the local schools, nor proposed solutions to the negative impact on the local schools by adding a large number of additional students. I have resided on Horizon Hill Ln. since 2004. I drive all around the valley and the streets in and around the schools. Both my children attended the newly constructed University High School. From the day it first opened, the school was horrible over-crowded. Auxiliary class rooms were installed the FIRST year because of overcrowding and exist today. Students did not and still do not use lockers to store books, etc. The reason: due to over-crowding, students do not have sufficient time to navigate the crowd of kids jamming the hallways to get to a locker and swap out books or other materials needed for the next class. The students carry all their books, lunch, etc. in their backpacks. A 550 plus residential development will only exacerbate the problem. 1. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 104 Washington state governments have a legal obligation, as affirmed by the Washington State Supreme Court in the case of McCleary v. State, 173 Wn. 2nd 477, 269 P. 3rd 227 (2012), “to make ample provision for the education of children…” The “paramount duty” the court noted, was not only a funding decision but also other education reforms, including class size limitations; student teacher ratios and adequacy of space. The duty imposed on the state passes onto local counties, cities and school boards. The proposed developed, given the current size, does NOT take into consideration the impact on the local school and in my view, violate the McCeary court’s decision mandate to place public education at the forefront of consideration. University High School does NOT have the space for more students. Any number of studies have confirm excessive class size negatively impacts the education experience— that is, a vast amount of research has confirmed without dispute that students in smaller class size perform better on all subjects and better on assessment tests. Increasing the class size therefore does not comply with the McCleary decision. The impact on the schools discussed above does not even address the on-going pandemic. There is no light at the end of the tunnel thus far. The trend line is not favorable and no one can predict the pandemic will be under control by the time home construction begins. Excessive class size therefore increases the health risk for all students, faculty and staff. Todd R. Startzel Kirkpatrick & Startzel, P.S. 108 N. Washington St., Ste. 201|Spokane, WA 99201 P 509.455.3647|F 509.624.2081|www.ks-lawyers.com PC 195" Public Comment #196– P, Dan (08-26-21) Response to Comments: "For a DEIS that is over 400 pages long allowing only 3 minutes per person does not serve the public interest. Dan" 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #197– Pavelich, Sandy (08-26-21) Response to Comments: "I would like my comments, that I sent to you and Lori read into the public hearing. This seems odd that this would be scheduled before all the public comments are even received. Does this mean no one even reads our comments. Sincerely Sandy Pavelich Sent from my iPad" 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #198– Pavelich, Sandy (08-26-21) Response to Comments: "The city should schedule 2 virtual meetings. We have a lot of individuals who want to comment. And if not this meeting needs to be at least scheduled for 3 hours so we can all call in our comments. I also believe this needs to be posted on your signs and in the newspapers for at least 30 days before this hearing. The DEIS comment period doesn’t even end until the 31 of August. So 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 105 all of our hard work and money spent on legal advice is worthless if no one is reading our comments. Sent from my iPad" Public Comment #199– Pavelich, Sandy (08-26-21) Response to Comments: "How many people can you accommodate on this zoom call. Also if we telephone how do we enter the webinar number. Also how many operators are you going to have available to accept our calls Sincerely Sandy Pavelich Sent from my iPad" 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #200– Pavelich, Sandy (08-26-21) Response to Comments: "How many people are you capable of allowing on this zoom call. When I telephone the number to call, how do you enter the webinar number. How many operators are going to be accepting calls. I would like all of our written comments entered into the hearing examiners records. You have scheduled this meeting before you have even ended our comment period. Amazing! Sincerely Sandy Pavelich Sent from my iPad" 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #201– Deyarmin, Sasha (08-26-21) Response to Comments: "Hello-I’m so glad that we get a public hearing. However, this is the first day of school for the entire CVSD. It seems weird that this hearing would be scheduled when the majority of the people in the area will be focused on the first day of school. This eliminates parents, teachers, and administrators from participating. For example, Horizon Middle School (the neighbor to Painted Hills) has a meeting for all parents of athletes that afternoon. The development has a significant negative impact on our schools and families. Also, I don’t understand why the hearing has to be during the workday. It’s seems like a 6:00 hearing would be more appropriate if it’s for the “public.” I am hoping that our retirees and community members without children will be able to be the voice of the community. This development is the worst thing to happen to this community. Please do whatever you can in your power to stop it and turn it into a par 3 and park like was originally planned by our city. Thank you! Sasha Deyarmin Sent from my iPhone" 1. Public Involvement: See response to Public Comment #20, Item 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #202– Fe, J (08-26-21) Response to Comments: Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 106 “A very old photo. It does not show the "True" picture of the current land and its surroundings.” 1. This comment does not address technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no changes have been made. Public Comment #203– Sabo, Steve (08-29-21) Response to Comments: "First, and foremost, I have serious concerns about the maintenance and future replacement costs of the proposed flood control system. The assurances in the DEIS that the HOA would be able to fund those costs are simply not believable. And, if the HOA is incapable of covering those costs the burden then seems to fall on the City of Spokane Valley if the DEIS is accepted. I doubt the Valley citizens want that potential financial time bomb hanging over their heads. Especially with the likelihood that the HOA would never be able to fund such an expense. "Additionally, the flood control plan depends on overflow components known as the Triangle Pit and Gustin Ditch. At this point, these features have no assurance of even being available for inclusion in the plan. There is no information about any agreement with the current owner(s) of these features. This makes their inclusion in the flood control plan, at this point, mute." "While these flood control issues seem to be the greatest flaws in the DEIS, they are by no means the only concerning aspects of the plan. Others include: - traffic hazards and road damage resulting from the cut and fill portion of the project. - added traffic volume, particularly in the Pines corridor, that would most certainly necessitate changes at 16th Avenue, and likely other intersections." "the required extensive bussing of students from the development due to lack of local school capacity- severe and potentially deadly traffic congestion in the event of evacuation due to an approaching wildland/urban interface fire." 1. Maintenance of Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. 2. Reciprocal Use of the Triangle Pond and Gustin Ditch Site: See Public Comment #39, Item 2. 3. Traffic on Pines Road: See response to Public Comment #154, Item 3. 4. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 5. Construction-Related Traffic: See response to Public Comment #149, Item 2. 6. Evacuation Routes: See response to Public Comment #7, Item 5. Public Comment #204– Phillips, Chad (08-24-21) Response to Comments: "August 20, 2021 Lori Barlow, AICP Senior Planner City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: DEIS Comments Dear Ms. Barlow: 1. Flood Control Facilities: Section 3.2.2 of the EIS has been updated to identify the design standards for the following flood control elements: bioretention swale, settling pond, infiltration pond, and UIC pre- treatment. As noted in that section, the design standards used comply with the following standards and guidance: Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 107 This letter is being written in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated April 2, 2021, regarding the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development (PRD) and the proposed Painted Hills Flood Control Plans dated June 23, 2020. Upon review of the DEIS, the City of Spokane Valley Stormwater Engineering Program provides the following comments. Cover Memo • No Comment DEIS 4-2-2021 • General Comments o What design standard does the flood management system meet? The design standard must be identified to adequately address the capabilities of the system. Specifically, design standards are required for the following elements: ▪ Bioretention swale design ▪ Settling pond design ▪ Infiltration pond design ▪ UIC pretreatment requirements o The documents provide for a limited geotechnical evaluation. In order to adequately address the capabilities of the flood management system, a more detailed geotechnical evaluation is necessary. o The documentation does not indicate the size of the storm event that activates the stormwater and flood management system. Is the storm event a 10-year, 25-year, or 100-year recurring storm events? The level of system maintenance and risk of failure is dependent on how active these systems are. o The proponent should consider providing water source near the proposed drywell gallery so full-scale drywell tests can be performed as part of the ongoing maintenance and operational needs of the flood management system. Drywell tests may need to be conducted every 10 years, or following a 10-year event, or at other intervals as established by flood management agencies. Appendix A - Public Comment Index • No Comment Appendix B - SEPA Checklist • Question A.14.a.1 o Answer speaks to 10-year storm generating 100 cfs. Section 3.2.2.2 of the DEIS seems to indicate the 100-year storm generates the 100 cfs design flow. • Question A.14.b.2 – Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? o Answer speaks to stormwater discharge to ground per the Spokane Region Stormwater Manual (SRSM), without providing any details. The proponent must differentiate and provide documentation that the design standards applicable to the development of stormwater facilities and those applicable to flood management system are separate and distinct. The SRSM would be  Bioretention swale – SRSM, Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW)  Settling pond– SRSM, SWMMEW  Infiltration pond– SRSM, SWMMEW  UIC pretreatment requirements – Department of Ecology 2. Geotechnical Data: Additional infiltration testing can occur prior to installation of the flood control system to confirm the geotechnical testing results and infiltration rates that have been obtained to date are accurate. 3. Storm Frequency and Size: The FEMA Flood Event to which the facilities are designed is greater than the storm events referenced. Through coordination between the project applicant, the City of Spokane Valley, and Spokane County, FEMA has agreed to conduct a preliminary review of the CLOMR request in advance of receiving the CAFs. FEMA review of the CLOMR application is in process and FEMA has provided initial comments to the applicant on May 24, 2022, and a second round of comments to the applicant on December 21, 2022. These comments request relatively minor revisions such as expanded responses and revisions to application materials. No modification of the flood conveyance system design is required as a result of these comments; however, the technical review process is not yet complete, and FEMA may provide additional comments that need to be addressed. 4. Stormwater management vs. Flood Control Facilities: Section 3.2.2 of the EIS has been updated to identify the design standards for stormwater management elements. As noted in that section, the design standards comply with the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SMMEW) and the SRSM . 5. Erosion Control: Section 2.2.4 of the EIS, Permits and Approvals, has been updated to include a project-specific Construction Stormwater Permit from DOE. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 108 applicable to the development of stormwater facilities only. The standards within the SRSM (COSV), the Stormwater Management Manual for Easter Washington (SMMEW) by the Department of Ecology (DOE), and even the Highway Runoff Manual (HRM) by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) do not adequately cover standards for the flood management systems. • Question B.1.h – Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion. o Answer speaks to measures to reduce or control erosion includes erosion control plans outlined by the SRSM and SMMEW. This is an inaccurate statement for this PRD. This project will require a project-specific Construction Stormwater Permit from DOE which will prescribe the measures to reduce or control erosion. Most likely per Appendix l of the EW Phase ll Municipal Stormwater permit, COSV may document coverage (erosion control) under Ecology’s CGSP and the SWPPP in leu of Erosion Control plans. • Question B.5.d – Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts. o Answer speaks to proposed flood control system is designed to capture, treat, store, and dispose of floodwaters. The response does not identify what standards the flood control system is being designed too. Without knowing what standards are being utilized, an adequate review cannot be developed. Please keep in mind that the SRSM does not adequately address flood management design standards. Appendix C - Impact Comparison Table • No Comment Appendix D - Standard Subdivision Alternative Environment Review • No comment Appendix E - Flood Management System Elements Failure Risk and Impact Summary • No Comment Appendix F - Traffic Impact Analysis • No Comment Appendix G - Truck Haul Plan Memorandum • No Comment Appendix H - Painted Hills PRD Biological Evaluations • No Comment Appendix I – Cultural Resources Survey • No Comment Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions related to these comments. I appreciate your feedback. Thank you, Chad Phillips, PE Stormwater Program Manager" Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 109 Public Comment #205– Clark, Jeremy City of Spokane Valley (08-24-21) Response to Comments: "August 23, 2021 Lori Barlow, AICP Senior Planner City of Spokane Valley RE: ills PRD DEIS” COSV Traffic Engineering Review Dear Ms. Barlow: Upon review of the Painted Hills DEIS dated April 2, 2021, the City of Spokane Valley Traffic Engineering Program provides the following comments: Transportation impacts during construction As stated in the DEIS, all trucks hauling materials for the initial mass grading of the project would enter from Dishman-Mica Road. There is not currently any access from Dishman-Mica Road directly into the project site. Based on the documents provided, estimates range from as little as 11 trucks per day (Page 56) to as many as 9 trucks per hour (Appendix G). There is also reference on Page 57 of the DEIS stating that the additional truck traffic would temporarily pose potential safety risks to users of the roadway. The evaluation and design of appropriate access should be included as identified mitigation. This is anticipated to include left-turn or right-turn storage bays off of Dishman-Mica, depending on the source of the fill material, as well as outbound acceleration lanes. Transportation planning horizon The DEIS references a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that was completed in 2016 and approved by the City of Spokane Valley and is included as Appendix F. The assumptions established for the TIA included a build out year of 2025 and buildout plus 5-year horizon of 2030. However, based on the information in the DEIS, the time period for importing fill and constructing the project is at least 12 years after the approval of the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) by FEMA. This time period includes approximately four years of an initial mass- grading period (Page 56) and ten years for construction of the project (Page 56). There will also be a period of time between the mass grading and the first building permit whereby the applicant will complete and require 1. Construction-Related Transportation Impacts: Section 3.3.2 of the EIS has been updated to address access on Dishman-Mica Road for construction- related traffic. In addition, Section 3.3.3 of the EIS has been updated to include the installation of the two-way, left-turn on Dishman-Mica Road north of the Chester Creek Bridge, and the installation of northbound right- turn lane prior to commencement of site grading activity as requested by the City of Spokane Valley. 2. Transportation Planning Horizon: The City’s certificate of concurrency for the Painted Hills PRD project remains valid and any development proposals that have occurred after the issuance of the certificate of concurrency are required to incorporate trips from the Painted Hills project in background trip volumes. Therefore, the delay in approval for the Painted Hills PRD will not result in accrued and/or unaccounted for impacts on the system. The applicant anticipates construction activities and the resulting planning horizon specified in the EIS are contingent on acceptance of the FEIS and City permitting and can be updated to align with the review timeframe closer to permitting review and submittal of construction design documents. The certificate of transportation concurrency expires five (5) years from Preliminary Plat approval, included with the EIS as Appendix M. Timing and phasing of transportation improvements are specified in Section 3.3.3 of the EIS, specifically: o Prior to the initiation of mass-grading activities associated with the project, the applicant will install a two-way left turn lane on Dishman- Mica Road and a right-turn northbound lane on Dishman-Mica Road at the proposed new entry road into the PRD. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 110 approval of the final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from FEMA. As such, the earliest expected completion of the project is 2036, with the expected buildout plus 5-year horizon of 2041. The traffic review should be updated to account for the inconsistency in the DEIS between the original identified planning horizon of 2025 and the realistic time period estimated for project completion. Mitigation Measures As identified on Page 60 of the DEIS, two mitigation measures are recommended for revision: • A two-way, left-turn lane will be installed on Dishman-Mica Road north of the Chester Creek Bridge. Given prior comments and stated concerns in the DEIS regarding operations and safety of local roadway users, the two-way left turn lane should be installed prior to beginning the mass grading of the project to provide safe access for construction vehicles. • When warranted by the development conditions, the project should contribute its participating percentage in a project to signalize the intersection of 16th Avenue & Pines Road. During the five years that have elapsed since the approved TIA, the recommended mitigation at 16ᵗʰ Avenue/Pines Road/SR-27 has evolved. The currently recommended and documented mitigation in the Transportation Improvement Plan is a multi-lane roundabout. The participating percentage calculation should be updated with the update of the TIA as noted in a prior comment. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions related to these comments. I appreciate your feedback. Thank you, Jerremy Clark, PE, PTOE Traffic Engineering Manager" o The entire Project will be accessed by one new public local access street that intersects Dishman-Mica Road and two new public local access streets that intersect Madison Road. In addition, two new gated private streets are permitted on Madison Road. o The Project will construct southbound left-turn lanes on a) Dishman- Mica Road at the intersection with the new public local access street and at b) the intersection of Dishman-Mica Road and Thorpe Road concurrently with the construction of the new public local access street. The two southbound left-turn lanes will provide a minimum of 150 feet of queue storage and will have the required gap and taper lengths per WSDOT standards. Please also refer to Public Comment #149, Item 2 for construction related traffic impacts. A copy of the Certificate of Concurrency is included with the EIS as Appendix L. Public Comment #206– Fisch, Pete (08-24-21) Response to Comments: "August 18, 2021 Lori Barlow, AICP Senior Planner City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE:l Development DEIS Comments Dear Ms. Barlow, This letter is being written in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development (PRD) and the proposed Painted Hills Flood Control Plans dated June 23, 2020. My concerns, as the City of Spokane Valley’s Bridge Program Manager, relate to the existing Thorpe Road Bridge, (SPOKV-4421) and the pre-fabricated box culvert proposed on Thorpe Road at Station 19+00± for flood control. 1. Thorpe Road Bridge: If it is confirmed that the existing web girder bridge cannot be widened by adding a box culvert, Thorpe Road Bridge (SPOKV- 4421) will be redesigned to satisfy the design elements and requirements outlined in the WSDOT Bridge Design Manual (LRFD) M23-50.20, dated September 2020. In this case, a new load rating for the bridge will be established. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 111 The existing Thorpe Road Over Chester Creek Bridge, SID #08014700, was built in 1976 and has an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 1,800 (Nov. 2018), with 6.25% large vehicles. It is single span, Prestressed Concrete Multiple Web girder bridge, made up of seven units of rib deck. It is two lane, 26.7 feet curb-to-curb, no sidewalks, and has 1.5 inches of asphalt overlaying the bridge deck. Concrete footings are supported on timber piles. It has a Sufficiency Rating of 64.79. This bridge is currently open with no weight restrictions and currently serves mostly residential properties to the east of Dishman-Mica Road. Current Condition: This bridge has seen some deterioration over the past few inspection cycles, mainly at the web-to- flange interface, due to possible overloaded vehicles. In May of 2019, the girders were evaluated and it was found that the stresses due to the cracking do not change the weight rating of the structure carried out in April 2017. However, if there is continued use by overloaded vehicles as suspected, weight restrictions might be warranted in the future. This is considered a Short Span Bridge which makes it ineligible for Federal Funding when the bridge requires rehabilitation and/or replacement. Project Impacts: The most significant impact that is presented by the proposed development is the inadequacies of managing the existing Thorpe Road Over Chester Creek Bridge. The detailed engineering information presented in the Painted Hills Flood Control Plans (Plans), with a Professional Engineering Seal dated June 30, 2020, indicate a widening of Thorpe Road over Chester Creek. The widening of Thorpe Road, as shown on Sheet C3.12 of the Plans, is planned to be accomplished by adding a box culvert to the existing Thorpe Road structure. It most definitely must be noted that the Painted Hills documents identify the existing structure as a box culvert when in fact, the existing structure is a pile-supported, short span, multiple web girder bridge as previously noted. As there are dissimilarities between the existing structure and the proposed structure, Thorpe Road cannot be widened over Chester Creek in the manner proposed. Additionally, as previously noted, the current girders are experiencing cracking and stresses likely caused by overloaded vehicles. This current loading may require that weight restrictions be placed on the bridge in the near future. As part of the project, the proponent intends to overlay the existing bridge with 4 inches of asphalt pavement, whereby the current structure only has 1- 1/2 inches of asphalt pavement. This added asphalt, may overload the existing bridge to the point where bridge weight restrictions are required. Should the bridge have weight restrictions, the planned methods of construction for the PRD will require modifications. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 112 Recommendations: The existing Thorpe Road Bridge over Chester Creek cannot be widened in the manner prescribed in the proponents Plans, that is, the web girder bridge cannot be widened by adding a box culvert. With that being the case, it is recommended that the proponent replace the Thorpe Road Bridge (SPOKV-4421) in accordance the WSDOT Bridge Design Manual (LRFD) M23-50.20, dated September 2020. It should also be noted, that the existing bridge cannot be widened using a similar bridge structure due to the age and condition of the existing bridge. The replacement structure for Thorpe Road could either be a bridge structure or a box culvert. The design elements and requirements of the new structure must meet those outlined in the WSDOT Bridge Design Manual (LRFD) M23-50.20, dated September 2020. In completing the design, the proponent will need to take into all anticipated traffic and construction loading, which means a new load rating for the bridge will be established. As far as the proposed pre-fabricated concrete box culverts on Thorpe Road, Station 19+00± for the over-flow storm water channel, the design shall follow the guidelines presented within the WSDOT Bridge Design Manual (LRFD) M23-50.20, September 2020. Respectfully submitted, Pete Fisch Bridge Program Manager / Engineering Technician II" Public Comment #207– Polak, Chad (08-25-21) Response to Comments: "Hi Lori, YPL does not have any comments based on the location of the project. Sincerely, Chad M. Polak Agent, Real Estate Services O: (+1) 303.376.4363 | M: (+1) 720.245.4683 3960 East 56th Avenue | Commerce City, CO 80022 Phillips 66" 1. Public Involvement: Comment Noted. This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS. Public Comment #208– State of Washington Department of Ecology (08-30-21) Response to Comments: "August 30, 2021 Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 113 Lori Barlow, AICP Senior Planner City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: FPD-2016-0007 Dear Lori Barlow: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding the redevelopment of an approximately 99.5-acres former golf course, by constructing 300 single- family homes and 280 multi-family units, to include a neighborhood commercial center, green space, streets and associated utilities and amenities (Proponent: Whipple Consulting Engineers, Black Realty and Northwest Renovators Inc.). After reviewing the documents, the Department of Ecology (Ecology) submits the following comments: A. Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program-Andrew Maher (509) 329- 3612 Please keep in mind that during the construction activities associated with the Painted Hills PRD Project, some construction-related wastes produced may qualify as dangerous wastes in Washington State. Some of these wastes include: • Absorbent material • Aerosol cans • Asbestos-containing materials • Lead-containing materials • PCB-containing light ballasts • Waste paint • Waste paint thinner • Sanding dust • Treated wood You may find a more comprehensive list, as well as a link to identify and designate your wastes on the Common Construction and Demolition Wastes website at https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical- assistance/Dangerous-waste-guidance/Common-dangerous-waste/Construction-and- demolition. The applicant, as the facility generating the waste, bears the responsibility for all construction waste. The waste generator is the person who owns the site. Even if you A. Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program 1. Construction Waste: This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS. Therefore, no EIS changes are warranted . B. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program 1. Geotechnical Data: Additional infiltration testing will occur prior to installation to verify the geotechnical testing results that have been obtained to date. 2. Stormwater v Floodwater: For clarity, Section 1.2 of the EIS text has been revised to clarify the distinction between floodwater and stormwater as referenced throughout the EIS. 3. Infiltration Rates (Aquifer): Section 3.1.2 of the EIS discusses the potential effects of the project on the Spokane Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. Section 3.1.3 explains that compliance with the stormwater quality and quantity management requirements of the SRSM for both on-site and regional development will prevent significant water quality and quantity impacts to the aquifer. Based upon the unchanged infiltration rate through 70 plus feet of native soil from the ground elevation to the aquifer. 4. Hydrologic and Hydraulic (H&H) Analysis: Section 3.2.2 of the EIS has been revised to include the Chester Creek channel and levee and discuss impacts on hydrologic and hydraulic modeling. As noted in that section, no net rise occurs as a result of including the Chester Creek channel in the H&H Analysis. FEMA’s review of the CLOMR may provide additional information to address this comment. 5. Figure 3-8: At the time of final design and following FEMA’s review of the CLOMR, no residential development will be located within the future floodplain area. 6. Report for Frontage Improvements:  Table 2 Values: The value shown in the table is the minimum required pond size. During final design all swales will be designed to meet or exceed that required minimum.  SWMMEW: Final project designs will satisfy the requirements of the SWMMEW. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 114 hire a contractor to conduct the demolition or a waste service provider to designate your waste, the site owner is ultimately liable. This is why it is important to research reputable and reliable contractors. In order to adequately identify some of your construction and remodel debris, you may need to sample and test the wastes generated to determine whether they are dangerous waste. For more information and technical assistance, contact Andrew Maher at (509) 329- 3612 or andy.maher@ecy.wa.gov. B . Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program-Lynn Schmidt (509) 329-3413 The terms “stormwater” and “floodwater” are used synonymously throughout the document. It would help to differentiate on-site stormwater generated from the development vs. floodwaters from the Chester Creek watershed to identify and understand the various water management infrastructures and associated regulations. Critical hydro geologic information necessary to design the infiltration facilities is missing. The estimated infiltration rates in this DEIS are likely too high considering the volume of water to be infiltrated in a relatively small area. Analysis such as groundwater mounding and the cumulative effects of multiple drywells and infiltration galleries in close proximity must be conducted before the size of the facilities can be calculated. Other methods are available than a full-scale drywell test. Regional stormwater manuals are not necessarily appropriate for designing flood control facilities. Additionally, the SVRP aquifer surface can fluctuate nearly 20 feet in a given year in this area, so timing of subsurface testing vs. the anticipated occurrence of flooding is important. It is improbable that the City can feasibly approve a PRD, grading plan, or sign the FEMA Community Acknowledgement Form without this information. The Community Acknowledgement Form certifies that the development will meet all local floodplain management standards, and that cannot be determined without sufficient data to size the facilities. Page 19 states that “this DEIS contemplates and addresses the range of environmental effects that can be expected to result from the range of infiltration test results” so that any change to the proposal resulting from the CLOMR process would likely not require additional SEPA review. The infiltration rates could very likely be well outside of this range with proper full scale and groundwater mounding analysis.  Dishman-Mica Road Runoff: Stormwater from Dishman-Mica Road currently sheet flows into an existing roadside swale built and maintained by Spokane County. Prior to final design the adequacy of this existing swale will be addressed.  Off-site Times of Concentration: The minimum time of concentration in the SRSM is 5 minutes, which is why 5 minutes was used as the default time of concentration for the roadways adjacent to the site.  Outflow Rate from Infiltration Areas: A detailed design evaluation will be provided at the time of final design that will follow SRSM guidelines. C. Solid Waste Management Program This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS. D. Toxics Cleanup Program This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS. E. Water Quality Program This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS. F. Water Resources Program 1. Dam Safety Construction Permit: The public commenter identifies that a Dam Safety Construction Permit is required for those dams or ponds that impound a volume of 10-acre feet or more of water above ground level pursuant RWC 90.03.350. No Dam Safety Construction Permit is required, as confirmed by an email received January 26th from Gary Myers, Dam Safety Section Manager. The email provides the following summary “DSO has reviewed that portion of the project document set related to the ponds. Our conclusion is that the ponds are below grade, no dam will be constructed. A DSO permit is not needed for the ponds.” Therefore, no EIS changes are warranted. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 115 The Chester Creek channel and levee are not included in the hydraulic and hydrologic analysis. As this is a major component of the overall system and is impacted by the development, it should be included. The DEIS states that there is no impact to the SVRP aquifer. In the existing condition, floodwaters slowly infiltrate and filter through fine soils over a longer period. The proposal is to inject a large volume of floodwaters and stormwater much more quickly than the current condition. It is improbable that a bio filtration swale will treat all floodwaters, let alone that the vegetation and grasses may be dormant during flood events. Please include probable impacts to the SVRP aquifer. Figure 3-8 shows the existing and future floodplain. Infiltration facilities and drainage infrastructure would still be considered floodplain areas, so those should be included. The southern and western portions of the site are still shown to be in the floodplain. Multi-family residential units and possibly estate lots are located in these areas. Please either revise the proposed floodplain area if incorrect or address the development in the floodplain. A detailed stormwater plan will need to be developed for the full project area that meets the current regulations (i.e. 2019 SWMMEW). Stormwater designs may need to follow the SWMMEW instead of the SRSM since there have been changes in the SWMMEW that are not reflected in the SRSM. There is little detail in the DEIS. The Eastern WA LID Guidance Manual is referenced; however, that document is phasing out and the information from that document is now included in the 2019 SWMMEW. The proposal implies that all runoff will remain on-site and not discharge off the property. With this amount of infiltration, it may be difficult to get that amount of water successfully into the ground. Comments on the Storm Drainage Report for Frontage Improvements: Table 2 calculates the amount of treatment volume required using a method described in the SRSM (1815 method). In this calculation, the PGIS area draining to the treatment BMP is used. In the SRSM, the language used for the calculation is the “hydraulically connected impervious area to be treated (acres)”. This differs from the value used in the report, so the BMPs are undersized. This is a serious issue and needs to be addressed. It appears that the runoff from Dishman-Mica Rd will not be treated since it drains away from the property and “cannot be effectively captured.” If there is new or Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 116 replaced impervious surface on that road, it needs to be addressed, or apply additional treatment to other impervious surfaces along the roads. On page, 5 of 6, off-site times of concentration in terms of hours are discussed. Since this study involves the roadways adjacent to the project site, the times of concentration seem overly long. The basin areas are small and should have short times of concentration. Flood issues may be confused with stormwater control issues. It is unclear how the outflow rate from the infiltration areas for the 50-year storm analysis was calculated. A different rate is used in several of the basins, but there is no explanation of how the rate used was determined. This value depends on the infiltration area and the site- specific infiltration rate. For technical assistance or additional information, please contact Lynn Schmidt at (509) 329- 3413 or via email at Lynn.Schmidt@ecy.wa.gov. C. Solid Waste Management Program-Martyn Quinn (509) 329-3435 The applicant proposes to demolish an existing structure in the construction activities involved with the Painted Hills PRD project. Section B.7.a of the SEPA checklist asks if any environmental health hazards exist could occur as a result of the proposal. Improper disposal of solid waste, including demolition waste, can result in environmental health hazards. Ecology encourages the applicant to salvage, reuse, and recycle as much of the waste as possible. Recycling demolition debris typically costs less than disposal. Otherwise, the applicant must dispose of demolition waste at a permitted solid waste facility. For more information, please contact Martyn Quinn at (509) 329-3435 or via email at Martyn.Quinn@ecy.wa.gov. D. Toxics Cleanup Program-Ted Uecker (509) 329-3522 Historic use of the Painted Hills PRD project site as a golf course may have resulted in the release of hazardous substances such as petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, pesticides, and herbicides into the soil and groundwater. Areas where these releases are likely to occur include landscaped putting greens, fairways, drainage basins, and equipment or chemical storage facilities. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 117 Any release, known or discovered at the site must be reported to Ecology as required by the Model Toxics Control Act. This information should be passed on to the proponent and/or property owner. For more information or technical assistance, please contact Ted Uecker at (509) 329- 3522 or via email at Ted.Uecker@ecy.wa.gov. E. Water Quality Program-Shannon Adams (509) 329-3610 Ecology acknowledges that the applicant will obtain a Construction Stormwater General Permit, as stated in Section A.10 of the SEPA Checklist, and agrees a permit is required. For more information or technical assistance in obtaining a Construction Stormwater General Permit, please contact Shannon Adams at (509) 329-3610 or via email at Shannon.Adams@ecy.wa.gov. F. Water Resources Program-Dam Safety Office-Charlotte Lattimore (360) 407-6066 Under RCW 90.03.350, a Dam Safety construction permit is required for those dams or ponds, which can impound a volume of 10 acre-feet or more of water or other liquids above ground level. The Painted Hills PRD development references stormwater ponds as part of the project. To determine if Ecology will require a Dam Safety construction permit for your project, the applicant must submit a set of construction plans to: WA Department of Ecology Dam Safety Office P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 For more information, please contact Charlotte Lattimore by e-mail at (360) 407-6066 or via email at Charlotte.Lattimore@ecy.wa.gov. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Ecology bases comments upon information submitted for review. As such, comments made do not constitute an exhaustive list of the various authorizations you may need to obtain, nor legal requirements you may need to fulfill in order to carry out the proposed action. Applicants should remain in touch with their Local Responsible Officials or Planners for additional guidance. To receive more guidance on or to respond to the comments made by Ecology, please contact the Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 118 appropriate staff listed above at the phone number or email provided. Department of Ecology Eastern Regional Office (Ecology File: 202103907) cc: Todd Whipple, Whipple Consulting Engineers Inc." Public Comment #209– Horton, Deanna - City of Spokane Valley (08-30-21) Response to Comments: "Dear Ms. Barlow: This letter is being written in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated April 2, 2021, regarding the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development (PRD) and the proposed Painted Hills Flood Control Plans dated June 23, 2020. Upon review of the Painted Hills Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the City of Spokane Valley Floodplain Management Program provides the following comments: SEPA Checklist • Section B.l .e mentions that there could be 450,000 cubic yards of material moved with up to 330,000 cubic yards of material imported. Please discuss this in the Natural Environment section (Section 3.1) of the DEIS. • Section B.3.c.l mentions ""Stormwater generated on site will not be discharged to other waters"". Confirm this pertains to the 100-year storm and that the 100-year on- site stormwater will not be discharged to the flood control facilities or floodplain. Draft Environmental Impact Statement General • Flows - when describing flows coming on site from south of Thorpe Road, please make it clear if the discharge quantity being discussed is the Flood Insurance Study quantity for the golf course overflow or the whole Chester Creek 100-year flow. Is the project being designed for the golf course overflow amount or the whole Chester Creek flow? • Comments below for Alternative 2a apply to similar conditions found in Alternative 2b. 2. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 2. Fact Sheet - The City of Spokane Valley is not the project proponent. 2.2.4 Permits and Approvals, Page 18 -The City's grading permit review will occur prior to FEMA's review of the CLOMR. Prior to the City accepting and/or signing the CLOMR submittal that is 1. SEPA Checklist: A. Fill quantities are discussed in Section 3.3.2.2. B. Stormwater generated by the 100-year storm will remain on site. C. The project is being designed for the golf course overflow. 2. Fact Sheet: The fact sheet has been updated to remove the City as the project proponent. The project proponent has been updated in the EIS to be Black Reality Inc. 3. Natural Environment: A. Chester Creek base flows: According to the Biological Evaluation prepared by Larry Dawes in November 2021, Chester Creek is not influenced by a high-water table that creates wetlands. Chester Creek loses water to underlying sands and gravels, so wetlands do not occur outside of the channel of flowing water. Section 4.8.1 of the Biological Evaluation provides information regarding Chester creek Flood Frequency. Section 4.8.2 of the Biological Evaluation provides information regarding the flood conveyance system that conveys floodwaters from the three sources of floodwater described in Section 3.2.1 of the EIS. Section 3.1.1 of the EIS discusses current conditions of Chester Creek. Section 3.1.2 of the EIS has been revised to discuss potential effects to Chester Creek base flows as a result of developing the Painted Hills site. As noted in that section, development and the widening of Thorpe Road is not anticipated to impact “flow”— or capacity—or Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 119 provided to FEMA, the City needs to review and approve all CLOMR submittal documents and their reference documents. 3.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 3.1.1.1 Existing Hydrologic Conditions- • Discuss any impacts this project will have to the base flows in Chester Creek. • The borehole test was conducted in the bottom 30 feet of a 60-foot deep boring. Is this depth representative of the location of the outflow sections of the drywells? 3.1.2.2 Alternative 2a - • The aquifer will also be recharged through the drywells (along with the permeable floor of the infiltration basin). • This section indicates that, ""Based on the presence of this deep deposit of permeable material, groundwater mounding beneath the proposed infiltration system is not anticipated"" The infiltration of the 100-year storm is a lot of water and some groundwater mounding is anticipated. Please confirm that a Geotechnical Engineer licensed to practice in Washington State supports your conclusion of no mounding throughout the 100-year storm for both the onsite facilities and the triangle pond facilities. If there is groundwater mounding, then discuss its impacts. 3.1.3.2 - Are evaporation ponds really expected to be utilized? 3.2 BUILT ENVIRONMENT 3.2.1 Affected Environment, FEMA Floodplain Designation - Discuss in detail how this project will address the requirements of SVMC 21.30.100, specifically: A. In all storage areas designated on the FIRM, there shall be no net loss of flood storage or infiltration capacity. B. No development shall be allowed which removes flood storage volume unless an equal volume of storage as defined by the pre-development ground surface and the base flood elevation is provided in the immediate area of the proposed development to compensate for the volume of storage which is lost (compensatory storage). Excavation below the ground water table shall not constitute an equal volume of storage. C. No obstruction shall be permitted in any storage area which restricts or diminishes flood water conveyance capacity or floodway characteristics. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). 3.2.2.2 Alternative 2a, Floodplain Map Modifications and Floodwater Management Improvements - • Recommend referring readers to Figure 3-9 when discussing specific construction Items. • On page 35 it says, ""The intent of the development of the floodwater management water quality of Chester Creek given the mitigation measures recommended in Section 3.1.3 of the EIS. Design revisions will be made (if necessary) to satisfy FEMA requests. Maintenance of the flood control system, including the drywells located in the discharge basin/low point pond is addressed in the response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. B. Borehole Test: The depth is representative of the location of the outfall sections of the drywells. C. Groundwater Mounding: Results of geotechnical testing support the statement that no groundwater mounding is anticipated. 4. Built Environment: A. Flood Management System: The issues of flood storage capacity removal will be eliminated following approval of the CLOMR and LOMR processes. Appendix K has been added to the EIS to illustrate the design of the flood conveyance system and redundant safety features. B. Suggested Figure Updates:  Appendix E now includes Figure 3-9. Additional references to Figure 3-9 have been added to the EIS.  Figure 3-8 will be revised following FEMA’s review of the CLOMR.  When modeling future floodplain conditions in an environment that contains and uncertified levee, FEMA requires that the modeler consider a scenario in which the levee functions to withhold the 100-year flood and a scenario in which the levee does not withhold the 100-year flood. The resulting floodplain mapping must reflect the more extensive limits of those two scenarios (or levee failure). The 100-year failure scenario is referenced in Section 3.2.1 of the EIS. Future conditions of the 100-year flood mapping as shown in Figure 3-8 reflect this consideration in the floodplain limits.  The infiltration basin will not be considered a Special Flood Hazard Area.  A figure showing the future floodplain location for Alternatives 2a and 2b will be added following FEMA’s review of the CLOMR. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 120 infrastructure is to permanently remove the flood risk that currently exists both on and off the Painted Hills site. "" However, Figure 3-8 shows floodplain on site in the future after construction. • Describe the ""100-yr levee-failure scenario."" • Figure 3-7 - Show the location of the sedimentation basin. • Figure 3-8 - Will the flood water in the infiltration basin be considered a Special Flood Hazard Area and should be mapped? • Include a figure showing the future floodplain on a map of one of the Alternative 2 scenarios. • In the discussion about the 100-year design flow in the biofiltration swale, the document identifies that ""Suspended solids in the floodwater would be filtered out by tall grasses planted in the biofiltration swale. "" What are the design velocities for this flow in the swale? Will the grasses be standing or laying down? Will flow conditions be quiescent enough to enable sedimentation? What size sediments are expected to settle out? • For the settling pond, what is the target grain size to settle out? What will be the design standards to ensure that throughout the 100-year storm hydrograph there will be appropriate hydraulic conditions and adequate residence time in the settling pond to enable the fine, suspended sediments to settle out in the pond and not enter the subsurface facilities located in the infiltration pond? • On page 38, the document indicates water levels within the gravel gallery rising by 1 foot. Should this be referring to water levels in the infiltration basin? • The DEIS indicates that the infiltration pond has been designed to infiltrate 290.76 acre-feet over a period of weeks. Is that significant? What is the volume of the 100-year storm? 3.2.2.2 Alternative 2a, Phasing - Who is responsible for maintaining the flood control system between Phase 1 and full buildout? The O&M manual should describe maintenance responsibilities for all phases, as well as for those times between phases. 3.2.2.2 Alternative 2a, Flood Management Facilities and Maintenance- • Due to the size and complexity of the proposed stormwater management facilities and the number of proposed dwellings which could be subject to flooding during a maintenance failure, the City is concerned about the impact on the operation and maintenance should the proposed Homeowners Association (HOA) dissolve. This section of the DEIS indicates that the HOA will acquire and maintain a maintenance bond to ensure that resources are available in perpetuity for any and all C. Gravel Galleries: The EIS has been updated to remove references to gravel galleries, as they are no longer part of the proposed flood control system. The rise by 1 foot does indeed refer to water levels in the infiltration basin. D. Biofiltration swale: Based on velocities, flows will be slow enough to enable sedimentation. PM10 and greater size sediments are expected to settle out. E. Infiltration Pond Infiltration Capacity: The infiltration basin has been designed to accommodate the anticipated volume of a 100-year flood event. Specifically, the 1997 event which was approximately a 100- year flood event had a volume of approximately 291 ac-ft of water. Infiltration rates under Alternatives 2a and 2b are addressed in Section 3.2.2 of the EIS. F. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. G. Flood Management System Element Failure Risk and Impact Summary (Appendix E): H. Please revise to arrange system elements from upstream to downstream by location. The elements in the table are presented in the suggested order except for the potential inflow from the Gustin Ditch which enters from the east of the site. A figure that identifies the location of each element has been added to Appendix E for additional clarity. I. Probabilities of failure for the various components of the Flood Management System. There are no available methods to effectively quantify the probabilities of failure for these elements. However, the EIS has been updated to provide greater context regarding factors of safety incorporated into the site design and additional qualitative information regarding site and regional context and flood conditions to reasonably ascertain extents of flood risk. Thus, potential for system failures has to be considered in the context of the system and the surrounding environment. Section 3.2.2 of the EIS has been revised to address potential failure of risk for each element of the Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 121 system maintenance requirements that might exceed the sinking fund capacity. What provisions will be put in place to guarantee the HOA will be existent and viable in perpetuity to fund the maintenance bond? If the HOA dissolves, the ability to fund the maintenance bond in perpetuity dissolves. • What provisions will be put in place to ensure all HOA members contribute in perpetuity to fund the maintenance program? 3.3 TRANSPORTATION 3.3.2.2 - Alternative 2b requires approximately 104,630 cubic yards of imported fill material on the site compared to 328,289 cubic yards of imported fill material for Alternative 2a. The Haul Plan included in Appendix G anticipates 104,630 cubic yards of fill. Following the hearing decision, the Haul Plan must be updated to reflect the correct amount of haul volume expected. Appendix E - Flood Management System Elements Failure Risk and Impact Summary General • Consider arranging system elements from upstream to downstream by location. • Include probabilities of failure for the various components of the Flood Management System. • Include recourse(s) in the event of a component failure. Item #IA, Headwall and Trash Rack at Inlet • Potential Failure Impacts section mentions that the headwall is designed to limit inflow. Explain why limit the inflow. • Mitigation section says that trash racks will be installed to mitigate clogging of trash racks by debris. Please explain. Item #2 states that the vegetation in the area isn't woody. Elaborate on how this will prevent clogging during an event as grasses and brush can clog storm and flood system pipes. Will maintenance address this potential problem? Item #3, Triangle Pond • Mitigation section says that sediment will be removed by a vactor truck. Are there other types of equipment that might be more efficient? To what level will the sediments be removed down to? Item# 4b, Infiltration Pond- See comments for Item #3. Item# 4c, Settling Pond- See comments for Item #3. Item# 4d, Bioswale - Will sediment buildup also be removed? If so, to what level? Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions related to these comments. I appreciate your feedback." system in terms of how each element is designed with a “factor of safety” and other redundant safety features that ensures marginal greater capacity than the design storm (e.g., 100-year storm) volumes, thereby reducing the likelihood of complete system failure and risk to adjacent properties. Section 3.2.2.2 of the EIS has been revised to address risk to health and human safety in the event of a failure of the flood conveyance, specifically the headworks of the system – determined to be the most critical element to the intake and outflow of floodwaters. WEST performed modeling to evaluate the peripheral areas that would be subject to inundation, as a proxy for risk, in the event of a complete obstruction of the headworks, which concludes increased flooding would occur beyond present day conditions in limited areas under a total headworks failure, but the majority of the area subject to inundation in a headworks failure scenario will be the same as present day 100-year flooding conditions. Regardless, redundant safety features and operations and maintenance of the flood conveyance system remain critical to minimize risk to off-site properties in the vicinity of the Painted Hills PRD. A figure illustrating the effective 100-Year floodplain vs. the headworks failure scenario is included with the EIS as Appendix N. J. Please describe recourse(s) in the event of a component failure. Item #IA, Headwall and Trash Rack at Inlet. Section 3.2.2 of the EIS has been updated to discuss potential for failure among flood conveyance components, specifically the trash racks. Additionally, routine maintenance activities of trash racks are addressed in the draft O&M Manual is updated and included with the EIS as Appendix O. K. Potential Failure Impacts section mentions that the headwall is designed to limit inflow. The EIS has been revised to correctly state that the headwall, clarified for consistency as the “headworks”, is designed to limit clogging of opening of the conveyance pipe. Additionally, Section 3.2.2 of the EIS has been revised to address Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 122 potential failure of system components, including redundant safety features. Appendix N has been added to the EIS to illustrate current 100-year flood hazard area vs. flood hazard area under the headworks failure scenario, in support of the conclusions provided in the EIS. L. Trash Racks: Section 3.2.2 and Appendix E of the EIS have been updated to specify design of trash racks. Specifically, that flood waters could potentially transport some grass and sediment, both of which are able to flow through the angled trash racks and continue to the next element of the flood conveyance system without issue. M. Vegetation and Pipe Clogging: Section 3.2.2.2 of the EIS has been updated to address function and design of trash racks relative to adjacent vegetation. The EIS concludes that “under the current HEC- RAS modeling, 100-year floods lack the velocities and depth required to carry large woody debris capable of obstructing trash racks. Flood waters will likely pick up grass and sediment, both of which are able to flow through the angled trash racks and continue to the next element of the flood conveyance system without issue. Additionally, each element has been designed to withstand water volumes in excess of the 100-year storm and floodwater conveyance pipes have been sized to accommodate 1.3 and the ponds are sized at 3 times the quantity of water predicted to be produced by the 100-year design storm. N. Are there other types of equipment that might be more efficient? Please address this question We know of no other vehicle that is more efficient and readily available to remove the buildup of sediment. O. To what level will the sediments be removed down to? PM 10 and greater. P. Bioswale and Sediment Removal: All sediment is proposed to be removed, see response to Item iii (2). 5. Transportation: The Preliminary Haul Plan has been prepared based upon Alternative 2b. The plan can be revised to meet the needs of Alternative 2a prior to engineering plan approval. Figures have been Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 123 revised following receipt of FEMA preliminary review of the CLOMR, dated May 24, 2022, and a second round of comments to the applicant on December 21, 2022. These comments request relatively minor revisions such as expanded responses and revisions to application materials. No modification of the flood conveyance system design is required as a result of these comments; however, the technical review process is not yet complete, and FEMA may provide additional comments that need to be addressed. i. Who is responsible for maintaining the flood control system between Phase 1 and full buildout? The O&M manual should describe maintenance responsibilities for all phases, as well as for those times between phases. The developer will be the president of the HOA until such a time as that the HOA population meets the requirements for a change in leadership. ii. What happens when apartment ownership changes? Requirements for participation in the HOA and associated maintenance responsibilities will run with the land and will continue to be the responsibility of any owner of the apartment complex. Under the CC&R provisions for the PRD, penalties will be imposed on owners within the PRD who fail to pay HOA dues. These penalties include the ability of the HOA to file liens on the properties and the ability of the City to withhold building or other requested permits for property owners on non-compliant properties. iii. How will fees cover maintenance? Please address this question Section 3.2.2. of the EIS has been updated to include calculations for estimated future replacement costs of the flood conveyance system. These costs are anticipated to be refined in the final O&M Manual, which will be provided at the conclusion of construction. A copy of the draft O&M manual is included with the EIS as Appendix O. iv. What happens if fees cannot cover costs of maintenance? Please see the response to Item iii. v. Who will assume responsibility in the absence of apartment ownership? Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 124 It is assumed that the apartment property would be owned by the developer until such time as a third-party entity may purchase the site. vi. What contingencies are planned to ensure the system will always be maintained? Please address this question It is the intent of the project that ownership and maintenance of the system will be provided by the HOA which will include the apartment ownership. With the inclusion of the apartment owner in the HOA, the HOA membership will include a long-term and deeply committed financial entity to further ensure that the HOA is meeting its operation and maintenance responsibilities associated with the flood conveyance system. The HOA’s commitment will be to help fund the maintenance activities as well as provide for open spaces, parks, and other issues pertinent to the residential portion of the platting action. The commercial apartment management will be present as long as there are apartments or other commercial activities on the project site, and would be expected to be present in the event the HOA expires or becomes defunct. Section 3.2.2 of the EIS has been revised to address contingencies in the event the HOA is dissolved. This includes the requirement for waivers of remonstrance to be signed by all property owners in the PRD that will provide an acknowledgement by owners of the right for a local agency to establish a flood control district that would assume ownership and operation of maintenance of flood conveyance system infrastructure withing the PRD. vii. What happens if the HOA fails to adequately fund the reserves? According to the plan they are to provide the Spokane Public Works Department the general status of the reserve fund annually. With the addition of the apartment owner to the HOA, the HOA will have a consistent and deeply committed commercial owner to help ensure that the reserve fund remains sufficiently capitalized. In addition, all properties within the PRD will maintain waivers of remonstrance to the formation of a flood control district which will Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 125 allow a local agency, at any time, to form a flood control district that would assume ownership and maintenance responsibility for flood conveyance infrastructure from the HOA. This provides further recourse if the HOA were to default in its responsibility to maintain the reserve fund and/or the on and off-site flood conveyance infrastructure. Viii. What happens if upon the inspection by the City, necessary corrections are not addressed, what is the City’s scope of authority and plans for remedy? Section 3.2.2.2 of the EIS has been revised to identify remedies in the event corrections of the flood conveyance system are not addressed. These enforcement mechanisms will be specified in the CC&R’s and on the finalized and recorded final plat to ensure fees are paid towards the reserve fund and the system is maintained is accordance with the City and County’s requirements. These enforcement mechanisms are anticipated to include but are not limited to late fees and citations imposed on delinquent/defaulting property owners, property liens, and a moratorium on any new development requests from such property owners reviewed through the HOA’s architectural review board and/or with the City and County Planning Department. Public Comment #210– Reale-Pilkenton, Roxanne FEMA (08-30-21) Response to Comments: "Hi Lori & Deanna, Thank you for sending the DRAFT ENVIORNMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) for the Painted Hills Development, for FEMA review and comment. I have read the DRAFT ENVIORNMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) as well as Appendices A through I. My comments have been limited to those that are in direct correlation with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The first observation made while making the first read through of the material is that the DEIS does not seem to provide analysis for the entirety of the subject development or its potential effects outside of the project area. Are there parts of this proposed development that occur on land located in Unincorporated Spokane County? If so will a separate hearing and decision be made? Will both jurisdictions need to sign final plat/agreement/mapping documents? Will CLOMR/CLOMR-F applications need to be done by Spokane County? 1. CLOMR Process: The Painted Hills PRD project proposes flood conveyance infrastructure and the importing and grading of earthen material to control the location of inundation of on-site flood events. Therefore, the requested changes to the base flood elevation (BFE) and National Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) are outside the scope of the MT-1 team and would not be reviewed under the CLOMR-F/LOMR-F process. Instead, the Painted Hills PRD will be reviewed by the MT-2 team under the CLOMR/LOMR process. Therefore, the majority of the public commenters concerns raised CLOMR-F/LOMR-F are no longer accurate to the required procedural review through FEMA. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 126 The scope of the DEIS and the attached Appendices do not appear to be consistent in their analysis of the alternatives, or even which alternatives are discussed. It appears that both a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on fill (CLOMR-F) will be required for this proposed development. The DEIS only identifies a CLOMR as required and the SEPA Checklist lists a CLOMR-F as required. Because the applicant is anticipating removal from the SFHA by both off and on-site storm drainage and channel improvements, as well as fill being added to the site, both a CLOMR and CLOMR-F will be required. A CLOMR-F will necessitate Spokane Valley (and Spokane County if fill is being added to the site in Unincorporated Spokane County) to sign the community acknowledgment form. I’ve attached a RISK Map Fact Sheet to this email that gives an overview of what a community will be attesting to with their signature on a CLOMR/CLOMR-F. On electronic page 15 of 279, partial paragraph, states that “Off-site and on-site storm drainage and channel improvements will be made that will result in the removal of approximately 48 acres of the site from the FEMA one percent-annual-chance floodplain (100-year floodplain).” The first full paragraph, details that “These improvements to the Gustin Ditch and to the triangle pond will eliminate the possibility of the floodwater inflows to the site from the east as modeled in the current FEMA floodplain insurance study for the area.” The second full paragraph asserts that “….will be completed that would also result in the removal of approximately 44 acres of off-site properties from the FEMA 100-year floodplain. Before these statements are made, the CLOMR/CLOMR-F would need to be reviewed and approved by FEMA. FEMA strongly suggests that Spokane Valley (and Spokane County as required) have the applicant submit the CLOMR/CLOMR-F and receive FEMA approval prior to issuing the needed permitting for the installation of dry wells and infiltration testing. FEMA has recently reviewed the Spokane Valley ordinance as part of a Community Assistance Contact and supports and approves the proposed new language that states “If a CLOMR application is made, then the project proponent shall also supply the full CLOMR documentation package to the Floodplain Administrator to be attached to the floodplain development permit, including all required property owner notifications.” The DEIS states on electronic page 24 of 179, in the fourth paragraph that “Because it is expected that the CLOMR review and the City construction document review will be occurring at the same time, the applicant expects that any system design revisions requested/required by FEMA to ensure approval of the CLOMR will be integrated with revisions to the construction document package as necessary before the City issues final approval of the construction document.” It appears as if there is already the assumption that system design changes could be required that further demonstrates why Spokane Valley (and Spokane County as required) have the applicant submit the CLOMR and A meeting was held on October 14, 2021, where FEMA Region X staff met with representatives for the city, county, and applicant. Group consensus concluded that the applicant would submit one CLOMR to FEMA as part of a preliminary review process, that included all system components (on- site in the city and off-site in the county). Final processing of the CLOMR requires the City and County floodplain administrators to sign the Community Acknowledgment Forms (CAF). The applicant anticipates that these local agencies will sign the CAFs after the installation of the dry wells and after the applicant’s design team makes any final system design refinements, if deemed necessary. Through coordination between the project applicant, the City of Spokane Valley, and Spokane County, FEMA has agreed to conduct a preliminary review of the CLOMR request in advance of receiving the CAFs. FEMA review of the CLOMR application is in process and FEMA has provided initial comments to the applicant on May 24, 2022, and a second round of comments to the applicant on December 21, 2022. These comments request relatively minor revisions such as expanded responses and revisions to application materials. No modification of the flood conveyance system design is required as a result of these comments; however, the technical review process is not yet complete, and FEMA may provide additional comments that need to be addressed. Upon completion of FEMA’s design requests in the preliminary review, FEMA and the applicant understand that the City and County will sign the Community Acknowledgement Form and send a completed copy to the applicant. The applicant will submit both “Certification Form 1” forms and the revised CLOMR to FEMA to finalize the formal technical review process. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 127 CLOMR-F, receive approval, prior to issuing permits. FEMA suggests that if Spokane Valley (and Spokane County as required) considers approving the project that they would also consider adding a condition to the approval of the Painted Hills Development that no permits will be issued until the CLOMR/CLOMR-F are submitted to, and given approval from FEMA. FEMA can only approve a LOMR and LOMR-F if they are consistent with the approved CLOMR and CLOMR-F. Could Field changes in lieu of plans or process, not be allowed and all proposed changes are reviewed in consideration of the approved CLOMR and CLOMR-F documents? Spokane Valley (and Spokane County as required) will need to ensure that flood permits are issued for any work on City roads located in the SFHA. Any fill or changes to culverts, bridge abutments, etc. will need to be included in the CLOMR and CLOMR-F applications. FEMA recognizes that the subject property is located in the compensatory storage area designation of Spokane Valley. Because the DEIS speaks to the CLOMR removing this flood designation, FEMA suggests that the application for the CLOMR and CLOMR-F be approved by FEMA prior to permits being issued. FEMA suggests that both Spokane Valley and the applicant, separately, request to speak to the MT-2 processing team to discuss the anticipated staging of fill that will be brought and stored on the site, if located in the SFHA. The storage of fill for 4 to 10 years could change flooding conditions and the CLOMR-F, and the CLOMR may need to address this. The MT-2 team is happy to discuss the requirements for the CLOMR and CLOMR-F applications for this situation. If contact information is needed please let me know. The SEPA checklist states that approximately 25 percent of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces, the DEIS states 25 percent in Alternative 2b, but 30 percent in Alternative 2a. The SEPA checklist states that “Off-site flood convenance improvements in Spokane County are anticipated on parcel numbers…..” FEMA would like to know how Spokane County is involved with the proposed project and where they are at with any required hearing or decision criteria. The SEPA checklist lists that the threatened or endangered species are “None known.” This seems to contradict information provided in Appendix H. QUESTION: When is Spokane Valley anticipating requiring that the LOMR and LOMR-F be approved? Would it be prior to buildings being constructed? Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can provide any further information. Kind regards, Roxanne Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 128 Roxanne Reale-Pilkenton, CFM Floodplain Management Specialist | Mitigation | Region 10 Office: (425) 487-4654 | Mobile: (425) 892-4036 roxanne.reale-pilkenton@fema.dhs.gov | Preferred pronouns she/her Federal Emergency Management Agency fema.gov" Public Comment #211– Barrentine, Marianne - Spokane County (08-31-21) Response to Comments: "Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner City of Spokane Valley 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear Ms. Barlow, Spokane County Public Works submits the following comments relative to Floodplain and Stormwater issues for the EIS for the proposed Painted Hills PRD: 1. Off-Site Proposal: We are concerned with the overall lack of detail and clarity on offsite proposal in Spokane County and with addressing of the associated impacts. Suggest maps/plans specifically to address the offsite areas. Also, the Biological Report and Cultural Resource Survey do not appear to address off site project area at all. 2. CLOMR and Permitting Process: Spokane County requests that the CLOMR and CLOMR-F package include all floodplain modifications, both in the City and the County. Before County would sign off on the CLOMR application, we perform a detailed review and accept project plans sets, engineering/geotech reports addressing infiltration and floodplain hydraulic engineering, and a detailed Operation and Maintenance manual. Spokane County Public Works will not approve or issue floodplain permits for work in County until FEMA approves the CLOMR and CLOMR-F for the entire project and CSV has approved the development. It’s not clear if this is proposed, but there needs to be an alternative to infiltration testing beyond full scale construction of all the proposed drywells in the Triangle Pond. 3. Triangle Pond /Gustin Ditch– Need to address use of Spokane County’s existing drainage easement and current property owners needs for the Triangle Pond. This will require project proponent to negotiate an agreement to purchase or obtain easement and compensation for both. Also proposed plans cannot encumber County plans for extension of 40th Ave. around the Triangle pond. Note as well that these need to be addressed with letters of intent from property owners at a minimum before the County can sign off the Community Acknowledgement for the CLOMR application. 4. Risk Analysis- This table needs more detail on potential failure impacts. A map to address potential flooding would be helpful. This is critical for the Operations and Maintenance manual and future maintenance efforts to insure potential failures and their impacts are minimized. 1. Off-Site Proposal (Biological Resources): The Biological Evaluation Report and Section 3.4.3.1 of the EIS have been updated to include descriptions of existing biological resources on the off-site Triangle Pond property. Section 3.4.3.2 of the EIS has been updated to discuss impacts to biological resources on the off-site Triangle Pond property. As noted in that section, no significant effects to off-site biological resources are expected to result from the project. 2. Off-Site Proposal (Cultural Resources): The Cultural Resource Survey and Section 3.4.6.1 of the EIS have been updated to discuss existing archaeological resources on the off-site Triangle Pond property. Additionally, Section 3.4.6.2 of the EIS has been updated to briefly discuss potential impacts on archaeological resources and potential historic properties of the Triangle Pond property. As noted in that section, no on- going or future activities are expected to occur that would result in significant effects when considered in conjunction with any of the project alternatives. 3. CLOMR Process: See response to Public Comment #210 (immediately above). 4. Reciprocal Use of the Triangle Pond and Gustin Ditch Site: See response to Public Comment #39, Item 2. 5. Triangle Pond Risk/Factor of Safety: Section 3.2.2.2 of the EIS has been updated to elaborate on “factor of safety” for on and off-site flood control components. No construction activities other than those necessary to install flood conveyance system improvements will occur on off-site properties. While unlikely, a failure scenario where the triangle pond floods would result in flood waters that over top the triangle pond. However, HEC-RAS flood modeling indicates that a failure scenario would Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 129 5. Factors of Safety: Please clarify factor of safety for design flows in the stormwater systems, both on and off site. We see different flow capacity for pipes and system in different parts of the report and not sure its addressed at all for the off-site facilities. Suggest a table of facilities with design flows and factors of safety. 6. HOA Maintenance: Spokane County has continuing concern with HOA being responsible for maintenance, due to the uncertainty of their long term existence and capability to do the critical work needed with this complex of a stormwater/flood control facilities. Need stronger guarantee of ongoing maintenance for entire system, including facilities in Spokane County. Note also, a proposed detailed Operations and Maintenance Manual for the entire system and proposed implementation/organization plan will need to be submitted before the County will sign the Community Acknowledgment for the CLOMR. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Marianne Barrentine, PE, CFM Water & Environmental Program Manager" result in flood waters remaining on the triangle property and therefore, no water would be displaced as a result of adding the triangle pond. 6. Maintenance of Flood Control Components: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. Public Comment #212– King, Leslie – Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife (08-31-21) Response to Comments: "August 31, 2021 City of Spokane Valley Attn: Lori Barlow 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Painted Hills Planned Unit Residential Development Project , project file numbers PRD-2015-0001, SUB-2015-0001, EGR-2016-0066 and FPD-2016-0007. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Lori, The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) would like to submit the following comments for consideration pertaining to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS): The Painted Hills PRD Biological Evaluation, Critical Areas Report and Habitat Management Plan dated February 28, 2019 explores three separate alternatives of proposal for development. Alternative # 2 and #3 employ buffer averaging to allow encroachment into the buffer and provide mitigation to off-set it.We look forward in the future to more in depth discussions regarding the buffers and mitigation. The Department of Fish and Wildlife continues to stand by the comment submitted on 1. Chester Creek, Fish-Bearing: See response to Public Comment #43, Item 2. 2. Flood Control System, Fish Passage: Section 3.4.3.2 of the EIS has been updated to discuss effects on fish during a flooding event. No significant effect to fish life is expected. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 130 November 16, 2018 to the proposed Conditional Letter of Map Revision- Fill (CLOMRF) which declares Chester Creek a fish bearing stream and does not support re-typing from F to Ns. Not only does Chester Creek meet the physical characteristics of a fish bearing stream according to WAC 222-16-031 (3), but there are also resident fish observed living within the system. It has been observed that fish do get transported downstream, likely on an annual basis, during normal run off conditions. Page 73 of the DEIS cites the consulting biologist stating that the on-site reach of Chester Creek does not provide fish habitat. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife would respectfully disagree with this statement. While this may not be premier fish habitat due to past alternations and periodic drying, it does provide for regular seasonal use. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has concerns under the Proposed Flood Control Plan. Flood water of Chester Creek will be captured and conveyed to an artificial water retention system. This has the potential to transport and trap fish into a stormwater system which serves the planned residential development. Upon reviewing the materials provided in the DEIS, it is unclear how the proposed flood water system will keep fish from entering the flood water/storm water system and how they will escape this system. It appears the effects to fish life are not being recognized as an impact and therefore no mitigation is proposed to off-set these impacts. We recommend this loss of fish life is recognized and assessed and then is addressed through appropriate mitigation sequencing. Lastly as mentioned in the previous comment, any work conducted on structures such as culverts and pedestrian bridges within the project area will require a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from WDFW and be designed to meet fish passage standards. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to provide comments. Sincerely, Leslie King WDFW Habitat Biologist" Public Comment #213– Clark, Tom (08-31-21) Response to Comments: "Ms Barlow, My name is Tom Clark and I have lived in the Painted Hills neighborhood for over 30 years. I have previously responded to the city with my concerns regarding the proposed development of the property known as the Painted Hill Golf Course property ( the site ) and continue to be adamantly against its approval. Having now reviewed the the current DEIS for the PRD I have the following additional comments: In reading the DEIS it is evident that the developer ( Black ) continues to force his development onto a site which for many reasons is not suited for it. Beginning with the plan to remove the site from the 100 year floodplain by raising the elevation of the site in itself shows 1. Construction-Related Traffic: See response to Public Comment #149, Item 2. 2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 3. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. 4. Erosion Control: See response to Public Comment #154, Item 5. 5. Wildlife: See response to Public Comment #4, Item 6. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 131 how desperate he is to push this through. While I'm not qualified to speak to the validity of the proposed elaborate stormwater mitigation plan , it is obvious that the DEIS does not accurately reflect the effects on our neighborhood of one of the basic components of the plan, that of the trucking plan. In appendix E under transportation it states that they would be hauling fill for FOUR YEARS working 280 days a year. There are only 260 weekdays in a year so they are basing this impact on working weekends and/or holidays to accomplish this in 4 years. Further in this same portion of the DEIS they state that the haul route is only on Dishman-Mica road yet in appendix G they clearly show the haul route running North on Madison and directly in front of Horizon Middle School. This an example of how the DEIS is being written to meet requirements and look favorable yet not really reflecting what the impact will be. This structuring of the DEIS is also evident in the impact assessment to the schools shown in Appendix D. The author of the DEIS uses the U.S. Census Bureau ACS to set the total anticipated students residing within the development at 206. So using that number and total number of residences at 580 ( per alt. 2b ) that is only .35 children per household. Common sense and experience with other similar developments shows that this number is extremely low considering the target market for homeowners in a development such as this. Again the calculation used is not to reflect the actual anticipated impact but rather it is used to force the development to ""fit"". My second concern is having an elaborate storm water mitigation system being managed and financed by the HOA. There is no detailed plan as to what kind of organizational structure would be in place to undertake this responsibility nor a plan should the HOA disband. I believe there is case law which transfers the maintenance and performance of such a system to the City should the HOA not be able to do so. Is this a liability the city is willing to expose themselves to ?? I would hope the council is involved in such a long reaching decision. The impact to adjacent properties of a failure of the system is enormous and cannot be viewed lightly. Overall the City of Spokane Valley as well as the County has permitted numerous developments in our neighborhood since the traffic study was completed. The traffic study is now not accurate as the traffic loads on our neighborhood roads have greatly increased The DEIS does not adequately address the impact to the deer and other wildlife which use the existing undeveloped site. Again the DEIS tries to skip over this serious issue with a simple statement that a corridor will be provided for the deer to use to cross the site. They do not address the fact that with all the development that has been permitted in our area the wildlife have nowhere to migrate to, even if they somehow were forced into a corridor to cross the site. The developer and his team have no regard for our neighborhood asset of wildlife and what it brings to our environment. Regarding the 300,000 plus cubic yards of fill required to raise the site there are many issues Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 132 not adequately addressed in the DEIS. Other than the hauling calculations and truck route questions raised above, no plan or mention of quality control for the fill or standards for the same are seen in the DEIS. There is no source given for the fill. No plan to make sure it is clean fill and not contaminated, no mention of how the fill will be suited for the site , and most notably how the fill will be stabilized during the 4 plus years of importing and later while it is awaiting the development to catch up . ( the development is a 10 year plan, the fill is 4 ). One only needs to look at the dust, traffic disruption, road degradation , and noise pollution that the existing development under construction at Thorpe and Madison streets has caused to see what kind of impact such an endeavor will have on our neighborhood. This is a BIG issue that is purposely not detailed enough within the DEIS due to the magnitude of its impact and the inability to mitigate it. Having witnessed the developers lack of maintenance of the site since his purchase, I believe that the maintenance of the site during the 10 year buildout needs to be addressed in the DEIS. Noxious weeds have invaded the site and have subsequently invaded adjacent property throughout our neighborhood. He has let the trees die , he has also let the fences go into disrepair , etc.. These are clear signs of his disregard for the neighborhood and his simple desire to exploit the site for his personal gain without regard to the neighborhood. It is also an indication that the city has no control over how he maintains his property now or in the future. In closing I again believe that the developer and his consultants are desperately trying to force a ""square peg into a round hole "" with this development. Rather than working with the site and planning a development which works with the very nature of the site they are planning a development with total disregard to the site and our neighborhood's environment. Economic gain looks to be the only driving force. I look forward to the city's rejection of the DEIS as submitted. Respectfully, Tom Clark 5214 South Cree Drive Spokane WA 99206 509-991-3088" Public Comment #214– Olmstead, Leslie (08-31-21) Response to Comments: "Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner City of Spokane Valley 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5335 or LBarlow@spokanevalley.org RE: Comments to the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development – Draft EIS Dear Ms. Barlow: I have reviewed the Painted Hills Draft EIS and have comments and a few questions 1. Sources of Flooding: Section 3.2.1 of the EIS has been updated to describe sources of flooding. The existing and future ground contours generally slope toward the north side of the project area; therefore, stormwater will generally flow to the north and not to the northwest and across Dishman Mica Road. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 133 that will likely serve as comments. Please accept the questions and comments to the Draft EIS. Stormwater and Flooding 1. In Figure 3.6, the floodways run to the northwest. This development will have an increased covered area (concrete and asphalt) of 25% of the total project. Also, in the northwest corner of the PRD, the covered areas will be greater, due to multifamily housing parking and commercial development parking. The problem is stormwater will have a higher likelihood of continuing to run to the northwest, not be captured for stormwater treatment and potentially flood the residents in the trailer park located on the west side of Dishman-Mica. 2. This development will likely have impacts further to the northwest that currently do not seem to be captured within this DEIS yet given the potential economic impacts due to flooding of a trailer park, they should be considered. 3. Have additional box culverts been considered for the northwest side of the project? 4. There has been a great deal of discussion of the flooding on Thorpe. However, changing the flood patterns within this area will likely have impacts to Madison as well. Have those impacts been looked at? What will the mitigation measures be in relation to Madison? 5. It is not clear how the compensatory storage areas will be compensated or mitigated in detail. I would like to see more information in relation to this aspect of stormwater management." Both onsite and offsite flooding impacts have been evaluated, including potential impacts to Madison Road in Section 3.2.2 in the FEIS and illustrated in Figure 3-8. FEMA’s review of the CLOMR/LOMR will be completed before permitting approval for the purpose of determining engineered solutions to on and off-site flooding are viable, and no water will be displaced onto surround parcels. Public Comment #215– Navarra, Gerard (08-31-21) Response to Comments: "Hello Lori: Below are comments in response to the DEIS for the proposed Painted Hills development adjacent to Thorpe Road: · Almost without exception, the common scenario for flooding around the golf course property is high run-off over frozen subgrade. That implies that the proposed idealized design is based on a circumstance that will rarely occur, ie proper bio-filtration before injection into the aquifer. The most likely flood scenario managing mechanism for the proposed system will be to dump large quantities of untreated water into the aquifer via the over flow drains. This will be combined with a substantially increased pavement area when project build-out is complete. A proper design must include substantial storage capacity to provide a reasonable likelihood that the overflow mechanism will not be triggered. Alternate 2A obviously does not accomplish that end. It is not clear that even 2B would achieve this goal, since volume comparisons (current storage versus proposed) are not indicated in the DEIS. Underground pipe storage should also be considered in the developed areas to provide sufficient storage to avoid unfiltered injection and 1. Water Quality (Aquifer): See response to Public Comment #17, Item 5. 2. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. 3. Construction-Related Traffic: See response to Public Comment #149, Item 2. 4. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 134 contamination of the aquifer and local water wells. A phased build out would also be prudent to verify the adequacy of the proposed system and leave options open for additional storage to supplement the system in place of designated housing lots if it proves deficient. · The DEIS does not provide any grading plans with which to make comparisons of the proposed versus existing adjacent property grades. In the likely event that clogging and icing occurs in the overflow drains, what adjacent properties will be immediately affected and to what degree? What are the proposed elevations of the new lots as compared to residential units immediately adjacent to the PRD. A fund should be available to immediately put into place enhancements or repairs to the flood control system should they prove inadequate. Flooding could occur before the HOA payments have built to a sufficient level to provide more than minor maintenance. The presentation on the impact of truck traffic is inadequate. Firstly, truck traffic doessubstantially more damage to road surfaces than automobile traffic, even though typically making up only about 5% of ADT; therefore, downplaying it as 1% of ADT is intentionally misleading. Truck induced damage to roadways is especially bad during thawing periods. Secondly, transporting 30 CY of material requires the use of truck and trailer. If the more likely scenario of single trucks are used, the average number of trucks entering the site jumps to more than 40 per day or one every 11 minutes. That will be a wearingly high intensity when considered over 4 years. These numbers will be even worse on “nonaverage” days. The pavement damage is undeniable when considering over 25,000 truck and trailer trips or 50,000 single truck trips. The developer must be held responsible for some of these costs when issuing the grading permit, as opposed to the taxpayer. Here again, alternative 2A appears unreasonable. Thank you, Gerard G. Navarra, P.E. Spokane Valley, WA 99016 509-951-1405" Public Comment #216– Brandle, George (08-31-21) Response to Comments: "Hi Lori and John, I am against this development as presented in the DEIS. First, the biggest issue I see is the huge movement of dirt to raise the earth level. The truck volume will change our neighborhood character potentially for YEARS. Second, the movement of so much flood water into ponds and UIC wells makes me very nervous based on seeing floods here for nearly forty years. I also doubt these will be maintained properly if we must rely on the Homeowner Association to do the maintenance (look at the recent Miami condominium failure for a homeowner organization failure). Third, UIC wells in the ""triangle pond"" are very close to my underground well. I am nervous these will contaminate my and neighbor's wells. 1. Erosion Control: See response to Public Comment #154, Item 5. 2. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. 3. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. 4. Water Quality and Flow (Residential Wells): Public Comment #1, Item 1. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 135 Sincerely, George Brandle" Public Comment #217– Brandle, George (08-31-21) Response to Comments: "Hi Lori and John, Sorry, I forgot to include my address on my comments sent a few minutes ago: 12906 East 40th Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206" 1. This comment does not contest technical details of the EIS. Public Comment #218– Thesis, Jared (08-31-21) Response to Comments: "Hello - my name is Jared Theis, and my spouse is Krystal Theis, in which we live at 4219 S. Madison Rd. Spokane Valley, WA 99206. We are writing this email as a public comment for the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development (PRD) project, file numbers PRD-2015- 0001, SUB-2015-0001, EGR-2016-0066, and FPD-2016-0007 (https://www.spokanevalley.org/paintedhillsdeis). In particular, our concerns related to the flood control plan outlined in the DEIS, specifically the cost to maintain and/or replace the flood control system that will be the responsibility of the HOA once the development is completed. The HOA will not have the financial means in the long-term to support the system without incurring significant and unsustainable fees on the residents expected for this type of development (estimated at more than $1000 just for this fee without consideration of any other HOA costs in an area that is planned for ""affordable housing""). If that is met, then the city will be responsible, which would be a significant liability that is not the proper use of taxpayer dollars for an area previously designated into perpetuity as a flood plain with a golf course as highest best use. Not to mention, but the environmental impact that it will have on the surrounding area with lower level lands, Chester creek (which is a fish bearing creek per the WDFW), the triangle pit, and Gustin ditch for flood control is not a viable and appropriate solution. The potential flooding to lower level areas for current property owners also has not been adequately considered (building up the level of the ground will have a significant impact on the flow of water, which does not appear to be adequately addressed and will significantly damage property values in the area). I do not understand how the City of Spokane Valley or FEMA would approve this plan, especially in light of other potential liabilities in the long-term (see ""Phillips vs. King County, consider the National Flood Insurance Program, etc.). Additionally, the DEIS report for schools appears significantly flawed. The school district does not have capacity to take on the increased number of students which they have previously indicated, especially in light of the new school (Ridgeline in Liberty Lake) that is only serving that area and not planned to reduce the burden, especially with the significant increase in population in the valley experienced in recent years that is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. The DEIS indicates only a few homes with school age kids (recall 15 or so estimated in the study), which cannot be a reasonable estimate given the 580 units planned that 1. Maintenance of the Flood Control System: See response to Public Comment #27, Item 2. 2. Schools: See response to Public Comment #2, Item 3. 3. Construction-Related Traffic and Fill: See response to Public Comment #149, Item 2. 4. Flooding (general): See response to Public Comment #9, Item 3. 5. Public Services: See response to Public Comment #126, Item 4. 6. Traffic Impacts on Pedestrian Safety: See response to Public Comment #6, Item 1. Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 136 are family units for a neighborhood in this area that likely will have one or multiple kids per households (as a comparison, they are clearly way more than 15 kids per 580 homes in the adjacent housing areas). This needs to be reconsidered and properly assessed on the impacts to the local schools, which are already very near or in many occasions over capacity for proper support of students and their education. Traffic safety and maintenance, which is another responsibility of the city, also does not appear to adequately address 1) the number of trucks and damage that will occur to move in the fill needed to start the development (over 35,000 truckloads estimated, which are heavy equipment and severely damage normal roads), and 2) the increased traffic that 580 homes will bring to the area that will cause issues relative to school zones, current traffic lights/intersections, and other area roads (incl. sidewalks, street lights, and supporting infrastructure) that will cause significant cost to the city. There is also other necessary services that will be impacted, including fire department support/evacuation, police support, ambulatory support, utilities (water, sewer, garbage), etc. that do not appear to be properly assessed and addressed for the impacts to the surrounding community and City of Spokane Valley resources. This is certainly also not ""affordable housing"" given the expected price tags that will be needed to support the developers costs with the number of units, so doesnt actually address the housing needs of our area. Overall, while I recognize the need for more housing in our area to support the population growth, this is not the appropriate solution for the aforementioned issues. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for you consideration. Jared and Krystal Theis 509-750-4382" Painted Hills PRD Final EIS Comment Responses March 2023 137 APPENDIX C: Impact Comparison Table – Alternative 2a v. Standard Subdivision This page intentionally left blank. Appendix C. Alternative 2a (Planned Residential Subdivision) v. Standard Subdivision Impacts Summary Alternative 2a—PRD Impact Summary Standard Subdivision Alternative Impact Summary Comparative Analysis Finding Natural Environment Ground water A series of pipes, swales and basins for treatment and management of surface water are installed to manage stormwater before it reaches the aquifer. No change is anticipated in volumes of water that reach the aquifer via the project site. No impact to the Spokane Rathdrum Prairie aquifer. Water that currently recharges the aquifer would continue to recharge through permeable areas and through the infiltration pond installed at the northern limits of the site. Same treatment and management of surface water before it reaches aquifer as under Alternative 2a. No change in volumes of water that reach the aquifer via the project site are anticipated under the Standard Subdivision Alternative. No impact to the Spokane Rathdrum Prairie aquifer. Water that currently recharges the aquifer would continue to recharge through permeable areas and through the infiltration pond installed at the northern limits of the site. Similar level of impact between Alternative 2a and the Standard Subdivision Alternative. Surface water Addition of culverts and creation of swales and ponds to manage floodwater that enters the site There would be no direct impact to the channel of Chester Creek from the widening of Thorpe Road. Includes 30-acre +/- undeveloped park area in southern portion of the site available to store floodwaters Same addition of culverts and creation of swales and ponds as under Alternative 2a There would be no direct impact to the channel of Chester Creek from the widening of Thorpe Road. No 30-acre park is provided to store floodwaters. Similar level of impact between Alternative 2a and the Standard Subdivision Alternative. Built Environment Land use  42 estate single family residential lots,  206 standard single-family residential lots  52 cottage-style single family residential lots,  228 multi-family residential units,  52 mixed use multi-family residential units integrated with  approximately 13,400 square feet of retail/commercial use,  9,000 square feet of future stand- alone retail commercial use  30% greenspace totaling approximately 30 acres with trails that include a 10-acre park and wildlife travel corridor The southern portion of the site will be filled for residential lots and would not be available to receive floodwater because the park in this area would be omitted from the design—  543-lot subdivision  No new commercial or multifamily residential development  No greenspace or trails The Standard Subdivision Alternative has a greater impact on site land use due to a reduction in open space (30 fewer acres) Flood hazard areas The required loose fill import volume is approximately 377,532 CY 48 on-site acres and 44 off-site acres will be removed from 100-year floodplain Approximately 660,240 CY of fill material would need to be imported under the Standard Subdivision Alternative. Considerably more fill under the Standard Subdivision Alternative Transportation Construction-related truck trips: over a four- year period or approximately 22.47 truck trips per day Alternative 2a is anticipated to generate 380 new AM peak hour trips, with 95 new trips entering the site, and 285 new trips exiting the site via the eight access opportunities previously noted. In the PM peak hour, the project is anticipated to generate 545 new trips, with 338 new trips entering the site, and 207 new trips exiting the site. 5,846 ADT and 545 PM Peak Hour Trips Approximately 40 truck trips (one trip to the site and one return trip) would occur per day over the duration of the site grading activities over a 4-year period. The Standard Subdivision Alternative would require more fill than Alternative 2a, primarily due to the filling of the open space area located just north of East Thorpe Road. The total required fill volume with the Standard Subdivision Alternative is approximately 574,122 CY. 5,529 ADT and 573 PM Peak Hour Trips The Standard Subdivision Alternative generates approximately 317 fewer average daily trips but generates approximately 28 more PM peak hour trips. This is due to the higher PM peak hour trip generation of the single-family residential units and the fact that no internalization trip reduction factor is applied with the Standard Subdivision Alternative because no commercial uses would be included. More construction (fill) generated truck trips under the Standard Subdivision Alternative The Standard Subdivision Alternative generates approximately 317 fewer average daily trips but generates approximately 28 more PM peak hour trips. Environmental Elements Not Analyzed in Detail Air quality Impacts to air quality under the Standard Subdivision Alternative will be similar to those described for Alternative 2a with the following exceptions: The Standard Subdivision Alternative provides a greater number of single-family residences than Alternative 2a, with 543 total single-family residences compared to 300 single family residences in Alternative 2a. The additional single-family residences are more likely to be a source of fine particulates from wood burning stoves. The Standard Subdivision Alternative does not incorporate 30% of the gross site area to public open space, therefore providing less area that can serve as a “carbon sink.” Construction-related impacts to air quality will likely be greater with the Standard Subdivision Alternative The Standard Subdivision Alternative is likely to generate more smoke from wood stoves because it provides more single-family residences. The Standard Subdivision Alternative would also result in greater impacts to air quality from construction-related exhaust. due to the greater degree of imported fill material required. Aesthetics Alternative 2a will convert most of the central, east and northwest areas of the site into a mixed-use community. Remaining areas of the property will be retained as community open space. Most of the field and open space areas on the site would be converted to urban development. The Standard Subdivision Alternative will have somewhat greater impact on local aesthetics Biological Resources The combined buffer impacts equal approximately 15,619 SF. Buffer averaging, and enhancement plantings are proposed to ensure that these impacts do not result in a reduction in the ecological function and values of the riparian area. Fill material placed on the east stream bank will cover an approximately 104,132 SF of area. This area will be replanted with native grasses, trees and shrubs, representing a significant enhancement over existing conditions. The Standard Subdivision Alternative has considerably more impact to critical area buffers Environmental Health Dust, noise, and exhaust from construction Dust, noise, and exhaust from construction Similar level of impact between Alternative 2a and the Standard Subdivision Alternative. Geology Grading may require the movement of up to 450,000 cubic yards of material, with up to 330,000 cubic yards of imported material Due to the placement of fill and site development features proposed under Alternative 2a the opportunity for surface water and precipitation to recharge the underlying aquifer will be limited to the proposed infiltration basin, roadside swales, and dry wells. 574,122 CY of fill material, which will require the import of approximately 660,240 CY of “loose” fill material prior to compaction on the site. Due to the placement of fill and site development features proposed under Alternative 2a the opportunity for surface water and precipitation to recharge the underlying aquifer will be limited to the proposed infiltration basin, roadside swales, and dry wells. Considerably more fill under the Standard Subdivision Alternative Historic, Cultural & Archaeological Essentially no impacts Essentially no impacts Similar level of (non) impact between Alternative 2a and the Standard Subdivision Alternative. Noise During the construction phase noise from construction, land clearing, and fill delivery and placement equipment as well as structure construction will increase for the short term. Following completion of construction, noise will be generated by residential traffic and other residential sources including yard maintenance equipment, domestic pets, occupants, and park use for the long term. The increase in population under the Standard Subdivision Alternative would likely lead to noise levels that are higher than current levels. It is unlikely that the increase would be measurable, but it may be perceived by During the construction phase noise from construction, land clearing, and fill delivery and placement equipment as well as structure construction will increase for the short term. Following completion of construction, noise will be generated by residential traffic and other residential sources including yard maintenance equipment, domestic pets, occupants, and park use for the long term. The increase in population under the Standard Subdivision Alternative would likely lead to noise levels that are higher than current levels. It is unlikely that the increase would be measurable, but it may be Similar level of impact between Alternative 2a and the Standard Subdivision Alternative. residents in terms of the frequency to which they experience noise disturbance. perceived by residents in terms of the frequency to which they experience noise disturbance. Public Services Based on current demographics, it is expected that approximately 1,377 people would reside in the project at full project buildout. Further, it is anticipated that approximately 45 employees would work in the 22,400 SF of new retail space that would result with Alternative The Standard Subdivision Alternative is anticipated to create 543 single-family residential units, which would result in approximately 1,358 new residents at full buildout of the community. Slightly fewer individuals under the Standard Subdivision Alternative but all in Single-family units—more impacts under the Standard Subdivision Alternative due to more single-family units Recreation Alternative 2a is anticipated to generate approximately 300 single-family residential units, 228 multi-family units and 52 mixed-use residential units. Based on the 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, it is anticipated that each single-family unit would be occupied by approximately 2.5 residents, and that each of the 280 multi-family units would be occupied by approximately 2.24 residents. This would result in a total population of approximately 1,377 residents upon completion of the project, which is anticipated to occur over a period of approximately 10 years or longer as the housing market dictates. Based on the City’s comprehensive plan level-of- service target of 1.92-acres of park space per 1,000 residents, the project would create demand for approximately 2.64 acres of park space in the community. As noted in the site plan included on Figure 3-15 of this document, Alternative 2a incorporates approximately 30 acres of open space, including a 10-acre park which will fulfill the recreational demands of the new development. The Standard Subdivision Alternative is anticipated to create 543 single-family residential units, which would result in approximately 1,358 new residents at full buildout of the community. Based on the City’s comprehensive plan target of 1.92-acres of parks area per 1,000 residents, the Standard Subdivision Alternative would generate the need for approximately 2.61 acres of park area. The Standard Subdivision Alternative would generate need for park areas that Alternative 2a would not; the Standard Subdivision Alternative would result in greater impact than Alternative 2aa APPENDIX D: Standard Subdivision Alternative Environmental Review This page intentionally left blank. APPENDIX D – STANDARD SUBDIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ANALYSIS NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (GROUND AND SURFACE WATER) Under the Standard Subdivision Alternative, as with Alternative 2a, the widening of Thorpe Road to meet City road standards will result in an additional 15 feet of the main channel of Chester Creek to be bridged by the new roadway surface. As described for Alternative 2a, under the Standard Subdivision Alternative floodwater that enters the project site will be collected in a series of pipes and swales and will infiltrate into the Spokane Rathdrum Prairie aquifer via an engineered infiltration basin. No change in volumes of water that reach the aquifer via the project site are anticipated to change under the Standard Subdivision Alternative. As described for Alternative 2a, under the Standard Subdivision Alternative there would be no direct impact to the channel of Chester Creek from the widening of Thorpe Road. Under the Standard Subdivision Alternative there would be no impact to the Spokane Rathdrum Prairie aquifer. Water that currently recharges the aquifer would continue to recharge through permeable areas and through the infiltration pond installed at the northern limits of the site. Stormwater quality and quantity management methods consistent with those identified for Alternative 2a would be employed with be employed. Because on-site and regional development will be required to employ stormwater quality and quantity management measures consistent with the SRSM, no cumulative effects are anticipated. BUILT ENVIRONMENT (LAND USE AND FLOOD HAZARD AREAS) Under the Standard Subdivision Alternative, the approach to controlling and managing floodwaters, and meeting compensatory storage requirements will be the same as the approach proposed under Alternative 2a. Management and control of floodwaters will be achieved on-site through a combination of enhanced conveyance facilities (culverts) and infiltration galleries. Development areas where future roads and buildings will be located will be elevated above the 100-year floodplain through the placement of imported fill. As proposed under Alternative 2a, The Standard Subdivision Alternative proposes to modify existing floodplain areas through a CLOMR, the preliminary FEMA remap authorization before a LOMR is finalized. As described for Alternative 2a, the sources of floodwater under The Standard Subdivision Alternative remain unchanged. The potential for floodwater to enter the site from the unnamed tributary to Chester Creek northeast of the project site will be eliminated due to the placement of the existing Gustin Ditch into a pipe that connects directly to the triangle pond which would serve as a detention basin. Under the Standard Subdivision Alternative, as under Alternative 2a, floodwaters that leave the Chester Creek channel south of the site will no longer flow over Thorpe Road or inundate the southern portion of the project site. Under this alternative, unlike under Alternative 2a, the southern portion of the project site would be filled for residential lots and would not be available to receive floodwater because the park in this vicinity would be omitted from the design. As described for Alternative 2a, on-site and off-site flood conveyance and storage improvements completed under The Standard Subdivision Alternative would also remove off-site areas from the 100- year floodplain. The area east of Madison Road currently designated as 100-year floodplain would lose its floodplain designation and the potential for ponding in that area would be significantly reduced. Similarly, the potential for flooding on the property to the northeast of the project site from the unnamed tributary to Chester Creek near SR 27 due to replacement of the Gustin Ditch with a 36-inch pipe, and the deepening and addition of drywells to the bottom of the triangle pond. The 100-year floodplain designation would be removed from the currently designated floodplain between the northeast corner of the project site and SR 27, including the Gustin property. The changes in floodplain designation proposed under the Standard Subdivision Alternative would allow new development in areas, both on-site and off-site, that had been previously subject to development restrictions due to 100-year flood mapping. TRANSPORTATION The Standard Subdivision Alternative proposes the development of 543 residential lots and would not include any new commercial retail or multi-family uses within the project. The Alternative would, however, continue to include the operation of the former golf course clubhouse as a 4,000 SF restaurant. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition designation (Land Use Code #210) for single family residential units, an average of 9.52 vehicular trips per day and one PM peak hour trip per unit is assumed. Therefore, a total of 5,169 ADT and 543 PM peak hour trips are assumed to occur from the residential use under the Standard Subdivision Alternative. Because the 2016 TIA included trips estimated from re-use of the golf course clubhouse, those trips have also been added to the estimated trip generation of the standard subdivision to ensure that the baseline assumptions of traffic impacts of Alternatives 2a and 3 are consistent. As noted in Table 3-8 below, The Standard Subdivision Alternative generates approximately 317 fewer average daily trips, but generates approximately 28 more PM peak hour trips. This is due to the higher PM peak hour trip generation of the single-family residential units and the fact that no internalization trip reduction factor is applied with The Standard Subdivision Alternative because no commercial uses would be included. Table 1: ADT and PM Peak Hour Trip Comparison – Alternatives 2a and 3 Alternative ADT PM Peak Hour Trips Alternative 2a – PRD (inc. 4,000 GSF restaurant) 5,846 545 Standard Subdivision Alternative – Standard Subdivision (inc. 4,000 GSF restaurant) 5,529 573 *Trip counts include 360 ADT and 30 PM peak hour trips associated with the 4,000 square foot restaurant operating at the former golf clubhouse. Construction-related Impacts Like Alternative 2a, the Standard Subdivision Alternative would also require a substantial amount of fill material to bring development areas above the 100-year base flood elevation. The Standard Subdivision Alternative would require more fill than Alternative 2a, primarily due to the filling of the open space area located just north East Thorpe Road. The total required fill volume with The Standard Subdivision Alternative is approximately 574,122 CY. Using the same 15 percent shrink/swell factor applied to determine the amount of “loose” material that would need to be imported to the site under the Standard Subdivision Alternative, it is estimated that a total of approximately 660,240 CY of fill material would need to be imported under The Standard Subdivision Alternative. Based on an average dump truck volume of approximately 30 CY, it is estimated that 22,008 dump truck deliveries would be required to bring this fill material to the site. Assuming this material is delivered to the site over a four- year period, with 280 work days per year, it is assumed that approximately 20 truck deliveries would occur per day or approximately 40 truck trips (one trip to the site and one return trip) would occur per day over the duration of the site grading activities. The haul route for these dump trucks will be via Dishman-Mica Road, a Principal and Minor Arterial, that experiences a total ADT of approximately 22,700 trips near Appleway Avenue and 4,800 ADT near Thorpe Road. Therefore, the dump truck- related trips are estimated to represent less than one percent of the ADT of this facility. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL Air Quality Impacts to air quality under The Standard Subdivision Alternative will be similar to those described for Alternative 2a with the following exceptions:  The Standard Subdivision Alternative provides a greater number of single-family residences than Alternative 2a, with 543 total single-family residences compared to 300 single family residences in Alternative 2a. The additional single-family residences are more likely to be a source of fine particulates from wood burning stoves.  The Standard Subdivision Alternative does not incorporate 30% of the gross site area to public open space, therefore providing less area that can serve as a “carbon sink.”  Construction-related impacts to air quality will likely be greater with the Standard Subdivision Alternative due to the greater degree of imported fill material required. Aesthetics Under the Standard Subdivision Alternative, most of the field and open space areas on the site would be converted to urban development. As a standard subdivision, the project would not be subject to the 30 percent open space requirement found in SVMC Section 19.50.060, and therefore resulting open spaces would primarily be limited to the riparian buffer along Chester Creek, landscape areas and the flood basin located on the north side of the site. Cumulative Effects City and County development standards governing screening, setbacks, landscaping, light, glare, building height and other provisions are expected to adequately address the aesthetic effects of individual development projects. Therefore, no significant cumulative aesthetic effects are expected to result when considering the action alternatives in conjunction with other potential development in the project vicinity. Biological Resources Environmental Consequences Riparian buffer impacts would occur with the Standard Subdivision Alternative. The riparian buffer adjacent to the restaurant parking lot will be reduced by up to 25% (for a minimum buffer of 75-feet) in the location of a proposed parking lot expansion. This would result in an approximately 3,665 SF buffer reduction/impact. Like Alternative 2a, the Standard Subdivision Alternative also includes a 1,383 SF impact area resulting from the Thorpe Road expansion. These are the only two areas of permanent riparian buffer impacts under the Standard Subdivision Alternative and result in a total impact area of approximately 5,048 SF. The Standard Subdivision Alternative would also involve temporary riparian impacts resulting from the placement of fill material on the east side of the streambank to bring land areas farther to the east above the 100-year base flood elevation and suitable for residential development. The buffer in this area is currently planted non-native golf course turf grass and is almost totally devoid of woody vegetation. No permanent loss of buffer would occur in this area. Existing cart paths would be removed and new trails of approximately the same width would be constructed as a replacement and for community use. Fill material placed on the east stream bank will cover an approximately 104,132 SF of area. This area will be replanted with native grasses, trees and shrubs, representing a significant enhancement over existing conditions. Environmental Health Similar to Alternative 2a, the Standard Subdivision Alternative has the potential to generate environmental health effects from dust and construction equipment emissions and from construction noise. Geology As described for Alternative 2a, site grading activities associated with the Standard Subdivision Alternative will cover most of the site with imported fill. The property will be graded to create the streets, drainage ponds/swales, and areas future residences. The Standard Subdivision Alternative is expected to require 574,122 CY of fill material, which will require the import of approximately 660,240 CY of “loose” fill material prior to compaction on the site. Approximately 25% of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces after completion of the project. As described for Alternative 2a, due to the placement of fill and site development features under the Standard Subdivision Alternative the opportunity for surface water and precipitation to recharge the underlying aquifer will be limited to the proposed infiltration basin, roadside swales, and dry wells. Some erosion from wind and minor erosion from rain could occur on-site during construction elements. Because of the flatness of the site, the potential for surface water erosion is limited and would be localized to the area of work. Historic, Cultural, and Archaeological Resources Areas of site disturbance for the Standard Subdivision Alternative would occur within the same site limits as those evaluated in the cultural resources survey. As a consequence, no impacts to Native American or historic-era cultural materials are expected to result from the Standard Subdivision Alternative. However, site construction activities will occur under the guidance of an IDP as outlined in Appendix A of the Cultural Resources Survey to ensure that any potential inadvertent discovery is promptly addressed. Noise The Standard Subdivision Alternative noise levels will increase beyond current noise levels both during the construction phase and indefinitely once the project construction is completed. During the construction phase noise from construction, land clearing, and fill delivery and placement equipment as well as structure construction will increase for the short term. Following completion of construction, noise will be generated by residential traffic and other residential sources including yard maintenance equipment, domestic pets, occupants, and park use for the long term. The increase in population under the Standard Subdivision Alternative would likely lead to noise levels that are higher than current levels. It is unlikely that the increase would be measurable, but it may be perceived by residents in terms of the frequency to which they experience noise disturbance. Public Services The Standard Subdivision Alternative is anticipated to create 543 single-family residential units, which would result in approximately 1,358 new residents at full buildout of the community. This alternative would not include any new commercial uses and no change would occur at the clubhouse building, which is assumed to continue to operate as a restaurant. As the use of the clubhouse would not change, the use of the clubhouse is not expected to have a change in impact on public services. The following paragraphs summarize the anticipated effects of the Standard Subdivision Alternative on schools, parks, fire, public safety, water and sanitary sewer services. Schools Based on the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimate data, approximately 15.2% of Spokane Valley’s population is between the ages of 5 and 17 years old. Extrapolating this number to the Standard Subdivision Alternative, an estimated 206 students would reside within the project upon the completion of the Standard Subdivision Alternative. While the precise cohort of elementary school, middle school and high school students is not known, if general student population were proportionately distributed to the number of grades in elementary (six grades), middle school (three grades), and high school (four grades), it is assumed that the development of the Standard Subdivision Alternative would result in the following increases in student population:  Elementary School – Approximately 9.5 new students per year or 95 total students over the approximately 10-year buildout of the project.  Middle School – Approximately 4.7 new students per year or 47 total students over the approximately 10-year buildout of the project.  High School - Approximately 6.4 new students per year or 64 total students over the approximately 10-year buildout of the project. Fire Because the demands for fire service would be similar to Alternative 2a and the fire district has provided specific development and design requirements for that alternative, there are no anticipated challenges with obtaining fire district service for the Standard Subdivision Alternative. Public Safety It is expected that additional service calls will occur from future residences and businesses within the site, but these uses are not anticipated to create a significant increased demand for public safety services. Per communications with City of Spokane Valley staff, the level of additional activity created under the Standard Subdivision Alternative would not generate a significant impact to public safety services.1 The City regularly reviews large development proposals and, in instances where a significant new user, such as a big-box retail project, creates enough demand to warrant special adjustments in service, the City will make those adjustments to its service contract with Spokane County. However, similar to Alternative 2a, the gradual increase in population resulting from the Standard Subdivision Alternative can be commensurately addressed through regular level-of-service adjustments occurring through the City’s periodic review and adjustment of its public safety contract with the County. Water Due to the fact that the Standard Subdivision Alternative would have a water demand that is very similar to Alternative 2a and Spokane County Water District #3 has acknowledged their ability to serve the project, there are no anticipated impacts or unique challenges to provide water to the site under the Standard Subdivision Alternative. Sanitary Sewer Because the water demand under the Standard Subdivision Alternative would be similar to Alternative 2a and Spokane County Environmental Services has acknowledged their ability to serve Alterative 2, there are no anticipated impacts or unique challenges to provide sewer service under the Standard Subdivision Alternative. Cumulative Effects There are no known cumulative effects from other on-going projects or activities that, when considered in conjunction with the action alternatives, could result in any discernible effects on public services. Recreation Environmental Consequences The Standard Subdivision Alternative is anticipated to create 543 single-family residential units, which would result in approximately 1,358 new residents at full buildout of the community. Based on the City’s comprehensive plan target of 1.92-acres of parks area per 1,000 residents, the Standard Alternative would generate the need for approximately 2.61 acres of park area. Cumulative Effects The City conducts periodic reviews of its parks and recreation needs for the broader community and last updated its Parks and Recreation Master Plan in 2013. Through regular review and update of the community plan, the City anticipates and plans for necessary recreational needs throughout the community. Therefore, any cumulative effects of population growth within the broader community have been considered and integrated with the City’s parks and recreation system planning efforts. 1 Pers comms with Morgan Koudelka, City of Spokane Valley, January 14, 2019. APPENDIX E: Flood Conveyance System Element Failure Risk and Impact Summary This page intentionally left blank. Appendix E – Flood Management System Elements Failure Risk and Impact Summary Appendix E - 1 Item System Element Description Potential Point of Failure Potential Failure Impacts Mitigation #1A Headwall and Trash Rack at the inlets of the two 48” pipes that collect floodwater at the south end of the site adjacent to Thorpe Road. (See Figure 3-9 for location) Seepage of water around headwall structures Soils surrounding the headwall structure could erode and undermine the stability of the structure As a result of an unlikely extreme flood event that overpowers the headwall designed to limit inflow, the pipes could fail, or due to excessive volumes beyond the pipes’ capacity floodwater could flow around or over the top of the pipe, resulting in an uncontrolled release of floodwaters at the south end of the site and south of Thorpe Road. Adherence to maintenance requirements of the O&M manual, including annual maintenance report to City; maintaining perpetual maintenance bond for system. Pipe openings clogged by debris during a flood event Floodwaters could back up south of Thorpe Road,flood adjacent and downstream property and/or undermine the roadway. Trash racks will be installed to prevent debris from entering and clogging pipes. #1B Two 48-inch pipes that convey overflows from Chester Creek (See Figure 3-9 for location) Pipe openings clogged by debris during a flood event Floodwater could flow around or over the top of the pipe, resulting in an uncontrolled release of floodwaters potentially causing property damage. Trash racks will be installed to prevent debris from entering and clogging pipes. Pipes damaged by aboveground forces (crushed by weight of heavy equipment or structures placed on top of them). Broken pipes could result is an uncontrolled release of floodwater, potentially causing property damage. Pipes will be located within an easement west of Madison Road where additional structure construction would be prohibited. Debris is intentionally dumped into pipes by vandals.Due to a blocked pipe floodwater could flow around or over the top of the pipe, resulting in floodwaters collecting at the south end of the site and flood adjacent and downstream property. Manholes would have locking lids that would prevent intentional dumping of debris. Pipes damaged due to excessive flow volumes Excessive volumes beyond the pipes’ capacity floodwater could flow around or over the top of the pipe, resulting in floodwaters collecting at the south end of the site and flood adjacent and downstream property Failure potential is mitigated through system design. Pipe capacity (154 cfs) is 1.5 times larger than the capacity needed to convey the design storm(106 cfs), making it unlikely that floodwaters would damage the pipes. #2 Pipe that captures flows from un- named tributary to east of project and direct them to the Triangle Pond. (See Figure 3-9 for location) Pipe openings clogged by debris during a flood event Excessive volumes beyond the pipes’ capacity could result in floodwaters collecting east of Highway 27. Vegetation in and near the ditch that enters the pipe is non- woody and would not contribute a measurable amount of debris to the ditch. Pipes west of Highway 27 damaged by aboveground forces (crushed by weight of heavy equipment or structures placed on top of them). Floodwaters escape from broken pipes, resulting in an uncontrolled release of floodwaters water would flow along the current FEMA floodplain to the south and would bypass the infiltration facility (Triangle Pond) and could eventually reach Painted Hills. Pipes are located within an easement where additional structure construction would be prohibited. Debris is intentionally dumped into pipes by vandals. Due to a blocked pipe floodwater could overtop the right channel bank and flood areas to the east of 27, potentially causing property damage. Manholes would have locking lids that would prevent intentional dumping of debris. Pipes damaged due to excessive flow volumes Due to excessive volumes beyond the pipes’ capacity,floodwater could overtop the right channel bank and flood areas to the east of 27, potentially causing property damage. Pipe capacity 3 times larger than 100-year design (47.16 cfs/16 cfs), minimizing the potential for pipes to be damaged due to excessive flows. #3 Off-site infiltration pond (Triangle Pond) and drywells (See Figure 3-9 for location) Fine sediment builds up on the pond bottom reducing permeability and limiting infiltration, causing water to collect and remain in the pond. The drywells become clogged with fine sediment, limiting permeability and infiltration capacity, causing water to collect and remain in the pond. The pond is unable to drain, the pond overflows and floodwaters flow downstream along the current floodplain, possibly reaching Painted Hills, potentially causing property damage. Routine maintenance will include periodic removal of collected sediment using a vactor truck. Appendix E – Flood Management System Elements Failure Risk and Impact Summary Appendix E - 2 Item System Element Description Potential Point of Failure Potential Failure Impacts Mitigation #4a Dry wells (See Figure 3-9 for location) The drywells become clogged with fine sediment, limiting permeability and infiltration capacity, causing water to collect and remain in the pond, or to overtop under extreme circumstances if infiltration were significantly reduced. The pond is unable to drain and floodwaters inundate portions of the PRD site, potentially causing property damage. Floodwaters could potentially overtop the infiltration facility and flood adjacent off-site properties and properties to the east of Madison. Routine maintenance will include periodic removal of collected sediment using a vactor truck. #4b Infiltration Pond (See Figure 3-9 for location) Fine sediment builds up on the pond bottom reducing permeability and limiting infiltration, causing water to collect and remain in the pond. The pond is unable to drain and floodwaters inundate portions of the PRD site, potentially causing property damage. Floodwaters could potentially overtop the infiltration facility and flood adjacent off-site properties and properties to the east of Madison. Routine maintenance will include periodic removal of collected sediment using a vactor truck. #4c Settling Pond (See Figure 3-9 for location) Excessive amounts of fine sediment collect in the pond, reducing holding capacity of the pond. Pond is not effective at settling out sediment due to lack of capacity and sediment enters the infiltration pond, leading to ineffective functioning of infiltration pond. Under extreme circumstances this could potentially lead to the pond overflowing and floodwaters inundating portions of the PRD site and adjacent off-site properties, potentially causing property damage. Routine maintenance will include periodic removal of collected sediment using a vactor truck. #4d Bioswale (See Figure 3-9 for location) The bioswale vegetation intended to filter water fails.Swale is not effective at filtering out sediment and excess sediment enters the settling pond and possibly the infiltration pond, leading to ineffective functioning of infiltration pond. Under extreme circumstances this could potentially lead to the pond overflowing and floodwaters inundating portions of the PRD site and adjacent off-site properties, potentially causing property damage. Routine maintenance will include inspection of bioswale vegetation and replacement of the vegetation if it dies or shows evidence of ineffectively filtering sediments. Figure 3-9Painted Hills Flood ManagementSystem Element LocationPainted Hills Residential Development DEIS Source: GIS data provided by Spokane County and USGS, NOAA, ESRI, and NPS. APPENDIX F: Traffic Impact Analysis (Under a Separate Cover) This page intentionally left blank. APPENDIX G: Truck Haul Memorandum This page intentionally left blank. APPENDIX H: Biological Evaluation(Painted Hills PRD & Off-Site) This page intentionally left blank. APPENDIX I: Cultural Resources Survey – Painted Hill This page intentionally left blank. CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET Author: Adam J. Sackman and David A. Harder Title of Report: Cultural Resource Survey of the Painted Hills Residential Development Project Date of Report: April 2, 2018 County: Spokane Section: 04 Township: 24 North Range: 44 East Section: 33 and 34 Township: 25 North Range: 44 East Quad: Freeman Acres: 100 PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) Yes Historic Property Inventory Forms to be Approved Online? Yes No Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? Yes No TCP(s) found? Yes No Replace a draft? Yes No Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? Yes # No DAHP Archaeological Site #:  Submission of PDFs is required.  Please be sure that any PDF submitted to DAHP has its cover sheet, figures, graphics, appendices, attachments, correspondence, etc., compiled into one single PDF file.  Please check that the PDF displays correctly when opened. Cultural Resource Survey of the Painted Hills Residential Development Project, Spokane Valley, Washington By: Adam J. Sackman and David A. Harder April 2018 Cultural Resource Survey of the Painted Hills Residential Development Project, Spokane Valley, Washington Prepared for: Black Realty, Inc. 107 South Howard Street, Suite 500 Spokane, Washington 99201 By: Adam J. Sackman and David A. Harder April 2018 Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 i ABSTRACT Cultural Resource Survey of the Painted Hills Residential Development Project Black Realty, Inc., Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc., and Northwest Renovators, Inc. are making preparations to move forward with plans to construct 300 single family homes, 280 multifamily units, a neighborhood commercial center, and open space at the Painted Hills Residential Development. The area of potential effect (APE) covers 100.0acres and lies in Section 04 of Township 24 North, Range 44 East; and Sections 33 and 34 of Township 25 North, Range 44 East of the Willamette Meridian. During permitting, the City of Spokane Valley received comments from Randy Abrahamson, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer of the Spokane Tribe of Indians, requesting a cultural resource survey and an Inadvertent Discovery Plan. Based on these requests, a cultural resource survey is required for State Environmental Policy Act compliance and to consider the potential impacts to historic properties prior to project execution. To that end, Black Realty, WCE, and NWR have retained Plateau Archaeological Investigations LLC (Plateau) to conduct the cultural resource survey of the proposed undertaking. Pre‐field research included the review of known archaeological resources within a 1.0‐mile radius of the APE, as inventoried at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). This review was completed using DAHP’s secure electronic database known as the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Data (WISAARD). This database includes recorded archaeological resources, historic property inventories (HPIs), National Register of Historic Properties (NRHP) and Washington Heritage Register (WHR) properties, identified cemeteries, and previously conducted cultural resource surveys found throughout the state. The DAHP’s predictive model places the APE in areas of “High Risk” and “Very High Risk” for encountering cultural resources, stating that “survey [is] highly advised” for this location. The fieldwork was completed in a manner consistent with RCW 27.53.030, and included inspection techniques to identify both surface and subsurface archaeological resources. Plateau archaeologists conducted an intensive pedestrian survey over the entire APE and excavated 31 subsurface probes. The pedestrian survey and subsurface investigations for the project resulted in no newly recorded archaeological resources. Plateau recommends that the proposed undertaking will result in No Historic Properties Affected, and no further archaeological investigations are recommended prior to, or during, execution of this project. Given concerns voiced by the Spokane Tribe of Indians during the permitting process, Plateau recommends all ground disturbing activities be conducted under the guidance of the attached Inadvertent Discover Plan. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 ii KEY INFORMATION PROJECT Painted Hills Residential Development, Spokane Valley, Washington LOCATION East of Dishman Mica Road, north of Thorpe Road, and west of Madison Road DAHP PROJECT NUMBER 2016‐10‐07132 USGS QUADS Freeman, Washington 7.5 minute, 1973 LEGAL LOCATION OF PROJECT Section 04 of T24N, R44E; and Sections 33 and 34 of T25N, R44E ACREAGE 100 acres PROJECT DATA No previously recorded historic properties No new cultural resources located and/or recorded AUTHORS Adam J. Sackman and David A. Harder MANAGING AGENCY Spokane County PROJECT UNDERTAKEN AND REPORT PREPARED FOR Black Realty, Inc. FIELD NOTE DISPOSITION Archived at the office of Plateau Archaeological Investigations LLC, Pullman. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR David A. Harder, M.A. DATE April 2, 2018 CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS I certify that this investigation was conducted and documented according to Secretary of Interiorʹs Standards and Guidelines and that the report is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Reporter April 2, 2018 Date Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS page ABSTRACT ......................................................................ii KEY INFORMATION............................................................. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................... iv LIST OF FIGURES................................................................ iv LIST OF TABLES ................................................................. iv PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..........................................................1 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES .....................................................1 LOCATION AND GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...........................1 REGIONAL PRECONTACT BACKGROUND.........................................6 REGIONAL HISTORIC BACKGROUND .............................................8 Spokane Valley............................................................12 Project Area...............................................................12 PLACES OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE...........................................13 PRE‐FIELD RESEARCH...........................................................14 Previous Archaeological Research............................................15 EXPECTED PROPERTIES .........................................................15 FIELD METHODS AND RESULTS .................................................16 RECOMMENDATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN ...............................21 WORKS CITED ..................................................................22 APPENDIX A: INADVERTENT DISCOVERY PLAN (IDP) ............................27 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the Project Area within Spokane Valley ...........................2 Figure 2. The Project Area shown on a portion of the Freeman USGS map ................3 Figure 3. The Project Area and field investigation on an aerial photograph...............17 Figure 4. Overview of the Project Area..............................................18 Figure 5. The Craft & Gather Café located in the southwest portion of the Project Area ....18 Figure 6. The tree stand located in the western portion of the Project Area ...............19 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Subsurface Probe Results ..................................................20 Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 iv PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Black Realty, Inc. (Black Realty), Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. (WCE), and Northwest Renovators, Inc. (NWR) are proceeding with plans for the development of Painted Hills Residential Development—a 100.0‐acre site into 300 single family homes, 280 multifamily units, a neighborhood commercial center, and open space. The area of potential effect, (APE) is located east of, and adjacent to S. Dishman Mica Road, north of and adjacent to E. Thorpe Road, and west of and adjacent to S. Madison Road in Spokane Valley (Figure 1). Anticipated impacts include excavations, compaction of sediments, and other ground‐disturbing construction activities. The APE is situated within Section 04 of Township 24 North, Range 44 East; and Sections 33 and 34 of Township 25 North, Range 44 East of the Willamette Meridian (Figure 2). The APE will be hereafter referred to as the ʺProject Area.ʺ During permitting, the City of Spokane Valley received comments from Randy Abrahamson, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer of the Spokane Tribe of Indians, requesting a cultural resource survey and an Inadvertent Discovery Plan. Based on these requests, a cultural resource survey is required for State Environmental Policy Act compliance and to consider the potential impacts to historic properties prior to project execution. To that end, Black Realty, WCE, and NWR have retained Plateau Archaeological Investigations LLC (Plateau) to conduct the cultural resource survey of the proposed undertaking. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The cultural resource survey of the Painted Hills Residential Development project is intended to identify potential archaeological resources and potential historic properties in the Project Area prior to the proposed construction. The pre‐field research was designed to identify any known cultural properties located in or near the Project Area. Fieldwork procedures are intended to identify areas of moderate to high probability for Native American and European American cultural materials. This report describes the pre‐field research, field efforts, results, and management plan for the project. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Project Area is within the Columbia Basin, situated between the Rocky Mountain and Cascade Mountain ranges. The region consists of large open plains and gently rolling hills amidst the Channeled Scablands, which are features that resulted from Pleistocene‐era mega‐floods ranging in size from small stream‐like trenches to large coulees measuring miles wide and hundreds of feet deep. Elevations in this region range between 200 feet (ft) (61 meters [m]) above mean sea level (AMSL) near the Columbia River to over 4,500 ft (1,372 m) AMSL in outlying ridges and low mountains (Fenneman 1946; Hunt 1967). Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 1 Figure 1. The project location within Spokane Valley. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 2 Figure 2. The Project Area on a portion of the Freeman USGS map. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 3 According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (2018), the Project Area contains a five soil types: Narcisse silt loam (72.3%), Endoaquolls and Fluvaquents (9.4%), Ubran land‐ Opportunity disturbed coplex (7.5%), Phoebe ashy sandy loam (6.7%), and Hardesty ashy silt loam (4.1%). The soils are primarily alluvially derived and typical of drainageways and flood plains. Narcisse silt loam is found throughout the center of the Project Area, and represents the predominant soil type within the Project Area. It is an alluvium mixed with loess and ash, found within drainageways. It is stratigraphically characterized as silt loam (0‐14 inches [in] [0‐35.6 centimeters [cm]), atop loam (14‐25 in [35.6‐63.5 cm]), over very fine sandy loam (25‐34 in [63.5‐86.4 cm]). Endoaquolls and Fluvaquents is a mixed alluvium matrix, found in drainageways, stream terraces, and flood plains. It is located along the western extreme of the Project Area. It is a mixed alluvium found on flood plains, drainageways, and stream terraces. It is stratigraphically characterized as loam (0‐11 in [0‐ 27.9 cm] over sandy and fine sandy loam (11‐60 in [27.9‐152.4 cm]). Phoebe ashy sandy loam is found in the eastern extreme of the Project Area. It is a sandy glaciofluvial deposit, with minor amounts of volcanic ash and loess, typically found in outwash plains. It is stratigraphically characterized as ashy sandy loam to an average depth of 16 in (40.6 cm), over varying quantities of sand and loam (16‐44 in [40.6‐111.8 cm]). Urban land‐Opportunity, disturbed complex is characterized by sandy and gravelly glaciofluvial deposits with a minor amount of volcanic ash and loess in the upper part, and is found on outwash plains. This soil profile is typified by very gravelly ashy loam (0‐7 in (0‐17.8 cm) over extremely gravely ashy loam (7‐13 in) atop a layer of extremely gravelly loam (19‐43 in). Hardesty ashy silt loam is located in the northeastern portion of the project area. It is an alluvially derived, volcanic ash material, found in depressions, drainageways, and stream terraces. It is stratigraphically characterized as ashy silt loam, to an average depth of 32 in (81.3 cm), over ashy very fine sandy loam (32‐39 in [81.3‐99.1 cm]), atop ashy loamy very fine sand (39‐60 in [99.1‐152.4 cm]). The predominant draw for Native American and Euroamerican populations in this region was, and still is, the extensive river systems. The most significant environmental feature is the Columbia River, which flows for more than 1,200 miles (mi) (2,000 kilometers [km]) from the base of the Canadian Rockies in southeastern British Columbia to the Pacific Ocean at Astoria, Oregon. Ten major tributaries—the Cowlitz, Deschutes, Kootenay, Lewis, Okanogan, Spokane, Snake, Wenatchee, Willamette, and Yakima—complete the drainage system. The Project Area lies4.0 mi (6.9 km) south of the Spokane River and 54.0 mi (86.9 km) east‐southeast of the confluence of the Columbia and Spokane rivers. Liberty Lake is located approximately 7.3 mi (11.8 km) east‐ northeast of the Project Area. Several small and seasonal waterways also run near the Project Area, including Chester Creek, which runs through the southwest quadrant of the Project Area. The vegetation around the Project Area falls within the Artemisia tridentata—Agropyron spicatum habitat type, characterized by arid sagebrush steppe (Daubenmire 1970; Taylor 1992). Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) and bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum) are dominant in this environment. The plant community includes threetip sagebrush (Artemisia tripartita), gray horsebrush (Tetradymia canescens), spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa), green rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 4 viscidiflorus), and gray rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus). Grasses and forbs include needle and thread (Stipa comata), Stipa thurberana (no common name known), bottlebrush squirreltail (Sitanion hystrix), Cusick’s bluegrass (Poa cusikii), Indian paintbrush (Castilleja spp.), lupine (Lupinus spp.), plantain (Plantago patagonica), longleaf phlox (Phlox longifolia) and balsamroot (Balsamorhiza sagittata). Additional species of flora thrive along the shores of the Columbia River, including bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), willow (Salix spp.) and currant (Ribes spp.) (Daubenmire 1970). Many of these plants have been incorporated in Native American use as medicinal plants, food sources, and other employment. The Project Area lies within a region that historically contained an abundance of life. It is likely, though, that Native Americans had access to an even larger variety of creatures during the past that played a role in aboriginal use, settlement, and travel patterns in relation to the Project Area. Mammals include sagebrush voles (Lemmiscus curtatus), Great Basin pocket mice (Perognathus parvus), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), bushy‐tailed wood rat (Neotoma cinerea), Washington ground squirrel (Spermophilus washingtoni), northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides), yellow bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris), white‐tailed hare (Lepus townsendii), Nuttal cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttallii), porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), beaver (Castor canadensis), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethica) mountain sheep (Ovis canadensis), coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), badger (Taxidea taxus), and long‐tailed weasel (Mustela frenata). The occasional bison (bison bison) is also thought to be available prehistorically (Burt and Grossenheider 1961; Ingles 1965; Schroedl 1973). Many types of fowl were also available in the past including Swarth blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus pallidus), Columbian ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus affinis), Columbian sharp‐tailed grouse (Pedioecetes phasianellus), western sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus phaios), mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos platyrhynchos), western harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus pacificus), American common merganser (Mergus merganser americanus), the lesser snow goose (Chen hyperborea hyperborea), and the Great Basin Canada goose (Branta canadensis moffitti). Seasonally available birds such as Gadwall (Anas strepera), wood duck (Aix sponsa), redhead (Aythya americana), and the northern ruddy duck (Oxjura jamaicensis rubida) resided in the region in the summer. Winter game birds of the region included canvasback (Aythya valisineria) and American greater scaup (Aythya marila nearctica) (Lothson 1977). The climate in the Columbia Basin was cool and moist at the end of the last glacial period. Gradually, climatic conditions became markedly warmer and dryer by approximately 9,000 years before present (B.P.). The warm dry climatic trend reached its maximum around 6,500 B.P. and then conditions reverted to a cooler and moister regime (Fryxell and Daugherty 1962). Comparatively, the present climate is arid with mild moist winters and hot dry summers (Meining 1968). The mean seasonal temperatures recorded at the Spokane WSO Airport weather station (#457938) between 1889 and 2012 are 29.6E Fahrenheit (F) in winter and 66.9E F in the summer. Extreme temperatures of ‐25E F and 108E F have been recorded at the same station. Yearly precipitation averages 16.3 inches (Western Regional Climate Center 2018). Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 5 REGIONAL PRECONTACT BACKGROUND The Project Area is included in the Plateau culture area, which corresponds roughly to the geographic region drained by the Fraser, Columbia, and Snake rivers. The Plateau culture area is bordered on the west by the Cascade Mountains and on the east by the Rocky Mountains. The northern border of the culture area is in Canada where it gives way to Arctic culture patterns. The southern border of the Plateau culture area mixes gradually with the Great Basin culture area (Walker and Sprague 1998:1‐3). A cultural chronology provides a time line describing the adaptation, material culture, subsistence, and sometimes settlement patterns of the people who inhabit a specific area. A cultural chronology for the Upper Columbia River region was developed by Goodale et al. (2004) which identifies four distinct cultural phases: the Upper Columbia Forager Period (6,200 to 4,200 B.P.), the Upper Columbia Collector I Period (3,799 to 2,000 B.P.), the Upper Columbia Collector II Period (1,999 to 600 B.P.), and the Upper Columbia Collector III Period (599 to 100 B.P.). The culture chronology of the Upper Columbia has been discussed at length in Goodale, Prentiss, and Kuijt (2004), and, if pertinent, will be discussed further within the results of this report. Ethnography The Project Area falls within lands traditionally occupied by the Upper Spokane and Coeur d’Alene Indians, both Interior Salishan groups of Native Americans, a language shared with neighboring Kalispel, Pend d’Oreille, and Flathead groups (Ross 1998). Three bands of Spokane lived in eastern Washington—Lower Spokane, with a principal settlement near Little Falls; Middle Spokane, occupying Hangman or Latah Creek; and Upper Spokane, who lived along the Little Spokane River and upriver from the junction of Hangman Creek. Ross (1998:271) notes that the Middle and Upper Spokane considered themselves “all one people.” Traditional Coeur d’Alene territory extended over the drainage and headwaters of the Spokane River (Palmer 1998). Prior to Euroamerican settlement into the area, the Coeur d’Alene were subdivided into three divisions—the Spokane River‐Coeur d’Alene Lake division, the Coeur d’Alene River division, and the Saint Joe River division. Villages and food procurement followed the seasons. Winter habitation sites were occupied during the coldest months of the year. People probably settled in for the winter in mid‐ or late‐October. During the next four or five months they relied upon stored foods and any game that could be taken. In early spring, winter supplies began to dwindle and people began making forays to gather emergent root crops (Nelson 1973). Spring, summer, and fall hunting and gathering took place at areas away from the winter villages as did berry collecting, root gathering, and processing. Task groups often went to specific areas to hunt, to quarry toolstone, to collect berries, or to gather other resources such as tules to make mats (Aikens 1993:90). Salmon runs took place at predictable times of the year and provided a valuable resource for immediate use and to store for winter provisions (Schalk 1977). By the end of summer, reserves of dried salmon and prepared roots were stocked for winter. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 6 Ethnographically, the Spokane lived in three types of settlements: permanent winter villages, temporary summer and fall villages, and summer camps for hunting, plant gathering, and mineral and lithic exploitation (Ross 1998:272). Winter villages, located along the Spokane River, included hunting grounds, resource areas, burial grounds, and sacred sites. Conical semi‐subterranean pit houses were constructed for winter villages using poles covered with layers of tule mats or a permanent double‐apsidal lodge with inverted V pole construction with tule mats. Summer fishing villages supported relatively large polyglot populations that came together to fish, trade, and entertain. Temporary villages were comprised of many families and located in seasonal resource areas. Smaller temporary tule mat structures were used in summer villages and camps (Ross 1998). The Coeur d’Alene also had different house constructions for the different seasons. Unlike the Spokane, they did not make use of the semisubterranean pit houses (Palmer 1998). Instead, a conical family house was used in the winter and summer gatherings. A communal single or double lean‐to lodge was used for gatherings and training quarters for young men. For the Spokane, fishing commenced in May at several major fisheries along the Spokane River (Ross 1998). Set nets, traps, leisters, harpoons, hooks, gaffs, and dip nets were used. In sections of narrow streams, crushed granite was used to line stream beds to afford better visibility. The Coeur d’Alene were skilled fishermen, using angling, gaffing, spearing, and netting techniques to catch trout, whitefish, and salmon (Palmer 1998:316). Traps, including screens, cylindrical traps, trap doors, large salmon traps, and weirs were also employed. While many fishing stations were near Lake Coeur d’Alene, along the Saint Joe River, and on Hangman Creek, the Coeur d’Alene would travel to Spokane Falls and parts of Spokane River for salmon. Others bought dried salmon from the Spokane. Sprague (2005:41) notes that the Coeur d’Alene had the greatest variety of water craft of any Plateau group. Ethnographic accounts recognized several types of bark‐covered canoes, including the flat keel sturgeon nose, curved keel sturgeon nose, and the Kalispel variant of the sturgeon‐ nose; the Kutenai “Eastern” type elk hide canoe; dugout canoe; tule rafts; and bull boats. Water craft were used for basic transportation, fishing, and hunting. Canoes were used as a base of operation when collecting the water potato (Sagittaria latifolia), which grows in soft mud underwater. Canoes were used in fun pastimes, such as canoe racing and tipping, which in turn strengthened “canoe fighting” (warfare) skills (Sprague 2005:52). Emphasizing the importance of the canoe in the Coeur d’Alene lifeway is its use in death, pounded on to announce a death, much like a church bell; fragments of canoes were used as burial markers; and the canoe makes an appearance in mythology, most notable is the star constellation called “the canoe“ (Sprague 2005:53); and religion. In the winter, the Spokane used snowshoes, toboggan, and frozen animal hides to transport heavy loads. The introduction of the horse in the mid‐eighteenth century greatly increased their mobility and changed their socioeconomic patterns. Now they were able to travel greater distances and carry heavier loads, as well as having contact with remote Native American cultures. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 7 REGIONAL HISTORIC BACKGROUND Contact with peoples on the west coast of the continent was well established by the end of the eighteenth century by British, Spanish, and Russian trading vessels that made regular visits to the coastline. These trading expeditions began the first contact between aboriginal groups and outside cultures. Written historic accounts of the area, though, really begin when Lewis and Clark journeyed through the region in 1805. In 1809, Oregon Territory saw an influx of trappers and fur traders, beginning with the Canadian owned North West Company as they made their way into the region and built Spokane House in 1810, located near the confluence of the Spokane River and Hangman Creek. Spokane House became the first permanent European settlement in the State of Washington (McCart and McCart 2000:213). For a time, Spokane House thrived as both a trading center and a gathering place for fur traders. Despite its successes, Spokane House was abandoned in 1816. By that time, trading routes had shifted largely to the Columbia River, leaving the Spokane house no longer logistically or economically important (Meinig 1968). In 1825, the Hudson Bay Company closed Spokane House and moved its local operations north to Fort Colvile at Kettle Falls. Subsequent to the opening of the Oregon Trail in 1840, Euroamerican settlers flooded the area, bringing trade, religion, and disease into Native‐occupied areas. In 1846, the United States took control of the Oregon territory in the Oregon Treaty. With increasing population, economic, and political pressures of emigrants and the Whitman massacre, the Territory of Oregon (Oregon Territory) was officially established in 1848. By 1850, nearly 12,000 emigrants had passed through the Plateau region along the Oregon Trail (Beckham 1998; Walker and Sprague 1998). With the establishment of the Oregon Territory in 1848 and Washington Territory in 1853, federal involvement proliferated. Treaties between Native tribes and the new state and federal governments were soon underway. Washington Governor Isaac Stevens, also appointed as Superintendent of Indian Affairs by President Pierce, worked jointly with Joel Palmer, Superintendent of Indian Affairs in Oregon, to negotiate a series of treaties between 1854 and 1855. These treaties were difficult to maintain in light of the Chinook jargon used in negotiations, rapid influx of miners following the several “rushes,” and settlers who were eager for property. Almost immediately after signing the Walla Walla Council Treaty of 1855, gold was discovered on several promised reservations in the Plateau, and miners began to confiscate the mineral‐rich lands. The introduction of disease, treaty violations, and other stresses introduced by the new settlers caused mistrust and eventually, warfare. Several battles took place in the area between 1855 and 1858 during the Plateau Indian War. Between 1853 and 1854 Lieutenant Mullan, who volunteered for the Northern Survey under Washington’s Governor Isaac I. Stevens, passed through the Scabland area surveying land for an ideal military road. Mullan was aided by Indian guides in the exploration of over 3,000 square mi (5,000 square km)—from the headwaters of the Missouri River, through the Rocky and Bitterroot Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 8 mountains, and into southern Washington state (Mullan 1909:12a‐14a). The 6,000 mi (10,000 km) oceanic ride around Cape Horn to the Pacific Ocean and the 2,000 mi (3,335 km) wagon route from the Midwest to Oregon state were secondary options over the newly proposed wagon and rail route. With the aide of the War Department’s Corps of Topographical Engineers and Office of Exploration and Surveys, and the Interior Department’s Pacific Wagon Road Office, funding of road construction began. With the establishment of the Oregon Territory, federal involvement proliferated. Treaties between Indian tribes and the new state and federal governments were soon underway, but were difficult to maintain in light of the rapid influx of miners following the several “rushes” and settlers who were eager for property. The introduction of disease and other stresses introduced by the new settlers caused mistrust and, eventually, warfare. Several battles took place in the Oregon Territory between 1855 and 1858. During this period of unrest, efforts were made to limit the incursion of emigrants and others into Indian territories. Prohibition of settlement was strictly maintained, and General Wool pointed out “the army cannot furnish guards to farm houses dotted among hostile tribes” (Meinig 1968:165). The settlement prohibition was only a temporary solution to an inevitability. People settled and volunteer militias attacked indiscriminately and fueled the fire under uncertain relations. The unrest continued to culminate, leading to several battles throughout the region. The Steptoe Battlefield Site, located in Rosalia (approximately 45 mi [75 km]) southeast of the Project Area, and 3.0 mi (4.8 km) south of Steptoe Butte. Many historical accounts have been published telling various views of the event including those of Lieutenant John Mullan and Lieutenant Colonel Steptoe (United States War Department [USWD] 1859), Edith Erickson (1985), and James Estes (1974). On May 8, 1858 Colonel Steptoe departed from Fort Walla Walla with the intention of going to Fort Colville. When the party reached the Palouse River, they were warned by members of the Spokane Tribe that they were not welcome and that any attempt to pass through the Spokane country would be resisted. On May 15, his command camped near present‐day Rosalia, and reached present‐day Four Lakes the following day. It was noted that the Indians were congregating in ever larger numbers and word was sent to Steptoe that the party must not advance further or the company would be attacked. Steptoe began the return journey toward Walla Walla early on the morning of May 17. As daylight broke, it became apparent that greater than 1,000 Spokane, Coeur d’Alene, Palouse, and Yakima warriors were surrounding the soldiers. Steptoe’s party continued to move south, but as it strung out, harassment by the Indians increased. The mayhem turned to a moving fire fight that was sometimes reduced to hand to hand combat with the flank of the company taking the brunt of the punishment. Before noon, the first soldier was killed and at about noon the first officer, Lieutenant Gaston, was killed. Within a half hour, Captain Taylor was mortally wounded. Soon thereafter, Steptoe and his command took control Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 9 of the hilltop on which the memorial is placed in Rosalia overlooking Ingossomen Creek (Pine Creek). The troops laid out a defensive circle and were able to maintain their position until nightfall. After nightfall, four men and the two howitzers were buried. Steptoe and his men abandoned their supplies and pack animals on the hilltop and stealthily slipped away. They moved at a very quick pace and arrived at the Snake River (about 90 mi [150 km] south) at about 10:00 PM on the night of May 18. Totaled, five men were killed, two mortally wounded, thirteen slightly or severely wounded, and one missing (USWD 1859:62‐63). At least nine Indians were killed and an unknown number wounded. Later that summer, Colonel George Wright led the Ninth Infantry (approximately 570 men) and 30 Nez Perce scouts along the route that Steptoe had followed to punish those involved in the killing of U.S. soldiers at the Battle of Steptoe (Mullan 1909:12a‐14a). On August 31, 1858, they camped at Basset Spring, approximately halfway between the towns of present‐day Medical Lake and Cheney (Stimson 1999:16; Trafzer and Scheuerman 1986). The next morning, the men awoke to spot the hills 2.0 mi (3.2 km) to the north dotted with Indians. Wright deployed his men, and initiated the Battle of Four Lakes. It was a bloody contest, with the Spokane and their allies being introduced to the minnié balls and long‐range rifles, foes they were not prepared to meet (Ruby and Brown 1970). The Spokane fled to the Spokane River where they nursed their wounded. After a three‐day respite, Colonel Wright and his men pursued the Spokane and allied forces, meeting up with them on the Spokane Plains. As Wright’s men entered the Plains on September 5 the Indians used the distraction of grass fires (on land now occupied by Fairchild Air Force Base) to get closer to the soldiers (Stimson 1999:16; Trafzer and Scheuerman 1986). Wright saw the ruse, and ordered his men to attack through the flames. Ruby and Brown (1970:133) note that the battle covered 25 mi (41.7 km) of “hills, ravines, coulees, woods, rocks, bare ground.” The battle lasted one day and like the Battle of Four Lakes, the Spokane and their allies left behind the detritus of battle, with the bodies of the wounded and dead having been carried away, leaving Wright no idea to their casualties (Ruby and Brown 1970). After the battles, Wright told Spokane Garry that the Indians needed to “...put your faith in me and trust to my mercy,” this, of course, after delivering up their arms, women, and children. If not, the tribe would be “exterminated” (Stimson 1999:16). While Spokane Garry took this to his people, Wright continued east toward Coeur d’Alene territory. Near the Idaho border the men came across about 800 horses (considered both wealth and war machines to the Indians). The events of what happened next differ, but culminate in the destruction of horses and property, known as the Spokane Horse Massacre. Some sources report that the army captured Indian horses after engaging the herders in a fire fight (Trafzer and Scheuerman 1986:89), while other sources note that the horses were being led by old women and children who fled at the sight of the army (Brown 1961:252). The horses, belonging to Palouse Indians, were corralled while soldiers set fire to wheat fields and lodges filled with stored Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 10 wheat and oats belonging to the Coeur d’Alene. On September 9, 1858, the slaughter of the horses began. The exact destruction is unknown. Of the lodges and food, Colonel Wright stated “many barns filled with wheat and oats, also several fields of grain with numerous caches of vegetables, dried berries and kamas, all destroyed or used by the troops” (USWD 1859:56). The estimate of horses killed ranges between 590 and 1,000 mares and colts. The Spokane Horse Massacre (or Horse Slaughter Camp) site has an ambiguous location. Sources note that for some years after the massacre, the site of the Spokane Horse Massacre was marked by the presence of mounds of bleached horse bones (Brown 1961:258; Ruby and Brown 1970:137). GLO Cadastral surveys of this area took place in the 1870s; however, there is no specific mention of this area in the surveyors’ notes regarding any evidence of the Spokane Horse Massacre. In 1965 a monument marked the location of the site less than 1.0 mi (1.6 km) west of the Washington/Idaho border along the southern banks of the Spokane River. The monument has since been relocated to a position approximately 1.0 mi (1.6 km) east (Larsen and Axton 2001b:6). Following the Spokane Horse Massacre, the army headed east, leaving a band of destruction in their wake. The slaughter of horses and destruction of homes and fields was too much for the Coeur d’Alene, and they entered into a treaty with Wright on September 17, 1858. A week later, Wright held council with the Pend Oreilles, Kalispel, Colville, Palouse, Columbia, and San Poil at a pre‐arranged location on Latah Creek, near present‐day Waverly, looking for surrender terms, or a reprisal to Steptoe’s defeat (Frey 2001:85). Wright was holding Owhi captive and used him to lure Qualchan into the camp. Upon his arrival to the camp, Qualchan was hung along with six others. Owhi was killed when he tried to escape a few days later (Beckham 1998; Patton 1979). This same day (September 24, 1858) the Spokane surrendered. These unfortunate turns brought about a new life for the Native American tribes of Washington—the reservation. Major smallpox epidemics in 1846 and between 1852‐1853 severely impacted the Spokane population. In 1881, the Spokane Reservation was established in a greatly reduced area of their traditional lands. A decrease in land meant a decrease in food resources. The installation of dams beginning in 1911 at Little Falls prevented salmon, a major food source, from coming upstream. Non‐Native American settlement, disease, and other factors, have taken a toll on the Spokane population, and it was not until the mid‐1920s that the population began to see a growth. The Executive Order of 1873, signed by President Ulysses S. Grant, began a series of land relinquishments by the Coeur d’Alene. Reservation boundaries were delineated as 590,000 acres. Congress enacted an 1891 act further reducing sovereign lands to 400,000 acres. In 1894 the federal government reimbursed the Coeur d’Alene Tribe $15,000 for a one‐mile strip of land east of Lake Coeur d’Alene, where squatters had formed the town of Harrison. In 1910, the Dawes Act, or General Allotment Act, of 1887 finally took hold in northern Idaho, reducing land ownership to some 104,000 acres. In 1908 and 1911, the Coeur d’Alene residents of southern Lake Coeur d’Alene Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 11 were evicted, and the $11,000 compensation was used by the state to develop Heyburn State Park. Currently 70,000 acres are owned by the Tribe and Tribal members within a reservation boundary of some 345,000 acres of sovereign land inclusive of the town centers of Benewah, DeSmet, Plummer, Sanders, Tensed, and Worley (Coeur d’Alene Tribe 2016). Spokane Valley The Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce was established in 1921, tentatively uniting the unincorporated townships of Austin, Chester, Dishman, East Trent, Evergreen, Greenacres, Irwin, Opportunity, Trent, Trentwood, Orchard Park, Velox, Verdale, and Yardley. Apple farming was the primary industry of the region in early years. Competition from the Wenatchee and Yakima valleys, coupled with disease and adverse weather conditions would cause many local farmers to seek other opportunities, and by 1955 the apple industry in Spokane Valley had died. Apple production was replaced by timber‐focused industries, such as wooden matches and paper. Residents of the valley resisted incorporation until 2002, when voters finally approved, by a margin of 51.3 percent to 48.7 percent (Kershner 2012). Project Area The 1878 General Land Office (GLO) survey plat of Township 24 North, Range 44 East depicts two roads, running north/south, and several trails cutting across the landscape. One of these roads is shown to be near the Project Area, roughly following the current alignment of the Dishman Mica Road, running through the center of Section 04 (McMicken 1878a). The GLO survey plat for Township 25 North, Range 44 East depicts several roads traversing across the region, both north and south of the Spokane River. Roads are shown near the Project Area, roughly following the current alignments of the Dishman Mica Road and WA‐27. No built environments are depicted within the Project Area (McMicken 1878b). The 1901 Spokane USGS topographic map shows the Oregon Railraod and Navigation Company railroad line running west of the Project Area, along the current alignment of the Union Pacific Railroad. An unnamed road runs parallel to the railroad, roughly following the modern alignment of Dishman Mica Road. Two structures are shown west of these roads, in the southwest corner of the Project Area. No other built environment are depicted in or near the Project Area. The 1949 Greenacres map shows E. Thorpe Road in its current alignment, south of the Project Area. No other changes are depicted from the previous map within the Project Area. The Spokane County Assessor’s SCOUT parcel explorer identifies that the golf course, club house, storage garage, and associated paving, located in the southwest portion of the Project Area, were constructed in 1988. A residential shed was added in 2000. Structures identified in the early USGS topographic maps were likely removed at this time. The golf course closed in 2012. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 12 PLACES OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE Traditional Cultural Places (TCP) are important for the “role the property plays in a community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs and practices” as stated in the National Register Bulletin 38 (U.S. Department of the Interior 1990). Although these properties can be difficult to identify and evaluate, an initial search of pertinent publications can be helpful toward identifying the types of properties that may be expected. The National Register Bulletin 38 goes on to state that “examples of properties possessing such significance include: •a location associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its origins, its cultural history, or the nature of the world; •a rural community whose organization, buildings and structures, or patterns of land use reflect the cultural traditions valued by its long‐term residents; •an urban neighborhood that is the traditional home of a particular cultural group, and that reflects its beliefs and practices; •a location where Native American religious practitioners have historically gone, and are known or thought to go today, to perform ceremonial activities in accordance with traditional cultural rules of practice; and •a location where a community has traditionally carried out economic, artistic, or other cultural practices important in maintaining its historic identity.” The Project Area falls within lands traditionally occupied by the Upper Spokane Indians and the Coeur d’Alene Indians (Palmer 1998; Ray 1936; Ross 1998). Three bands of Spokane lived in eastern Washington—Lower Spokane, with a principal settlement near Little Falls; Middle Spokane, occupying Latah (Hangman) Creek; and Upper Spokane, who lived along the Little Spokane River and upriver from the junction of Latah Creek. Ross (1998:271) notes that the Middle and Upper Spokane considered themselves “all one people.” There were also three divisions of Coeur d’Alene—the Spokane River‐Coeur d’Alene Lake Division, Coeur d’Alene River Division, and Saint Joe River Division (Palmer 1998). Verne Ray (1936) records several camps, villages, and settlements near the Project Area. The small Upper Spokane winter camp of sqami’n’ was located along the north side of the Spokane River, 6.3 mi (10.1 km) north of the Project Area (Ray 1936:136). The fall and winter Upper Spokane village of simina’tculks (“place where many crows are found”) was located on the north side of the Spokane River, near the neighborhood of Hillyard, [7.0] mi (11.3 km) north of the Project Area. The village was an important location for fishing, hunting, and grazing (Ray 1936:136). The Coeur d’Alene camp of mu ‘lc (“cottonwood”) was located at the southern end of Liberty Lake, near a swamp. The camp was recorded to be home to about 30 people (Ray 1936:132) and lies7.6 mi (12.3 km) east of the Project Area. The important Upper Spokane fishing and hunting village of qu’yu (“place where the Oregon grape [Berberis aquifolium] grows”) was situated along Latah Creek, 8.5 mi (13.6 km) west of the Project Area. Both salmon and trout were taken from the creek, and abundant deer, Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 13 antelope, and beaver were accessible in the surrounding lands (Ray 1936:136. A relatively small Coeur d’Alene camp, tcana ‘kwaqan (“two inlets at an angle”) was home to two families, located about 2.0 mi (3.2 km) south of Liberty Lake (Ray 1936:133) and 8.5 mi (13.7km)east of the Project Area. Situated on both sides of Spokane River, at the falls, sqlaxa’łku (referring to the falls) was a large Upper Spokane permanent village located on both sides of the river, situated 8.6 mi (13.9 km)west of the Project Area. The location was used for spear and basket trapping fishing (Ray 1936:136). The Upper Spokane camp of tccłsi’uytsu m (“place where many woodpeckers are found”) was located along Latah Creek, 9.5 mi (15.3 km) southwest of the Project Area, and traditionally as a location for large deer drives (Ray 1936:137). Numerous collections of published legends were consulted to identify points of mythological significance near the Project Area. These include publications by Franz Boas (1917), Ella Clark (1969), Richard Erdoes and Alfonso Ortiz (1984), Verne Ray (1933), M. Terry Thompson and Steven Egesdal (2008), and Deward Walker (1982). While no legends were found relating specifically to the Project Area, references to the Spokane River were recorded. Clark (1969:116‐117) relates The Origin of the Spokane River. It is said that the Spokane lived in terror of a huge monster that consumed all the fish and wildlife, was so strong as to uproot large trees with a single swipe of his hand, and no hunter could kill him. A Spokane girl was collecting berries near the location where the Spokane River now spills into the Columbia River. She came upon the monster sleeping on a hillside. She ran to her village and soon the people had the sleeping monster tied up and were beating him. The monster awoke angry, broke through his bindings, and ran eastward toward Lake Coeur d’Alene. As he did, he cut a deep channel and when he reached the lake the water rushed through this channel and into the Columbia River. PRE‐FIELD RESEARCH Pre‐field research included the review of known archaeological resources within a 1.0‐mi (1.6‐km) radius of the Project Area as inventoried at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) in Olympia, Washington. This review was completed using DAHP’s secure electronic database known as the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Data (WISAARD). This database includes recorded archaeological resources, historic property inventories (HPIs), National Register of Historic Properties (NRHP) and Washington Heritage Register (WHR) properties, identified cemeteries, and previously conducted cultural resource surveys found throughout the state. Plateau also conducted cartographic analysis of landform, topography, proximity to water using topographic maps, and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) online soil survey. Secondary historic resources, on file at the DAHP and the Plateau office in Pullman, were consulted Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 14 to identify other potential historic resources. In addition, available survey and overview reports and ethnographic accounts of the region were consulted. This background review allows for the identification of previously recorded historic and archaeological resources within or near the Project Area. Previous Archaeological Research A review of previously recorded cultural resources and archaeological surveys was completed through the WISAARD on March 7, 2018. The review covered all or portions of Sections 03, 04, and 05 of Township 24 North, Range 44 East; and Sections 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, and 35 of Township 25 North, Range 44 East. This review revealed no cultural resources within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the Project Area. The closest cultural resource is 45SP240, located approximately 4.0 mi (6.4 km) north of the Project Area, along the south bank of the Spokane River. Site 45SP240, a precontact cairn, is constructed with a series of large boulders (Wyss 1989). Two cemeteries are recorded within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the Project Area. The Chester Community Cemetery (45SP586), is located off of E. 44 Avenue and E. Sands Road. It is 6.4 acres in size and was established in 1908. It is located 0.1 mi west of the Project Area. The South Pines Cemetery (45SP641), located 0.5 mi northeast of the Project Area, at 13126 E. 32nd Avenue, was officially established in 2001, and is still active (DAHP 2018a). There have been two previously conducted cultural resource surveys within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the Project Area. The cultural resource survey for the Dishman‐Mica Road project, between 40th Avenue and Mohawk Drive was carried out in 1999. The survey covered a 1.6 mi portion of Dishman Mica Road, including a portion adjacent to the current Project Area. The survey resulted in no newly discovered cultural resources (Axton et al. 1999). The cultural resource survey for the Sun Acres Pump Station project was carried out in 2015, 0.5 mi northwest of the Project Area. The survey covered a 10.0‐acre area, and resulted in no newly discovered cultural resources (Corley 2015). Two HPIs have been recorded within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the Project Area. Property 163655, located at 12705 E. Apache Pass Road, is a single family house dating to 1964. The property lies 0.8 mi (1.3 km) southeast of the Project Area. No determination has been made regarding the property’s eligibility for inclusion on the NRHP. Property 193075, located 0.9 mi (1.4 km) northwest of the Project Area, at 10817 E. 32nd Avenue, is a 1945 single family house. No determination has been made regarding the property’s eligibility for inclusion on the NRHP (DAHP 2018a). EXPECTED PROPERTIES Previous archaeological investigations correlate Native American sites with areas that have relatively flat terrain, well drained soils, close proximity to water, and sweeping vistas. Major rivers, such as the Columbia, provided corridors where animals and people moved across the landscape. It is along these rivers that ethnographers and archaeologists have documented large Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 15 village sites. Residence and food procurement was tied to the seasons, with small creeks typically associated with seasonal hunting and plant gathering by relatively small, task‐oriented groups of people. Task campsites might manifest themselves as low‐to‐moderate densities of stone tools which are concentrated in one or more loci, hearths, and middens. Visits through this area may manifest themselves as isolated finds. Typically an item lost or discarded, an “isolate,” provides important information about the types of areas exploited by past populations but is not considered eligible for listing on the NRHP. The DAHP’s predictive model places the Project Area in areas of “High Risk” and “Very High Risk” for encountering cultural resources, stating that “survey [is] highly advised” for this location (DAHP 2018a). FIELD METHODS AND RESULTS Survey work was completed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716, September 29, 1983) and under the supervision of Principal Investigator, David Harder. Plateau archaeologists Adam Sackman and Brandon McIntosh conducted the cultural resource survey over four days in March 2018. The limits of the Project Area were identified using parcel information provided by WCE and referenced using Spokane County’s SCOUT parcel explorer (Spokane County 2018). Survey conditions were variable, with fluctuating cloud cover and scattered showers throughout the three days of survey. The Project Area includes 100.0 acres of land situated at the former Painted Hills Golf Course. The land, although overgrown, is still recognizable as manicured parkland with non‐native plant species throughout. Chester Creek flows through the southeast quadrant of the Project Area. The property lies east of S. Dishman Mica Road, north of E. Thorpe Road, and west of S. Madison Road. Prior to the field visit, a utility locate was requested under ticket #18086709. This locate identified numerous subsurface utilities along Thorpe Road and Madison Road, including electric, fiberoptic, and gas. No utilities were located within the previous golf course. An intensive pedestrian survey was conducted over the entire Project Area (Figure 3). Transects oriented north/south, and spaced at distances no greater than 20 m (65.6 ft). Ground surface visibility was generally fair (approximately 40%), with sparse grasses and low‐growing vegetation throughout the majority of the Project Area (Figure 4). Three structures are situated in the southwest of the Project Area, and associated paved parking spaces obstructed surface visibility in this area (Figure 5). A small stand of trees lies in the northwest portion of the Project Area, and surface visibility was reduced (approximately 20%) within this area (Figure 6). No Native American or historic‐era cultural materials or features were observed during the pedestrian survey. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 16 Figure 3. The Project Area and field investigation on an aerial photograph. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 17 Figure 5. The Craft & Gather Café located in the southwest portion of the Project Area. View to the north. Figure 4. Overview of the Project Area. View to the south. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 18 Figure 6. The tree stand located in the western portion of the Project Area. View to the west. The archaeologist excavated 31 subsurface shovel probes (SSPs) within the Project Area (Table 1). The SSPs were organized into two strings. The two strings were oriented north/south, with one string located in the eastern half of the Project Area (101‐118) and one in the west (201‐210). Three additional SSPs were excavated along Chester Creek in opportunistic locations (SSP 301‐303). The 31 SSPs ranged in depth from 22‐104 cm (8.7‐40.9 in), and averaged 79.0 cm (31.1 in). Sediments exposed during subsurface probing were irregular, and generally did not fit those predicted by the NRCS model. This is likely due to extensive landscaping and associated soil turbation during the construction of the Painted Hills Golf Course. No Native American or historic‐era cultural materials or features were observed during excavations. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 19 Table 1. Subsurface Probe Results SSP Easting Northing Depth (cm) Stratigraphy Cultural Material 101 481890 5273372 100 Strat I (0‐95 cm), Strat II (95‐100 cm) None 102 481891 5273391 104 Strat I (0‐70 cm), Strat II (70‐104 cm) None 103 481890 5273411 60 Strat I (0‐35 cm), Strat II (35‐60 cm) None 104 481891 5273431 102 Strat I (0‐90 cm), Start II (90‐102 cm) None 105 481891 5273451 50 Strat I (0‐45 cm), Start II (45‐50 cm) None 106 481891 5273599 104 Strat I (0‐35 cm), Start III (35‐104 cm)None 107 481891 5273619 102 Strat I (0‐20 cm), Start III (20‐102 cm)None 108 481891 5273639 100 Strat I (0‐35 cm), Start III (35‐100 cm)None 109 481891 5273659 65 Strat I (0‐60 cm), Start III (60‐65 cm)None 110 481891 5273679 70 Strat I (0‐40 cm), Start III (40‐70 cm)None 111 481892 5273827 40 Strat IV (0‐40 cm)None 112 481892 5273847 48 Strat IV (0‐48 cm)None 113 481892 5273867 51 Strat IV (0‐51 cm)None 114 481892 5273887 48 Strat IV (0‐48 cm)None 115 481892 5273906 33 Strat IV (0‐33 cm)None 116 481893 5274070 63 Strat V (0‐63 cm)None 117 481893 5274089 78 Strat I (0‐18 cm), Strat V (18‐78 cm)None 118 481893 5274109 22 Strat II (0‐22 cm)None 201 481692 5273600 110 Strat I (0‐110 cm)None 202 481693 5273620 102 Strat I (0‐32 cm), Strat II (32‐102 cm)None 203 481693 5273640 103 Strat I (0‐35 cm), Strat II (35‐103 cm)None 204 481693 5273659 100 Strat I (0‐40 cm), Strat II (40‐100 cm)None 205 481693 5273679 100 Strat I (0‐42 cm), Strat II (42‐100 cm)None 206 481693 5273828 40 Strat VI (0‐40 cm)None 207 481693 5273848 41 Strat VI (0‐41 cm)None 208 481693 5273867 32 Strat VI (0‐32 cm)None 209 481693 5273887 38 Strat VI (0‐38 cm)None 210 481693 5273907 42 Strat VI (0‐42 cm)None 301 481664 5273449 100 Strat VII (0‐15 cm), Strat VIII (15–40 cm), Strat I (40‐100 cm) None 302 481745 5273388 80 Strat VII (0‐35 cm), Strat I (35‐80 cm)None 303 481765 5273318 83 Strat I (0‐83 cm)None NAD83, UTM Zone 11 Stratigraphic Unit Descriptions: Strata I: Very dark brown (10YR2/2) silt loam Strata II: Dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) gravelly (gravel>80%) loamy sand Strata III: Dark brown (10YR3/3) sandy gravel (gravel=60%) Strata IV: Very dark brown (10YR2/2) sandy gravel (gravel>80%) Strata V: Dark yellowish brown(10YR4/6) silty loam (gravel=20%) Strata VI: Dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) sandy gravel (gravel>90%) Strata VII: Very dark brown (10YR2/2) sandy loam Strata VIII: 10YR4/4 course Sand Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 20 RECOMMENDATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN Plateau archaeologists conducted an intensive pedestrian survey over the entire Project Area, and excavated 28 subsurface probes. Subsurface probes ranged in depth from 22‐104 cm (8.7‐40.9 in). The pedestrian survey and subsurface investigations for the project resulted in no newly recorded archaeological resources. Plateau recommends that the proposed undertaking will result in No Historic Properties Affected, and no further archaeological investigations are recommended prior to, or during, execution of this project. Given concerns voiced by the Spokane Tribe of Indians during the permitting process, Plateau recommends all ground disturbing activities be conducted under the guidance of the attached Inadvertent Discover Plan (Appendix A). Should ground‐disturbing activities reveal any cultural materials (e.g., structural remains, Euroamerican artifacts, or Native American artifacts), activity will cease and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer should be notified immediately. The results and recommendations in this document concern the specified APE. The proponent is advised that the results and recommendations reported herein do not apply to areas of potential effect altered or expanded after the cultural resource survey. A supplementary cultural resource review will be necessary should the APE be altered or changed, as per 36 CFR 800.4. If ground disturbing activities encounter human skeletal remains during the course of construction, then all activity will cease that may cause further disturbance to those remains. The area of the find will be secured and protected from further disturbance to those remains. The area of the find will be secured and protected from further disturbance until the State provides notice to proceed. The finding of human skeletal remains will be reported to the county medical examiner/coroner and local law enforcement in the most expeditious manner possible. The remains will not be touched, moved, or further disturbed. The county medical examiner/coroner will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains and make a determination of whether those remains are forensic or non‐forensic. If the county medical examiner/coroner determines the remains are non‐forensic, then they will report that finding to the DAHP who will then take jurisdiction over the remains. The DAHP will notify any appropriate cemeteries and all affected tribes of the find. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Indian or Non‐ Indian and report that finding to any appropriate cemeteries and affected tribes. The DAHP will then handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 21 WORKS CITED Aikens, C. Melvin 1993 Archaeology of Oregon. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon. Axton, Susan, Stephen Emerson, and Dennis C. Regan 1999 A Cultural Resources Survey of Dishman‐Mica Road Between 40th Avenue and Mohawk Drive, Spokane County, Washington. On file (#1340655) at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia, Washington. Beckham, Stephen D. 1998 History Since 1846. In Handbook of North American Indians: Plateau, v.12, edited by Deward E. Walker, Jr., pp.149‐173. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Boas, Franz (editor) 1917 Folk‐tales of the Salish and Sahaptin Tribes. Collected by James A. Teit, Marian K. Gould, Livingston Farrand, and Herbert J. Spinden. Memoirs of the American Folk‐Lore Society 11. Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Brown, William Compton 1961 The Indian Side of the Story. C.W. Hill Printing Company, Spokane, Washington. Buehner, Chanel, and Barbara L. Fisher 2013 Evergreen SP05UB187. On file (#1683747) at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia, Washington. Bureau of Land Management 2017 Land Patent Search: Section 19 of Township 25 North, Range 45 East. Electronic document, blm.gov, accessed November 3, 2017. Burt, William H., and Richard P. Grossenheider 1961 A Field Guide to the Mammals. The Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. Clark, Ella E. 1969 Indian Legends of the Pacific Northwest. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Coeur d’Alene Tribe 2016 Tribal website. Electronic document accessed at www.cdatribe.com on February 4, 2016 Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 22 Corley, Jackie 2015 Sun Acres Pump Station Cultural Resource Survey. On file (#1686511) at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia, Washington. Daubenmire, Rexford 1970 Steppe Vegetation of Washington. Washington Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 62. Washington State University, Pullman. Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 2018a WISAARD. Electronic document, dahp.wa.gov, accessed March 7, 2018. Erdoes, Richard and Alfonso Ortiz 1984 American Indian Myths and Legends. Pantheon Books, New York, New York. Erickson, Edith E. 1988 Rosalia: Battlefield to Wheat Field, 1858‐1988. Compiled by Edith E. Erickson, Rosalia, Washington. Estes, James F. 1974 Tales of the Palouse Hills. Steptoe Publications, Spokane, Washington. Fenneman, N.M. 1946 Physical Descriptions of the United States. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Frey, Rodney 2001 Landscape Traveled by Coyote and Crane. The World of the Schitsu’umsh (Coeur d’Alene Indians). In Collaboration with the Schitsu’umsh. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Fryxell, Roald and Richard D. Daugherty 1962 Schematic Geoarchaeological Chronology for Eastern Washington and Related Areas. Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington. Goodale, Nathan B., William C. Prentiss, and Ian Kuijt 2004 Cultural Complexity: A New Chronology of the Upper Columbia Drainage Area. In Complex Hunter‐Gatherers: Evolution and Organization of Prehistoric Communities on the Plateau of Northwestern North America, edited by William C. Prentiss and Ian Kuijt, pp. 36‐48. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Hunt, C.B. 1967 Physiography of the United States. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, California. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 23 Ingles, Lloyd G. 1965 Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Kershner, Jim 2012 Spokane Valley—Thumbnail History. Historylink.org accessed November 3, 2017. Lothson, Gordon A. 1977 Archaeological Reconnaissance and Phase II Testing of Oroville Urban Levees. Washington Archaeological Research Center, Progress Report No. 52, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington. McCart, Joyce and Peter McCart 2000 On the Road with David Thompson. Fifth House Publishers, Calgary, Alberta. McMicken, William 1878a Cadastral map for Township 24 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian. Electronic document, blm.gov, accessed March 7, 2018 1878a Cadastral map for Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian. Electronic document, blm.gov, accessed March 7, 2018 Meinig, Donald W. 1968 The Great Columbia Plain: A Historical Geography, 1805‐1910. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Mullan, John 1909 Miners and Travelers’ Guide. Ye Galleon Press, Fairfield, Washington. Reprinted in 1991 Natural Resources Conservation Service 2017 Web Soil Survey. Electronic document www.nrcs.usda.gov accessed October 13, 2017. Nelson, Charles M. 1973 Prehistoric Culture Change in the Intermontane Plateau of Western North America. In Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, edited by C. C. Renfrew, pp. 371‐390. Gerald Duckworth, London. Palmer, Gary 1998 Coeur d’Alene. In Plateau, edited by Deward E. Walker, Jr, pp. 313‐326. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 12, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 24 Ray, Verne F. 1933 Sanpoil Folk Tales. Journal of American Folk‐Lore 46(180):129‐187. 1936 Native Villages and Groupings of the Columbia Basin. Pacific Northwest Quarterly 27(2):99‐152. Ross, John Alan 1998 Spokane. In Plateau, edited by Deward E. Walker, Jr., pp. 271‐282. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 12, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Ruby, Robert H., and John A. Brown 1970 The Spokane Indians: Children of the Sun. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma. Schalk, Randall F. 1977 The Structure of Anadromous Fish Resource. In For Theory Building in Archaeology, edited by L.R. Binford, pp. 207‐249. Academic Press, New York. Schroedl, Gerald F. 1973 The Archaeological Occurrence of Bison in the Southern Plateau. Reports of Investigations No. 51. Laboratory of Anthropology. Washington State University, Pullman, Washington. Spokane County 2018 SCOUT. Online resource, cp.spokanecounty.org/scout/map, accessed March 7, 2018. Sprague, Roderick 2005 Canoes and Other Water Craft of the Coeur d’Alene in Journal of Northwest Anthropology, v. 39, no. 1, pp 41‐62. Stimson, William 1999 Spokane: A View of the Falls, An Illustrated History. American Historical Press, Sun Valley, California. Taylor, Ronald J. 1992 Sagebrush Country: A Wildflower Sanctuary. Mountain Press Publishing Company. Missoula, Montana. Thompson, M. Terry and Steven M. Egesdal (editors) 2008 Salish Myths and Legends: One People’s Stories. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 25 Trafzer, Clifford E., and Richard D. Scheuerman 1986 Renegade Tribe: The Palouse Indians and the Invasion of the Inland Pacific Northwest. Washington State University Press, Pullman, Washington. U.S. Department of the Interior 1990 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties in National Bulletin #38. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division. U.S. Geological Survey 1901 Topographic Map: Spokane, Washington 15ʹ Series 1951 Topographic Map: Greenacres, Washington 7.5ʹ Series. U.S. War Department 1859 Report of the Secretary of War, Communicating, in Compliance with a Resolution of the Senate: A Copy of the Topographical Memoir and Map of Colonel Wrightʹs Late Campaign Against the Indians in Oregon and Washington Territories. February 15, 1959. 35th Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Executive Document No. 32. Printed by William A. Harris, Washington, D.C. Walker, Deward E., Jr. 1982 Myths of Idaho Indians. The University Press of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. Walker, Deward E., Jr. and Roderick Sprague 1998 History Until 1846. In Handbook of North American Indians: Plateau, v. 12, edited by Deward E. Walker, Jr., pp. 138‐148. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Western Regional Climate Center 2018 Spokane WSO, Washington (#457938) weather station. Electronic document, www.wrcc.sage.dri.edu, accessed March 7, 2017. Wyss, Marilyn 1989 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form: 45SP240. On file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia, Washington. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 26 APPENDIX A: Inadvertent Discover Plan (IDP) The Painted Hills Residential Development, Spokane Valley, Washington Inadvertent Discovery Plan Treatment of Archaeological Materials Discovered During Project Implementation By: Adam J. Sackman and David A. Harder April 2018 The Painted Hills Residential Development, Spokane Valley, Washington Inadvertent Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials Black Realty, Inc. (Black Realty), Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. (WCE), and Northwest Renovators, Inc. (NWR) are proceeding with plans for the development of Painted Hills Residential Development—a 100.0‐acre site into 300 single family homes, 280 multifamily units, a neighborhood commercial center, and open space. The area of potential effect, (APE) is located east of, and adjacent to S. Dishman Mica Road, north of and adjacent to E. Thorpe Road, and west of and adjacent to S. Madison Road in Spokane Valley (Figure 1). Black Realty, WCE, and NWR retained Plateau Archaeological Investigations, LLC (Plateau) to complete the cultural resource survey and identify potential impacts to cultural and historical resources. The APE covers 100.0 acres and falls within Section 04 of Township 24 North, Range 44 East; and Sections 33 and 34 of Township 25 North, Range 44 East of the Willamette Meridian (Figure 2). The survey was subsequently reported in Cultural Resource Survey of the Painted Hills Housing Development, Spokane Valley, Washington (Sackman and Harder 2018). Pre‐field research consisted of a file review completed through the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) on December 19, 2017. The review covered all or portions of Sections 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, and 35 of Township 25 North, Range 44 East. This review revealed no cultural resources, two cemeteries, two previous cultural resource surveys, and two HPIs within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the Project Area. This database includes recorded archaeological resources, historic property inventories (HPIs), National Register of Historic Properties (NRHP) and Washington Heritage Register (WHR) properties, identified cemeteries, and previously conducted cultural resource surveys found throughout the state of Washington. Additionally, a review of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) records, both General Land Office (GLO) online records and land patent information, was completed. Topographic maps and aerial photos were reviewed to identify additional indicators of past land use. A field investigation of the APE was conducted by Plateau in March of 2018 and included an intensive pedestrian survey and the excavation of 28 subsurface shovel probes. The field investigation identified no new cultural resources within the APE. Given concerns voiced by the Spokane Tribe of Indians during the permitting process, Plateau recommended that all ground‐disturbing activities be conducted under the guidance of this Inadvertent Discover Plan. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 Appendix A ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 29 The Painted Hills Residential Development, Spokane Valley, Washington Inadvertent Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials Figure 1. The project location in Spokane Valley. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 Appendix A ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 30 The Painted Hills Residential Development, Spokane Valley, Washington Inadvertent Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials Figure 2. The Project Area on a portion of the Freeman USGS map. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 Appendix A ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 31 The Painted Hills Residential Development, Spokane Valley, Washington Inadvertent Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials Laws and Regulations Regarding Archaeological and Cultural Resources Several laws and regulations, set forth on both federal and state levels, address concerns for burials, rock cairns, archaeological sites, historic structures, and other cultural resources. Those pertinent to this project are The State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 27.44 of the Regulatory Code of Washington and Chapter 68.60 of the Regulatory Code of Washington. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires state agencies to consider the effects of undertakings on historic properties and consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) as appropriate to help identify the APE and the level of effort necessary to comply. This is intended to be done prior to the expenditure of funds or issuance of a license or permit, although it is recognized that some properties may not be identified, recognized, or discovered until the project begins. Chapter 27.44 of the Regulatory Code of Washington offers protection for Indian burials, cairns, glyptic markings, and historic graves on private and public property. This regulation provides civil and criminal penalties for the intentional disturbance or removal of these types of properties. Chapter 68.60 of the Regulatory Code of Washington outlines protections for cemeteries, historic graves, and other human remains. This chapter further outlines procedures pertaining to the inadvertent discovery of human remains. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 Appendix A ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 32 The Painted Hills Residential Development, Spokane Valley, Washington Inadvertent Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials Inadvertent Discovery Plan Proper application and management of this IDP requires that a professional archaeologist be contacted if ground‐disturbing activities reveal potential Native American or historic‐era cultural materials or features (Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5). The archaeologist shall meet the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for a professional archaeologist as defined at 36CFR61 Appendix A. Construction within 200 ft (60 m) of the discovery will stop, and the area will be secured to protect the find from additional damage. The archaeologist will document the find, prepare a brief written statement, and take photographs of the find for submission to the lead agency and the SHPO at the DAHP. The find will also be reported to the THPO of the Spokane Tribe of Indians. It is the responsibility of the lead agency, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, to contact the affected Tribes. This consultation process will take place even if the pre‐contact or historic‐era cultural materials appear to have lost their depositional integrity. Work within 200 ft (60 m) of the find will not resume until a plan for management or preservation of the materials has been approved. Following the project, the archaeologist will provide a report detailing the procedures and results of the investigation. During the investigation, the archaeologist will observe rules of safety and will comply with any safety requirements of the excavation contractor and project engineers. Entry into any excavation will only be done under the direct supervision and approval of the construction foreman (or his or her agent) and verification that entry and exit is safe. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 Appendix A ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 33 The Painted Hills Residential Development, Spokane Valley, Washington Inadvertent Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials Figure 3. Reduction of a lithic blank to a tool (Andrefsky 1998:158) Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 Appendix A ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 34 The Painted Hills Residential Development, Spokane Valley, Washington Inadvertent Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials Figure 4. An illustration of a housepit and the resulting archaeological feature (Sappington 1994: 153). Figure 5. An example of logo changes over time, which can aid in determining the date of historic artifacts. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 Appendix A ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 35 The Painted Hills Residential Development, Spokane Valley, Washington Inadvertent Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials Discovery of Human Remains If a burial, human remains, suspected human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or items of cultural patrimony are encountered during any aspect of this project, operations will cease in accordance with Regulatory Code of Washington 27.44, 68.50, and 68.60. All work within 200 ft (60 m) of the find will cease, the area around the discovery will be secured, and any requirements of the lead agency shall be followed. Work within 200 ft (60 m) of the find will not resume until a plan for management or preservation of the materials has been agreed upon by all parties. If the lead agency does not explicitly state procedures the Spokane Valley Police Department, the Spokane County Medical Examiner, and the SHPO at the DAHP will be notified in the most expeditious manner possible. The find will also be reported to the THPO of the Spokane Tribe of Indians. Reporting is to be done by the lead agency (DAHP), or a federal or state funding or permitting agency. The find will be treated with dignity. Do not take photographs, contact the press, call 911, or discuss the find with the public in any manner. Cover the find and keep the location secure. The coroner and law enforcement agency with jurisdiction will evaluate the find to determine whether it is a crime scene or a burial. If human remains are determined to be associated with an archaeological site (burial), and if there is any question of the cultural affiliation of the burial, or whether the burial is prehistoric, the DAHP and any affected tribes will be notified to assist in the determination prior to beginning any extensive excavations. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 Appendix A ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 36 The Painted Hills Residential Development, Spokane Valley, Washington Inadvertent Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials Protocol to Follow When No Archaeologist is Present If an archaeologist is not on‐site when cultural materials (e.g., pre‐contact artifacts and/or features, historic‐era artifacts and/or features) are uncovered, the following steps shall be followed: Suspend work within 200 ft (60 m) of the find. Take a photo of the artifact(s) or feature(s). Include a common object such as a quarter, a tape measure, a person, or a pickup as a scale to show the size of the find. Take photos of the location of the find from several angles and distances. Record a GPS point if possible. Contact Plateau by telephone to notify us of the find. Provide an email with photos and any additional information you are able to gather. Precontact Artifacts Precontact artifacts can include stone, wood, or bone tools. Stone tools are the most common artifact encountered since they do not deteriorate over time. Precontact Features Precontact features can include fire pits, hearths, burn deposits, ash, rock alignments, rock mounds, and midden deposits. Historic‐Era Artifacts Historic‐era artifacts may include various items manufactured from metal, glass, or wood. If an individual identifiable historic artifact is encountered, the above protocol should be followed. “Historic‐era artifacts” does not include “recent” items such as chip bags, styrofoam, modern beverage cans and bottles, or other typical roadside debris. Historic‐Era Features Any identifiable remains of buildings, foundations, rock alignments, or rock mounds might be historic‐era features. Human Remains Human remains, suspected human remains, burials, funerary objects, sacred objects, or items of cultural patrimony are to be treated in the manner outlined above. Additionally, Plateau is to be notified by phone immediately. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 Appendix A ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 37 The Painted Hills Residential Development, Spokane Valley, Washington Inadvertent Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials Emergency Dispatch in Spokane County Emergency Dispatch 911 Spokane Valley Police Department 509‐477‐3300 Sheriff, non‐emergency 509‐477‐2240 Spokane County Coroner 509‐477‐2296 509‐447‐0235 (fax) Spokane Tribe of Indians Randy Abrahamson, Tribal Historic 509‐258‐4315 Preservation Officer 509‐258‐6965 (fax) randya@spokanetribe.com Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation DAHP Reception 360‐586‐3065 DAHP fax 360‐586‐3067 Guy Tasa, State Physical Anthropologist 360‐586‐3534 Guy.Tasa@dahp.wa.gov Rob Whitlam, State Archaeologist 360‐586‐3080 Rob.Whitlam@dahp.wa.gov Plateau Archaeological Investigations Main Office/Fax 509‐332‐3830 David Harder, Archaeologist 509‐336‐1525 (cell) dharder@plateau‐crm.com Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 Appendix A ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 38 The Painted Hills Residential Development, Spokane Valley, Washington Inadvertent Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials WORKS CITED Andrefsky, William A., Jr. 1998 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology, University Printing House, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Lyon, Joshua 2015 The Collector’s Ultimate Guide to Canning Jars. Electronic document, countryliving.com, accessed February 7, 2017. Sackman, Adam and David A. Harder 2018 Cultural Resource Survey of the Painted Hills Residential Development, Spokane Valley Washington. On file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia, Washington. Sappington, Robert Lee 1994 The Prehistory of the Clearwater River Region, North Central Idaho. University of Anthropological Reports, No. 95. Alfred W. Bowers Laboratory of Anthropology, University of Idaho, Moscow. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2018 Appendix A ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 39 APPENDIX J: Cultural Resources Survey – Gustin Pipe Off-Site This page intentionally left blank. CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET DAHP Project Number: 2021-11-07772 Author: Jordan J. Thompson, Olivia Gagnon, Justin Fitzpatrick, and David A. Harder Title of Report: Cultural Resource Survey for the Painted Hills, Gustin Pipe Off-Site Survey Project, Spokane County, Washington Date of Report: March 29, 2022 County(ies): Spokane Section: 34 Township: 25 N Range: 44 E Quad: Freeman, 1973 Acres: 5.7 PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) YesX Historic Property Inventory Forms to be Approved Online? Yes NoX Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? Yes NoX TCP(s) found? Yes NoX Replace a draft? Yes NoX Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? Yes NoX Were Human Remains Found? Yes DAHP Case # NoX DAHP Archaeological Site #: Cultural Resource Survey for the Painted Hills, Gustin Pipe Off-Site Survey Project, Spokane County, Washington By: Jordan J. Thompson, Olivia Gagnon, Justin Fitzpatrick, and David A. Harder March 2022 ABSTRACT Cultural Resource Survey for the Painted Hills, Gustin Pipe Off-Site Survey Project, Spokane County, Washington Whipple Consulting Engineers is proceeding with plans for the development of the Painted Hills Housing Development—subdividing a 100.0-acre site into 600 residential lots. This primary area of impact has been surveyed and reported on previously by Plateau Archaeological Investigations (Plateau). During the review process, Spokane County Public Works requested that additional survey be carried out on an off-site location, which will be used for flood control. This survey will address this off-site portion of the project. The project area covers approximately 5.7 acres and lies in Section 34 of Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian. The project area lies within the traditional territory of the Spokane and Coeur d'Alene peoples and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) predictive model places portions of the project in areas of "Very High Risk" for encountering cultural resources. The cultural survey will be performed to support Spokane County permitting requirements. Pre-field research included the review of known archaeological resources within a 1.0-mile radius of the area of potential effect (APE) as inventoried at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). This review was completed using DAHP’s secure electronic database known as the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Data (WISAARD). This database includes recorded archaeological resources, historic property inventories (HPIs), National Register of Historic Properties (NRHP) and Washington Heritage Register (WHR) properties, identified cemeteries, and previously conducted cultural resource surveys found throughout the state. The fieldwork was completed in a manner consistent with RCW 27.53.030, and included inspection techniques to identify both surface and subsurface archaeological resources. Plateau archaeologists conducted a pedestrian survey and excavated one subsurface probe. The pedestrian survey covered the entire APE and the subsurface probe was excavated opportunistically within the Project Area. A ditch and catch basin were inventoried as Property 726296, but are ineligible for listing on the NRHP. Plateau recommends that the proposed undertaking will result in No Historic Properties Affected, and no further archaeological investigations are recommended prior to, or during, execution of this project. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 ii KEY INFORMATION PROJECT Cultural Resource Survey for the Painted Hills, Gustin Pipe Off-Site Survey Project, Spokane County, Washington REPORT AUTHORS Jordan Thompson, Olivia Gagnon, Justin Fitzpatrick, and David A. Harder COUNTY Spokane County LEGAL LOCATION OF PROJECT Section 34 of Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian USGS QUADS Freeman, Washington 7.5 minute, 1973 ACREAGE 5.7 acres PROJECT DATA No previously recorded historic properties One new cultural resource located and/or recorded DAHP PROJECT NUMBER 2021-11-07772 MANAGING AGENCY Spokane County REPORT PREPARED FOR Whipple Consulting Engineers FIELD NOTE DISPOSITION Archived at the office of Plateau Archaeological Investigations LLC, Pullman. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR David A. Harder, M.A. CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS I certify that this investigation was conducted and documented according to Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines and that the report is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Reporter March 29, 2022 Date Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS page ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii KEY INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv PROJECT DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES FOR SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PRE-FIELD RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 REGIONAL PRECONTACT BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Ethnography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Places of Cultural Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 REGIONAL HISTORIC BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Spokane County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Cartographic Analysis of the Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 FIELD METHODS AND SURVEY RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Painted Hills Gustin Pipe Off Site Ditch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 WORKS CITED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 APPENDIX A: HISTORIC PROPERTY INVENTORY (HPI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 APPENDIX B: UNINTENTIONAL DISCOVERY PLAN (UDP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The location of the Project Area within Spokane County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 2. The Project Area shown on a portion of the Freeman USGS map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Figure 3. The Project Area shown in relation to documented TCPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 4. The Project Area shown on selected historic maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 5. The Project Area and field investigation inventoried on an aerial photograph . . . . 19 Figure 6. Overview of the Project Area. View to the north. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 7. Overview of the Project Area. View to the north . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 8. The drainage ditch. View to the east. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. NRCS Soil Descriptions within Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Table 2. Ethnographic Villages Near the Project Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 3. Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 4. Shovel Probe Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 iv PROJECT DESCRIPTION Whipple Consulting Engineers are continuing with their plans to construct a housing development at Painted Hills, located in Spokane County, Washington (Figure 1). The project will include an area to be used as an offsite flood control for an adjacent housing development. The Project Area will be located north of East Copper River Lane and adjacent and to the west of Highway 27. The western boundary of the Project Area intersects with East 40th Avenue. Anticipated impacts include excavations, compaction of sediments, and other ground-disturbing construction activities. The area of potential impact covers approximately 5.7 acres, and lies within Section 34 of Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian (Figure 2). The area of potential impact hereafter will be referred to as the "Project Area." The project area lies within the traditional territory of the Spokane and Coeur d’Alene peoples and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) predictive model places portions of the project in acres of "Very High Risk" for encountering cultural resources. The cultural survey will be performed to support Spokane County permitting requirements. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES FOR SURVEY The cultural resource survey of the Painted Hills, Gustin Pipe Off-Site Survey Project is intended to identify potential historic properties, including archaeological and built environment cultural resources, within the Project Area prior to execution of the proposed project. The pre-field research is designed to identify any known historic properties, including archaeological sites and isolates; historic property inventories of buildings, structures, and historic districts; and cemeteries located in or near the Project Area. Fieldwork procedures are intended to identify areas of moderate to high probability for such cultural resources, previously recorded or otherwise. This report describes the pre-field research, methodology, results, and recommendations for the cultural resources aspect of the proposed project. PRE-FIELD RESEARCH Pre-field research included the review of known archaeological resources within a 1.0 mile (mi) (1.6 kilometer [km]) radius of the Project Area as inventoried at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) in Olympia, Washington. This review was completed using DAHP’s secure electronic database known as the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Data (WISAARD). This database includes recorded archaeological resources, historic property inventories (HPIs), properties and districts on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the Washington Heritage Register (WHR), identified cemeteries, and previously conducted cultural resource surveys found throughout the state. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 1 Figure 1. The location of the Project Area within Spokane County. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 2 Figure 2. The Project Area shown on a portion of the Freeman USGS map. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 3 Plateau also conducted cartographic analysis of landform, topography, proximity to water using topographic maps, and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) online soil survey. Secondary historic resources, on file at the DAHP and the Plateau office in Pullman, were consulted to identify other potential historic resources. In addition, available survey and overview reports and ethnographic accounts of the region were consulted. This background review allows for the identification of previously recorded historic and archaeological resources within or near the Project Area. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Project Area lies within the Spokane Valley Outwash Plains, within the Northern Rockies ecoregion (McGrath et al. 2010). The Northern Rockies ecoregion transitions from the Okanagan Highlands of Washington, to expanses of high mountains and low valleys extending across northern Idaho. The predominant draw for Native American and European American populations in this region was, and still is, the extensive river systems and lakes, and the abundance of resources these waterways support. The most significant hydrological feature is the Columbia River, which flows for more than 1,200 mi (2,000 km) from the base of the Canadian Rockies in southeastern British Columbia to the Pacific Ocean at Astoria, Oregon. Totaled, it drains a 259,000 mi2 (431,670 km2) basin. Nine major tributaries to the Columbia—Clark Fork River, Clearwater River, Flathead River, Kettle River, Kootenai River, Pend Oreille River, Priest River, Saint Joe River, and the Spokane River—flow within the ecoregion. Four major lakes—Flathead Lake, Lake Pend Oreille, Payette Lake, and Priest Lake—also comprise the hydrological network. The Spokane River/Nine Mile Reservoir runs 4.0 mi (6.44 km) north of the Project Area. The Project Area and surrounding regions contained an abundance of life. It is likely, though, that Native Americans had access to a larger variety of species during the past that played a role in aboriginal use, settlement, and travel patterns in relation to the Project Area. The following lists a few of the more discernible mammals that may have been available to aboriginal populations: mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), racoon (Procyon lotor), Nuttal cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttalli), mink and weasel (Mustela spp.), yellow-bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris), woodchuck (Marmota monax), badger (Taxidea taxus), beaver (Castor canadensis), porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), and several species of ground squirrels (Citellus spp.). Predators include red fox (Vulpes fulva), river otter (Lutra canadensis), coyote (Canis latrans), grizzly bear (Ursus chelan), black bear (Euarctos americanus), and mountain lion (Felis concolor). Several other species may have been present in the region in the past such as wolves (Canis lupus) and even the occasional bison (Bison bison) may have been available prehistorically (Burt and Grossenheider 1961; Ingles 1965, Schroedl 1973). Many types of fowl and game were available in the past including: Swarth blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus pallidus), Columbian ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus affinis), Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (Pedioecetes phasianellus), western sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus phaios), mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos platyrhynchos), western harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus pacificus), American common merganser (Mergus merganser americanus), the lesser snow goose (Chen hyperborea hyperborea), and the Great Basin Canada goose (Branta canadensis moffitti). Seasonally Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 4 available birds such as Gadwall (Anas strepera), wood duck (Aix sponsa), redhead (Aythya americana), and the northern ruddy duck (Oxjura jamaicensis rubida) resided in the region during summer. Winter game birds of the region include canvasback (Aythya valisineria) and American greater scaup (Aythya marila nearctica) (Lothson 1977). According to Lothson (1977), several species of fish were available in the region (especially along the major river and stream drainages) such as: sturgeon (Acipenser), whitefish (Prosopium), suckers (Pantosteus, Catostomus), bullheads (Cottus) and anadromous fish such as salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and steelhead (Salmo gairdnerii). Ray (1942) noted that many of the mentioned fauna were ethnographically used by Native Americans in the region and continue to be an important resource. Vegetation in the immediate area falls within the Pseudotsuga menziesii vegetation zone, typically occurring between elevations of 1,800 and 3,950 feet (ft) (600 and 1,300 meters [m]) AMSL (Franklin and Dyrness 1973). The native overstory include Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and western larch (Larix occidentalis). Understory typically consists of low shrubs, including snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), oceanspray (Holodiscus spp.), currant (Ribes spp.), and various species of rose (Rosa spp.) (Franklin and Dyrness 1973). Brown (1982) also notes that arrowleaf balsamroot (Balsamorhiza sagittata), bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum), common yarrow (Achillea millefolium), kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva]ursi), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens), prairie junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), strawberry (Fragaria spp.), and treetip sagebrush (Artemisia tripartita) are commonly associated with the soils located within the Project Area. Many of these plants have been incorporated in Native American use, as medicinal plants, food sources, and other employments. The Spokane Valley Outwash Plains consist of gently rolling plains that include the southern portion of the Purcell Trench, Rathdrum Prairie, and Spokane Valley. Elevations range from 2,100- 2,800 ft (640.1-853.4 m). The geology of the region is characterized by pleistocene glacial outwash, flood gravels, and terrace gravels overlain in the south by lacustrine sediments. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (2021), the Project Area contains two soil types: Urban land-Springdale, disturbed complex, and Hardesty ashy silt loam. Table 1. NRCS Soil Descriptions within Project Area. Soil Name Parent Material Horizons % P/A Urban land- Springdale, disturbed complex Sandy and gravelly glaciofluvial deposits with minor amounts of volcanic ash and loess in the upper part Horizon I (0 to 13 in): gravelly ashy coarse sandy loam Horizon II (13 to 25 in): very gravelly loamy coarse sand Horizon III (25 to 61 in): very cobbly coarse sand 84% Hardesty ashy silt loam Alluvium derived from volcanic ash mixed with loess in the upper part Horizon I (0 to 32 inches [in]): ashy silt loam Horizon II (32 to 39 in): ashy very fine sandy loam Horizon III (39 to 60 in): ashy loamy very fine sand 16% Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 5 The climate in the Columbia Basin was cool and moist at the end of the last glacial period. Gradually, climatic conditions became markedly warmer and dryer by approximately 9,000 years before present (B.P.). The warm dry climatic trend reached its maximum around 6,500 B.P. and then conditions reverted to a cooler and moister regime (Fryxell and Daugherty 1962). Comparatively, the present climate is arid with mild moist winters and hot dry summers (Meinig 1968). The mean seasonal temperatures recorded at the Spokane International Airport weather station (#457938) between 1881 and 2016 are 29.6E Fahrenheit (F) in winter and 66.9E F in the summer. Extreme temperatures of -25E F and 108E F have been recorded at the same station. Yearly precipitation averages 16.13 inches (Western Regional Climate Center 2021). REGIONAL PRECONTACT BACKGROUND The Project Area is included in the Plateau culture area, which corresponds roughly to the geographic region drained by the Fraser, Columbia, and Snake Rivers. The Plateau culture area is bordered on the west by the Cascade Mountains and on the east by the Rocky Mountains. The northern border of the culture area is in Canada where it gives way to Arctic culture patterns. The southern border of the Plateau culture area mixes gradually with the Great Basin culture area (Walker 1998:1-3). A cultural chronology provides a time line describing the adaptation, material culture, subsistence, and sometimes settlement patterns of the people who inhabit a specific area. A culture chronology for the Eastern Plateau was compiled by Roll and Hackenberger (1998), which covers the 9,000 years of human occupation within the area created by the drainage systems of the Kootenai, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Clearwater, and Salmon Rivers. While variation is exhibited between the drainages (specifically the Salmon and Clearwater which support anadromous fish populations, and the Kootenai, Pend Oreille, and Spokane [above Spokane Falls] which do not contain anadromous fish species) three overarching phases were defined for the Eastern Plateau as a whole: the Early Prehistoric (6,000 to 3,000 B.P.), the Middle Prehistoric (3,000 to 1,500 B.P.), and the Late Prehistoric (1,500 to 200 B.P.). The culture chronology of the Eastern Plateau has been discussed at length in Roll and Hackenberger (1998), and, if pertinent, will be discussed further within the results of this report. Ethnography Ethnographic sources that depict the geographic distribution of Native American traditional territories provide a general guide for identifying the range of occupation for Indigenous groups in the precontact and historic eras. However, these boundaries are oversimplified and should not be viewed as rigid considering that they are arbitrarily defined, with sharp lines that neither depict joint or disputed occupations nor historical changes in range distributions prior to and after the early- to mid-19th century (Walker, ed. 1998:viii). The sources that were used to identify the traditional territories in which the Project Area is situated are Ross (1998) and Palmer (1998) and Frey (2001). While these sources provide a baseline for recognizing the ancestral homes of the Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 6 groups that originally occupied the Project Area, it is important to recognize the variability in the geographic distribution of groups on the Plateau and the broader relationships between people and place that make these boundaries permeable (see Thom 2009:179). Spokane The Project Area falls within lands traditionally occupied by the Spokane Indians, speakers of a dialect of Interior Salish, a language shared with neighboring Coeur d’Alene, Kalispel, Pend d’Oreille, and Flathead groups (Ross 1998). Three bands of Spokane lived in eastern Washington—Lower Spokane, with a principal settlement near Little Falls; Middle Spokane, occupying Hangman or Latah Creek; and Upper Spokane, who lived along the Little Spokane River and upriver from the junction of Hangman Creek. Ross (1998:271) notes that the Middle and Upper Spokane considered themselves “all one people,” and distinguished themselves from the Lower Spokane. Traditional Coeur d’Alene territory extended over the drainage and headwaters of the Spokane River (Palmer 1998). Traditionally, food procurement activities and the establishment of villages followed a seasonal pattern. Winter habitation sites were occupied during the coldest months of the year, and likely were in place by mid- to late-October. In the subsequent four to five months, stored foods and game were the primary sources of food. In early spring, when winter supplies began to dwindle, people began making forays to gather emergent root crops (Nelson 1973). Spring, summer, and fall root and berry gathering, as well as hunting and resource processing, took place at areas away from winter villages. Task groups often went to specific areas to hunt, to quarry toolstone, to collect berries, or to gather other resources such as tules to make mats (Aikens 1993:90). The predictability of salmon runs provided a valuable resource for immediate and stored use (Schalk 1977). By the end of summer, reserves of dried salmon and prepared roots were stocked for the winter. Ethnographically, the Spokane lived in three types of settlements: permanent winter villages, temporary summer and fall villages, and task-specific summer encampments for hunting, plant gathering, and mineral and lithic exploitation (Ross 1998:272). Winter villages, located along the Spokane River, included hunting grounds, resource gathering areas, burial grounds, and sacred sites. Conical semi-subterranean pit houses were constructed for winter villages using poles covered with layers of tule mats or a permanent double-apsidal lodge with an inverted V pole construction covered with tule mats. Summer fishing villages supported relatively large polyglot populations that came together to fish, trade, and entertain. Temporary villages were comprised of many families and were located in seasonal resource areas. Smaller temporary tule mat structures were used in summer villages and encampments (Ross 1998). For the Spokane, fishing commenced in May at several major fisheries along the Spokane River (Ross 1998). Set nets, traps, leisters, harpoons, hooks, gaffs, and dip nets were used. In sections of narrow streams, crushed granite was used to line stream beds to afford better visibility. In the winter, the Spokane used snowshoes, toboggans, and frozen animal hides to transport heavy loads. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 7 The introduction of the horse in the mid-eighteenth century greatly increased their mobility and changed their socioeconomic patterns. Now they were able to travel greater distances and carry heavier loads, as well as having contact with remote Native American cultures. Coeur d'Alene The Project Area lies within the traditional territory of the Coeur d’Alene people. The Coeur d’Alene call themselves the Schitsu’umsh, translated “The Discovered People” or “those who are found here” (Coeur d’Alene 2010). The nickname, Coeur d’Alene, was generated by the local French fur traders and was applied to Chief Stellum, delineating his harsh bartering methods as having a “Heart of an Awl” (Coeur d’Alene 2010; Stevens 1955). Traditional Coeur d’Alene territory included four million acres of rolling Palouse prairie, foothills, mountains, and valleys (Frey 2001:7). Frey’s (2001:7) Coeur d’Alene ethnography delineates western boundaries, as sanctioned by Coeur d’Alene Tribal Council, as beginning at the Spokane River continuing south along Hangman (Latah) Creek and Pine Creek drainages, to Steptoe Butte, Washington. The Coeur d’Alene are grouped into three divisions; Spokane River and Lake Coeur d’Alene division (17 villages), the Coeur d’Alene River division (12 villages), and the St. Joe River division (9 villages) (Palmer 1998:313). Ray (1936:130-133) lists 34 villages within Coeur d’Alene territory. Boas and Teit (1930) list a total of 33 villages; six villages along the St. Joe River, 11 villages along the Coeur d’Alene River, and 16 villages along the Spokane River—Lake Coeur d’Alene. Hunting, fishing, and gathering were practiced, and productivity was maximized through various land management practices such as burning, pruning, harvest timing, and access regulation by bands. Late summer was spent in upstream meadows of the Coeur d’Alene, St. Joe, and Palouse river drainages digging camas. Fall was spent huckleberry picking, hunting, and fishing in the uplands. During winter, people congregated in the lowlands for hunting, fish trapping, and ice fishing (Palmer 1998:315). Sprague (2005:41) notes that the Coeur d’Alene had the greatest variety of water craft of any Plateau group. Ethnographic accounts recognized several types of bark-covered canoes, including the flat keel sturgeon nose, curved keel sturgeon nose, and the Kalispel variant of the sturgeon- nose; the Kutenai “Eastern” type elk hide canoe; dugout canoe; tule rafts; and bull boats. Water craft were used for basic transportation, fishing, hunting, and gathering resources such as the water potato (Sagittaria latifolia), which grows in soft mud underwater. Canoes were used in fun pastimes, such as canoe racing and tipping, which in turn strengthened “canoe fighting” (warfare) skills (Sprague 2005:52). The importance of the canoe is emphasized in death as it is pounded on to announce a death, much like a church bell. Fragments of canoes were used as burial markers, and the canoe makes an appearance in religion and legends—most notable is the star constellation called “the canoe“ (Sprague 2005:53). Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 8 Following the introduction of the horse on the Plateau, the Coeur d’Alene actively sought to acquire many of the animals (Cebula 2003:28). Herds of horses soon became symbols of wealth and status; they eased communication, and enabled transport to and from far distant buffalo hunting grounds, leading to absence during the late fall and early spring months (Palmer 1998:315). Eventually the open prairies of the Palouse became far more suitable than the forested reaches of Lake Coeur d’Alene for equestrian life (Cebula 2003:30). Over time, horse rearing centered on the Hangman and Palouse river regions (Frey 2001:53). The smallpox epidemic seems to have appeared among the Coeur d’Alene in 1780 when they were reported to have a population of 3,000-4,000. The population was ravished by the epidemic, and by 1853 the Tribe reportedly numbered 320 people. By 1905 the population had steadily climbed to 494 individuals. Currently Tribal enrollment totals 1,922 people (Coeur d’Alene 2010). Chief Circling Raven’s prophecy of black robes carrying sticks was realized when the Coeur d’Alene heard of the Jesuit Priests. In 1842 Pierre Jean de Smet came to the area, and in November Father Nicolas Point was sent to introduce Catholicism and begin the Sacred Heart Mission. The mission was first located along the St. Joe River, then moved north to Cataldo in 1850 where the structure built by Father Anthony Ravalli and the Coeur d’Alene still stands (Frey 2001:65). In 1877 the mission was located too close to the Mullan Road (running from Fort Walla Walla to Fort Benton, Missouri), and so was relocated near DeSmet amongst the prairies suitable for agriculture (Palmer 1998:322). Cebula (2003:108) states the Jesuit priests aimed to convert Coeur d’Alene shaman as they had great ability in influencing tribal members. Coeur d’Alene Catholic converts visited various shaman’s lodges speaking persuasion. Many Coeur d’Alene, such as Chief Peter Moctelme, followed the advice of the Catholic Fathers to farm, accruing large expanses of cultivated land that would later be taken away in 1905 and 1906 with the Dawes Allotment Act of 1891 (Ruby and Brown 1981:268). The Executive Order of 1873, signed by President Ulysses S. Grant, began a series of land relinquishments by the Coeur d’Alene. Reservation boundaries were delineated as 590,000 acres. An 1891 act further reduced sovereign lands to 400,000 acres. In 1894, the federal government reimbursed the Coeur d’Alene Tribe $15,000 for a one-mile strip of land east of Lake Coeur d’Alene, where squatters had formed the town of Harrison. The Allotment Act of 1910 again reduced land ownership to some 104,000 acres. In 1908 and 1911, the Coeur d’Alene residents of southern Lake Coeur d’Alene were evicted, and the $11,000 compensation was used by the state to develop Heyburn State Park. Currently 70,000 acres are owned by the Tribe and Tribal members, within a reservation boundary of some 345,000 acres of sovereign land inclusive of the town centers of Benewah, DeSmet, Plummer, Sanders, Tensed, and Worley (Coeur d’Alene 2010). While ethnographies such as those referenced above provide a useful means of understanding the traditional lifeways of Indigenous peoples, it is important to remember that Indigenous groups were, and continue to be, markedly complex, dynamic, and diverse. Uncritical applications of the ethnographic record to representations of past lifeways have the potential to produce reductionist Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 9 views of tribes and bands that portray them as homogenous or static. The above depictions of the Spokane and Coeur d'Alene peoples serve as generalized portrayals of the traditional lives of these groups, and should be viewed in light of these complexities. Places of Cultural Significance Traditional Cultural Places (TCPs) are important for the “role the property plays in a community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs and practices” as stated in the National Register Bulletin 38 (U.S. Department of the Interior 1990). Although these places can be difficult to identify and evaluate from an etic perspective, an initial search of pertinent publications can be helpful toward identifying the types of places that may be expected. The National Register Bulletin 38 goes on to state that “examples of properties possessing such significance include: •a location associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its origins, its cultural history, or the nature of the world; •a rural community whose organization, buildings and structures, or patterns of land use reflect the cultural traditions valued by its long-term residents; •an urban neighborhood that is the traditional home of a particular cultural group, and that reflects its beliefs and practices; •a location where Native American religious practitioners have historically gone, and are known or thought to go today, to perform ceremonial activities in accordance with traditional cultural rules of practice; and •a location where a community has traditionally carried out economic, artistic, or other cultural practices important in maintaining its historic identity.” The Project Area falls within the traditional territories of the Spokane. A review of ethnographies was undertaken to help identify any known TCPs within or near the Project Area. The works of Angelo Anastasio (1972), Jay Miller (1998), Verne F. Ray (1933; 1936; 1939; 1942), John Ross (1998), Robert Ruby, John Brown, and Cary Collins (2010), Allan Smith (1988), and Leslie Spier (1936) were consulted. Fourteen villages have been documented near the Project Area (Table 2; Figure 3). Numerous collections of published legends were consulted to identify points of legendary significance near the Project Area. These include publications by Franz Boas (1917), Ella Clark (1969), Richard Erdoes and Alfonso Ortiz (1984), Verne Ray (1933), and M. Terry Thompson and Steven Egesdal (2008). As narratives are living, highly functional cultural traditions, they can serve particular or varied motifs. For instance, a single story may be told in different ways in order to serve an intended purpose, such as the transmission of traditional ecological knowledge, to emphasize a moral Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 10 imperative, or to explain the unexplainable. As such, the narratives identified here are not detailed, rather accounts of documented legends. For closer examination one is encouraged to seek a more nuanced understanding of the traditions through the Tribes. Table 2. Ethnographic Villages Near the Project Area. Traditional Name Translation Details Sqlaxa'lk"Refers to falls in rivers A large permanent village was located on both sides of the Spokane river. Located 10 km north of the p/a (Ray 1936, Spokane Village 27). Sunna'tculks The place where many crows are found Located at present day Hillyard, WS. A medium sized village for fishing, hunting and grazing: fall and winter only. Located 12 km northwest of the p/a (Ray 1936, Spokane Village 25). Sqami'n'Unavailable Small winter camp at the point where the railroad bridge now crosses the Spokane River on the north side of the river. Located 15 km northwest of the p/a (Ray 1936, Spokane Village 26). Qu'yu Place where Oregon grape grows Situated on Latah Creek. Populus permanent settlement with high access for hunting and fishing. Located 15km west of the p/a (Ray 1936, Spokane Village 28). MuC'lc Cottonwood Camp of 30 people was to be found near the swamp at the south end of Liberty Lake. Located 12 km east of the p/a (Ray 1936, Coeur d’Alene Village 32). IcanaC'kwaqon two inlets at an angle A camp two miles south of no. MuC'lc with two or three families. Located 13 km east of the p/a (Ray 1936, Coeur d’Alene Village 33). Unavailable Unavailable A one-family camp was situated just east of IcanaC'kwaqon. Located 14 km east of the p/a (Ray 1936, Coeur d’Alene Village 34). Èatcnwáxi?tpbm Flat by dogwoods Northeast of Liberty Lake, located on the southern bank of the Spokane River, 8 km northeast of the p/a (Palmer 1998, Village 1). NeslÍxum Unavailable North of Liberty Lake, located on the northen bank of the Spokane River, east of Èatcnwáxi?tpbm, 11 km northeast of the p/a (Palmer 1998, Village 2). Nesxwáxwe Unavailable North of Liberty Lake, located on the northen bank of the Spokane River, east of NeslÍxum, 13 km northeast of the p/a (Palmer 1998, Village 3). Ntsetsakwolsákwo Unavailable North of Liberty Lake, located on the northen bank of the Spokane River, east of Nesx?áx?e, 15 km east of the p/a (Palmer 1998, Village 4). Múlš Cottonwood Located on the southeastern shore of Liberty Lake, 13 km east of the p/a (Palmer 1998, Village 14). Ènák!wa?qcn One on the Head Located approximately 1.5-2 miles south of Múlš,13 km east of the p/a (Palmer 1998, Village 15). Unavailable Unavailable Located approximately 0.75-1.25 miles east of Ènák!wa?qcn, 15km east of the p/a (Palmer 1998, Village 16). Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 11 Figure 3. The Project Area shown in relation to documented TCPs. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 12 Ray (1933:183-184) notes a Sanpoil tale near Davenport. The tale involved Kapu’ collecting his horses around Davenport. As he started north toward home, he saw a roaring fire at the end of a canyon before his horses were spooked by the ghost of a crazed Spokane woman who once lived in a winter camp site in that location. The camp site was abandoned after an earthquake, circa 1874. Clark (1969:116-117) relates The Origin of the Spokane River. It is said that the Spokane lived in terror of a huge monster that consumed all the fish and wildlife, was so strong as to uproot large trees with a single swipe of his hand, and no hunter could kill him. A Spokane girl was collecting berries near the location where the Spokane River now spills into the Columbia River. She came upon the monster sleeping on a hillside. She ran to alert her village and soon the people had the sleeping monster tied up and were beating him. The monster awoke angry, broke through his bindings, and ran eastward toward Lake Coeur d’Alene. As he did, he cut the channel of the Spokane River, and when he reached the lake the water rushed through this channel and into the Columbia River. Four Smokes, told by Lawrence Aripa, emphasizes the importance of Lake Coeur d’Alene as the heart of Coeur d’Alene territory from the beginning. After various families of Coeur d’Alene traveled with surrounding Tribes great distances to hunt buffalo in Montana, they returned home to Lake Coeur d’Alene. These trips brought about challenges, experiences, growth, trade goods, and knowledge of one’s abilities applicable to the forefront of a changing dynamic homeland (Frey 1995:15-20). Another oral tradition, Coyote and the Rock, describes how Lake Coeur d’Alene acquired its distinctive blue coloration. In this, Coyote is asked by a bird to stop Rock’s hazardous impact on everything. Coyote persuades Rock to chase after him, all the while creating mountains, clearing trees on the Palouse, and clearing trees atop Plummer Butte. Eventually Rock rolls through a patch of blueberries, over a cliff, and lands in Lake Coeur d’Alene, turning the lake blue (Frey 1995:71-75; 2001:119). This story teaches that the First Peoples (the First Animals) prepared the landscape of the Coeur d’Alene world (Frey 2001:152). Some TCPs, features, or resource collection areas with specific, attributed cultural significance are likely still known to some Native American informants, and reasonably considered sacred and necessarily closely guarded. Given the Spokane Tribes unique relationship with the surrounding landscape and the Tribe’s interest in preservation and protection of sacred and traditional places, if additional TCP review is necessary, it is strongly suggested that the Tribe be consulted directly. REGIONAL HISTORIC BACKGROUND In 1809, Oregon Territory saw an influx of trappers and fur traders, beginning with the Canadian- owned North West Company as they made their way into the region and built Spokane House in 1810, located near the confluence of the Spokane River and Hangman Creek. Spokane House became the first permanent European settlement in the State of Washington (McCart and McCart 2000:213). For a time, Spokane House thrived as both a trading center and a gathering place for fur traders. Despite its successes, Spokane House was abandoned in 1816. By that time, trading routes Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 13 had shifted largely to the Columbia River, leaving the Spokane House no longer logistically or economically important (Meinig 1968). In 1825, the Hudson’s Bay Company closed Spokane House and moved its local operations north to Fort Colville at Kettle Falls. Subsequent to the opening of the Oregon Trail in 1840, Euroamerican settlers flooded the area, bringing trade, religion and disease into Native-occupied areas. In 1846, the United States took control of the Oregon territory in the Oregon Treaty. With increasing population and economic and political pressures of immigrants and the Whitman massacre, the Territory of Oregon (Oregon Territory) was officially established in 1848. By 1850, nearly 12,000 immigrants had passed through the Plateau region along the Oregon Trail (Beckham 1998; Walker and Sprague 1998). With the establishment of the Oregon Territory in 1848 and Washington Territory in 1853, federal involvement proliferated. Treaties between Native tribes and the new state and federal governments were soon underway. Washington Governor Isaac Stevens, also appointed as Superintendent of Indian Affairs by President Pierce, worked jointly with Joel Palmer, Superintendent of Indian Affairs in Oregon, to negotiate a series of treaties between 1854 and 1855. These treaties were difficult to maintain in light of the Chinook jargon used in negotiations, rapid influx of miners following the several “rushes,” and settlers who were eager for property. Almost immediately after signing the Walla Walla Council Treaty of 1855, gold was discovered on several promised reservations in the Plateau, and miners began to confiscate the mineral-rich lands. The introduction of disease, treaty violations, and other stresses introduced by the new settlers caused mistrust and eventually, warfare. Several battles took place in the area between 1855 and 1858 during the Plateau Indian War. Of these was the Battle of Pine Creek, also known as the Battle of Tohotonimme, near modern day Steptoe Butte. In 1858, Colonel Edward J. Steptoe and 160 troops marched towards Fort Colville after learning of clashes between Native Americans and Euroamerican settlers. Steptoe and his troops invaded Coeur d’Alene and Spokane territory, resulting in a battle at Tehotomimme (Steptoe Butte) on May 17th. The troops were defeated and Steptoe retreated the following day. As a result of this loss, Colonel George Wright marched troops from Fort Dalles to the area and defeated the tribes, burned grain fields, destroyed stored foods, and butchered over 900 head of horses. These actions ended conflict between Native American groups and Euroamerican settlers in the region. (Beckham 1998: 154). Major smallpox epidemics in 1846 and between 1852-1853 severely impacted the Spokane population. In 1881, 154,602 acres of land were established as the Spokane Reservation with an additional 2,000 acres restored to tribal ownership in 1958 (Lahren 1998: 494). A decrease in land meant a decrease in food resources. The installation of dams beginning in 1911 at Little Falls prevented salmon, a major food source, from coming upstream. Non-Native American settlement, disease, and other factors, have taken a toll on the Spokane population, and it was not until the mid-1920s that the population began to see a growth. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 14 Spokane County Spokane County was formed on January 29, 1858, annexed by Stevens County on January 19, 1864, and re-created on October 30, 1879. Adjacent counties are Pend Oreille County to the north, Bonner County (Idaho) to the northeast, Kootenai County (Idaho) to the east, Benewah County (Idaho) to the southeast, Whitman County to the south, Lincoln County to the west, and Stevens County to the northwest. Spokane County is the most populous county in eastern Washington and home to the second largest city (Spokane) in the state. After settlement in the 1870s, Spokane became the hub for the mining, timber, and railroad industries of the Inland Northwest. In the surrounding areas, sheep/cattle ranching and especially wheat farming became important; some of these industries are still important today (Colford 2006). The fire of 1889, literally destroyed a great portion of downtown Spokane, leaving no real services to the community. Slowly, tents started popping up, supplying everything from liquor to household items. Soon, construction began on more permanent, brick and stone structures, many of which are still standing today. Between 1907 and 1918, the city was booming, primarily with the rapid rise of the extractive industries, such as mining and lumber, as well as the cities' infrastructure (Arksey 2006). Bridging the Spokane river was always a challenge. Starting with flimsy, wooden structures, then graduating to steel, the construction of a more durable, permanent span was desperately needed…enter the steel reinforced concrete arch. Between 1907 and 1915, no fewer than ten such spans were erected over the Spokane, some still in use today (Creighton 2013; Stratton 2005). Beyond the city limits, agriculture, and other such related industries were operating full bore. With the evolution of mechanized farming, and increase of farmable acreage, most especially with the farming of dryland wheat, more wheat would be planted throughout the county. By 1925, the formation of the Caterpillar Company from the combined interests of Danial Best and Oliver Holt, revolutionized farming in the Northwest and beyond (Creighton 1996). Though railroading, mining, lumber, and other related industries created a robust economy, by the 1920s and 1930s, this was no longer the case, hence what would fill the vacuum? Although farming was and still is a major force in Spokane County, within the city of Spokane a trend in healthcare, education, publishing, manufacturing, and in some cases, the high tech industries have filled that vacuum. Spokane has always been a major convention city (at one time it was the smallest city to host a worlds fair, EXPO 74), and with the recently completed downtown convention center, the entertainment sector has greatly evolved, hosting national ice skating and regional sports venues. With a population of 523,000, Spokane County continues to thrive. As of 2021, the city of Spokane has become a top destination for living, as well as a hub for expanded national business enterprises. Cartographic Analysis of the Project Area The Project Area is located in the N½ S½ of Section 34 of Township 25 North, Range 44 East. The 1887 cadastral map (McMicken) shows a road in the alignment of Highway 27 and no additional built environment surrounding the Project Area (Figure 4A). Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 15 Figure 4. The Project Area shown on selected historic maps. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 16 The 1901 Spokane USGS topographic map shows a road adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Project Area in alignment with Highway 27 as well as a structure just north of the eastern region of the Project Area (Figure 4B. The 1905 atlas shows a road adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Project Area in alignment with Highway 27 with no additional built environment surrounding the region. The western portion of the Project Area is shown to be owned by E. W. Tomlin, and the eastern potion is owned by Millard Heirgood. (Figure 4C; Fidelity Abstract Company 1905). The 1949 Greenacres USGS topographic map shows Highway 27 adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Project Area with three structures north of the eastern region of the Project Area (Figure 4D). The 1950 atlas shows Highway 27 adjacent to the Project Area. The western portion of the Project Area is shown to be owned by J & E Edwards, and the eastern portion is owned by G. D. Hawkins (Figure 4E; Metsker 1950). PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY A review of previously recorded cultural resources and archaeological surveys was completed through the WISAARD on November 9, 2021. The review covered areas within Sections 02, 03, and 04 of Township 24 North, Range 44 East; and Sections 26, 27, 28, 33, 34, and 35 of Township 25 North, Range 44 East. There have been six previously conducted cultural resource surveys within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the Project Area (Table 3). None of these surveys intersect with the Project Area. Table 3. Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Surveys within 1.0 mi of the Project Area. Author Project Distance from P/A Results Axton 1999 Dishman-Mica Road Survey 0.75–1.0 mi SW HPI outside Research Area Axton and Grundy 2000 36th Avenue and Progress, Sommer, Adams, and Best Road Survey 0.5–0.75 mi NE HPI outside Research Area Corley 2015 Sun Acres Pump Station 0–0.25 mi E Negative Fitzpatrick et al. 2020 Dishman Estates at Altender Ranch 0.75–1.0 mi SW Negative Mclntosh and Harder 2019 Pine Valley Ranch III 0–0.25 mi N Negative Sackman and Harder 2018 Painted Hills Residential Development 0.25–0.5 mi WSW Negative Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 17 In 2019, Plateau Archaeological Investigations completed a cultural resource survey for the Pine Valley Ranch III Project (McIntosh 2019). This survey is adjacent to the Project Area and is located 0–0.25 mi (0–0.4 km) northeast of the northwestern boundary of the Project Area. The review revealed no cultural resources within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the Project Area. A total of 11 HPIs have been inventoried, or derived from the Spokane County Assessor’s records within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the Project Area. None are located within 0.25 miles of the Project Area and none have been determined eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. FIELD METHODS AND SURVEY RESULTS Survey work was completed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716, September 29, 1983) and under the supervision of Principal Investigator, David Harder. Plateau archaeologist Michaelle Machuca completed the cultural resource survey on March 1, 2022. The limits of the Project Area were identified using maps provided by the client. Survey conditions were in the mid 50s, intermittent overcast skies, no wind, and no precipitation. The Project Area is in Spokane Valley, along East 40th Avenue, west of Highway 27, and south of East 39th Lane. The environment of the Project Area was a gravel pit with a sparse forested area surrounding the gravel pit and a ditch with grasses. The sparse forested area was consistent with the vegetation as described in the Environmental Setting section of the report. Prior to the field visit, a utility locate was requested under ticket #21516663. This locate identified no subsurface utility lines. The archaeologist conducted pedestrian survey consisting of three north/south transects in the gravel pit portion of the Project Area and two contouring transects of the canal portion of the Project Area. These transects were spaced at intervals no more than 20 m (66 ft) (Figure 5). Ground surface visibility varied between 20% in the forested portion of the Project Area to 100% in the gravel pit portion of the Project Area (Figure 6 and Figure 7). Plant debris and vegetation impeded ground visibility. One subsurface probe (SSP) was excavated within the Project Area as a 40 cm hole (Table 4). The SSP was opportunistically placed in an area that appeared to be the least disturbed. The archaeologist removed sediment in arbitrary 10 cm levels, screened spoils through ¼-inch wire mesh, and recorded sediment characteristics on standardized forms with the color, composition, and degree of compaction noted. The archaeologist took representative photographs of the Project Area, and all subsurface probes and other relevant geospatial data were recorded using a handheld GPS unit. Urban land-Springdale, disturbed complex was observed within the SSP. The SSP reached a depth of 100 cm (39.4 in). No Native American or historic-era cultural materials or features were observed during the pedestrian survey or excavations. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 18 Figure 5. The Project Area and field investigation inventoried on an aerial photograph. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 19 Figure 7. Overview of the Project Area. View to the north. Figure 6. Overview of the Project Area. View to the north. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 20 Table 4. Shovel Probe Results. SSP# NAD83 UTM Zone 11 Depth Strats and Description Results 1392 0482775 E, 5274056 N 100 cm 0-100 cmbs: Strat I: 10YR 4/4, dark yellowish brown, gravely, sandy loam with 80% subangular to rounded gravel. Negative Painted Hills Gustin Pipe Off Site Ditch The ditch begins on the west side of HWY 27 (0.4 miles [0.6 km] south of 32nd Avenue) and runs west, crossing through the Gustin property to the Comer/Gustin (Bar 4 Bar Inc.) property line for a distance of 0.25 miles (0.4 km). From that point, the ditch disappears into a depression/catch basin. This particular area is entirely within the Comer property. The area has recently been fenced with 6.0 ft (1.8 m) chain link as dumping and other nefarious activity has taken place. The ditch and depression (4.2 acres) are within an easement owned by Spokane County. The property owner states that as far as he knows, no irrigation was ever undertaken in this area, and the so-called ditch is simply a conveyance for flood/storm waters from east of HWY 27. The property owner states that occasionally one to two feet of water could accumulate in the depression/catch basin. It is apparent that Gustin property adjacent to the Comer property to the east (32.2 acres) had been farmed at one time; according to Spokane County Auditor records, the property has been associated with the Gustin name since the early 1900s. It appears the ditch was simply a run-off trench, possibly constructed by the county at some unknown date through its easement, as it enters the Gustin property via a culvert travelling under HWY 27 from farm ground east of the highway. Additionally, the catch basin/depression located on the Comer property lies at a lower elevation, and essentially becomes the end point for drainage west of Gustin's property. Early maps of the area show no irrigation properties, other than Modern Land and Water company approximately two miles north of the project area. Irrigation operators can be found north and east along the Spokane River stretching into Idaho, such as East Farms, Liberty Lake and works in Otis Orchards. The 1912 Ogle shows quite a bit of development in the project area consisting of platted areas (Larchmont) in the north half of section 34 near the community of Chester; typical farm acreage can be found to the east and west, but no irrigation works. The ditch is not maintained and contains a large amount of overgrowth. Certain criteria must be met in order to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The following four criteria are: A) A resource that is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; B) A resource that is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C) One that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, or; D) One that has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The flood/stormwater ditch meets none of the criteria mentioned above, and therefore is ineligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 21 Figure 8. The drainage ditch. View to the east. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Plateau archaeologists conducted a pedestrian survey over the entire Project Area, and excavated one subsurface probe. The SSP was excavated to a depth of 100 cm (39.4 in). The pedestrian survey and subsurface investigations for the project resulted in no newly recorded archaeological resources. A ditch and catch basin were inventoried as Property 726296, but are ineligible for listing on the NRHP (Appendix A). Plateau recommends that the proposed undertaking will result in No Historic Properties Affected, and no further archaeological investigations are recommended prior to, or during, execution of this project. An Unintentional Discovery Plan (UDP) has been prepared and included in this report for use during all ground-disturbing work on the project. It is suggested that the UDP be included with the contract documents. The UDP is included in Appendix B. Should ground-disturbing activities reveal any cultural materials (e.g., structural remains, European American artifacts, or Native American artifacts), activity will cease and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer should be notified immediately. The results and recommendations in this document concern the specified APE. The proponent is advised that the results and recommendations reported herein do not apply to areas of potential effect altered or expanded after the cultural resource survey. A supplementary cultural resource review will be necessary should the APE be altered or changed, as per 36 CFR 800.4. If ground-disturbing activities encounter human skeletal remains during the course of construction, then all activity will cease that may cause further disturbance to those remains. The area of the find will be secured and protected from further disturbance to those remains. The area of the find will Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 22 be secured and protected from further disturbance until the State provides notice to proceed. The finding of human skeletal remains will be reported to the county medical examiner/coroner and local law enforcement in the most expeditious manner possible. The remains will not be touched, moved, or further disturbed. The county medical examiner/coroner will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains and make a determination of whether those remains are forensic or non-forensic. If the county medical examiner/coroner determines the remains are non-forensic, then they will report that finding to the DAHP who will then take jurisdiction over the remains. The DAHP will notify any appropriate cemeteries and all affected tribes of the find. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Indian or Non- Indian and report that finding to any appropriate cemeteries and affected tribes. The DAHP will then handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 23 WORKS CITED Aikens, C. Melvin 1993 Archaeology of Oregon. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon. Anastasio, Angelo 1972 The Southern Plateau: An Ecological Analysis of Intergroup Relations. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 6(2):109-229. Arksey, Laura 2006 "Great Spokane Fire destroys Downtown Spokane Falls on August 4 1889." Accessed 2021. https://www.historylink.org/File/7696. Axton, Susan 1999 A Cultural Resource Survey of Dishman-Mica Road Between 40th Avenue and Mohawk Drive, Spokane County, Washington. Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington. On file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia, Washington. Axton, Susan, and Barbara J. Grundy 2000 A Cultural Resource Survey of the 36th Avenue and Progress, Sommer, Adams, and Best Roads Project Area, Spokane County, Washington. Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington. On file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia, Washington. Beckham, Stephen D. 1998 History Since 1846. In Handbook of North American Indians: Plateau, v.12, edited by Deward E. Walker, pp.149-173, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC. Boas, Franz (editor) 1917 Folk-tales of the Salish and Sahaptin Tribes. Collected by James A. Teit, Marian K. Gould, Livingston Farrand, and Herbert J. Spinden. Memoirs of the American Folk-Lore Society 11. Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Breckenridge, J. C. 1887 Cadastral Map: Township 25 North, Range 44. Electronic document, blm.gov, accessed November 9, 2021. Brown, A. Ruth 1982 Soil Survey of Stevens County, Washington. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 24 Burt, William H., and Richard P. Grossenheider 1961 A Field Guide to the Mammals. The Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Cebula, Larry 2003 Plateau Indians and the Quest for Spiritual Power, 1700-1850. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. Clark, Ella E. 1969 Indian Legends of the Pacific Northwest. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Coeur d’Alene Tribe 2010 Overview. Electronic document, cdatribe.com/TribalGov/Overview.aspx, accessed May 27, 2010. Colford, Ann M. 2006 Spokane County, Thumbnail History. Electronic document, historylink.org, accessed April 26, 2018. Corley, Jackie 2015 Sun Acres Pump Station Cultural Resource Survey. Spokane Tribe of Indians Preservation Program, Wellpinit, Washiongton. On file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia, Washington. Creighton, Jeff 1996 Combines and Harvesters. MBI Publishing, Minneapolis, MN. 2013 Bridges of Spokane. Arcadia Press. Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 2021 WISAARD. Electronic document, dahp.wa.gov, accessed November 9, 2021. Erdoes, Richard and Alfonso Ortiz 1984 American Indian Myths and Legends. Pantheon Books, New York, New York. Fidelity Abstract Co. 1905 Township 25 North, Range 44 East. In Standard Atlas of Spokane County, Washington. Fidelity Abstract CO. Kerrville, Texas. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 25 Fitzpatrick, Justin, Moira Riggs, Adam Sackman, Brooke J. Cohen, and David A. Harder 2020 Cultural Resource Survey for the Dishman Estates, at the Altender Ranch Project, Spokane County, Washington. Plateau Archaeological Investigations, LLC., Pullman, Washington. On file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia, Washington. Franklin, Jerry F., and C.T. Dyrness 1973 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service Research Paper PNW- 80. Pacific Northwest and Range Experiment Station, Portland. Frey, Rodney 1995 Stories That Make the World. Oral Literature of the Indian Peoples of the Inland Northwest. As Told by Lawrence Aripa, Tom Yellowtail, and Other Elders. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma. 2001 Landscape Traveled by Coyote and Crane. The World of the Schitsu’umsh (Coeur d’Alene Indians). In Collaboration with the Schitsu’umsh. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Fryxell, Roald, and Richard D. Daugherty 1962 Schematic Geoarchaeological Chronology for Eastern Washington and Related Areas. Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington. Ingles, Lloyd G. 1965 Mammals of the Pacific States: California, Oregon, and Washington. Stanford, California. Lahren, Sylvester L. 1998 Reservations and Reserves. In Handbook of North American Indians: Plateau, v.12, edited by Deward E. Walker, pp. 484-498, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Lothson, Gordon A. 1977 Archaeological Reconnaissance and Phase II Testing of Oroville Urban Levees. Progress Report No. 52, Washington Archaeological Research Center, Washington State University, Pullman. McCart, Joyce, and Peter McCart 2000 On the Road with David Thompson. Fifth House Publishers, Calgary, Alberta. McGrath, C.L., A.J. Woods, J.M. Omernik, S.A. Bryce, M. Edmondson, J.A. Nesser, J. Shelden, R.C. Crawford, F.A. Comstock, and M.D Plocher 2010 Ecoregions of Washington. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 26 McIntosh, Brandon M., and David A. Harder 2019 Cultural Resource Survey for the Pine Valley Ranch III Project, Spokane County, Washington. Plateau Archaeological Investigations, LLC., Pullman, Washington. On file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia, Washington. Meinig, Donald W. 1968 The Great Columbia Plain: A Historical Geography, 1805-1910. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Metsker, Charles 1950 Township 25 N., Range 44 E. In Standard Atlas of Spokane County County, Washington. Metsker Map Company. Miller, Jay 1998 Middle Columbia River Salishans. In Handbook of North American Indians: Plateau, v. 12, edited by Deward E. Walker, Jr., pp. 253-282. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Mullan, John 1909 Miners and Travelers’ Guide. Ye Galleon Press, Fairfield, Washington. Reprinted in 1991. Natural Resources Conservation Service 2021 Web Soil Survey. Electronic document www.nrcs.usda.gov accessed November 9, 2021. Nelson, Charles M. 1973 Prehistoric Culture Change in the Intermontane Plateau of Western North America. In Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, edited by C. C. Renfrew, pp. 371-390. Gerald Duckworth, London. Palmer, Gary 1998 Coeur d’Alene. In Plateau, edited by Deward E. Walker, Jr, pp. 313-326. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 12, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC. Ray, Verne F. 1933 Sanpoil Folk Tales. Journal of American Folk-Lore 46(180):129-187. 1936 Native Villages and Groupings of the Columbia Basin. Pacific Northwest Quarterly 27(2):99-152. 1939 Cultural Relations in the Plateau of Northwestern America. Publications of the Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund Vol. 3. Southwestern Museum Publications, Los Angeles. 1942 Cultural Element Distributions: XXII Plateau. Anthropological Papers 8:2. University of California Press, Berkeley. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 27 Roll, Tom E., and Steven Hackenberger 1998 Prehistory of the Eastern Plateau. In Handbook of North American Indians: Plateau, v. 12, edited by Deward E. Walker, Jr., pp. 120-137, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Ross, John Alan 1998 Spokane. In Plateau, edited by Deward E. Walker, Jr., pp. 271-282. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 12, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Ruby, Robert H., John A. Brown, Cary C. Collins 2010 A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. Third Edition. University Oklahoma Press, Norman. Ruby, Robert H., and John A. Brown 1981 Indians of the Pacific Northwest. A History. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma. Sackman, Adam J., and David A. Harder 2018 Cultural Resource Survey of the Painted Hills Residential Development Project. Plateau Archaeological Investigations, LLC., Pullman, Washington. On file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia, Washington. Schalk, Randall F. 1977 The Structure of Anadromous Fish Resource. In For Theory Building in Archaeology, edited by L.R. Binford, pp. 207-249. Academic Press, New York. Schroedl, Gerald F. 1973 The Archaeological Occurrence of Bison in the Southern Plateau. Reports of Investigations No. 51. Laboratory of Anthropology. Washington State University, Pullman, Washington. Smith, Allan H. 1988 Ethnography of the North Cascades. Project Report No. 7, Center for Northwest Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. Spier, Leslie 1936 Tribal Distribution in Washington. General Series in Anthropology No. 3. George Banta Publishing Co., Menasha, Wisconsin. Sprague, Roderick 2005 Canoes and Other Water Craft of the Coeur d’Alene. Journal of Northwest Anthropology, v. 39, no. 1, pp 41-62. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 28 Stevens, Harold D. 1955 An Analysis of Coeur d’Alene Indian-White Interrelations. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Coeur d’Alene Tribe, Idaho. Stratton, David H. 2005 Spokane and the Inland Empire: An Interior Pacific Northwest Anthology. Washington State University Press, Pullman, WA. Thom, Brian 2009 The Paradox of Boundaries in Coast Salish Territories. Cultural Geographies 16:179–205. Thompson, M. Terry and Steven M. Egesdal (editors) 2008 Salish Myths and Legends: One People’s Stories. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. U. S. Department of the Interior 1990 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties in National Bulletin #38. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division. U.S. Geological Survey 1901 Topographic Map: Spokane 15' Series. 1949 Topographic Map: Greenacres, Washington 7.5' Series. Walker, Deward E., Jr. 1998 Plateau, edited by Deward E. Walker, Jr. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 12, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Walker, Deward E., Jr., and Roderick Sprague 1998 History Until 1846. In Handbook of North American Indians: Plateau, v. 12, edited by Deward E. Walker, Jr., pp. 138-148. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Western Regional Climate Center 2016 457938, Washingon Spokane Internatinoal weather station. Electronic document, www.wrcc.sage.dri.edu, accessed November 9, 2021. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 29 APPENDIX A: Historic Property Inventory (HPI) Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 30 Location Address:WA-27, Spokane, Washington, 99206 Tax No/Parcel No:45344.9108 Plat/Block/Lot:34-25-44 NW1/4 OF SE1/4 EXC THE W 600FT OF S 400FT THEREOF & EXC THEPTN DAF; BEG AT NE COR SD1/4 TH S ALG E LN SD1/4 412FT; TH WTO W R/W LN STATE HWY; TH CONT W 145FT TH S 157FT; TH E 145FT; TH N 157FT TO POB Geographic Areas:Spokane County, T25R44E34, Spokane County Certified Local Government, FREEMAN Quadrangle Information Number of stories:N/A Architect/Engineer: Category Name or Company Historic Context: Category Historic Use: Category Subcategory Agriculture/Subsistence Agriculture/Subsistence - Drainage Agriculture/Subsistence Agriculture/Subsistence - Drainage Construction Type Year Circa Construction Dates: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 Page 1 of 6 Historic Property Report Painted Hills Gustin Pipe Off Site 726296Resource Name:Property ID: Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 31 Project Number, Organization, Project Name Resource Inventory SHPO Determination SHPO Determined By, Determined Date 2021-11-07772, , Painted Hills, Gustin Pipe Off-Site 11/12/2021 Survey/Inventory Local Registers and Districts Name Date Listed Notes Project History Thematics: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 Page 2 of 6 Historic Property Report Painted Hills Gustin Pipe Off Site 726296Resource Name:Property ID: Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 32 Catch Basin showing Refuse Looking SE.jpg Storm Water Ditch Looking West from HWY 27.jpg Photos Catch Basin Looking East.jpg Gustin Ditch Looking West from HWY 27.jpg Wednesday, March 23, 2022 Page 3 of 6 Historic Property Report Painted Hills Gustin Pipe Off Site 726296Resource Name:Property ID: Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 33 Inventory Details - 11/12/2021 Styles: Period Style Details No Style No Style Detail Information Common name: Date recorded:11/12/2021 Field Recorder:(John) Jeff Creighton Field Site number: SHPO Determination Surveyor Opinion Wednesday, March 23, 2022 Page 4 of 6 Historic Property Report Painted Hills Gustin Pipe Off Site 726296Resource Name:Property ID: Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 34 Significance narrative:The ditch begins on the west side of HWY 27 (0.4 miles south of 32nd Avenue) and runs west, crossing through the Gustin property to the Comer/Gustin (Bar 4 Bar Inc.) property line for a distance of 0.25 miles. From that point, the ditch disappears into a depression/catch basin. This particular area is entirely within the Comer property (4.2 acres). The area has recently been fenced with six foot chain link as dumping and other nefarious activity has taken place. The property owner states that as far as he knows, no irrigation was ever undertaken in this area, and the so-called ditch is simply a conveyance for flood /storm waters from east of HWY 27. The property owner states that occasionally one to two feet of water could accumulate in the depression/catch basin. Interestingly, the 4.2 acre parcel is actually within an easement owned by Spokane County. It is apparent that Gustin property adjacent to the Comer property to the east (32.2 acres) had been farmed at one time; according to Spokane County Auditor records, the property has been associated with the Gustin name since the early 1900s. It appears the ditch was simply a run-off trench, possibly constructed by the county at some unknown date through its easement, as it enters the Gustin property via a culvert travelling under HWY 27 from farm ground east of the highway. Additionally, the catch basin/depression located on the Comer property lies at a lower elevation, and essentially becomes the end point for drainage west of Gustin's property. Early maps of the area show no irrigation properties, other than Modern Land and Water company approximately two miles north of the project area. Irrigation operators can be found north and east along the Spokane River stretching into Idaho, such as East Farms, Liberty Lake and works in Otis Orchards. The 1912 Ogle shows quite a bit of development in the project area consisting of platted areas (Larchmont) in the north half of section 34 near the community of Chester; typical farm acreage can be found to the east and west, but no irrigation works. The ditch is unmaintained and contains a large amount of overgrowth. Certain criteria must be met in order to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The following four criteria are: A) A resource that is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. B) A resource that is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past C) One that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, or; D) One that has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The flood/stormwater ditch meets none of the criteria mentioned above, and therefore is ineligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Wednesday, March 23, 2022 Page 5 of 6 Historic Property Report Painted Hills Gustin Pipe Off Site 726296Resource Name:Property ID: Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 35 Physical description:The drainage ditch is approximately three feet in depth and six feet across. The ditch is unlined and is overgrown with vegetation and native grasses. There are no irrigation features. There are two dirt crossings from the far field to the residential area. The ditch terminates 0.25 miles to the west emptying into a natural depression. The ditch is fed from a flood plain on the east side of highway 27, via a culvert. This resource appears to be unmaintained, and simply serves as a conveyance for storm/flood discharge. Bibliography: Spokane County Assessor, Field Assessment files, 2021; Spokane County Auditor, online document search; In person interview with Tim Comer, property owner, 13 November 2021. Wednesday, March 23, 2022 Page 6 of 6 Historic Property Report Painted Hills Gustin Pipe Off Site 726296Resource Name:Property ID: Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 36 APPENDIX B: Unintentional Discovery Plan (UDP) Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 37 Painted Hills, Gustin Pipe Off-Site Survey, Spokane County, Washington Unintentional Discovery Plan Treatment of Archaeological Materials Discovered During Project Implementation By: Emily L. Whistler March 2022 Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 38 Painted Hills, Gustin Pipe Off-Site Survey, Spokane County, Washington Unintentional Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials Whipple Consulting Engineers is proceeding with plans for the development of the Painted Hills Housing Development—subdividing a 100.0-acre site into 600 residential lots. This primary area of impact has been surveyed and reported on previously by Plateau. During the review process, Spokane County Public Works requested that additional survey be carried out on an off-site location, which will be used for flood control. Whipple Consulting Engineers retained Plateau Archaeological Investigations, LLC (Plateau) to complete the cultural resource survey and identify potential impacts to cultural and historical resources. The area of potential effect, referred to as the Project Area, covers approximately 5.7 acres and lies in Section(s) 33 of Township 25 North, Range 34 East, Willamette Meridian. (Figure 2). The survey was subsequently reported in Cultural Resource Survey for the Painted Hills, Gustin Pipe Off-Site Survey, Spokane County, Washington (Thompson et al. 2022), and recorded with the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) under Project Number 2021-11-07772. Pre-field research consisted of a file review completed through the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) on 9, 2021. The review covered areas within Sections 02, 03, and 04 of Township 24 North, Range 44 East; and Sections 26, 27, 28, 33, 34, and 35 of Township 25 North, Range 44 East. This review revealed 11 cultural resources and six previously conducted cultural resource surveys within 1.0 mile (mi) (1.6 kilometer [km]) of the Project Area. This database includes recorded archaeological resources, historic property inventories (HPIs), National Register of Historic Properties (NRHP) and Washington Heritage Register (WHR) properties, identified cemeteries, and previously conducted cultural resource surveys found throughout the state of Washington. Additionally, a review of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) records, both General Land Office (GLO) online records and land patent information, was completed. Topographic maps and aerial photos were reviewed to identify additional indicators of past land use. . Plateau archaeologists conducted a pedestrian survey and excavated a subsurface probe. A ditch and catch basin were inventoried as Property 726296, but are ineligible for listing on the NRHP. Plateau recommends that the proposed undertaking will result in No Historic Properties Affected, and no further archaeological investigations are recommended prior to, or during, execution of this project. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 39 Painted Hills, Gustin Pipe Off-Site Survey, Spokane County, Washington Unintentional Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials Laws and Regulations Regarding Archaeological and Cultural Resources Several laws and regulations, set forth on both federal and state levels, address concerns for burials, rock cairns, archaeological sites, historic structures, and other cultural resources. Those pertinent to this project are several Chapters of the Revised Code of Washington and the Washington State Governor's Executive Order 21-02. Chapter 27.44 of the Revised Code of Washington offers protection for Indian burials, cairns, glyptic markings, and historic graves on private and public property. This regulation provides civil and criminal penalties for the intentional disturbance or removal of these types of properties. Chapter 27.53 of the Revised Code of Washington requires that a permit be acquired through the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) prior to the intentional disturbance, excavation, removal, or alteration of any known historic or archaeological resource through any means. Chapter 68.50 of the Revised Code of Washington describes the investigations, treatment, scientific study, and final disposition of human remains. This chapter includes very little information that pertains to the inadvertent discovery of archaeological materials. Chapter 68.60 of the Revised Code of Washington outlines protections for cemeteries, historic graves, and other human remains. This chapter further outlines procedures pertaining to the inadvertent discovery of human remains. Washington State Governor's Executive Order 21-02 requires all state agencies implementing or assisting with construction or land acquisition projects that receive state funding to consider how the proposed projects may affect cultural resources. Prior to the expenditure of state funds, Executive Order 21-02 requires the lead state agency of a given project to consult with the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (i.e. Washington State's SHPO), and all affected Tribes of a proposed project, "to take all reasonable action to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to archaeological and historic archaeological sites, historic buildings/structures, traditional cultural places, sacred sites or other cultural resources.." Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 40 Painted Hills, Gustin Pipe Off-Site Survey, Spokane County, Washington Unintentional Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials Inadvertent Discovery Plan Proper application and management of this IDP requires that a professional archaeologist be contacted if ground-disturbing activities reveal potential Native American or historic-era cultural materials or features (Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5). The archaeologist shall meet the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for a professional archaeologist as defined at 36CFR61 Appendix A. Construction within 200 ft (60 m) of the discovery will stop, and the area will be secured to protect the find from additional damage. The archaeologist will document the find, prepare a brief written statement, and take photographs of the find for submission to the lead agency and the SHPO at the DAHP. The find will also be reported to the THPO of the Spokane Tribe of Indians and the Coeur d' Alene Tribe. It is the responsibility of the lead agency, Spokane County, to contact the affected Tribes. This consultation process will take place even if the pre-contact or historic-era cultural materials appear to have lost their depositional integrity. Work within 200 ft (60 m) of the find will not resume until a plan for management or preservation of the materials has been approved. Following the project, the archaeologist will provide a report detailing the procedures and results of the investigation. During the investigation, the archaeologist will observe rules of safety and will comply with any safety requirements of the excavation contractor and project engineers. Entry into any excavation will only be done under the direct supervision and approval of the construction foreman (or his or her agent) and verification that entry and exit is safe. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 41 Painted Hills, Gustin Pipe Off-Site Survey, Spokane County, Washington Unintentional Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains If ground-disturbing activities encounter human skeletal remains during the course of construction, then all activity will cease that may cause further disturbance to those remains. The area of the find will be secured and protected from further disturbance to those remains. The area of the find will be secured and protected from further disturbance until the State provides notice to proceed. The finding of human skeletal remains will be reported to the county medical examiner/coroner and local law enforcement in the most expeditious manner possible. The remains will not be touched, moved, or further disturbed. The county medical examiner/coroner will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains and make a determination of whether those remains are forensic or non-forensic. If the county medical examiner/coroner determines the remains are non-forensic, then they will report that finding to the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) who will then take jurisdiction over the remains. The DAHP will notify any appropriate cemeteries and all affected tribes of the find. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Indian or Non-Indian and report that finding to any appropriate cemeteries and affected tribes. The DAHP will then handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 42 Painted Hills, Gustin Pipe Off-Site Survey, Spokane County, Washington Unintentional Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials Protocol to Follow When No Archaeologist is Present If an archaeologist is not on-site when cultural materials (e.g., pre-contact artifacts and/or features, historic-era artifacts and/or features) are uncovered, the following steps shall be followed: Suspend work within 200 ft (60 m) of the find. Take a photo of the artifact(s) or feature(s). Include a common object such as a quarter, a tape measure, a person, or a pickup as a scale to show the size of the find. Take photos of the location of the find from several angles and distances. Record a GPS point if possible. Contact Plateau by telephone to notify us of the find. Provide an email with photos and any additional information you are able to gather. Precontact Artifacts Precontact artifacts can include stone, wood, or bone tools. Stone tools are the most common artifact encountered since they do not deteriorate over time. Precontact Features Precontact features can include fire pits, hearths, burn deposits, ash, rock alignments, rock mounds, and midden deposits. Historic-Era Artifacts Historic-era artifacts may include various items manufactured from metal, glass, or wood. If an individual identifiable historic artifact is encountered, the above protocol should be followed. “Historic-era artifacts” does not include “recent” items such as chip bags, styrofoam, modern beverage cans and bottles, or other typical roadside debris. Historic-Era Features Any identifiable remains of buildings, foundations, rock alignments, or rock mounds might be historic-era features. Human Remains Human remains, suspected human remains, burials, funerary objects, sacred objects, or items of cultural patrimony are to be treated in the manner outlined above. Additionally, Plateau is to be notified by phone immediately. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 43 Painted Hills, Gustin Pipe Off-Site Survey, Spokane County, Washington Unintentional Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials Emergency Dispatch in Spokane County Emergency Dispatch 911 Spokane Valley Police Department 509-477-3300 Sheriff, non-emergency 509-477-2240 Spokane County Coroner 509-477-2296 509-447-0235 (fax) Spokane Tribe of Indians Randy Abrahamson, THPO 509-258-4315 509-258-6965 (fax) randya@spokanetribe.com Coeur d’Alene Tribe Jill Wagner, THPO 208-686-1572 208-686-1901 (fax) jwagner@cdatribe-nsn-gov Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation DAHP Reception 360-586-3065 DAHP fax 360-586-3067 Guy Tasa, State Physical Anthropologist 360-586-3534 Guy.Tasa@dahp.wa.gov Rob Whitlam, State Archaeologist 360-586-3080 Rob.Whitlam@dahp.wa.gov Plateau Archaeological Investigations Main Office/Fax 509-332-3830 David Harder, Archaeologist 509-336-1525 (cell) dharder@plateau-crm.com Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 44 Painted Hills, Gustin Pipe Off-Site Survey, Spokane County, Washington Unintentional Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials WORKS CITED Andrefsky, William A., Jr. 1998 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology, University Printing House, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 2022 WISAARD. Electronic document accessed at dahp.wa.gov on March 28, 2022. Lyon, Joshua 2015 The Collector’s Ultimate Guide to Canning Jars. Electronic document, countryliving.com, accessed February 7, 2017. Sappington, Robert Lee 1994 The Prehistory of the Clearwater River Region, North Central Idaho. University of Anthropological Reports, No. 95. Alfred W. Bowers Laboratory of Anthropology, University of Idaho, Moscow. Thompson, Jordan, Olivia Gagnon, Justin Fitzpatrick, and David A. Harder 2022 Cultural Resource Survey for the Painted Hills, Gustin Pipe Off-Site Survey, Spokane Washington. Plateau Archaeological Investigations, Pullman, Washington. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 45 Painted Hills, Gustin Pipe Off-Site Survey, Spokane County, Washington Unintentional Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials Figure 1. The Project Area on a portion of the Freeman USGS topographic map. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 46 Painted Hills, Gustin Pipe Off-Site Survey, Spokane County, Washington Unintentional Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials Figure 2. The Project Area on an aerial photograph. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 47 Painted Hills, Gustin Pipe Off-Site Survey, Spokane County, Washington Unintentional Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials Figure 3. Reduction of a lithic blank to a tool (Andrefsky 1998:158) Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 48 Painted Hills, Gustin Pipe Off-Site Survey, Spokane County, Washington Unintentional Discovery Plan and Treatment of Archaeological Materials Figure 4. An illustration of a housepit and the resulting archaeological feature (Sappington 1994: 153). Figure 5. An example of logo changes over time, which can aid in determining the date of historic artifacts. Plateau Archaeological Investigations ~ 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 49 APPENDIX K: Flood Conveyance System Diagram This page intentionally left blank. DISHMAN-MICA RD.SPOKANE VALLEY,WADRAWN:PROJ #:REVIEWED:DATE:DATUM: NAVD - 8813-1166JOB NUMBERSHEETTRW13-116609/14/20WCETBM S-5 OF THE SOUTH PONDEROSA SEWER PROJECTWITH AN ELEVATION OF 2005.87 (NAVD29)=2009.67(NAVD88) WAS USED FOR THE VERTICAL DATUM FOR THISMAP.WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS2528 NORTH SULLIVAN ROADSPOKANE VALLEY, WA 99216PH: 509-893-2617 FAX: 509-926-0227CIVILSTRUCTURALSURVEYINGTRAFFICPLANNINGLANDSCAPEOTHERPAINTED HILLS 14, SEC. , T. N., R. E., W.M.SE332544 SW14, SEC.34, T.25N., R.44E., W.M. 14, SEC. , T. N., R. E., W.M.NE42444VERTICAL:HORIZONTAL:SCALE:REVISIONSNO. DATE BY EXISTING FLOOD AREASEXH-1SMM1"=120'N/AXWESNCP:\WCE_WORK\2013 WCE PROJECTS\2013-1166 Walker - Painted Hills GC\DWG\2022-12-12FLOOD-SKETCHES\EXH-1-FLOOD PLAN.dwg, EXH-1, 12/19/2022 2:39:45 PM,smoss, SMM DISHMAN-MICA RD.SPOKANE VALLEY,WADRAWN:PROJ #:REVIEWED:DATE:DATUM: NAVD - 8813-1166JOB NUMBERSHEETTRW13-116609/14/20WCETBM S-5 OF THE SOUTH PONDEROSA SEWER PROJECTWITH AN ELEVATION OF 2005.87 (NAVD29)=2009.67(NAVD88) WAS USED FOR THE VERTICAL DATUM FOR THISMAP.WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS2528 NORTH SULLIVAN ROADSPOKANE VALLEY, WA 99216PH: 509-893-2617 FAX: 509-926-0227CIVILSTRUCTURALSURVEYINGTRAFFICPLANNINGLANDSCAPEOTHERPAINTED HILLS 14, SEC. , T. N., R. E., W.M.SE332544 SW14, SEC.34, T.25N., R.44E., W.M. 14, SEC. , T. N., R. E., W.M.NE42444VERTICAL:HORIZONTAL:SCALE:REVISIONSNO. DATE BY EXISTING VS PROPOSED FLOOD AREASEXH-2SMM1"=120'N/AXWESNCP:\WCE_WORK\2013 WCE PROJECTS\2013-1166 Walker - Painted Hills GC\DWG\2022-12-12FLOOD-SKETCHES\EXH-1-FLOOD PLAN.dwg, EXH-2, 12/19/2022 2:40:28 PM,smoss, SMM DISHMAN-MICA RD.SPOKANE VALLEY,WADRAWN:PROJ #:REVIEWED:DATE:DATUM: NAVD - 8813-1166JOB NUMBERSHEETTRW13-116609/14/20WCETBM S-5 OF THE SOUTH PONDEROSA SEWER PROJECTWITH AN ELEVATION OF 2005.87 (NAVD29)=2009.67(NAVD88) WAS USED FOR THE VERTICAL DATUM FOR THISMAP.WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS2528 NORTH SULLIVAN ROADSPOKANE VALLEY, WA 99216PH: 509-893-2617 FAX: 509-926-0227CIVILSTRUCTURALSURVEYINGTRAFFICPLANNINGLANDSCAPEOTHERPAINTED HILLS 14, SEC. , T. N., R. E., W.M.SE332544 SW14, SEC.34, T.25N., R.44E., W.M. 14, SEC. , T. N., R. E., W.M.NE42444VERTICAL:HORIZONTAL:SCALE:REVISIONSNO. DATE BY CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE EXH-3SMM1"=120'N/AXWESNC5' WIDE MANHOLEHEADWORKS SELFCLEANING TRASH RACKOVERFLOW CHANNEL- USED IFTRASH RACK IS BLOCKED, ANDFLOWS INTO THE SECONDARYSTORAGE PARK POND3' TALL, 27' WIDE &32' LONG CULVERTFLOODWATERSENTERCULVERTLOWPOINT PONDSETTLINGPOND1263478123455467889BERM WITH TWO48" PIPES1234444555556789FOREBAY5' WIDE MANHOLE10FLOOD ROUTING - DESCRIPTIONBOX CULVERTFOREBAY / HEADWALL / TRASH RACKSPARK OVERFLOWPIPES TO DISCHARGE BASINMANHOLESBIOFILTRATION SWALESEDIMENT BASINDISCHARGE PIPES TO DISCHARGEBASINDISCHARGE BASINEXISTING CULVERTS FROM EAST OFMADISON123456789109105TALL GRASSYSLOPETHORPE ROADP:\WCE_WORK\2013 WCE PROJECTS\2013-1166 Walker - Painted Hills GC\DWG\2022-12-12FLOOD-SKETCHES\EXH-1-FLOOD PLAN.dwg, EXH-3, 12/19/2022 3:30:42 PM,smoss, SMM DISHMAN-MICA RD.SPOKANE VALLEY,WADRAWN:PROJ #:REVIEWED:DATE:DATUM: NAVD - 8813-1166JOB NUMBERSHEETTRW13-116609/14/20WCETBM S-5 OF THE SOUTH PONDEROSA SEWER PROJECTWITH AN ELEVATION OF 2005.87 (NAVD29)=2009.67(NAVD88) WAS USED FOR THE VERTICAL DATUM FOR THISMAP.WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS2528 NORTH SULLIVAN ROADSPOKANE VALLEY, WA 99216PH: 509-893-2617 FAX: 509-926-0227CIVILSTRUCTURALSURVEYINGTRAFFICPLANNINGLANDSCAPEOTHERPAINTED HILLS 14, SEC. , T. N., R. E., W.M.SE332544 SW14, SEC.34, T.25N., R.44E., W.M. 14, SEC. , T. N., R. E., W.M.NE42444VERTICAL:HORIZONTAL:SCALE:REVISIONSNO. DATE BY CONCEPTUAL PARK OVERFLOWEXH-4SMM1"=20'N/AXWESNCTRASHRACKOVERFLOWCHANNELFLOWS TOPARK POND3' TALL, 27' WIDE &32' LONG CULVERTFLOOD WATERSENTER CULVERTOUTFLOWBACK TOPIPINGSECONDARYSTORAGE PARKPONDFLOOD WATERS RISE AND FLOW INTOAND THROUGH BOX CULVERT.WATERS ENTER FOREBAY TO TRASHRACK WHICH COLLECTS DEBRIS-TRASHRACK WILL BE CLEANED OF DEBRIS ATSCHEDULED TIMES. FLOW ENTER TWOPIPE SYSTEMOVERFLOW CHANNEL-USED ONLY IF THETRASH RACK IS BLOCKED BY DEBRIS.WATERS FLOW INTO THE PARK ANDTEMPORARILY STORED AND BYPASSESHEADWORKS AND DISCHARGES BACK TOTHE 48" PIPES..MANHOLE WITH GRATED LID.8 FOOT MANHOLE IS CONNECTED TO 48"CULVERTS AND CONTINUES DOWN THEDESIGNED CULVER SYSTEM.1234511234523458' MANHOLETHORPE ROAD DEFINITIONSP:\WCE_WORK\2013 WCE PROJECTS\2013-1166 Walker - Painted Hills GC\DWG\2022-12-12FLOOD-SKETCHES\EXH-1-FLOOD PLAN.dwg, EXH-4, 12/19/2022 3:31:10 PM,smoss, SMM DISHMAN-MICA RD.SPOKANE VALLEY,WADRAWN:PROJ #:REVIEWED:DATE:DATUM: NAVD - 8813-1166JOB NUMBERSHEETTRW13-116602/8/23WCETBM S-5 OF THE SOUTH PONDEROSA SEWER PROJECTWITH AN ELEVATION OF 2005.87 (NAVD29)=2009.67(NAVD88) WAS USED FOR THE VERTICAL DATUM FOR THISMAP.WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS2528 NORTH SULLIVAN ROADSPOKANE VALLEY, WA 99216PH: 509-893-2617 FAX: 509-926-0227CIVILSTRUCTURALSURVEYINGTRAFFICPLANNINGLANDSCAPEOTHERPAINTED HILLS 14, SEC. , T. N., R. E., W.M.SE332544 SW14, SEC.34, T.25N., R.44E., W.M. 14, SEC. , T. N., R. E., W.M.NE42444VERTICAL:HORIZONTAL:SCALE:REVISIONSNO. DATE BY CONCEPTUAL GUSTIN PONDEXH-5SMMNOT TO SCALEN/AXWESNC1456HIGHWAY 27ACCESS ROADHIGHWAY 271 40TH AVENUENEW DRYWELLNEW DRYWELLPROPOSED 36"CULVERT12'APPROX.DEPTHACCESS ROADPOND ACCESS12 DRYWELLSIN PONDBOTTOMCULVERT EMPTIESINTO POND7SYMBOLDESCRIPTIONQTYDETAILNEW DRYWELLHIGHWAY 27DRYWELL WEST OF HIGHWAY 27PROPOSED 36" CULVERT36" PIPE EMPTIES INTO PONDPOND BOTTOM WITH 12 DRYWELLSPOND ACCESS ROAD FROM POND BOTTOM TO 40TH AVE.1234567REFERENCE NOTES SCHEDULEP:\WCE_WORK\2013 WCE PROJECTS\2013-1166 Walker - Painted Hills GC\DWG\2022-12-12FLOOD-SKETCHES\EXH-1-FLOOD PLAN.dwg, EXH-5, 2/10/2023 8:18:19 AM,smoss, SMM APPENDIX L: Certificate of Transportation Concurrency This page intentionally left blank. APPENDIX M: Technical Memorandum Report – Chester Creek This page intentionally left blank. 1 Technical Memorandum for Record WEST Consultants, Inc. 2601 25th St. SE Suite 450 Salem, OR 97302-1286 (503) 485 5490 (503) 485-5491 Fax www.westconsultants.com Date: January 15, 2008 Revised March 12, 2008 Subject: Chester Creek Flood Insurance Study Hydrology Re-evaluation Introduction In 2004, WEST Consultants, Inc. (WEST) completed a detailed hydrologic analysis of Chester Creek in the City of Spokane Valley, WA, as part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) of Chester Creek. The analysis was completed using the Hydrological Simulation Program-FORTRAN (HSPF) software developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2005). Detailed information about the development of the HSPF model for the Chester Creek FIS is documented in Flood Insurance Study Hydrologic Analysis for Chester Creek, Spokane County, Washington (WEST, 2004), and it will be referred to as the FEMA FIS HSPF model in the remainder of this memorandum. During the appeal period following the release of the preliminary FIS results, the City of Spokane Valley, WA, sent an appeal letter (City Spokane Valley, October 2006) to FEMA requesting that additional hydrologic analyses be done to evaluate the impact of 43 drywells located within the lower Chester Creek floodplain. As a result, WEST was contracted by FEMA to re-evaluate the hydrology of lower Chester Creek. Detailed information about the re-evaluation is documented in this memorandum. This memorandum also documents additional hydrologic analysis performed on Subbasin C2. Subbasin C2 is located in the lower northeastern portion of the watershed. It is the most densely developed area of the watershed, but it is underlain by highly porous glacial flood deposits. There are also several stormwater infiltration drywell systems that capture and infiltrate the runoff from this area. It was assumed for the FIS that runoff from this subbasin would not contribute any flood flows to Chester Creek due to the presence of such a large number dry wells within the subbasin. As Subbasin C2 contains 22 of the 43 drywells located within the Chester Creek floodplain, additional analyses were required to determine the validity of using these 22 drywells to reduce peak flood discharges, given that they were previously assumed to be part of the dry well system responsible for preventing Subbasin C2 flood discharge from reaching Chester Creek. 2 Hydrologic Analysis of Subbasin C2 The runoff from this subbasin typically flows in a southwest direction to one of four low spots along the east side of Dishman-Mica Road. The delineation of this subbasin is shown in Figure 1. Storage Area 3 (SA3) is located within Subbasin C2 and contains 22 of the 43 drywells located in the Chester Creek floodplain. In the FEMA FIS it was assumed that no flow from Subbasin C2 contributes to Chester Creek and that local flow within the basin is infiltrated by the drywells. Some upstream flood flows from Chester Creek overtop Dishman Mica road just downstream of 28th Avenue and flow east to Storage Area 3 where they pond and infiltrate. A hydrologic analysis of Subbasin C2 was conducted to determine the validity of including the 22 drywell located in SA3 in the reduction of flood discharge in addition to local flow from Subbasin C2. An HSPF model was developed for subbasin C2 using information from the HSPF model developed for the FEMA FIS (WEST, 2004), and topographic, land-use, and geologic/soil type information for the subbasin. Information utilized from the FEMA FIS HSPF model (WEST, 2004) included the meteorological data and calibrated HSPF parameters. The meteorological data consist of precipitation, temperature, solar radiation, evaporation, dew point temperatures, and wind speed measured at Spokane Airport. The HSPF parameters were calibrated using a two-step procedure. The parameters controlling snow accumulation and melt were first calibrated to observed snow depth data collected at Spokane Airport for water years 1948 through 2002. Then, the parameters controlling runoff were calibrated to the Chester Creek streamflow record. The calibrated HSPF parameters are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Calibrated HSPF Parameters for Pervious Areas Pervious Land Type FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC Bedrock Undeveloped 0.800 5.50 0.20 400 0.10 0.50 0.975 Bedrock Developed 0.100 5.50 0.10 400 0.10 0.50 0.975 Outwash Undeveloped 0.800 5.50 2.00 400 0.05 0.50 0.975 Outwash Developed 0.100 5.50 0.80 400 0.05 0.50 0.975 Pervious Land Type PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP Bedrock Undeveloped 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bedrock Developed 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Outwash Undeveloped 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Outwash Developed 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 Pervious Land Type CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP Bedrock Undeveloped 0.20 0.20 0.35 6.0 0.60 0.60 Bedrock Developed 0.10 0.10 0.05 6.0 0.60 0.20 Outwash Undeveloped 0.20 0.20 0.35 0.0 0.60 0.60 Outwash Developed 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.0 0.60 0.20 The area within each subbasin was classified into areas of common land-use and geologic/soil type called “PERLNDS” (short for pervious land segments), and the same PERLNDS types used in the FEMA FIS HSPF model were used. The total surface area for each PERLNDS was determined using the GIS software (ArcGIS Version 9) and shapefiles of the land-use and geology, and they are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Summary of Existing Land-Use for Subbasin C2 Subbasin Land-Use (acres) Impervious Urban Outwash Undeveloped Outwash Urban Bedrock Undeveloped Bedrock Total Area C2A 312.7 1104.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1417.4 C2B 44.6 149.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 194.1 C2C 23.9 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 103.9 C2D 22.0 73.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.6 A statistical analysis of the HSPF results was conducted to determine the discharge-frequency relationship for each of the subbasins of Subbasin C2. The discharge-frequency relationship was determined using the same methodology used in the FIS. The relationship was determined using a probability-plot regression approach since many of the annual maximum values were zero or near zero. The discharge-frequency relationships for each of the subbasins of Subbasin C2 are summarized in Table 3. 4 Table 3. Discharge-Frequency Relationship for Subbasin C2 Subbasin Discharge (cfs) Unit Discharge (cfs/acre) 10-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr 10-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr C2A 216 290 322 394 0.152 0.205 0.227 0.278 C2B 32 41 45 53 0.164 0.210 0.230 0.275 C2C 17 22 24 29 0.163 0.211 0.231 0.278 C2D 15 20 22 27 0.159 0.211 0.233 0.285 A GIS coverage, consisting of the surveyed location of all drywells within Subbasin C2, was provided by the City of Spokane Valley. Based on this coverage, 1059 dry wells are located within Subbasin C2, of which 709 are double depth, 332 are single depth and 18 are unknown. The drywells are evenly distributed throughout the subbasin (Figure 2). For the purpose of this analysis and to be conservative, the unknown drywells were considered to be single depth. Single depth drywells are typically 8 feet deep with an approximately 4-foot high perforated section, and double depth drywells are typically 12 feet deep with an approximately 8-foot high perforated section. Based on field measurement tests, the design outflow rate of a single drywell is nominally 0.3 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 1.0 cfs for a double depth drywell. In 2006, the City of Spokane Valley conducted infiltration tests on 7 drywells to determine their normalized outflow rates. The tests resulted in normalized rates that were 2.7 to 9.1 times greater than the design flows (City Spokane Valley, October 2006). A comparison of total dry well outflow capacity and basin discharge is shown in Table 4. Subbasins C2A, C2B and C2C have 1.8 to 2.0 times more nominal drywell capacity than the 100-yr basin discharge and 1.6 to 1.7 times more nominal drywell capacity than the 500-yr basin discharge. The drywell outflow for Subbasin C2D exceeds the basin discharge for the 100-yr flood. Although the 500-yr basin discharge for Subbasin C2D exceeds the nominal drywell outflow capacity by 1 cfs, the topography in this area is relatively flat and during large floods that exceed the drywell capacity, water would be stored at the dry well inlets and depressions and would eventually infiltrate as the flood subsided. We note that for Subbasin C2A (which contains SA3) the nominal drywell capacity exceeds the basin discharge by a factor of 2. Taking this in conjunction with the drywell design flow safety factor, and the even distribution of drywells throughout the entire basin, we believe it valid to conclude that no flow from Subbasin C2A will flow to SA3 and that the drywells within SA3 can be assumed to help reduce peak flood discharge from Chester Creek and be included in the hydrology re-evaluation. 5 Table 4. Comparison of Drywell Outflow to Basin Discharge Subbasin Number of Double Wells Number of Single Wells Total Well Outflow Capacity (cfs) 100-yr Event 500-yr Event Basin Discharge (cfs) Outflow to Basin Discharge Ratio Basin Discharge (cfs) Outflow to Basin Discharge Ratio 2A 574 284 659 322 2.0 394 1.7 2B 73 33 83 45 1.8 53 1.6 2C 41 16 46 24 1.9 29 1.6 2D 21 17 26 22 1.2 27 0.96 Re-evaluation of the Hydrology for Lower Chester Creek The hydrology for lower Chester Creek was re-evaluated using the HSPF computer program. The re-evaluation involved making three revisions to the FEMA FIS HSPF model. The first revision involved dividing the single reach downstream of 24th Avenue (Storage Area 5) into five smaller reaches: (1) Reach 1 is from 24th Avenue to about 1,400 feet downstream, (2) Reach 2 is from the downstream end of Reach 1 to 16th Avenue, (3) Reach 3 is from 16th Avenue to 8th Avenue, (4) Reach 4 is from 8th Avenue to about 600 feet downstream, and (5) Reach 5 is from the downstream end of Reach 4 to 2nd Avenue. This revision was made to include several storages areas within the reach and to obtain discharge values at more locations than considered in the FEMA FIS. As a result of this revision, Subbasin C1 and C3 had to be re-delineated to determine the portion of these subbasins that contribute flows to each of the reaches and the total surface area of PERLNDS had to be calculated for the each of new subbasins. The five reaches and the re-delineation of Subbasins C1 and C3 are shown in Figure 3. The total surface area of the PERLNDS determined for all of the subbasins within the watershed is summarized in Table 5. The second revision involved adding storage areas (SA) immediately upstream of the street crossings at 2nd Avenue (SA 10), 8th Avenue (SA 9), 16th Avenue (SA 8), and 24th Avenue (SA 7). The added storage areas are also shown in Figure 3. The surface area-volume-elevation relationship for each storage area was determined using ArcGIS software and the Triangulation Irregular Network (TIN) created from 2-foot contours developed from LiDAR data collected in 2003. The stage-discharge relationship for each storage area was determined from the HEC-RAS model developed for the FIS. The discharge associated with infiltration for each basin was assumed to be equal to the rate (2 inches per hour) considered for Subbasin C3 in the FEMA FIS HSPF model. The last revision included the influences of the drywells located within the floodplain. Information about the drywells was provided by the City of Spokane Valley, WA. Table 6 provides the number of wells, the City’s Well Number, well type (“single” or “double” depth drywell), and rim elevation within each of the storage areas. HSPF models were developed with and without the influences of the drywells. The outflow of the drywells was simulated in the HSPF model using a discharge rating curve defined using the design outflow rate at the surveyed rim elevation. As an example, the drywell outflow rating curve for a storage area that has a bottom elevation of 96 feet, a single drywell with an rim elevation of 100 feet, and a double drywell with an rim elevation of 102 feet would be 0 cfs from elevation 96 to 100 feet, 0.3 cfs from 6 elevation 100 to 102 feet, and 1.3 cfs for elevations greater than 102 feet. Table 5. Summary of Existing Land-Use for Chester Creek Subbasin Land-Use (acres) Impervious Urban Outwash Undeveloped Outwash Urban Bedrock Undeveloped Bedrock Total Area C1A 0.0 0.0 39.4 0.0 69.1 108.5 C1B 0.0 0.0 19.4 0.0 9.9 29.3 C1C 0.0 0.0 21.2 0.0 197.5 218.7 C1D 0.0 0.0 30.4 0.0 141.0 171.4 C1E 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 1.9 12.6 C1F 0.0 0.0 29.7 0.0 6.1 35.9 C21 403.2 1810.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1810.9 C3A 13.2 117.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 131.0 C3B 6.0 54.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.4 C3C 1.8 16.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.3 C3D 1.4 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 C3E 4.4 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.5 C3F 0.4 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 C3G 2.6 22.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.4 C4 0.0 0.0 185.1 0.0 1367.4 1552.5 C5 63.9 296.3 0.0 279.0 0.0 639.3 C6 10.5 0.0 195.3 0.0 57.2 263.0 C7 25.9 0.0 218.0 0.0 403.9 647.8 C7A 10.2 0.0 205.0 0.0 39.2 254.4 C8 0.0 0.0 50.2 0.0 246.8 297.0 C9 0.0 0.0 158.9 0.0 197.3 356.1 C10 0.0 0.0 111.8 0.0 1279.2 1391.0 C11 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.0 588.9 604.3 C12 0.0 0.0 220.6 0.0 1223.2 1443.8 C13 0.0 0.0 86.1 0.0 724.1 810.2 C14 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 430.7 437.0 C15 0.0 0.0 248.1 0.0 2068.8 2317.0 C16 0.0 0.0 92.2 0.0 1272.9 1365.2 Runoff from Subbasin C2 infiltrates into the ground through various drywells and does not contribute flow to Chester Creek. 7 Table 6. Information of Drywells within the Storage Areas of Chester Creek Storage Area Number of Wells Well Number Well Type Rim Elevation (ft) 1 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 2 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 3 18 DW – 2 Single 2000.97 DW – 3 Double 1999.08 DW – 4 Double 1999.09 DW – 5 Double 1999.54 DW – 6 Double 1999.30 DW – 7 Double 1999.48 DW – 8 Double 1999.27 DW – 9 Double 2002.35 DW – 10 Double 2002.37 DW – 11 Double 2000.52 DW – 12 Single 1999.96 DW – 13 Single 1999.65 DW – 14 Double 1998.72 DW – 15 Double 1998.07 DW – 16 Single 1998.26 4 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 5 3 DW – 17 Double 1999.72 DW - 18 Double 1998.11 DW - 19 Double 1998.30 6 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 7 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 8 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 9 15 DW - 23 Single 1990.19 DW - 24 Double 1988.80 DW - 25 Double 1987.61 DW - 26 Single 1989.14 DW - 27 Double 1989.03 DW - 28 Double 1988.32 DW - 29 Double 1988.32 DW - 30 Double 1988.32 DW - 31 Single 1986.54 DW - 32 Single 1986.62 DW - 33 Double 1986.80 DW - 34 Double 1988.36 DW - 35 Single 1988.39 DW - 36 Single 1991.49 DW - 37 Single 1991.74 10 6 DW - 38 Double 1985.36 DW - 39 Single 1984.15 DW - 40 Single 1983.29 DW - 41 Double 1981.80 DW - 42 Double 1985.77 DW - 43 Double 1985.77 The HSPF results were analyzed using the same statistical methodology as in the FIS to determine the 8 discharge-frequency relationship for the lower Chester Creek. The resulting relationships are provided in Table 7 and Table 8. For comparison, Table 7 provides the discharge-frequency relationship at various locations downstream of 28th Ave for the original 2004 discharges along with the 2008 revised results for the with and without the drywell influences conditions. The ‘without drywells’ condition considers the changes that occur based on the inclusion of the 4 new storage areas in the lower reaches and the ‘with drywells’ condition considers the changes based on the new storage areas and the addition of the drywells. Table 8 provides the stage-frequency relationship for the storage areas in the lower reach of the Chester Creek. The results indicate that there will be no flow downstream of 8th Avenue (SA 9). However, there will be minor ponding within SA 10 due to local runoff to this area. This ponding would average less than 1 foot in depth. Table 9 and Table 10 provide a summary of revised proposed discharges for Chester Creek. 9 Table 7. Comparison of Discharge-Frequency Relationships for Lower Chester Creek Location Original 2004 Results Revised 2007 Discharges Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs) without Drywells Discharge (cfs) with Drywells 10-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr 10-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr 10-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr Storage 5 Outflow (Culvert under RR between 24th and 28th Ave) n/a* n/a* n/a* n/a* 35 45 49 58 30 40 44 53 Cross Section K (24th Ave) 36 49 55 68 29 46 53 69 25 42 49 67 SA 8 Outflow (16th Avenue) n/a n/a n/a n/a 12 30 37 54 9 25 32 48 SA 9 Outflow (8th Avenue) n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SA 10 Outflow/Cross Section L (2nd Avenue) 2 3 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *Though discharges for this area were not listed in the 2004 study results they are the essentially the same as the “without drywells” scenario as no changes were made to the model upstream of this location aside from the addition of drywells in the ‘with drywell’ scenario. 10 Table 8. Water Surface Elevation-Frequency Relationship for Storage Areas of Lower Chester Creek Location Overflow Elevation (ft) Original 2004 Results Revised 2007 Discharges WS Elevation (ft) WS Elevation (ft) without Drywells WS Elevation (ft) with Drywells 10-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr 10-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr 10-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr Storage Area 2 2000.30 2000.82 2001.18 2001.48 2001.90 2000.81 2001.15 2001.45 2001.90 2000.81 2001.06 2001.16 2001.78 Storage Area 3 1999.80 2000.45 2001.18 2001.48 2001.90 2000.44 2001.15 2001.45 2001.90 1999.99 2000.74 2001.05 2001.78 Storage Area 5 2001.90 2000.45 2001.18 2001.48 2001.90 2000.44 2001.15 2001.45 2001.90 1999.99 2000.74 2001.05 2001.78 Storage Area 7 1996.85 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1997.15 1997.20 1997.22 1997.26 1997.14 1997.19 1997.21 1997.26 Storage Area 8 1993.35 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1993.56 1993.68 1993.73 1993.80 1993.54 1993.65 1993.70 1993.78 Storage Area 9 1992.50 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1989.96 1991.75 1991.81 1991.93 1988.54 1990.75 1990.79 1990.86 Storage Area 10 1986.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1983.28 1983.44 1983.51 1983.66 1983.04 1983.19 1983.25 1983.39 11 Table 9. Proposed Flood Magnitude Frequency Estimates for Lower Chester Creek Watershed Location Discharge (cfs) 10-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr Storage 5 Outflow (Culvert under RR between 24th and 28th Ave) 30 40 44 53 Cross Section K (24th Ave) 25 42 49 67 SA 8 Outflow (16th Avenue) 9 25 32 48 SA 9 Outflow (8th Avenue) 0 0 0 0 SA 10 Outflow/Cross Section L (2nd Avenue) 0 0 0 0 Table 10. Proposed Water Surface Elevation Magnitude Frequency Estimates for Lower Chester Creek Watershed (ft) Location 10-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr Overflow Elevation (ft) Storage Area 2 2000.81 2001.06 2001.16 2001.78 2000.3 Storage Area 3 1999.99 2000.74 2001.05 2001.78 1999.8 Storage Area 5 1999.99 2000.74 2001.05 2001.78 2001.9 Storage Area 7 1997.14 1997.19 1997.21 1997.26 1996.9 Storage Area 8 1993.54 1993.65 1993.70 1993.78 1993.4 Storage Area 9 1988.54 1990.75 1990.79 1990.86 1992.5 Storage Area 10 1983.04 1983.19 1983.25 1983.39 1986.0 Conclusions WEST completed two hydrologic analyses of Chester Creek using HSPF. The first analysis analyzed Subbasin C2 to determine the validity of using the 22 drywells located in SA3 to reduce peak flood discharges for Chester Creek. The discharge-frequency relationship for the four subbasins of Subbasin C2 is provided in Table 3. A comparison of drywell capacity and basin discharge is provided in Table 4. The runoff from the subbasin was compared to the infiltration potential of the existing drywells in the subbasin, 12 and it was determined that the runoff from this subbasin will not contribute to either SA3 or Chester Creek and therefore the drywells located within SA3 can be considered to help reduce peak flood discharge from Chester Creek in addition to the drywells located further downstream. The second analysis involved re-evaluating the hydrology for lower Chester Creek. The re-evaluation included additional outflow locations downstream of 24th Avenue, additional storage areas at the downstream end of the watershed, and the effects of drywells within the floodplain. The results of the re- evaluation are provided in Table 7 and Table 8, and indicate that there will be no flow downstream of 8th Avenue (SA 9), but there will be minor ponding within SA 10 due to local runoff to this area. This ponding would average less than 1 foot in depth. References City of Spokane Valley, 2006 (July), Data for Drainage Structures in Lower Chester Creek Floodplain. City of Spokane Valley, 2006 (October), Letter from Neil Kersten, City of Spokane Valley, to Ryan Ike, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Re: Chester Creek Floodplain Revisions. City of Spokane Valley, 2006 (November), Letter from Henry Allen, City of Spokane Valley, to Joseph T. Weber, Jr., U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Re: Chester Creek Floodplain Revisions. WEST Consultants, Inc., 2004 (December). Flood Insurance Study Hydrologic Analysis for Chester Creek, Spokane County, Washington, prepared for FEMA Region X. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005 (July), Hydrological Simulation Program- FORTRAN, Release 12.2. ATTACHMENT 1 FIGURES Figure 1. Subbasin delineations for Subbasin C2 Figure 2. Drywell distribution for Subbasin C2 Figure 3. Subbasin delineations for Lower Chester Creek Subbasin C2 does not contribute flows to the Chester Creek APPENDIX N: 100-Year Floodplain: Current vs. Headworks Failure Scenario This page intentionally left blank. 45343.9097 45343.9143 45343.9086 45343.9085 45343.9058 45343.9033 45343.9094 45343.9029 45343.9093 45343.9100 45343.9059 45331.5001 45334.9060 45343.9099 44032.9151 44041.9093 44041.1403 Spokane Image Consortium, Maxar, Microsoft Painted Hills PRD Painted Hills API Parcels with 100 Year Floodplain Change 100 Year Floodplain (Headworks Failure Scenario) 100 Year Floodplain Overlap (Headworks Failure Scenario) Current FEMA Flood Hazard 100 Year Flooplain Regulatory Floodway 0 200 400100 Feet Parcel # 100 Year Floodplain Headworks Failure (Acres) Current FEMA 100 Year Floodplain (Acres) 100 Year Floodplain Change (Acres) 44041.9093 2.89 2.70 0.19 45331.5001 0.00 0.49 -0.49 45334.9060 0.00 4.11 -4.11 45343.9029 1.54 1.97 -0.43 45343.9033 1.65 1.45 0.20 45343.9058 1.61 1.41 0.20 45343.9059 1.44 1.37 0.07 45343.9085 2.09 2.44 -0.35 45343.9086 1.19 1.55 -0.36 45343.9093 0.96 1.17 -0.21 45343.9094 4.28 4.78 -0.50 45343.9097 0.26 0.01 0.25 45343.9099 2.70 3.00 -0.30 45343.9100 0.18 0.32 -0.14 44032.9151 <0.01 <0.01 45343.9143 1.01 0.84 0.17 Reach River Sta Profile Avg Depth Max Depth Vel Chnl (ft)(ft)(ft/s) Golf Course 2863 100-yr 0.5 1.0 3.8 Golf Course 2578 100-yr 0.4 0.7 1.1 Golf Course 1981 100-yr 0.2 0.5 1.3 Golf Course 1647 100-yr 0.4 0.7 1.1 Golf Course 1547 100-yr 0.5 0.8 0.8 Golf Course 1489 100-yr 0.5 0.9 0.9 Golf Course 1404 100-yr 0.4 0.7 3.4 Golf Course 964 100-yr 0.6 0.9 0.6 Golf Course 528 100-yr 0.5 1.0 0.9 Golf Course 402 100-yr 0.4 0.8 0.8 Golf Course 276 100-yr 0.5 1.0 0.5 Golf Course 178 100-yr 0.6 0.9 0.4 Golf Course 36 100-yr 0.4 0.6 3.5 Golf Course 23 100-yr 2.0 2.0 1.2 Average 0.6 0.9 1.4 Golf Course Overflow Reach - 100-yr event Reach River Sta Profile Avg Depth Max Depth Vel Chnl (ft)(ft)(ft/s) Golf Course 2863 100-yr 0.5 1.0 3.8 Golf Course 2578 100-yr 0.4 0.7 1.1 Golf Course 1981 100-yr 0.2 0.5 1.3 Golf Course 1647 100-yr 0.4 0.7 1.1 Golf Course 1547 100-yr 0.5 0.8 0.8 Golf Course 1489 100-yr 0.5 0.9 0.9 Golf Course 1404 100-yr 0.4 0.7 3.4 Golf Course 964 100-yr 0.6 0.9 0.5 Golf Course 528 100-yr 0.6 1.2 0.6 Golf Course 402 100-yr 0.6 1.1 1.1 Golf Course 276 100-yr 0.6 1.2 0.9 Golf Course 178 100-yr 0.7 1.0 0.4 Golf Course 36 100-yr 0.5 0.7 3.9 Golf Course 23 100-yr 2.6 2.6 1.3 Average 0.6 1.0 1.5 Golf Course Overflow Reach - 500-yr event APPENDIX O: DRAFT Operations and Maintenance Manual This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR PAINTED HILLS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM & PLAT AMENITIES Abbreviations PRD – Planned Residential Development HOA – Homeowner’s Association C.E.- Contracted Entity COSV- City of Spokane Valley OHWM- Ordinary High Water Mark AHJ- Agency Having Jurisdiction OSHA- Occupational Safety and Health Administration Owner: Black Realty Inc.; or HOA as created via the Washington Secretary of State. Party(s) responsible for Operations & Maintenance: 1) Black Realty Inc. until the formation of an HOA is complete. 2) Painted Hills PRD Homeowners Assn. 3) Contracted Maintenance Entity 4) Community Oversight – per CFR 65.6(a)(12) the City of Spokane Valley (COSV) Manager or designee, and Spokane County Manager or designee (offsite facilities) will be responsible for assuring that the maintenance activities are accomplished based on the governing jurisdictional boundary. Parent Parcel Number(s)-COSV: 45336.9191, 45334.0106, .0108, .0109, .0110, .0113, .0114, .9135, 44040.9144 LOCATED IN SECTION 33 & 34, T25N, R44E & SECTION 4, T24N, R44E, W.M. SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON The above parent parcels contain the Painted Hills PRD flood control drainage system. The residential lot owners, commercial property owners and multi-family property owners of Painted Hills PRD, are benefitting from these flood control facilities. The homeowner’s association of this project, which is comprised of residential, multi-family and commercial lot owners, is responsible for (details described later):  The continued operations and maintenance, including repair and replacement as needed, of these facilities, see PRD Flood Control Plans.  Providing funds to finance the continued operation and maintenance of these facilities,  The administration of this agreement with each property owner within the PRD being bound by this agreement and with the responsibilities to be shared equally between each Painted Hills PRD property owner, (see fee schedule for applicable percentages) or contracted entity.  Establishing a maintenance committee and designating an HOA member to be responsible for the administration of this plan,  Providing an annual report each October to Spokane Valley Public Works describing the general status of the sinking fund account, and Page 2  Providing an annual report each October to Spokane Valley Public Works describing specific inspections, findings and maintenance performed, see checklist. This operations and maintenance plan runs with the land and is binding upon the Painted Hills PRD Homeowners Association property owners, their heirs, successors and assigns. The parties mentioned above are primarily responsible for all operations and maintenance of facilities mentioned herein and the administration of this plan. Offsite Parcel Number(s)-County: 45336.9108 (Gustin Ditch), 45343.9052 (Triangle Pond) LOCATED IN SECTION 34, T25N, R44E, W.M. SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON The above offsite County parcels are also a part of the Painted Hills PRD flood control drainage system. The residential lot owners, commercial property owners and multi-family property owners of Painted Hills PRD, are benefitting from these flood control facilities. The homeowner’s association of this project, which is comprised of residential, multi-family and commercial lot owners, is responsible for (details described later):  The continued operations and maintenance, including repair and replacement as needed, of these facilities, see Gustin Pipe Plan set.  Providing funds to finance the continued operation and maintenance of these facilities,  The administration of this agreement with each property owner within the PRD being bound by this agreement and with the responsibilities to be shared equally between each Painted Hills PRD property owner, (see fee schedule for applicable percentages) or contracted entity.  Establishing a maintenance committee and designating an HOA member to be responsible for the administration of this plan,  Providing an annual report each October to Spokane County Public Works describing the general status of the sinking fund account, and  Providing an annual report each October to Spokane County Public Works describing specific inspections, findings and maintenance performed, see checklist. This operations and maintenance plan runs with the land and is binding upon the Painted Hills PRD Homeowners Association property owners, their heirs, successors and assigns until such time as the Gustin property (Parcel No. 45344.9108) develops and then the owner of that parcel will assume responsibility for this plan. Parcel No. 45343.9052 (triangle pond) is covered by a storm drainage easement granted to Spokane County as recorded in Book 659 Page 1803. Spokane County assumes no responsibility at all for any operations or maintenance of the facilities mentioned herein or the administration of this plan. Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley and their authorized agents are granted access rights for routine inspection and emergency repairs, but in doing so incur no responsibility to perform these functions at any time. 1.00 PURPOSE This plan is to provide: 1. General operations and maintenance responsibilities for the facilities described herein, and 2. Cost estimates of the assessments to be paid by each property owner mentioned herein for the funding of this maintenance. Page 3 2.00 GENERAL OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Parent Parcel(s) Drainage Facilities-COSV The Painted Hills PRD flood control drainage and existing Chester Creek system is intended to collect and discharge stormwater runoff generated by upstream basins and stormwater from adjacent properties as is identified on FEMA panel (53063C0751D, effective date July 6, 2010) as compensatory storage or pass through storm flows. The PRD drainage facilities consist of a box culvert under Thorpe Road with a concrete channel, headwall and trash rack, two 48” pipe mainlines between the box culvert and discharge facility with another concrete headwall and trash rack at the outlet, WSDOT catch basins/manholes, a bio- infiltration swale, settling pond with two 48” pipe outlets, headwall and trash rack (upstream, and downstream), and a infiltration field/pond with associated drywells that receives runoff form the settling pond. The system also includes 4-18” cross culverts under Madison Road that connect easterly of to the two 48” pipe mainlines. A portion of stormwater runoff from the upstream basins south of the project flows in the Chester Creek channel under Thorpe Road continuing northwesterly under Dishman-Mica Road. This channel is also a part of the system and will need to be maintained in conjunction with the City of Spokane Valley The remainder of stormwater runoff from upstream basins south of the project flows under Thorpe Road via the PRD box culvert then flows into the pipe system, through the grassed bio-infiltration swale and into settling pond, until discharging into the infiltration pond at the north end of the site where the flow is stored and infiltrated into the ground. Stormwater runoff from upstream basins east of the project flows under Madison Road into 18” culverts and outfalls into the two easterly 48” pipelines via WSDOT catch basins/manholes. It is important to provide adequate maintenance activities to ensure that the flood control facilities remain silt and debris free, as this silt and debris will affect their performance. Additionally, vegetation must be maintained to prevent erosion of the system. Maintenance details are discussed below in Section 3.0. Offsite Parcel(s) Drainage Facilities- County The offsite County triangular pond located to the east of the Painted Hills project site (off of 40th Avenue and west of Hwy. 27) is a part of the Whipple Consulting Engineers (WCE) Gustin Pipe Plan set. This triangular pond and Gustin ditch are part of the County’s existing stormwater and floodplain system. The improvements to this existing County storm system includes the addition of a 36” storm pipe running parallel and within the existing Gustin Ditch, stormwater drywells, and a gravel access/maintenance road to the pond bottom. The existing Gustin Ditch (Parcel No. 45344.9108) is intended to collect and discharge stormwater runoff into the triangle pond (Parcel No. 45343.9052) that is generated by upstream basins and from adjacent properties as is identified on FEMA panel (53063C0751D, effective date July 6, 2010). It is important to provide adequate maintenance activities to ensure that the flood control facilities remain silt and debris free, as this silt and debris will affect their performance. Additionally, vegetation must be maintained to prevent erosion of the system. Maintenance details are discussed below in Section 3.0. Page 4 3.00 MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS AND SCHEDULES All inspections and repairs are to be performed by or directly overseen by qualified professionals and personnel (contracted entity) per this schedule and following major events. Maintenance tasks are to be performed soon after the need is identified and before the facility is to perform unless otherwise agreed to by the City or County for offsite drainage facilities. Repairs or replacements are to be completed immediately upon their identification unless otherwise agreed to by the City or County. Only qualified individuals may enter confined spaces and all OSHA rules must be followed. Major repairs or reconstruction will need to be designed, approved, and inspected by professional engineers and the City of Spokane Valley or Spokane County for applicable offsite facilities. Parent Parcel(s) Drainage Facilities-COSV The drainage facilities consist of several elements including: box culverts, existing Chester Creek channel, storm drain mainline, culverts, outlet structure, bio-infiltration swale, inlet structure, infiltration pond and associated drywells, manholes, catch basins, access roads, headwalls with trash racks, fencing, and plant material. These elements are located as shown on the attached exhibit. The following describes these facilities and the minimum required maintenance. A comprehensive visual inspection of the complete PRD flood control drainage facilities should be conducted twice a year. More frequent inspections for various elements may be required as described below. For long duration storms, greater than 24 hours, the drainage facilities should be inspected during the storm event to identify any developing problems and safely correct them before they become major problems. Signs shall be posted notifying all residents to look for “potential” problems and to notify the homeowners’ association of those observations. In general, it is important to provide adequate maintenance activities to ensure that the vegetated areas and structures remain silt, dirt and debris free because accumulations of these will affect the facilities function for stormwater storage volume as well as the ability of the drywells and pond bottom to discharge stormwater. Should these facilities silt up or become clogged, the flood control system will not function as intended putting the PRD at risk of flooding. Therefore, periodic maintenance is a must. Irrigation of Drainage Facilities-COSV The Painted Hills PRD Homeowner’s Association and qualified personnel (contracted entity) shall ensure that all drainage facilities are properly irrigated on a regular schedule to maintain and promote healthy vegetation. Proper irrigation of vegetation is imperative to help to prevent erosion of channels, slopes, and swale and pond bottoms. Personnel shall be careful not to overwater or erosion or excessive saturation may result. This includes the roadside swales and/or landscape strip along Dishman Mica Road, Thorpe Road, and Madison Road. Box Culvert-COSV: There are three box culvert crossings adjoining the project site; two are under Thorpe Road and one is under Dishman Mica Road. These box culverts are within the public road right of way and will be maintained by the agency having jurisdiction (AHJ) of the roadway. Any problems noticed while inspecting or maintaining other elements of the system should be reported to the AHJ. Page 5 LOCATION AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION (AHJ) Thorpe Rd near Madison Rd-Proposed City of Spokane Valley Thorpe Rd near Dishman-Mica Rd-Existing City of Spokane Valley Dishman-Mica Rd-Existing City of Spokane Valley Chester Creek-COSV: In addition to the instructions listed below, see Appendix B, Chester Creek, Operation & Maintenance Manual from “Geotechnical Evaluation, Levee Evaluation and Certification, 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road, Spokane County, Washington” prepared by Inland Pacific Engineering Company Project No. 14- 037, dated February 12, 2015, Revised August 29, 2016. As part of the project, stream buffer mitigation impact areas are also necessary due to grading operations (fill) within the Chester Creek buffer area. Maintenance of the required buffer mitigation areas are essential to restore and enhance the disturbed riparian areas that provide a natural cover and provide food for native species; this will be accomplished by re-establishing vegetation and by noxious weed control/reduction, and providing adequate irrigation for healthy vegetative growth. For the complete report, including the planting schedule and guidelines for planting and maintaining healthy vegetation in these mitigated areas, see the see the Biological Evaluation, Critical Areas Report, and Habitat Management Plan for Painted Hills completed Larry Dawes of Biology Soil & Water, Inc. provided in the Appendix (dated 02/28/19). It should be noted, that some maintenance items listed below are taken directly from the above-mentioned report; mitigation requirements listed below are also required for a minimum of five years if performance goals are met, or until performance goals are met following the 5-year minimum requirement. The Performance goals are listed in the maintenance items below, and the City of Spokane Valley and Larry Dawes of Biology Soil & Water, Inc (or other professional Biologist) will determine if these goals have been satisfied after 5- years. Annual maintenance of the mitigation areas should still continue after the required performance goals are met, to ensure healthy vegetative growth and provide erosion control; however, the required amount of vegetation and monitoring reports will not be stipulated or required by the City of Spokane Valley. Chester Creek extends across the southwest corner of the site from Thorpe Road northwesterly for approximately 900 feet where it crosses under Dishman-Mica Road. The creek carries seasonal flows from the foothills to the south. The site is protected from flood flows by an existing levee along the northerly side of the creek and along the north side of Dishman-Mica Rd to Wilbur Rd. The intent of the Painted Hills PRD fill project is to fill on the landward (north easterly) side existing levee, which will provide further protection from flooding on the interior landward side of the painted Hills Development. After the project is filled, the creek channel will need to be maintained to ensure flood carrying capacity is not diminished. Maintenance of the channel, up to the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) shall be the responsibility of the City of Spokane Valley, while maintenance above the (OHWM) including obtaining permits to perform the maintenance, shall be the responsibility of the Painted Hills PRD Homeowner’s Association in coordination with the City of Spokane Valley. Maintenance items (above the OHWM) include:  Regular mowing, grass should be kept at 3 inches or more in height but shall not exceed 12 inches, with the last mowing occurring to allow 8-10 inches of growth prior to winter  Removing trash, debris, noxious weeds plus items that reduce the amount of vegetative cover,  Removing any starts of woody vegetation that appear in the channel side slopes. Only native grasses shall be used in the channel, Page 6  Repairing any holes caused by burrowing animals and human activity such as utility work, ORV’s or vandalism on the channel side slopes, traps for burrowing animals shall be used if required,  Inspecting the channel side slopes making sure there are no breaches or breaks or erosion and check for root and tree start invasion. Immediately repair with a sandy loess soil, compacted in place, or bentonite type soil, and follow up after the storm event with seeding or sodding the repair and more substantial maintenance activities if needed,  Repairing mowing damage,  Removing and replacing of the native grass and underlying soil if it becomes degraded to the extent that the grass is not healthy and/or wilted,  Annually inspecting all mitigation areas to ensure re-establishment of vegetation in compliance with the Biological Evaluation Report mentioned above,  Annually Inspecting the mitigation areas for noxious weed in the Spring to determine if the previous year’s weed control measures were adequate, and to make preparations for the current year accordingly,  Filling out the levee checklist and include the checklist in the annual report to the City.  Providing adequate irrigation for all required vegetative growth, especially for the Chester Creek stream buffer mitigation impact areas,  Performance Goal-Ensuring herbaceous vegetations reaches 80% areal cover with native grasses after five years, (year 1=20%, year 2=30%, year 3=50%, & year 5=80%) for buffer mitigation areas,  Performance Goal -Ensuring a 100% survival of tree and shrub plantings and 80% survival every year after for five years until performance goals are met for buffer mitigation areas,  Notifying the City of Spokane Valley (COSV) immediately if any observed functionality of the mitigation areas is failing (unhealthy looking or wilting vegetation), Storm Drain Mainline, Concrete Channel, Headwalls, and Trash Rack, and Outlet Pipes -COSV: The storm drain mainline consists of 5,251 linear feet of 48” pipe from the downstream end of the new box culvert at Thorpe Rd and Madison Rd, running parallel to Madison Rd and ending at the bio- infiltration swale at the north end of the site. The bio-infiltration swale further outlets to the settling pond that discharges to the large infiltration pond through (2)-48” outlet pipes that have concrete headwalls and trash racks on the upstream and downstream side if the outlet pipes. The pipes need to be maintained to prevent sediment and trash build-up in the bio-infiltration swale and the infiltration field/pond and associated drywells. The concrete channel and associated headwalls and trash racks located downstream of the Thorpe Road box culvert also needs to be inspected for physical integrity to prevent a breach/leak in the channel or headwall and to ensure no obstructions are blocking the passage for stormwater, and to prevent unauthorized entry into the storm system. Maintenance of the storm drain mainline shall be the responsibility of the Painted Hills PRD Homeowner’s Association and/or the contracted entity (C.E.). Maintenance items include:  Annually inspecting the pipe openings on each end to ensure there is no blockage or damage to the ends,  Every three years or after substantial storm runoff, performing a TV inspection of the pipe looking for blockages, damage, etc., visual inspection can be made at pipe manhole locations by authorized maintenance personnel,  Removing sediment build-up from the pipe,  Repairing any sections of damaged pipe,  Visually inspecting twice a year the concrete channel, headwalls, and trash racks for damage or Page 7 corrosion that would compromise the trash rack integrity.  Prior to each rainy season (August or September), inspecting each trash racks ensuring that there is no debris present,  Following large storm events or rapid snow melt events performing a visual inspection and remove any deleterious debris and trash,  Instructing those performing other maintenance functions on the system to report any observed damage to the trash rack. Catch Basins-COSV: The mainline pipe system has WSDOT Type II catch basins at pipe junctions and angle points. Along Madison Road there are catch basins connected by pipe to the mainline pipe system to drain overflow from the roadside swales. Catch basins need to be maintained to prevent blockage of flow within the system. Contact a professional or have the contracted entity remove the debris, trash and sediment buildup, such as AAA Sweeping LLC. HOMEOWNERS ARE NOT TO ENTER THE MANHOLES/CATCH BASINS. Maintenance of the catch basins shall be the responsibility of the Painted Hills PRD Homeowner’s Association or the C.E. Maintenance items include:  During routine landscape maintenance of roadside swales, removing any debris from catch basin grates,  Annually inspecting catch basins for trash and sediment build-up and removing trash,  When sediment build-up fills ½ the depth of the sump (about 1 foot), removing the sediment,  Annually inspecting catch basin grates and lids to ensure they are properly seated and are structurally sound,  Every five years, inspecting the structure walls to ensure the concrete walls are in good condition and the joints remain sealed,  Instructing those performing other maintenance functions on the system to report any missing lids or grates. Cross Culverts (Flap Gates)-COSV: The cross culverts consist of 18” CMP pipe crossing under Madison Road flowing from east to west in four locations. The culverts connect into WSDOT Type II catch basins on the 48” storm drain mainline. The cross culverts need to be maintained to prevent the reduction of seasonal flows within the pipes. The reduction in flow may be caused by sediment or trash build-up within the pipe or obstruction of the pipe entrance on the east side of Madison Rd. Maintenance of the cross culverts from the inlet up to, but not including the flap gates shall be the responsibility the City of Spokane Valley. However, the flap gates shall be the responsibility of the of the Painted Hills PRD Homeowner’s Association or the C.E. Maintenance items include:  Annually inspecting the flap gates to ensure proper operation,  Every three years performing a TV inspection of the flap gates looking for blockages, damage, corrosion, etc., and notifying the City of Spokane Valley if the pipes themselves need maintenance,  Removing sediment build-up from the flap gates,  Repairing any sections or components of the flap gates. Page 8 Bio-infiltration Swale/Channel, Roadside Swales, and Settling Pond-COSV: The bio-infiltration swale/channel consists of a grass lined channel approximately 320 feet long with a 6- foot bottom width and 2:1 side slopes and approximately 6-feet in depth. The swale needs to be maintained to perform the function of removing any remaining contaminants including fugitive silts prior to storm water entering the infiltration pond, with adequate irrigation provided for vegetation establishment. Following the bio-infiltration channel is a settling pond to further reduce the sediment loading in the infiltration pond. The settling pond then discharges to the large infiltration pond through (2)-48” outlet pipes with headwalls and trash racks (see the Stormdrain Mainline Section on page 6 of this report for inclusion of the outlet pipes, headwalls and trash racks). Additionally, roadside swales along Dishman Mica Road, Thorpe Road, and Madison Road, require similar maintenance as the bio-infiltration swale/channel that includes removing any sediment buildup or debris from the swales, and adequately irrigating the swale to promote a heathy growth of grass. Maintenance of the bio-infiltration swale, roadside swales, and settling pond shall be the responsibility of the Painted Hills PRD Homeowner’s Association or the C.E. Maintenance items include:  Annually inspecting the bio-infiltration swale/channel bottom and side slopes to ensure there is a covering of grass, grass can be mowed no shorter than 8 to 10 inches, once annually,  Annually inspecting the settling pond bottom and side slopes to ensure there is a covering of grass, grass can be mowed no shorter than 8 to 10 inches,  Removing accumulations of sediment that bury the grass cover for the channel, swales, and pond,  Reseeding any bare or dead areas of grass for the channel, swales, and pond,  Removing any noxious weeds within the channel, swales, and pond (spraying is acceptable),  Providing adequate irrigation for the bio-infiltration channel, swale, and pond (including side slopes),  Annually inspecting the roadside swale bottoms and side slopes to ensure there is a covering of grass, grass should be mowed in the same manner as residential home yards Infiltration Field/Pond and Associated Drywells-COSV: As previously mentioned, the infiltration pond receives runoff from the settling pond through (2)-48” outlet pipes. The infiltration pond is comprised of 48-double depth drywells, and the drywells need to be maintained to prevent or reduce sediment buildup in the drywell barrel so as to not reduce infiltration into the surrounding ground. The infiltration field/pond bottom also needs to remain free of debris and sediment build-up as it is the first point of infiltration. The Maintenance of the drywells and infiltration pond shall be the responsibility of the Painted Hills PRD Homeowner’s Association or the C.E. Maintenance items include:  Visually inspecting twice a year the inside of the drywell barrel(s) by removing the grate to look into the structure. Have all debris and trash removed. Sediment must be removed before buildup reaches the bottom of the lowest slot out of the drywell in the barrel wall. Contact a professional to remove the debris, trash and sediment buildup. HOMEOWNERS ARE NOT TO ENTER THE DRYWELL, as these drywells are 12-feet in depth with no internal ladder system.  Removing accumulations of sediment that bury the grass cover, Page 9 Fencing-COSV: The fencing of various system elements needs to be maintained to restrict access to those elements and to protect the public. Maintenance of the fencing shall be the responsibility of the Painted Hills PRD Homeowner’s Association or the C.E. Maintenance items include:  Visually inspect twice a year the entire fencing system for damaged fence fabric, posts, gates, signs, etc.  Prior to each rainy season (August or September), inspecting each access point ensuring that locks and gates are functional.  Instructing those performing other maintenance functions on the system to report any observed breaches or damage to the fencing. Access Roads/Parking Pads-COSV: The access roads/parking pads to various system elements need to be maintained to allow maintenance vehicles access to those elements for periodic maintenance and emergency repairs to protect the public. Maintenance of the access roads/parking pads shall be the responsibility of the Painted Hills PRD Homeowner’s Association or the C.E. Maintenance items include:  Visually inspecting annually, the entire access road/parking pad system for rutting, potholes, etc. Regrade and repair with additional aggregate as needed.  Removing vegetation from the aggregate surface.  Instructing those performing other maintenance functions on the system to report any observed damage to the access roads/parking pads. Interior Asphalt Pathway, exterior Asphalt Pathway, and Concrete Sidewalk-COSV: The interior asphalt pathway, the exterior asphalt pathway (Madison Road & Dishman Mica Road), and concrete sidewalk (Dishman Mica Road & Thorpe Road) that provide pedestrian access around and through the project site need to be maintained to allow safe pedestrian travel. Maintenance of the asphalt pathways and concrete sidewalk shall be the responsibility of the Painted Hills PRD Homeowner’s Association or the C.E. Maintenance items include:  Visually inspecting annually, the entire pathway and sidewalk for rutting, potholes, cracking of concrete or tree root intrusion, and repair or replace with additional asphalt or concrete as needed.  Removing vegetation or debris from the surface.  Instructing those performing other maintenance functions on the system to report any observed damage to the asphalt pathway or concrete sidewalk. Offsite Parcel(s) Drainage Facilities-County The existing Gustin Ditch (Parcel No. 45344.9108) is intended to collect and discharge stormwater runoff into the triangle pond (Parcel No. 45343.9052) that is generated by upstream basins and stormwater from adjacent properties as is identified on FEMA panel (53063C0751D, effective date July 6, 2010). Currently, stormwater runoff from the upstream basins is routed under Hwy 27 through a 36” culvert into Page 10 the Gustin Ditch where the storm water flows to the west to the exiting pond. The improved drainage system will consist of a 36” conveyance pipe running parallel and within the existing Gustin Ditch (Parcel No. 45344.9108) to intercept the upstream basin stormwater. This existing flow will continue to discharge to the existing triangle pond (Parcel No. 45343.9052) through the 36” storm outlet pipe. The triangle pond will also have 18- stormwater drywells and a gravel road installed to provide access for maintenance to the pond and stormwater drywells. These existing flows normally infiltrate into the existing pond bottom, however, during larger storms the stormwater will overflow into the drywells and infiltrate into the ground. The additional stormwater capacity provided by the drywells will capture and eliminate the existing FEMA designated 100-Year Storm Event that would have theoretically continue to West if these drywells were not installed. A visual inspection of the drainage facilities should be conducted twice a year. For long duration storms, greater than 24 hours, the drainage facilities should be inspected during the storm event to identify any developing problems and safely correct them before they become major problems. It is important to provide adequate maintenance activities to ensure that the drainage facilities remain silt and dirt free, as this silt and dirt will affect their performance. Additionally, vegetation must be maintained to prevent erosion of ditch and/or pond sides and to prevent flow restrictions within the ditch and/or pond from the build-up of dead vegetation and tree and shrub invasion. Maintenance details are further discussed below. Gustin Ditch with Pipe and Catch Basins-County: The 36” PVC pipe needs to be maintained to ensure there is no debris or vegetation blocking the flow of stormwater through the pipe. The pipe mainline has two 12” PVC cross culverts near the end of the pipe mainline to further capture runoff from overland flow from the Gustin Ditch Property (Parcel No. 45344.9108). The ditch needs to be maintained to ensure a strong, healthy, dense vegetative cover and that it is free of debris. Maintenance of the ditch and outfall shall be the responsibility of the Painted Hills PRD Homeowner’s Association until such time as the Gustin property (Parcel No. 45344.9108) is developed. At that time the owner(s) of the new development shall assume responsibility for maintenance of the ditch and levee. Maintenance items include:  Regular mowing, grass should be kept at 3 inches or more in height but shall not exceed 12 inches, with the last mowing occurring to allow 8-10 inches of growth prior to winter,  Removing trash, debris, noxious weeds plus items that reduce the amount of vegetative cover,  Removing any starts of woody vegetation that appear in the ditch. Only native grasses shall be used to repair at removal areas,  Repairing any holes caused by burrowing animals and human activity such as utility work, ORV’s or vandalism on the ditch side slopes,  Inspecting the ditch side slopes, and bottom making sure there are no breaches or breaks or erosion and check for root and tree start invasion. Immediately repair with a sandy loess soil, compacted in place and follow up after the storm event with seeding of the repair with native grasses and more substantial maintenance activities if needed,  Repairing mowing damage,  Removal and replacement of the grass and underlying soil if it becomes contaminated to the extent that the grass is not healthy.  Annually inspecting the pipe openings on each end to ensure there is no blockage or damage to the ends,  Every three years or after substantial storm runoff, performing a TV inspection of the pipe(s) looking for blockages, damage, etc., visual inspection can be made at pipe manhole locations by Page 11 authorized maintenance personnel,  Removing sediment build-up from the pipe,  Repairing any sections of damaged pipe. Catch Basins-County: The Gustin Ditch pipe system has County Manholes (48” and 72” diameter) at pipe junctions and angle points. Catch basins need to be maintained to prevent blockage of flow within the system. Contact a professional or have the contracted entity remove the debris, trash and sediment buildup, such as AAA Sweeping LLC. HOMEOWNERS ARE NOT TO ENTER THE MANHOLES/CATCH BASINS. Maintenance of the catch basins shall be the responsibility of the Painted Hills PRD Homeowner’s Association or the C.E. Maintenance items include:  During routine landscape maintenance of roadside swales, removing any debris from catch basin grates,  Annually inspecting catch basins for trash and sediment build-up and removing trash,  When sediment build-up fills ½ the depth of the sump (about 1 foot), removing the sediment,  Annually inspecting catch basin grates and lids to ensure they are properly seated and are structurally sound,  Every five years, inspecting the structure walls to ensure the concrete walls are in good condition and the joints remain sealed,  Instructing those performing other maintenance functions on the system to report any missing lids or grates. Triangle Pond & Drywells-County: The pond bottom needs to be maintained to ensure there is no debris, vegetation or sediment preventing the infiltration of storm water through the bottom of the non-irrigated pond. Also, that no debris, vegetation or sediment buildup rise to a level that would allow it to enter into the drywells. Drywells need to be maintained to prevent or reduce sediment buildup in the drywell barrel that would reduce infiltration into the surrounding ground. Maintenance of the pond and drywells shall be the responsibility of the Painted Hills PRD Homeowner’s Association until such time as the Gustin property (Parcel No. 45344.9108) is developed. At that time the owner(s) of the new development shall assume responsibility for maintenance. Maintenance items include:  Periodically visually inspect the grate and remove any deleterious debris and trash.  Biennially visually inspect the inside of the drywell barrel(s) by removing the grate to look into the structure. Have all debris and trash removed. Sediment must be removed before buildup reaches the bottom of the lowest slot out of the drywell in the barrel wall. Contact a professional to vacuum out the debris, trash and sediment buildup. HOMEOWNERS ARE NOT TO ENTER THE DRYWELLS. Fencing-County: The fencing around the triangle pond needs to be maintained to restrict access to those elements and to protect the public. Maintenance of the fencing shall be the responsibility of the Painted Hills PRD Homeowner’s Association or the C.E. Page 12 Maintenance items include:  Visually inspect twice a year the entire fencing system for damaged fence fabric, posts, gates, signs, etc.  Prior to each rainy season (August or September), inspecting each access point ensuring that locks and gates are functional.  Instructing those performing other maintenance functions on the system to report any observed breaches or damage to the fencing. Access Roads/Parking Pads-County: The access roads/parking pads to the triangle pond need to be maintained to allow maintenance vehicles access to those elements for periodic maintenance and emergency repairs to protect the public. Maintenance of the access roads/parking pads shall be the responsibility of the Painted Hills PRD Homeowner’s Association or the C.E. Maintenance items include:  Visually inspecting annually, the entire access road/parking pad system for rutting, potholes, etc. Regrade and repair with additional aggregate as needed.  Removing vegetation from the aggregate surface.  Instructing those performing other maintenance functions on the system to report any observed damage to the access roads/parking pads. 4.00 SINKING FUNDS A sinking fund is an account that is set up to receive regular deposits which are to be used for paying off future costs and debts. The sinking fund monies will be used to pay for planned and unplanned operation and maintenance costs along with certain future replacement costs for the storm drainage facilities. The sinking fund calculation should be revised as necessary to account for actual expenses and changes in rates. In setting up the fund, first the future replacement costs are estimated and then they are converted to annual costs (or deposits) by the following calculations. These calculations assume that the inflation rate is 3% (for estimating the future replacement costs), the typical interest rate is 2% (for estimating the annual costs) and the number of years before replacement is 20 (expect for buffer mitigation area replacement. Equations and guidance for using other rates and years can be found in Appendix A. 1) Estimate the value that the item will have in the future when it is time to replace it using the following equation: FV=PV*1.8061, where: FV = future value PV = present value 2) Estimate how much money will need to be deposited each year in a bank account in order to have enough money accumulated in time to pay for the replacement using the following equation. A=FV*0.0412, where: A = annual payment (or deposit) FV = future value (from step 1, above) Page 13 Sinking Fund Calculation Results: The developer shall provide $95,000 to initiate the set-up of maintenance funds, and provide for one year of maintenance. The following values are the results of the calculations which are shown on the following page. The fund calculations shall be updated once the actual cost of operation and maintenance items are contracted. As contracts are renewed, the costs shall be adjusted accordingly. Annual cost for regular operation and maintenance $152,392 Annual cost for replacements $76,979 Total annual costs $229,370 Total monthly costs (= total annual costs /12)$19,114.18 *Number of units (SF lots +MF lots) +(Commercial) 596+(18,400sf/100SF)=615 Monthly cost per lot (= total monthly costs /# lots)$31.08 Total annual cost per lot/unit $372.96 *Note: Number of units is based on 255-single family lots, 49 cottage units/lots, 240 apartment units, 52 mixed use apartment units, and 18,400 square feet of commercial building area divided by 1,000 square feet (for an equivalent unit/lot). Page 14 Sinking Fund Calculations-Parent Parcel(s)-COSVUnit Annual Price = CostComprehensive System InspectionEA2$1,000 $2,000 Drywell CleaningEA48 $500 $24,000 Catch Basin CleaningEA23 $300 $6,900 Mowing Channel EmbankmentsEA4 $2,000 $8,000 Mowing Roadside SwalesEA4 $2,000 $8,000 Debris Removal – culverts, catch basins, bio-swale, channels, drywells, manholesEA4 $2,000 $8,000 Channel/Trash Rack InspectionEA9 $500 $4,500 Pipeline TV Inspection – mainline, culverts, (3 years)LF5,750 $3 $17,250 Manhole/Catch Basin InspectionEA23 $100 $2,300 Fence, Access Road, Parking Area, Sign MaintenanceEA1 $500 $500 Swale & Pond Reseeding/Noxious Weed RemovalEA1 $500 $500 Reseeding/Noxious Weed Removal for buffer mitigation area EA1 $5,000 $5,000 1st Year Monitoring Report + ASBUILT ReportLS 1 $6,500 $6,500 Annual Monitoring Report (after 1st year)LS 1 $1,000 $1,000 Annual Report PreparationEA1 $1,500 $1,500 ContingencyLS1 20% $19,190 Total $115,140 REGULAR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS-COSVDescriptionUnitsAnnual Quantity x Page 15 UnitPrice =Drywell (48) (25%)EA 12 $10,000 $120,000 20 0.03 $216,733 0.02 $8,920 48” ADS N-12 HDPE pipeline (5,251) (25%) LF 1313 $150 $196,913 20 0.03 $355,646 0.02 $14,637 48” ADS N-12 HDPE culvert pipes (120 LF) (100%)LF 120 $150 $18,000 20 0.03 $32,510 0.02 $1,338 24” CMP pipeline (136) (100%)LF 136 $70 $9,520 20 0.03 $17,194 0.02 $708 18” PS46 ASTM F679 PVC (pipeline-future) (40) (100%)LF 40 $40 $1,600 20 0.03 $2,890 0.02 $119 15” Perforated HDPE (underdrain) (40) (100%) LF 40 $30 $1,200 20 0.03 $2,167 0.02 $89 12” SDR-35 ASTM D3034 PVC pipe to mainline(44) LF 44 $24 $1,056 20 0.03 $1,907 0.02 $78 12” CMP pipe to outfall (119) (100%)LF 119 $30 $3,570 20 0.03 $6,448 0.02 $265 WSDOT Catch basin, Type II (12)EA2 $4,500 $9,000 20 0.03 $16,255 0.02 $669 Catch basin, Type I (12)EA2 $1,500 $3,000 20 0.03 $5,418 0.02 $223 Infiltration & Settling Pond -seeding (189,644+7,172 )+ Roadsides Swale Seeding (49,187 ) + Landscape Strip Seeding (2,471 )SF 248474 $0.10 $24,847 20 0.03 $44,877 0.02 $1,847 Trash Racks (8) (100%)EA8 $2,000 $16,000 20 0.03 $28,898 0.02 $1,189 Signs (4) (25%)EA1 $200 $200 20 0.03 $361 0.02 $15 Buffer Mitigation Area (25%) of total cost of VegetationLS5 $6,785 $33,925 5 0.03 $39,328 0.02 $7,557 2” Asphalt pathway (9702 LF interor + 2,482 LF Madision Rd+ 822 LF Dishm. Rd)SY 14501 $10 $145,013 20 0.03 $261,910 0.02 $10,779 6” CSTC Access Rd (1,113 LF) (25%)CY 2087 $40 $83,480 20 0.03 $150,774 0.02 $6,205 Fencing (132 LF)LF 132 $35 $4,620 20 0.03 $8,344 0.02 $343 PC Concrete Sidewalk (Dishm.-356 LF+ 1356 LF Thorpe)SY 991 $36 $35,664 20 0.03 $64,413 0.02 $2,651 Total $57,635 REPLACEMENT COSTS-Parent Parcel(s)-COSV(for more information on calculations in this table see Appendix A)UnitsQuantity x Present Value, PVnInflation Rate, i1Future Value, FVInterest Rate, i2Annual Payment, A Notes: n = number of years to replacement LS means Lump Sum, EA means Each, SY means square yard, LF means Linear Feet, CY means Cubic Yards Quantity x is based on either a complete replacement (100%) or assumed 25% of the total rounded to the nearest whole number Page 16 Sinking Fund Calculations-Offsite Parcel(s)-County Unit Annual Price = CostComprehensive System InspectionEA2$500 $1,000 Drywell CleaningEA 18 $500 $9,000 Manhole CleaningEA 9 $300 $2,700 Mowing Ditch EmbankmentsEA 4 $2,000 $8,000 Debris Removal – culverts, catch basins, pond ditch, drywells, manholesPipeline TV Inspection – mainline, culvertsLF 1,481 $3 $4,443 Manhole InspectionEA 9 $100 $900 Fence, Access Road, Parking Area, Sign MaintenanceEA 1 $500 $500 Pond Reseeding/Noxious Weed RemovalEA 1 $500 $500 ContingencyLS 1 20% $6,209 Total $37,252 EA 4 $1,000 $4,000 REGULAR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS-COUNTYDescriptionUnitsAnnual Quantity x Page 17 UnitPrice =Drywell (12) (25%)EA 12 $10,000 $120,000 20 0.03 $216,733 0.02 $8,920 36” PS46 ASTM F679 PVC pipeline (1441) (25%) LF 361 $150 $54,150 20 0.03 $97,801 0.02 $4,025 12” SDR-35 ASTM D3034 PVC pipeline (136) (100%)LF 136 $70 $9,520 20 0.03 $17,194 0.02 $708 Type I -48-County ManholeEA 2 $4,500 $9,000 20 0.03 $16,255 0.02 $669 72" County ManholeEA 5 $7,500 $37,500 20 0.03 $67,729 0.02 $2,788 Triangle Pond-seeding (17,060 SF) (100%)SF 17060 $0.10 $1,706 20 0.03 $3,081 0.02 $127 Signs (4) (25%)EA1 $200 $200 20 0.03 $361 0.02 $15 6” CSTC Access Rd (770 LF) (25%)CY 214 $40 $8,556 20 0.03 $15,452 0.02 $636 Fencing (560 LF) (100%)LF 560 $35 $19,600 20 0.03 $35,400 0.02 $1,457 Total $19,344 REPLACEMENT COSTS Offsite Parcel(s)-County (for more information on calculations in this table see Appendix A)UnitsQuantity x Present Value, PVnInflation Rate, i1Future Value, FVInterest Rate, i2Annual Payment, A Page 18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has reviewed the above information and determined it to be appropriate for the improvements proposed for this plan and has caused this instrument to be executed on this day of __________________________, 20____. Signature: Name (print): Title: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ) ss I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is/are the individual(s) who personally appeared before me, and who acknowledged that he/she/they executed and signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. Dated this __________ date of ______________________, 20____. NOTARY PUBLIC In and for the State of Washington, Residing at My appointment expires: Page 19 Appendix A The future replacement costs can be estimated and then converted to annual costs (or deposits) by the following calculations. 1) Estimate the value that the item will have in the future when it is time to replace it using an assumed (best estimate) inflation rate and the following equation: FV=PV*(1+i1)n , where: FV = future value i1 = inflation rate PV = present value n = number of years to replacement Example values for the factor: (1+i)n n, years 5 10 15 20 i1 0.02 1.1041 1.2190 1.3459 1.4859 0.03 1.1593 1.3439 1.5580 1.8061 0.04 1.2167 1.4802 1.8009 2.1911 0.05 1.2763 1.6289 2.0789 2.6533 2) Estimate how much money will need to be deposited each year in a bank account in order to have enough money accumulated in time to pay for the replacement using an assumed (best estimate) interest rate and the following equation: A=FV* i2 / [(1+i2)n-1], where: A = annual payment i2 = interest rate FV = future value n = number of years to replacement Example values for the factor: i2/[(1+i2)n-1] n, years 5 10 15 20 i2 0.02 0.1922 0.0913 0.0578 0.0412 0.03 0.1884 0.0872 0.0538 0.0372 0.04 0.1846 0.0833 0.0499 0.0336 0.05 0.1810 0.0795 0.0463 0.0302 Page 20 Appendix B – Chester Creek Channel, Operation & Maintenance Manual Modified from “Geotechnical Evaluation, Levee Evaluation and Certification, 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road, Spokane County, Washington” prepared by Inland Pacific Engineering Company Project No. 14-037, dated February 12, 2015, Revised August 29, 2016. Page 21 CHESTER CREEK CHANNEL ABOVE THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OPERATION & MAINTENANCE MANUAL FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Painted Hills PRD Homeowners Association IPEC Project No. 14-037 WCE Project # 13-1166 Updated January 2020 By Inland Pacific Engineering Company 3012 North Sullivan Road Building S-5, Suite C Spokane Valley, WA 99216 & Whipple Consulting Engineers 21 S Pines Road Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Page 22 1.00 PURPOSE This Operations and Maintenance manual is intended to provide general operations and maintenance guidelines for the Chester Creek channel located at 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road in Spokane County, Washington. The intent of the Painted Hills PRD project is to fill on the landward (north easterly) side existing levee, which will provide further protection from flooding on the interior landward side of the painted Hills Development. This O & M has been amended from the original Chester Creek Levee O & M provided by Inland Pacific Engineering Company. After the project is filled, the creek channel will need to be maintained to ensure flood carrying capacity is maintained. Maintenance of the channel, up to the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) shall be the responsibility of the City of Spokane Valley. Maintenance above the (OHWM) including obtaining permits to perform the maintenance, shall be the responsibility of the Painted Hills PRD Homeowner’s Association in coordination with the City of Spokane Valley. This general maintenance for the Chester Creek channel is inclusive whether in or out of Spokane County public road rights-of-ways. Implementation of these guidelines will ensure that the channel’s flood carrying capacity is maintained. 2.00 INTRODUCTION The east side of the channel is typically at a 2.3:1 to 3:1 (H:V) slope. The land side of the channel is also at a 3:1 slope from the Dishman-Mica Road bridge to approximately 300 feet southeast. Between this point and Thorpe Road, the land side slope is much less and, in some areas, relatively level with the crest. As mentioned above, the intent of the Painted Hills PRD project is to fill on the landward (north easterly) side existing levee. This existing levee was constructed by the previous landowner for the development of the golf course on the property and we believe it was constructed in the early 1990’s by the property owner. 3.00 GENERAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 3.10 Operation – During flood periods, the creek channel side slopes above the (OHWM) should be patrolled to locate possible sand boils, unusual wetness of the landward slope, or breaches. The inspector may look for indications of sliding or sloughing, that scouring action is not occurring, that the channel is not being overtopped, and that no other conditions exist that might adversely affect the integrity of the channel side slopes. Any damage or observed issues below the (OHWM) should be reported to the City of Spokane Valley immediately.  Boils – A boil is a condition where enough pressure is produced by high water levels so that water is piped through or under the channel bottom and channel side slopes with sufficient velocity to carry earthen materials to the landward side of the channel. If not controlled, these particles of earthen materials will be eroded from within the channel, causing subsidence to the channel section. The continuation of this process Page 23 may result in a break in the channel side slopes, allowing flood waters to flow over the crest or through the channel side slopes.  Scour – Careful observation should be made of the creek channel side slopes to detect potential erosion due to current action. Careful observation at the locations of bridge structures should be made. In general, current velocities in Chester Creek are not expected to cause significant scouring.  Creek Channel Topping – If the anticipated high-water level will exceeds the top elevation of the channel , steps should be taken to provide emergency topping to raise the channel side slope above forecasted water levels. These steps could include sandbagging or hauling additional fill to raise the channel wall height. 3.11 A post-flood assessment of the creek channel side slopes above the (OHWM) should be completed within 24 hours of the event. The assessment should document any damage to the channel caused by flood waters. Any repairs necessary should then be completed after review and evaluation of options. Any damage or observed issues below the (OHWM) should be reported to the City of Spokane Valley immediately. 3.20 Maintenance – Maintenance activities for the creek channel above the (OHWM) are described in this section. Below is a maintenance description for each of the elements affecting channel conveyance performance.  Inspections – channel inspection should include a visual inspection of the channel channel side slope sat a minimum of every 12 months for signs of erosion or settlement. Preferably, the inspection should be completed in the fall prior to the rainy season. The inspections should include the following: o Unusual settlement, sloughing, or material loss of grade. o Caving on both the creekside and landside of the channel which might affect stability of the channel section. o Seepage or saturated areas that may be occurring. o Drainage in the creek is in good working condition facilities are not being clogged. o That the channel is shaped to drain properly to onsite Painted Hills PRD drainage facilities. o Ensuring that no unauthorized vehicles are located on the channel bottom and channel side slopes. o Rodent damage along the channel side slopes.  Erosion Protection – The channel side slope vegetation is a grass cover. The grass should be mowed to a minimum height no shorter than 8 inches. Page 24 No trees should be growing on the creek channel bottom or side slopes. No excavations, structures, or other obstructions should be on the creek channel bottom or side slopes. Remove accumulation of drift, grass clippings, or other objectionable materials from the creek channel side slopes. Attached is a checklist for the annual or post-flood inspection. Page 25 CHESTER CREEK CHANNEL 4403 SOUTH DISHMAN-MICA ROAD SPOKANE COUNTY, WA CREEK CHANNEL CHECKLIST (ABOVE THE OHWM ONLY) Date: _______________________________________________________ Item Location and Description Action Has the creek channel side slopes settled or lost cross section? Has stream action caused any slope washing or scouring? Has there been any seepage or saturated areas? Has vegetation been maintained? Have weeds been removed? Dates? Condition of any riprap? Have there been any authorized or unauthorized encroachments? Have burrowing animals been exterminated/removed and the creek channel channel side slopes repaired? Is the creek channel free of obstructions and/or debris? Are there any areas where the creek is affecting the channel side slopes? Has there been any recent high- water events? Miscellaneous conditions: Note: Use additional sheets as necessary. Signed: Title: Page 26 Appendix C – Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) To be inserted once completed. WESNCSITE ELEMENT PLANC1.3JPP 1" = 200'N/AXDISHMAN-MICA RD.SPOKANE VALLEY,WADRAWN:PROJ #:REVIEWED:DATE:DATUM: NAVD - 8813-1166JOB NUMBERSHEETTRW13-116604/20/20WCETBM S-5 OF THE SOUTH PONDEROSA SEWER PROJECTWITH AN ELEVATION OF 2005.87 (NAVD29)=2009.67(NAVD88) WAS USED FOR THE VERTICAL DATUM FOR THISMAP.WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS2528 NORTH SULLIVAN ROADSPOKANE VALLEY, WA 99216PH: 509-893-2617 FAX: 509-926-0227CIVILSTRUCTURALSURVEYINGTRAFFICPLANNINGLANDSCAPEOTHER SPOKANE VALLEY PAINTED HILLS PRDVERTICAL:HORIZONTAL:SCALE:REVISIONSNO. DATE BY 08-12-16JPP ORIGINAL PREPARATION1Reviewed for Conformance toStreet Standards andAccepted per Chapter 1.2Not ReviewedDate AcceptedAcceptance CommentsCity of Spokane ValleyDevelopment EngineeringCity of Spokane ValleyProject/Permit No.:SUB-2015-0001(Subdivision)FPD-2016-0007(Flood Plain Development)EGR-2016-0066(Engineered Grading)08-14-18JPP REVISED PLANS201-03-20JMH REVISED PLANS3DISHMAN-MICA ROADTHORPE ROADMADISON ROAD 40TH AVENUEHIGHWAY 27 WILBER ROAD MADISON RD EASEMENT PLAN- APPENDIX P: Revised Flood Control Narrative This page intentionally left blank. WCE No. 2013-1166 Revised March 6, 2019 City of Spokane Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 IWC E Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Attn: Mr. Henry Allen, P.E. Re: Painted Hills Flood Control Development Narrative Dear Henry: This letter is provided as a description of the flood control plan associated with grading and site improvements that would be completed in conjunction with a future mixed-use development on approximately 99.5-acres of a former golf course property located at 4403 S Dishman-Mica Road. It is intended as an update to previous flood control narrative descriptions provided to the City by Whipple Consulting Engineers dated July 23, 2015, October 13,2016, and July 6, 2017. Since the date of the last narrative provided to the City, the applicant has modified the proposed site design in order to obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This design update to obtain a CLOMR using fill approval represents a change in the FEMA re-map effort for the project, which was formerly designed to revise the FEMA mapping through a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) process resulting from levee improvements and levee certifications. This change to a CLOMR using fill was implemented due to concerns raised by the City at a meeting held on November 9th. 2017 wherein long-term levy maintenance was questioned by City staff. A call between FEMA representatives, WCE, WEST, and City staff occurred on January 18, 2018. The project site is located within the area identified as Storage Area 1 (SA1) in the effective FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS). SA 1 is designated as a compensatory storage area. Within a compensatory storage area loss of flood storage capacity due to placement of fill must be mitigated with an equivalent compensatory volume of storage or through a reduction in flows such that the net condition causes no adverse impact to the base flood or floodway elevations within the storage area. In addition, loss of infiltration capacity due to placement of fill or impervious surfaces must be mitigated in such a way that the decrease in infiltration capacity will cause no adverse impact to the base flood or floodway elevations within the storage area. The overall purpose of the "compensatory" requirement is to ensure that development activities do not cause an adverse impact on flood elevations within the storage area, or downstream of the development (e.g. increasing downstream flows due to reduced infiltration capacity within the storage area). With the current plan to pursue a CLOMR using fill, the applicant is proposing to control and manage floodwaters and address compensatory storage requirements on the site through a combination of on-site fill, enhanced conveyance facilities (culverts) and infiltration galleries. Chester Creek main channel will remain unchanged, even with the widening of Thorpe Road which uses a box culvert to rest over the exiting channel. The intent of the Painted Hills PRD flood control design is to mimic the flood control project that Spokane County did on the Chester Creek mainstem, when the Kokomo area was taken out of the flood plain, by digging two deep borrow pits just West of Dishman-Mica Road and South of 28th Avenue. 21 South Pines Rd. • Spokane Valley, WA 99206 1 PO Box 1566 • Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-893-2617 • Fax 509-926-0227 • WhippleCE.com • Info@WhippleCE.com Civil, Structural, Traffic, Survey, Landscape Architecture and Entitlements Painted Hills Flood Control Development Narrative (Storage Area #1 & #6) Revised March 6, 2018 Page 2 of 6 This narrative restates and clarifies background information regarding the FEMA mapping for the site and further describes the current proposed plan. MAPPED FLOODPLAIN CONDITIONS History of Site Flood Analysis (source: BSW Painted Hills PRD) A hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for Chester Creek Basin was completed by Michael Baker Jr., Inc. and approved by Spokane County in a letter to the Federal Emergency Management Agency dated August 6, 1990. There are no long-term gage records for Chester Creek. The limited gage measurements on Chester Creek were collected near the Dishman-Mica Road crossing of Chester Creek for December 1994 through March 1995 and November 1995 through February 1996 when no significant flood events occurred. In February 2006, the hydraulic analysis for Chester Creek was revised by WEST Consultants, Inc. under a FEMA contract. The analysis established updated flood magnitude-frequency estimates for the watercourse. A steady flow hydraulic model has been developed for Chester Creek. The reports concluded that spring floods in the upper Spokane River basin are due to snowmelt runoff from high elevation watersheds. Such floods are of less significance on Chester Creek because of the lower elevation of the water shed limit and the size of the snowpack. Spring runoff occurs about a month earlier with the more gradual rates than on the Spokane River. Nearly all maximum annual flood peaks on Chester Creek occur during the winter. Warm winds and rain can melt the snow rapidly. When winter rain causes snowmelt on partially frozen soil conditions, short-duration, intense runoff generates a flood peak during winter storms. During the more extreme events, Chester Creek runs over its banks filling localized depressions in the flood zone. The duration of flooding is generally between 100 hours and 1000 hours, or between four days and forty days with smaller events occurring with greater frequency than large events. 1 Channel geometry for Chester Creek was developed from surveys conducted in March 2003. Overbank geometry was developed from topography developed by TerraPoint (2003). Flood plain boundaries for Chester Creek and the Unnamed Tributary to Chester Creek were delineated using 2-foot contour interval maps developed by TerraPoint from LiDAR data. A watershed plan for Chester Creek was previously designed with management recommendations for drainage, flooding, water quality, and riparian habitat. As a result, flood control improvements have been implemented along Chester Creek. The improvements to the area began at the Painted Hills Golf Course. In 1998, a project to install new culverts and extensive dredging of the channel between Thorpe Road and Schafer Road was implemented. Two large volume borrow pits were constructed downstream. Each pit was designed for the retention and infiltration of Chester Creek floodwaters up to a 25-year event. One borrow pit for the unnamed Tributary to Chester Creek was constructed just north of E 40th Avenue and the other borrow pit for Chester Creek just West of Dishman Mica and South of 28th Avenue. Before the storage areas #1 (compensatory area) and #6 (triangle pond) are to be modified (see Site Element Plan), it is important to understand where they are within the Chester Creek Basin, and what floodwaters they receive. Within the Chester Creek Basin, the storage areas are generally located in the northeast corner of the basin along the edge of the valley floor. Specifically, north of Thorpe Road and along Madison Road (Storage Area 1) and to the northeast of 40th Avenue (Storage Area 6). The flood condition flows, as identified by WEST Consultants, are separated into three parts in relation to the three directions of flow that enters into the Painted Hills Development: the main flow (Golf Course Overflow Reach) across Thorpe Road, the secondary (Unnamed Tributary) flow from Highway 27, and the secondary flow across Madison Road. The project is proposing to redirect the anticipated flows of the Painted Hills Flood Control Development Narrative (Storage Area #1 & #6) Revised March 6, 2018 Page 3 of 6 identified flood events for storage area #1 (main flow and Madison secondary flow) to a discharge point at the north end of the development and for storage area #6 (Unnamed Tributary) to an existing offsite discharge point to the east of the development. Storage Area #1 (compensatory area) is a large storage area that encompasses the majority of the former Painted Hills Golf Course as well as areas to the east of Madison Road. There is no outflow route for this storage area so it is classified as compensatory storage and is allowed to infiltrate through the native soils and into the Spokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. The soils below the storage area include the Spokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer as its base followed by layers of course sands that are topped by soils of an alluvial fan or an area of natural deposit from Chester Creek, before the creek was channelized. The floodwaters that enter Storage Area #1 are identified on the July 6, 2010 FIRM Map as the Chester Creek Golf Course Overflow. The Chester Creek Golf Course Overflow originates at a point to the south of Thorpe Road where there was at one time a breach in the man-made channel of Chester Creek. The breach was reportedly from a lack of maintenance and the overgrowth of vegetation in the main channel that blocked the main channel during a storm event. This flow of floodwater enters the storage area from the south at a low point in Thorpe Road through three 15" culverts and, if flow is larger, by overtopping Thorpe Road. Storage Area #6 (triangle pond) is a smaller storage area that is located east of 40th Avenue primarily within a 30-foot-deep gravel pit that was excavated during the early development years of Spokane Valley. Spokane County obtained a drainage easement over the pit in 1983 for storm drainage (flood flow) purposes. The overflow route of storage area #6 is along the south side of 40th Avenue and flows into Storage Area #1 via culverts under Madison Road. The soils below the storage area include the Spokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer as its base followed by layers of course sands and gravels that were further exposed by the gravel pit excavation. The Main Flow Across Thorpe Road Concept Design and Process For the concept design the 100-year flood event was used to size facilities. When reviewing the Geotechnical Evaluations, Phase I (December 31, 2013 — Revised August 29, 2016) and Phase II (July 23, 2015) it was evident that there are "valley gravels" or well-draining soils that lead directly to the Spokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer under the poor draining soils that cover the site. Therefore, we concluded that if we conducted flood waters into these well-draining soils the flood waters may be treated and discharged. Through extensive review, analysis and confirmation from geotechnical evaluations, it was determined that gravel galleries at the north end of the proposed development represented the optimal location for floodwater infiltration due to the fact that the groundwater depth in this location is much deeper than other locations on the site. See Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation by lPEC dated April 19, 2016. Proposed Design See Site Element Plan in the attachments. 100 Year Flood Event There is currently a shallow channel to the South of Thorpe Road that conveys the flood water flow from the breach North to Thorpe Road. This 100-year flood event, known as the Golf Course overflow Reach has a peak flow rate of 64 cfs, at the crossing of Thorpe Road, based on the existing FEMA FIS. Since the levee on the east side of Chester Creek immediately downstream of Thorpe Painted Hills Flood Control Development Narrative (Storage Area #1 & #6) Revised March 6, 2018 Page 4 of 6 Road is not certified to protect against the 100-year flood, a peak flow of 91 cfs will be used as the design flow at Thorpe Road instead of the 64 cfs in the effective FIS. The larger 91 cfs flow is more conservative and simulates additional flow that could be contributed to the Golf Course Overflow Reach from the main channel of Chester Creek in the event of a failure of the non-certified levee (without-levee scenario). This provides a conservative design flow which accounts for a potential levee breach or additional overflows that could occur due to the continued mainstream Chester Creek Channel issues, primarily a lack of upstream channel maintenance, which could result in additional overflows. In addition to the overflow from Chester Creek the hillside above Madison Road has a peak design inflow of 15 cfs through the four operational 18" culverts of Madison Road. Therefore, the total peak 100-yr event flow rate used for conveyance and infiltration design for Storage Area #1 is 106 cfs. System Summary On the south side of Thorpe Road, the waters from a 100-year without-levee flood event, the 91 cfs peak flow rate, is proposed to enter a box culvert on the south side of Thorpe Road. The box culvert has a capacity of 216 cfs. From the box culvert the floodwater enters an open channel to a sloped headwall that holds two 48" concrete pipes. Each pipe has a capacity of 77 cfs for a total capacity of 154 cfs. The two 48" pipes extend north from the headwall along Madison Road, with manholes strategically placed to connect to the existing 18" culverts in Madison Road. This connection allows the design flow rate of 15 cfs from the Madison hills to be added to the 91 cfs, for a total design flow rate of 106 cfs. The two 48" pipes end at a vertical headwall where the floodwater splashes out onto a concrete pad and flows across a level spreader into a sloped biofiltration swale. The biofiltration swale cross section has a capacity of 269 cfs. Within the biofiltration swale the suspended solids are stripped out by the tall grasses. At the end of the biofiltration swale is a settling pond that allows the floodwater to settle and rise 1 foot in elevation before flowing over a 20-foot-wide rock weir into the infiltration pond that is 2 feet below the elevation of the rock weir. Within the infiltration pond the floodwater can begin to infiltrate through the pond bottom. When the floodwater in the infiltration pond rises 1 foot in elevation the floodwater will crest over the rim of the 48 drywells and fall into the infiltration trench where the floodwater will then infiltrate into the native soils and enter the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum aquifer. The infiltration trenches have a design capacity of 162 cfs. As demonstrated the flood control system has the capacity to handle the peak 100-yr event without-levee flood design flow rate of 106 cfs with a Factor of Safety of 1.53+/-. The following are descriptions of each design element in more detail. Box Culvert/Open Channel The Golf Course Overflow Reach flows coming from the upstream flow split on Chester Creek is anticipated to approach Thorpe Road as it currently does at the low point in the Thorpe Road profile where there are currently three 15" culverts within the natural drainage way of the Golf Course Overflow Reach. The flow will then enter into a 30-foot-wide by 3-foot-high box culvert under Thorpe Road, replacing the 3 existing culverts. The roadside ditches along Thorpe Road will be regraded to ensure positive flow toward the box culvert. Given the topography of the area, aside from shallow puddles caused by upstream localized depressions, all stormwater will enter into the proposed box culvert. The flow will exit on the north side of Thorpe Road and enter into a concrete open channel with a concrete bottom and vertical concrete walls and then flow to the sloped headwall of the two 48" Pipes. Pipe Mainline At the terminus of the open channel the flow will enter into a two-pipe, parallel, buried pipe system with WSDOT Type II catch basins along the East side of Madison Road. Once inside, the two 48" concrete pipes the flood flow will continue to the north end of the project with an outfall into a bio- Painted Hills Flood Control Development Narrative (Storage Area #1 & #6) Revised March 6, 2018 Page 5 of 6 filtration swale. Each WSDOT Type II catch basin will have a sump for the settling of particles in low flow conditions. These particles or silt can then be vactored out of the manholes as part of the routine maintenance, prior to reaching the bio-filtration swale. Bio-filtration Swale (Channel)/Settling Pond The bio-filtration channel receives the flood water upon discharge from the two 48" concrete pipes. The filtration will be planted with tall dryland grasses. The flow of the floodwater overland through the tall grass provides an initial phase of silt and solid removal before the floodwater flows into a settling pond where additional silt will settle before cresting over a 1' rock weir with 8" minus rock compacted in place. Bio-infiltration pond The crested flood water from the settling pond then flows into an open surface bio-infiltration pond. Within the infiltration pond the suspended particles will continue to decelerate and settle downward to the pond bottom while the clear surface water crests over the rim of the drywells that leads into a gravel gallery system only when the floor dictates. Assuming that the infiltration pond discharges at the rate of 1.6x10'cfs/sf the pond bottom in a non-frozen ground event would discharge (61,000x1.6x10') 9.76 cfs directly to the underlying soils, and not enter the drywells. Therefore, a flow represented by 9.76 cfs is generally consistent with a pre-project flow over Thorpe Road of 0.25' or 3 inches, which has been experienced once during the preparation of this project and documented on February 17, 2017. The gravel gallery system is for the ultimate disposal into the aquifer, its final destination. See Bio-infiltration worksheet in the attachments. Gravel Gallery System Once floodwater flows exceed bottom infill rates it will rise to a depth of one foot and enter the discharge drywells which will evenly distribute the floodwater through gravel galleries by either flowing through the drywell barrels or distributing through the interconnected 12" perforated pipes and galleries along the pond's entire length. The gravel gallery system is based upon a system of 10-foot wide by 10-foot deep infiltration trenches with 3 trenches at 340 feet, a trench at 330 feet, and a trench at 100 feet. the trenches are lined with geo-fabric per WSDOT Std. Spec. 9-33.2(1) and filled with gravel drywell material in conformance with WSDOT Std. Spec. 9-03.12(5). Within the top 3 feet of the infiltration trench runs a 12" perforated pipe at a 0% slope that connects the trench drywells within each trench segment. As treated floodwater crests over the rims of the drywells, the floodwater fills from the bottom up, and equalizes throughout the trench. Once filled the gallery is at its maximum design infiltration rate of 162.64 cfs (see gravel gallery worksheet in the attachments). For analysis the 100-year storm has a peak flow rate of 91 cfs, plus the 15 cfs from the Madison Hills for a total design peak flow rate of 106 cfs. So, with a design outflow rate over 1.5 times greater than the design inflow rate the system will adequately discharge the 100-year flood. This is a conservative measure of protection. Infiltration Rate A full-scale drywell test was performed at the north end of the site. Based on this test we used the design flow rate of 1.8 x 10-3 cfs/sf for design of the gravel galleries in the open space area north of the proposed Cottages residential area. See attached IPEC Geotechnical Report dated June 28, 2016. Maintenance of the pipe, bioswale, road and gravel gallery system is a semi-annual inspection of the gallery through the system drywells looking for a build-up of sediment and debris, and if needed, the removal of the sediment and debris by a vactor truck. Painted Hills Flood Control Development Narrative (Storage Area #1 & #6) Revised March 6, 2018 Page 6 of 6 Secondary Protection As a secondary measure of protection, a detention facility is proposed at the south end of the project in the park area. A 176,181-sf area located in the park area has been lowered 3 feet +/- from the existing ground surface. This area will be covered with grass turf and will function as park open space, with gentle 3:1 side slopes for easy access. If for whatever reason an emergency situation exceeds the capacity of the pipe headwall or if the 48" concrete pipe inlets are blocked by debris, floodwater is intended to crest over the open channel wall and flow into the park as a temporary containment measure. The detention facility has an outlet located in the NE Corner. The outlet is a catch basin with a rim elevation placed 1 foot above the bottom of the park. The catch basin has an 18" pipe that connects into the western 48" concrete Pipe that runs along Madison Road. Below the rim of the catch basin the detention facility has a holding capacity of 178,699 cf or 4.10-acre feet, at a final grade of 5 ft depth the detention facility has an ultimate holding capacity of 943,866 cf or 21.67- acre feet. While the detention facility is not the ultimate disposal point for flood water the detention facility provides a secondary containment that will detain the floodwater and drain flood water back into the flood control system without risking a flood of the subdivision streets. Project Site Fill and Flood Protection Measures The project site is protected from the main channel of Chester Creek by the existing levee type fill of property along the existing Chester Creek channel and along Dishman-Mica Road. As was originally proposed and noted the project was going to be a levy type flood control project. However, it has since been modified to strictly a fill project where all future building pads will be placed 1.0 feet above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). The new fill elevation is proposed to be placed 1 foot or more above the Chester Creek Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and then be graded out across the site toward Madison Road. All building pads will be placed above the BFE and certified to FEMA during the development. The project proposes to place 328,289 +/- cy of compacted fill on site to achieve this goal, Therefore, it is incumbent upon the reader to understand that the grading plan of the project site will be to raise the overall site surface. So that all residential building pads will be at least 1.0 foot above the BFE and will therefore always be out of the floodplain, even if the discharge measures experience some catastrophic failure of infiltration during a flood event. Design Elements Box Culvert Open Channel Pipes Bioswale Settling Pond Rock Weir Pond Drywell Infil. Trench Width/Area 28' 28' 48" 6' 7,172 sf 2' 61,004 sf 48" 10 Length 45' 18' *2,629' 334' - 20' - - *1,450 Slope 0.5% 1.0% 0.26% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% - 0.0% Depth 3' 6' - 6' 6' 5' 7' 18' 10' Elev: inThtna 2007.58 2007.36 2007.18 2000.04 1996.80 1997.80 1995.80 1996.80 1978.8 Elev: Out 2007.36 2007.18 2000.24 1996.80 - - - *Indicates a total The Secondary Flow Across Madison Road: The flow across Madison Road is divided into 5 basins from the heights above and to the east of Madison Road that correspond to the 5 culverts that are placed under Madison Road. The most northerly culvert does not have an outlet on the west side of Madison Road. Therefore, the floodwater that should enter this culvert goes to the south to the culvert at Sta 30+42. The floodwaters on the east side of Madison Rd distribute along the east side of Madison and appear to be separated into the four culverts that cross Madison Road at Stations (S to N) 13+22, 20+44, 24+41 and 30+42. As the development proposes to Painted Hills Flood Control Development Narrative (Storage Area #1 & #6) Revised March 6, 2018 Page 7 of 6 widen Madison Road on the west side, the 4 culverts will be replaced and extended. Since the proposed inverts of the extended culverts will fall below the proposed grade of the roadside swales, the culverts will connect into the East 48" pipe. The storm water along the west side of Madison Road will be collected in roadside swales where it will receive treatment. The swales will have catch basins with the rim set 6" above the swale bottom. Any excess treated flow that does not infiltrate and exceeds a 6" depth will enter the catch basins. The catch basins will be connected to the East 48" mainline pipe. West Consultants provided the following 100-year storm flows for each culvert during the 100-year storm. We are using these flows to size and design floodwater facilities. STA. 100 Year Storm Flow (cfs) 13+22 4 20+44 1 24+41 1 30+42 2 38+98 7 Total 15 Any floodwater generated west of the triangle pond along E 40th Avenue flows to the west. Then at Madison Road it flows south between the road and the easterly hillside. These flows will be intercepted with the replacement culverts installed at Stations 13+22 through 30+42 that are connected at manholes into the east 48" pipe. North Pond Mounding Analysis On August 22❑d 2017 IPEC completed a mounding analysis of the infiltration galleries on the north side of the project. In 2017 the design was not a pond with galleries below, as it is today but simply a series of infiltration galleries that are smaller than the current design. The mounding analysis utilized the established infiltration rate and applied the rate to smaller infiltration area of the time. The result was a 9.01-foot-high mound at the center of the facility and a 6-inch-high mound at the edge of the facility. It was then concluded that the infiltration of stormwater would not have significant down gradient impacts. With the current larger pond and infiltration gallery it is anticipated that the mound would be reduced in height and the conclusion would be the same. Painted Hills Flood Control Development Narrative (Storage Area #1 & #6) Revised March 6, 2018 Page 8 of 6 The Secondary Flow From Highway 27 (Spokane County) Proposed Design The existing and documented 16 cfs flood flow from Highway 27 (Unnamed Tributary) is currently conveyed via a 36" culvert (limiting factor) that empties into a ditch that flows West across the Gustin property (Parcel No. 45344.9108). The stormwater flows through the ditch and into the existing County borrow pit within the triangular parcel located northeast of E 40t11 Avenue (Parcel No. 45343.9052). The existing ditch has been maintained over the years by the property owner (Gustin) to ensure that whatever floodwater comes out of the culvert under Highway 27 will be conveyed to the existing borrow pit. With this or a separate project the ditch will be replaced with a 36" pipe that extends from Highway 27 to the proposed infiltration (triangle) pond bottom in barrow pit. With the pipe there is no potential for floodwater to flow in the natural drainage way to the West. The existing pond is anticipated to be regraded with 18 drywells being installed. Design Elements: Proposed Pond 17,060 sf @ El: 1990.00; 35,812 sf @ El. 1995.00; 84,416 sf @ El. 2000.00 Drywell spacing 30', total drywell outflow 18.0 cfs, negates pond bottom, frozen ground flow Maintenance Access Road: 6" gravel, max grade 10%, min. radius 35' Fenced with gate Infiltration Pond WCE proposes to improve the outflow of the (triangle pond) borrow pit by regrading and expanding the lowest bottom area of the borrow pit and installing 18 double depth drywells into the bottom of the internal pond. The drywells will provide outflow during a frozen ground condition. Each double depth drywell will provide a design outflow of 1.0 cfs for a total of 18 cfs per the recommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation by IPEC dated October 14, 2014. If you have any questions or comments in regard to this letter please feel free to contact us at (509) 893-2617. Sincerely, WHIPPLE C SULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 4,2:462 ."vISTEite9 Todd R. Whii71:ie-, PE TRW/bng Encl: Attachments CC: File ATTACHEMENTS Bibliography Site Element Plan (Sheet C1.3) 100 Year Flood Event Flows Thorpe Road Crossing Madison Hills Flow to Culverts Gustin Pipe Flow to Culverts System Capacity Box Culvert Madison Pipe Bioswale Trapezoidal Channel Storage and Discharge Pond Summary Worksheet Gravel Gallery Worksheet — North Bio-filtration Channel Worksheet Geotechnical Reports BIBLIOGRAPHY 1) Dawes, Larry. February 28, 2019. Biological Evaluation, Critical area Report, and Habitat Management Plan for the Painted Hills PRD. Biology Soil & Water, Inc., Spokane Valley, WA. 13-14. PAINTED HILLS PRD BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION, CRITICAL AREAS REPORT, AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Spokane County Tax Parcels #45336.9191 and 44041.9144 February 28, 2019 -,••••& an,.1 .4... I , t•••.. Biology Soil & Water, inc BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION, CRITICAL AREAS REPORT, AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN for the PAINTED HILLS PRD Spokane County Tax Parcels #45336.9191 and 44041.9144 February 28, 2019 Retained by NM Black Contact Person: Bryan Walker 107 S. Howard St., #500 Spokane, WA 99201 509.622.3593 (m) 509.623.1000 (o) bwalker@naiblack.com Investigated by Biology Soil & Water, Inc. Contact Person: Larry Dawes, Principal Biologist 3102 N. Girard Road Spokane Valley, WA 99212-1529 Phone 509-327-2684 Email: bswinc@icehouse.net LIST OF CONTACTS Bryan Walker 107 S. Howard St., #500 Spokane, WA 99201 509.622.3593 (m) 509.623.1000 (o) bwalker@naiblack.com Todd Whipple Whipple Consulting Engineers 21 South Pines RD Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 893-2617 (toddw@whipplece.com) Larry Dawes Biology Soil & Water, Inc 3102 N. Girard Road Spokane Valley, WA 99212 Phone 509-327-2684 bswinc@icehouse.net 38 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION, CRITICAL AREAS REPORT AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN for the PAINTED HILLS PRD Spokane County Tax Parcels #45336.9191 and 44041.9144 July 20, 2015 (Revised August 30, 2016, and February 2019) 1.0: Introduction Biology Soil & Water, Inc. (BSW) was retained by Black Realty to complete a Biological Evaluation (BE) for the proposed Painted Hills Planned Residential Development (PRD) located in the City of Spokane Valley, WA. This BE also includes all of the Critical Areas Report and Habitat Management Plan (HMP) elements required by the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Section 21.40 (SVMC 21.40). South Dishman Mica Road defines the west boundary of the site, E. Thorpe Road defines the south boundary of the property, S. Madison Road defines the East boundary, and developed private property defines the north property boundary (Figures 1-3). The Painted Hills Golf Course formerly occupied this location. The former club house was renovated to expand the existing restaurant and the remainder of the site will become residential development and open space. The subject property is comprised of seven separate tax parcels totaling 99.5 acres (+/-) where 580 residential units are proposed, and a 10+ acre parcel on the south end of the site that will be designated as a wildlife travel corridor. The Action Area was defined as a half mile radius of the 99+ acre Project Area so the site investigation would characterize adjacent areas where listed species could live or be impacted by the project. This assessment addresses all Critical Areas and listed Priority Habitat and Species including Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species in the Project Area. The USFWS and NMFS species lists were accessed on their websites on 4/21/2015 and updated August 29, 2016 and January 29, 2019. No NMFS species are listed for the vicinity. The USF&W list indicated the potential presence of the species and critical habitat(s) shown in Table 1 (and in Appendix 1). Table 1. USFWS listed species and critical habitats potentially present in the vicinity of Species ESU/DPS Federal Status Designated Critical Habitat Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Columbia River DP S Threatened Yes Water howellia, Howellia aquatilis Threatened No Spalding's silene, Silene spaldingii Threatened No Canada Lynx, Lynx canadensis Threatened No Yellow-billed cuckoo, Coccyzus americanus, Threatened No The undersigned investigated the Project and Action Areas on March 1, March 29, and April 19, 2015. The site conditions have not changed since the investigation in 2015. The conclusions of this plan are based on an evaluation of habitat and species data for Spokane County compiled by State and Federal jurisdictions, an evaluation of construction plans and specifications for the project, a literature review, and field investigations by the author of this report. The project will have no effect on Bull Trout or proposed Bull Trout Critical Habitat. The project will not result in the destruction or adverse modification of potential, designated or proposed Critical Habitat or Essential Fish Habitat for any fish species. The project will have no 1 DELORME Topo USAF 8 Variant to !Bland Nttnsimo(- .--RIchmetidL-'13w.riabY 01016'isok • l'' — 'Langley ---" `. . Surrey : . -... czi 15In lu d -.. lkr ieut41ook.11,,,,,,,,....741).-b9-t.sk-..."1.—.....tr•-•,•,..----..----- Cowlchan tRolz Lace 11 1q-C, ,e044 18'111gtr • k Selais "■.. 11.7 .t, L it'l Vitet;iala": ''l . ...e• d .• ' a • • „,...,.......S;:cAPtitor de carca .." IhIssd , all • • Wrild6ey l'a•442e CAt, 4acelnd ,Everett tp14:4444:141e‘ i2ct Stnend ISettile Re iiiii•-....de . Kant '-'-'ae __,* • 4 Ast ederal Way kokoWood ,21yrn Uie Vskerne rigor, Reievalson ma -111•NIN s- . - -511)41: EniergDmiml Clre 720 raid< 4 Sttlir n eallen us Kane 11ZE Spokane 4 P2iMF Zati ".‘ ,r isinted Hills FRO 44. I Cove tarritlakd se 12 • ".• ---- - - - - - EhrorilsakliarKair Data use subject to license. '1/41 DeLorme. Topo USA® B. www.delorme.com TN 144 MN 4114.11.5) II M 54 55 10 45 120 Data Zoom 6-0 O S A f.• • \ 17:41 c/S BA KER-R RD ,f- r- 0,1 , > -5 A RD >11N9 as bamuve tu 5 CONKLIN RD S NKLIN RD L L S RD AVIS RD I f-r---zi ..,k.--, ,.... , T C , CV n J CIH 0,0.)/4,- r-O . ...,,,, , r-. f . .... 0 i . •-,4" .0 1+,1Es,Rp • 'IS-PINES-RD ./..-1-.s30t9r10 • - O A-11 • wf PARK R V 0 mt,CA. aNSNI.541y ' S EASTERN RD _ s GLENROSE RD r,! iss NV A,M14,ragneiV tr RE L ly ST w . del 0 •-• „o 0 .166/La. .611SL. .0.1-31144 131 14 , BEC.33, 7.25N., R.44E., W.M. SW , 6EC.34. T.25N., .44E., W.M. NE , SEC. 4, T.24N., R.44E., W.M. - mei 110 17611 1 11 11111 11111111111111•113. Mel poorcll mot ^ 1111 411.i Tr INNIS lila 11111111 Ililla f IR 11111111, 1 ISE= =1 in. in am 1.1191 II n umlom 11111111111 1 1E1E11 1 MI 111.3111 ICI SE NI 1 AN III Mil Mg limn? Ns 111 III IIIIIIII : v---..-m--i f. t,_•_-_„. 44.1 • nomit (m) ANEW min iiiiir Iiiiii&CI mums' ,,,s _..__ imiee--0 witiiir[ Ell. Alliii ii EMI En ISE kin 1111111111111 NMI in MiKri I Milllr !AVM liandwimumni tionimilmil 1111111.111111.11 Mil j1111 1L1` iINI 11111MBI MIN -- — BUILDING RESTRIOIANS EZ1 MONO LOT PESTRICTOPS APPLY PEDAL LAPOSCAPX0 ilORAIEMEIRS APPLY 11ESOOGILO TO 01.11.0C OR POO. P1100110 OILY 40%10 PI ME NORM E0' PESTOCIER TO SOLE SIM MOM REsaelrIAL UNITS OILY POPOVER 10 20 Or MAWR LAOSCAPING AT NON PROPERTY LINE 111111i11111110 AI r I1 MUL "FAN ILLY ; -11 9 8 11 11 I k GRAPHIC SCALE es 11R xto 11 I I l• I (IA FEAT) IL c...3 DEVELOPMENT FEATURES AND RESTRICTIONS SCALE 1,130' • DATUM: NAVD - 88 sy or YOso,nomPOPOSI OOP Mom WI•••11ILLWIMIX tf 1,401.11. Tal,. NAVD6), VMS LtilLI WM I 01.11J IOR MMERCIAL 1.81 AC 3t. • r. Y • • 1 M ER CjA • -P5W : IV • HATCH LEGEND C:1 MATE LOIS 210140010 MOLY YAM, TOYS COTTAGE LOTS lautil-TANSY LOT CCF04*Ci4 Tow E:1 POO or rrkr AREA ED CPU VAST MI ?IMO COMM/ Ore. SPACE 11111 CHESTER STAIR .0.1. O 1,41,04141' 1 11110ERGIOUNO STYME AUNT 01E-OALL OMNI 811 Mt MI I •11141/0 YAM SCALE: mamosonma, 110 bat NY 0441 1.404 S ¶04114 yR fos • ON•V. 11•0111/410, TRW vlMR CIR.. 1M AWCE •••••• t•••.a •0•46.4 15 IN 1.1,1111.1.11ANIOAP .1.1..•• ••, 041.1•4946.7 PA C 11a(Wan PRD PAINTED HILLS FEATURES AND RESTRICTIONS DISHMAN-MICA RD. SPOKANE VALLEY,WA SHEET P0.11 JON NUME•H 13-1166 effect on the threatened species Water howellia, Spalding's silene, Canada lynx, or the Yellow- billed cuckoo. There will be no significant adverse effect on any listed Species of Concern. The site plan includes a 10+ acre wildlife travel corridor for deer and elk and over 30 acres of open space. The Project Area does not meet any of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) criteria for High Quality Terrestrial Habitat. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDF&W) maps (Appendix 2: Critical Areas Maps) indicate the subject property falls within an Elk polygon (WDF&W Priority Habitat). A 10+ acre wildlife travel corridor is proposed along the entire south end of the project and the corridor will be enhanced with vegetative plantings to accommodate animals traveling through the area. Chester Creek and its associated 100-foot buffer bisects the SW corner of the property. Buffer Width Averaging is proposed to compensate for the encroachment of two lots and foot paths in the riparian buffer. The impact mitigation also includes riparian buffer enhancement. The existing buffer is almost totally devoid of woody vegetation because it was previously a driving range and/or maintained golf course fairway. An evaluation of streams and wetlands is included in this report. 2.0: Methods of Investigation The north parcel of the Project Area is located in Sec. 33, T25N, R44E and the south parcel is located in Sec. 4, T24N, R44E of Spokane County, WA (Figures 1-3). Biology Soil & Water, Inc. (BSW) investigated the property on March 1 and 29, and April 19, 2015 for wetlands, riparian habitat, and species protected under the Federal, State, and local regulations. The undersigned is familiar with the soils, vegetation, and hydrologic characteristics of this property from previous investigations of adjacent properties in the immediate vicinity and throughout the drainage basin. 3.0: Description of the Action and Project Areas Spokane is located in a valley at the westmost extent of the Rocky Mountains. From the north side of the Spokane River valley, the Selkirk Mountains extend north into Canada. On the south side of the Spokane River valley, a forested finger of the Bitterroot Mountains extends east from Lake Coeur d'Alene to Dishman Hills. The subject property is located in the Chester Creek valley with forested foothills on the east and west sides of the valley. The Painted Hills PRD is surrounded primarily by residential development with varying degrees of housing density, a few small undeveloped tracts of agricultural land in the Chester Creek valley, and forested land with varying densities of residential development (Figure 4). 3.1: Description of the Action Area For purposes of describing habitat in the surrounding area, the Action Area is defined as a half mile radius of the project area. Habitat types in the Action Area would be described as a mosaic of urban developed, fragments of conifer forest, and small tract agriculture. From the north property line, dense residential development extends north into the City. A church and residential development border the painted Hills PRD at the NW corner. Horizon Middle School is located NE of the site. From the east property line (S. Madison Rd) hay fields and pasture extend 250-500 feet toward the toe of the surrounding forested slopes. Sparse residential extends east up the forested hillsides. Commercial and single-family residential development extends south from Thorpe Road except for the Chester Creek drainage and associated flood plain that is 5 02, ' - ;I'. ...L.. - • • 14-r. iy 1' _ t3 4 4 • , 015 Google 4e. ' X17 .. Google earth Go sle earth miles km mainly forested and small tract agriculture. Undeveloped forested hillsides extend about 1200 feet east to the densely developed Ponderosa neighborhood. A mixture of commercial and residential land uses extend NW along Dishman-Mica Road. Land uses in the Action Area are a mosaic of dense residential development on former agricultural land, remaining undeveloped small tracts of agricultural land, and forested land with varying densities of residential development. Large mammals that are willing to cross highways and residential developments interspersed with open farm land will find connectivity to a few hundred acres of wooded and sparsely populated foothills extending south and west from the Painted Hills PRD site to Dishman Hills. 3.2: Description of the Project Area The 99+ acre Painted Hills PRD property was formerly a golf course. Black Realty Inc. bought the property in a trustees auction in the fall of 2013 after the owners filed for bankruptcy in 2012. Except for cart paths, sand traps, and man-made water hazards, the entire property was planted in non-native turf grasses with sparse conifer and deciduous trees lining some of the fairways. The turf grass was maintained by treatment with herbicides and regular mowing of the greens, fairways and rough. These practices virtually eliminated the native herbaceous plant community. Since golf course maintenance ceased, noxious weeds have invaded the site. Honey willows were planted inside the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Chester Creek whose channel was historically dredged and maintained for flood control. The banks of the channel are covered with Reed canarygrass. Outside the OHWM of the stream channel where the vegetation was not mowed or maintained, the vegetative community is dominated by Canarygrass. Teasel, tansy, thistle, wormwood, and lettuce are also well represented. 3.3: Comparison of three Development Alternatives A State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being prepared for the project. The EIS provides a detailed analysis of three alternatives. Alternative #1 proposed no development. Alternative #2, the preferred development scenario, was for the Planned Residential Development discussed in this report. Alternative #3 was for a standard Residential Subdivision under the current zoning without PRD requirements and density. A detailed comparison of the three alternatives is provided later in this report. 4.0: Project Risk Assessment and Impacts Listed threatened and endangered species identified by jurisdictions for potential occurrence in Spokane County include the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis), Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Water howellia (Howellia aquatilis) and Spalding's silene (Silene spaldingii). A BSW field investigation determined that the project would have NO EFFECT on any of the above listed species. 4.1: Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), Federal Status: Threatened The yellow-billed cuckoo was formerly a very rare summer visitor to western Washington, especially in the Puget Sound area (Roberson 1980). Jewitt et al. (1953) described the former breeding range in Washington as ranging north to Bellingham, east to Ellensburg, south to Vancouver, and west to Grays Harbor. There are only two published records of yellow- billed cuckoo in eastern Washington. Yellowbilled cuckoos were detected on July 21, 1956, 20 7 miles north of Grand Coulee Dam in Okanogan County (Weber and Larrison 1977) and in June 1978 at George, Grant County (Roberson 1980). The March and April investigations occurred before the Yellow-billed cuckoo would have migrated into the Spokane County area if it seasonally utilized the area for breeding or nesting. The investigation for the Yellow-billed cuckoo focused on specific habitat requirements of that species. Cuckoos prefer to nest in areas with at least 10 hectares (ha) (25 acres) of contiguous (riparian) woodland (Laymon 1998). The typical patch size is 20 ha (50 acres) or greater, and the likelihood of occupancy increases dramatically with increasing patch size, but they have been found breeding in patch sizes as small as 4 ha (10 acres) along the Colorado River in southern California (Johnson, Matthew J., 2007). Yellow-billed cuckoo's nest in undisturbed stands of cottonwood/willow galleries greater than 10 acres in total area and greater than 100 meters wide along waterways. The project area does not contain, and is not in close proximity to, adequate habitat patches for that species. The largest habitat patch consisting of species utilized by the yellow- billed cuckoo is less than one tenth of the minimum patch size utilized by this reclusive species. The yellow-billed cuckoo is known not to utilize any habitat with characteristics of those found along Chester Creek adjacent to this project. This project will not impact yellow-billed cuckoo populations or habitat components. There is no suitable habitat for the yellow billed cuckoo in the vicinity of this project. The project will have NO EFFECT on the yellow-billed cuckoo. 4.2: Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Threatened The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) lists the Columbia River population of bull trout as threatened. Small pockets of bull trout are present in isolated habitat fragments in the main stem and tributaries of the Columbia River. One isolated fragment of the Columbia River segment includes Coeur d'Alene Lake, its tributaries in the drainage basin, and the Spokane River. Bull trout populations have been identified in Coeur d'Alene Lake and three tributaries in its sub-basin, but no bull trout populations are known to occur presently, or have been noted historically, in the Spokane River downstream from the Post Falls Hydroelectric Dam (PBTTAT, 1998). The Post Falls dam stops the migration of fish out of the Coeur d'Alene basin downstream into the Spokane River. Waterfalls and dams prevent the upstream and downstream migration of bull trout into the segment of the Spokane River and its tributaries in the vicinity of the project area. No dam on the Spokane River has a fish passage facility and all dams create fish barriers for upstream and downstream migration. EPA fact sheets for 1999 NPDES permits for wastewater treatment plants discharging to the Spokane River state that bull trout cannot get past the Post Falls Dam (EPA 2008). There is no known population of bull trout in the Spokane River downstream of the Post Falls dam (FERC 2006). The USFWS does not include the Spokane River and its tributaries located downstream from the Post Falls dam in bull trout recovery planning efforts (Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010). The project will have No Effect on Bull Trout. Bull Trout Critical Habitat Activities that may adversely modify critical habitat include those that alter the primary constituent elements to an extent that the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of the bull trout is appreciably reduced. The proposed project will not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat by altering primary constituent elements. The value of critical 8 habitat for both the survival and recovery of the bull trout will not be reduced as a result of this project. The project will not alter the minimum flow or natural flow regime of the subject stream, alter any segment of the stream, riparian vegetation, or any chemical parameters so as to reduce water quality, alter channel morphology or create instream barriers to bull trout movement. No decrease in water quantity will occur because of the project. The project will cause no significant and detrimental alterations to water quality and will have NO EFFECT on proposed Bull Trout Critical Habitat. 4.3: Spalding's catchfly (Silene spaldingil), Federal Status: Threatened The range of Spalding's silene (Silene spaldingii) includes eastern Washington, northeast Oregon, Idaho, and western Montana. Spalding's silene occurs primarily in open grasslands with minor shrub and/or (occasionally) scattered conifer components. Spalding's silene is found most commonly in Idaho fescue/snowberry associations at elevations of 1900-3050 feet. These sites are typically dominated by Idaho fescue and have sparse cover of snowberry where the total vegetative cover is greater than 100%. Some of these sites occur in a mosaic of grassland and ponderosa pine forest. Spalding's silene populations have been found on all aspects, although there seems to be a preference for slopes that face north. On drier sites, the species can be found on the bluebunch wheatgrass/Idaho fescue association. Spalding's silene can occupy habitats that vary from sagebrush plains to mountain ridges. Spalding's silene generally occurs in native grasslands that are in reasonably good ecological condition, although populations have persisted in areas that have had moderate grazing pressure. Populations tend to be quite small and are currently quite fragmented, raising questions about their long-term viability. Fire may have historically played a role in maintaining habitat particularly in sites that are interspersed with ponderosa pine forest. Much of the historically suitable habitat has been lost through conversion or degradation. The timing of the site investigation did not coincide with the flowering of listed plant species. The project biologist is a qualified botanist and wetland professional that routinely completes site investigations during all seasons when snow does not cover vegetation. Site investigations often occur when salient plant flowering parts are senescent or may not be sufficiently preserved to allow taxonomic identification beyond genus to the species level. Twenty years of experience in plant identification during all life history and seasonal growth habits has equipped the project biologist to conduct accurate plant identifications and wetland investigations in accordance with best available science and consistent with the accepted professional practices for the conditions at the time the work was performed. Individual plants exhibit essential identification characteristics unique to their genera, but display sufficient variation so it is possible to categorize and differentiate each species within a genus using taxonomic keys. During plant senescence, individual characteristics often become blurred making it difficult or impossible for a botanist to differentiate among species within the genus. The sepals of the genus Silene form a bulbous calyx that is easily recognized and sufficient to identify the plant to genus. The Threatened species Silene spaldingii overlaps in range and is somewhat similar in appearance with some other species in the genus. The field biologist is familiar with the species and has observed it at other locations. During the field investigation, the Silene genus was not identified in the Action or Project Areas. Previous years of cultivation, followed by the planting of turf grasses, years of mowing, and herbicide applications is sufficient grounds for discounting effects on Spalding's silene when considered alone. No populations of Spalding's silene were identified in the Project Area during 9 the field investigation. The project will have NO EFFECT on Spalding's Silene and will not result in the destruction or adverse modification of potential, designated or proposed Spalding's silene Critical Habitat. 4.4: Water howellia (Howellia aquatilis) Howellia is found in seasonal wetlands, ponds and lakes because its seeds do not germinate under water. Since seeds germinate in the fall and over-winter as seedlings Howellia requires a dry autumn followed by a wet spring in order to establish for the year. In addition to seasonally fluctuating ponds, Howellia requires fertile, highly organic soils, which are generally maintained by deciduous trees surrounding the ponds. Research indicates that Howellia does not form a persistent seed bank, making this annual especially dependent on year to year reproductive success in order to persist. No Howellia was observed in the Project Area. Howellia is found in seasonal wetlands, ponds and lakes. No Howellia habitat occurs in the Project Area. The project will have NO EFFECT on the Howellia aquatilis species and will not result in the destruction or adverse modification of potential, designated or proposed Howellia Critical Habitat. 4.5: Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Federal Status: Threatened Lynx prefer dense coniferous forest with sapling/pole thickets, rock outcrops, and wetlands at elevations of around 4000' to 4500'. The elevation of the Action Area is around 2010-2015 feet. Denning usually occurs in mature old growth stands with lots of deadfall. These forested stands do not occur in the Action Area. Lynx prefer snowshoe hare habitat, as they are dependent on snowshoe hare as a staple food item. Snowshoe hare prefers dense lodgepole stands that do not occur in the Project or Action Areas. BSW did not find any evidence of Canada lynx in the low elevations associated with the Project Area. The project will have NO EFFECT on the Canada lynx or Canada lynx habitat. The Canada lynx does not appear on the 1/29/2019 official USFW species list for the site. 4.6: Species of Concern The site was also investigated for the presence of species from the Species of Concern list for Spokane County published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Most of these species are also included in the WDF&W list of priority species that was adopted by the City of Spokane Valley. Each species is listed below, followed by an evaluation of available habitat, observed habitat utilization, and potential project effects. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) The Bald eagle is listed as a State Sensitive species. Eagles do not nest near the Project Area. Human activity associated with major roads and urban development are limiting factors for Bald eagles in the Action Area. At any location in Spokane County road kill can provide food for transient opportunist eagles. However, Bald eagles do not routinely forage in the Action Area and no nest sites were observed by BSW within one-half mile of the Project Area. BSW concludes that noise and human activity during construction will not impact eagle nesting as no nests were identified in the Action Area. Perching and foraging opportunities occur on the stream bank and eagles could utilize the stream corridor. The project will have NO EFFECT on the Bald eagle. 10 Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) No historical observation in the vicinity. No individuals, nests, or sign observed during the site survey. No Effect from project. California floater (Anodonta californiensis) freshwater mussel. No Effect from project. Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis ) nests on rocky ledge or high ground vantage on prairie. No Effect from project. Giant Columbia spire snail (Fluminicola columbiana) cold, unpolluted, medium to large streams. No Effect from project. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) A robin sized gray, black, and white bird of open areas. Community types not dominated by shrubs, such as grasslands and riparian areas, are not used. Loggerhead Shrikes prefer nesting in big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush, and avoid spiny hopsage, rabbitbrush, and green rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus). Nest shrubs are taller, closer to an edge, and contain denser cover and fewer main stems than unoccupied shrubs. Roost shrubs are large, dense live shrubs, whereas tall, dead shrubs that provide good visibility are used for perching. No Effect from project. Longeared myotis (Myotis evotis) Roosts are sometimes found in crevices in small basalt rock formations. Compared to random plots, roosts are in more open, rocky habitats, closer to the edge of forest stands, and relatively distant from sources of permanent water. Often roost in Ponderosa pine trees >30 cm in diameter and >12 m high. Less use of grasslands and closed pine than expected. No significant effect if present in vicinity. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) goshawks select relatively closed-canopy conifferous/boreal forest habitat for nesting - No significant effect. Olivesided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) found in boreal and western coniferous forests - No Effect Pallid Townsend's bigeared bat (Corynorhinus townsendli pallescens) Eastside mixed conifer forest, shrub-steppe, and riparian-wetlands. In Washington, old buildings, silos, concrete bunkers, barns, caves, and mines are common roost structures. No effect on roosting or hibernicula Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Two subspecies of peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus ) occur in Washington state at present, (F. p. pealei and F. p. anatum ). Peale's peregrine falcon is a coastal subspecies so our concern in Spokane County is with F. p. anatum (Continental peregrine falcon). DDT exposure totally eliminated this subspecies from former breeding sites in eastern Washington. Following a ban on the use of DDT, captive-reared young birds have been released at several sites in Spokane County in an attempt to augment natural reintroductions by wild birds. There is no potential for degradation or loss of critical habitat for peregrine falcons in the project area. Peregrine falcons nest on cliffs or even man-made structures such as buildings or bridges that do not occur in the project area so no action is required to protect nest sites from human disturbance. The primary method used to reintroduce falcons to the wild is called "hacking". WDF&W does not currently use any hack sites in the vicinity. No significant effect Redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) No Effect from project. Sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus) No Effect from project. Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) No Effect from project. Palouse goldenweed (Haplopappus liatriformis) palouse, not in our area No Effect 4.7: WDF&W Priority Species Deer, Elk, and Gray Wolf Impacts to the WDF&W Priority Species White-tailed deer and Elk will be minimized by protecting a travel corridor through the site. The subject property is not mapped as White-tailed 11 deer priority habitat. Wooded lands to the east and south are mapped as priority white-tailed deer habitat. However, deer utilize the site as they do all undeveloped parcels in the area. The site falls within the northern extent of the mapped Elk Habitat polygon in the Spokane Valley. The site does not provide cover or refugia required by elk and is not elk habitat, but Elk moving through the general area between Mica Peak and Dishman Hills could potentially cross the subject property on east/west treks. The developer will protect and enhance an east/west 10+ acre deer and elk travel corridor across the property. Woody vegetative plantings prescribed for the corridor will provide some habitat value and protective cover where none currently exists. Deer will continue to use the area set aside as a travel corridor. The site is also mapped as Gray wolf habitat. It is possible that wolves could travel through the area in search of prey. There are deer and abundant small (domesticated) mammals available in this residential area so their presence would not be well received in the surrounding neighborhoods. Wolves could also utilize the 10+ acre travel corridor for safe east/west passage through the property. On May 5, 2011, wolves were federally delisted in the eastern one-third of Washington State. 4.8: Wetlands Wetland Inventory Maps of the site show two wetlands on the property (Appendix 2). Both of the wetlands are shown to occur on the west side of Chester Creek. BSW investigated the mapped wetlands on March 1, 2015. In each mapped wetland, BSW dug a test hole on top of the creek bank in close proximity to the Chester Creek OHWM. On March 1, neither of the test holes had saturated soils in the top 16 inches of the soil profile. In Test Hole #1 the water table was at 21 inches and saturation occurred at 16 inches. In Test Hole 2, there was no saturation in the top 24 inches of the soil profile. The test holes were inspected again on March 29th and the water level in test holes was lower than on March 1st. This result was expected due to the landscape position of the mapped wetlands. The year to date precipitation for Spokane was fluctuating between slightly above normal for the year to slightly below normal for the year to date making this year to date average in precipitation. Wetland hydrology should have been present in what was a normal year at the time of the investigation if the subject areas were wetlands. The argument that Spokane was below normal for the hydrologic year is also not valid for this drainage basin because it has a low elevation and runoff comes earlier in the year than many other drainages as will be explained in detail below. The wetland hydrologic criteria was not met in either test hole at the start of the growing season when the water table should have been at its annual high. Stream high water conditions consistent with a high water table does not typically occur during the growing season on Chester Creek. Seasonal high water occurs in the winter during rain on snow and frozen ground conditions. During the growing season, wetland conditions do not occur outside of the stream OHWM where the National Wetland Inventory Map indicates the wetlands occur. David Moore, DOE, investigated the site on June 8, 2016 and concurred with that finding in the field and by phone after the site visit. The hydrologic studies referenced in this report all conclude that Chester Creek is not influenced by a high water table so it loses water to the underlying sands and gravels. This prevents wetland conditions from occurring outside the area of flowing water in the channel. The author of this report concurs with those conclusions based on 20+ years of personal 12 observations of hydrologic conditions and numerous wetland investigations in the Chester Creek drainage basin. Most streams occur in the lowest elevational contour of a drainage basin where bedrock, or some restricting layer, prohibits the infiltration of water and causes a seasonal high water table. Under those physical conditions, the water table influences, or contributes to the stream through the winter and spring portions of the hydrologic year. The key feature to wetland occurrence in riparian zones is a high water table that generally correlates to the surface elevation of the stream. Wetland conditions form when the water table comes in close proximity to the soil surface during the growing season. The water level in the stream generally corresponds to the top of the water table in the surrounding basin. During the growing season, evapotranspiration lowers the water table at the same time annual precipitation decreases. When the water table falls, isolated depressions remain full of water until the water table drops allowing the depressional wetlands to dry out. When these depressions remain inundated or saturated for sufficient duration, DOE considers them to be wetlands within the stream channel. At some point the water table falls below the bottom of the stream and no longer contributes to base flow in the stream. The above scenario does not occur in Chester Creek. Chester Creek loses water to the underlying sands and gravels all year long. Chester Creek flood events occur during the winter when heavy rains on frozen ground and/or snow prevent infiltration of stormwater in the contributing basin. Flood events do not occur during the growing season. The extent and duration of occasional flood events depends on how long the above normal precipitation continues and how far downstream the flooding spreads before infiltration exceeds hydrologic input. The frequency, duration, and extent of flooding have been attenuated by flood control measures thoughtfully implemented downstream. The flood control measures proposed with this project are a continuation of that process. In summary, Chester Creek is not influenced by a high water table that creates wetlands. Chester Creek loses water to the underlying sands and gravels so wetlands do not occur outside of the channel of flowing water. The test holes evaluated with a shovel by BSW in 2015 and again in 2016 support that conclusion. That conclusion is backed by 20+ years of personal experience in the basin, previous hydrologic studies of the basin, Bore Hole Logs taken within the area of interest on Chester Creek, Bore Hole Logs throughout the Painted Hills project area, well logs of proximate properties, and the Geotechnical and Hydrologic Analysis of the same Bore Hole Logs. No wetlands occur adjacent to Chester Creek because is not influenced by a high water table. This conclusion is supported by the Geotechnical Evaluation of the area. The author of the Geotechnical Evaluation report reached the same conclusion as BSW, that Chester Creek loses water to the underlying well drained sands and gravels all year long preventing wetlands from forming. 4.8.1: Chester Creek Flood Frequency A hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for Chester Creek was completed by Michael Baker Jr., Inc. and approved by Spokane County in a letter to the Federal Emergency Management Agency dated August 6, 1990. There are no long-term gage records for Chester Creek. The limited gage measurements on Chester Creek were collected near the Dishman-Mica Road crossing of Chester Creek from December 1994 through March 1995 and November 1995 through February 1996 when no flood events occurred. In February 2006, the hydraulic analysis for Chester Creek was revised by West Consultants, Inc. under a FEMA contract. The analysis 13 established flood magnitude-frequency estimates for the watercourse. A steady flow model has been developed for Chester Creek. The reports conclude that spring floods in the upper Spokane River basin are due to snowmelt runoff from high elevation watersheds. Such floods are of less significance on Chester Creek because the lower elevation of the watershed limits the size of the snowpack so spring runoff occurs about a month earlier and at more gradual rates than on the Spokane River. Nearly all maximum annual flood peaks on Chester Creek occur during the winter. Warm winds and rain can melt the snow rapidly. The May 1948 flood on Hangman Creek was a non-typical flood caused by a heavy snowpack, a late, cold spring, and heavy rains during the critical snow melting period. All other maximum annual flood peaks on Hangman Creek occurred during the winter. When winter rain causes snowmelt on frozen soil conditions, short-duration, intense runoff generates a flood peak during winter storms. During the more extreme events, Chester Creek runs over its banks filling depressions in the flood zone. The duration of flooding is generally between 100 hours and 1000 hours, or between four days and forty days with smaller events occurring with greater frequency than large events. Hydric soils form under saturated soil conditions. Wetlands have to exhibit saturated soils during the growing season, but those conditions seldom occur outside of the stream channel on Chester Creek because flooding usually happens in the winter. Floods are typically of a small magnitude so when over bank flow fills depressions outside of the channel, the water has usually infiltrated before the growing season begins. The subject areas may have been exposed to more frequent flooding in the past, but good planning and flood control measures designed to minimize flooding have moderated those historical flood events to some degree. Chester Creek does not follow the same hydrograph as snowmelt dominated systems. 4.8.2: Flood Protection Measures Channel geometry for Chester Creek were developed from surveys conducted in March 2003. Overbank geometry were developed from topography developed by TerraPoint (2003). Flood plain boundaries for Chester Creek and Unnamed Tributary to Chester Creek were delineated using 2-foot contour interval maps developed by TerraPoint from LiDAR data. Previously, a watershed plan for Chester Creek was designed with management recommendations for drainage, flooding, water quality, and riparian habitat. As a result, flood control improvements have been implemented along Chester Creek. The improvement area began at the Painted Hills Golf Course. In 1998, a project to install new culverts and extensive dredging of the channel between Thorpe Road and Schaffer Road was implemented. Two large volume borrow pits were constructed downstream. Each pit was designed for the retention and infiltration of Chester Creek floodwaters up to a 25-year event. One borrow pit was constructed just north of E. 40th Avenue and the other just south of 28th Avenue. The Chester Creek channel has been historically maintained as has been reported in the literature and supported by direct evidence of spoil piles on the channel banks. Dredging makes the channel deeper and the dredging spoil piles make the channel banks higher. As a result of channel dredging, the surrounding areas are dewatered faster and the water table falls a corresponding distance deeper below the soil surface. Soils in the areas mapped as NWI wetlands do exhibit some relic hydric characteristics from infrequent historical flooding, but with the exception of rare flood events, the water table is too far below the soil surface at the start of the growing season to meet the wetland hydrologic criteria. 14 The two mapped wetlands do not meet the hydrologic criteria so they are not wetlands. They are low lying areas adjacent to Chester Creek that have been historically flooded, but flooding is far too infrequent for the subject areas to meet the wetland hydrologic criteria. Even if they were wetlands, they are on the opposite side of the creek from where development is proposed so the riparian buffer would be more restrictive and extend further east into the development than a wetland buffer. However, there are no wetlands on the subject property. Additional flood control measures are being incorporated into the project design (see the Painted Hills Flood Control Plan). In the proposed Alternative #2, a thirty-foot wide by 3-foot- deep box culvert will be installed in the Right of Way to prevent back up on the Haase property south of Thorpe. On the north side of Thorpe, water will proceed northeast in an open concrete channel and headwall for two 48-inch pipes. The pipes extend northeast across the park to Madison Road where it will be piped north to a headwall and bioswale. The bioswale is a long sloping reach that terminates in a settling pond. At the settling pond, water will rise one foot and crest over a weir into the infiltration pond located at the north end of the development. Inland Pacific Engineering Company (IPEC) developed an Operations and Maintenance Plan for the facility to ensure the flood control systems receive regular maintenance and inspections to minimize long term effects of sediments that may enter the system. Other flood control measures will be required by the City of Spokane Valley who historically maintained the Chester Creek channel on an annual basis. To my knowledge, the channel was last dredged in 1998. The channel must be kept clear of deadfall that would impede flow in the channel. The property owners must implement the channel maintenance plan to insure flow in the channel is not impeded. WCE has also prepared a Chester Creek Levee Operation and Maintenance Manual for Level Operation and Maintenance for the Chester Creek Homeowners Association. This manual requires annual maintenance inspections and maintenance as required to maintain the integrity of the levee with additional inspections during all flood events. Fill material shall be placed behind the existing levee turning the levee into an engineered slope and eliminating the possibility of a levee failure during a flood event. Fill material will reinforce the creek bank and raise the bank elevation to a minimum height of one foot above the Base Flood Elevation. Raising the property to an elevation 1 foot above the base Flood Elevation ensures to FEMA and the City that the property, and buildings on the property, will not be inundated by a flood event. The fill material will slope to the northeast through the proposed streets, with their own proposed storm drainage systems, and the ultimate low point where flood control ponds will be constructed at the north end of the project. 4.9: Riparian Areas The DNR Water Type Map (Figure 5) defines Chester Creek as a Type F Water. Chapter 21.40 of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code, titled Critical Areas, bases stream buffer widths on the DNR Riparian Management Zones. Chester Creek is greater than 15 feet in width (bankfull) so the appropriate buffer width can be found in Table 21.40-10 of the City Code. The DNR guidance states that in Eastern Washington, if there is no site index information, as in this case, assume Site Class III unless site specific information indicates otherwise. The table indicates that a Type F Natural Water not classified as a Shoreline of the State, having a Site Class 3 designation, has a total buffer width of 100 feet. BSW delineated the Chester Creek OHWM in the field on March 31, 2015. The OHWM flags were surveyed and plotted on the site plan map along with the 100-foot riparian buffer by Whipple Consulting Engineers. 15 Map Output Page 1 of 1 '11 r FOREST PRACTICE WATER TYPE MAP TOWNSHIP 0 NORTH HALF undefined, RANGE 0 (W.M.) HALF undefined, SECTION Application #: 28454!2 2845464 2845448 -t- / 1 34 -1-e 2844486 46",84 844468 000 4/1/2015 9:23:14 AM NAD 83 Contour Interval: 40 Feet 4/ http://fortress.wa.gov/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=fpars&ClientVerson... 4/1/2015 The DNR Water Type Map also identified a Type F Water located about one mile east of the subject property. The map showed the stream crossing SR27 and running NW across a cultivated field before disappearing. There is no stream in that location so a Water Type Modification Form was submitted to Spokane County. The form was circulated to all appropriate agencies, the Water Type change was approved, and that stream segment was removed from the map. However, the FEMA map shows potential flood waters traveling toward the proposed development from that general direction. So additional work was required by FEMA to pipe the flood water to the borrow pit located on adjacent Gussman property to the north. Several years ago, the ditch was proposed, approved, and created to convey stormwater to a borrow pit. After the pipe improvements required by FEMA, floodwater will have the same fate as stormwater and be conveyed into the borrow pit where it will infiltrate and have no impact on the proposed development. No impacts are proposed to regulated waters by this FEMA requirement so no mitigation is required. 5.0: Analysis of Three Development Alternatives (Figures 6-8) 5.1: Alternative #1 (no development, Figure 6) The existing conditions would be maintained under the no development scenario of Alternative #1 (Figure 6). The existing conditions are turf grasses and vegetation consistent with a golf course with sparse woody vegetation bordering some of the fairways. The open space is utilized by deer and provides a potential travel corridor for elk moving between Madison Hills and Dishman Hills. These conditions would remain exactly the same in the Alternative #1 no development scenario. The entire property, stream buffer, trails, and bridges would remain in the existing condition. In the existing condition, the buffer on the right stream bank (N/E side of the creek) has an area of 104,131.93+/- sq. ft.. The buffer on the left stream bank (SANT side of the creek) has an area of 78,329.96 +/- sq. ft.. The total area of stream buffer is 182,461.89+/- sq. ft.. The existing buildings, trails, and bridges result in 18,604.23+/- sq. ft. of buffer impact. All of the existing impact areas would remain exactly the same if no development occurred. 5.2: Alternative #3 (standard residential development, Figure 7) In Alternative #3, a 3665.18 sq. ft. polygon on the west side of the creek, east of the existing restaurant parking lot, would be impacted (green hatched area in Figure #7). The 100- foot buffer width would be reduced to the 75-foot minimum width allowed by the City Code so the restaurant parking lot could be expanded. Alternative #3 also proposes a 1383.16 sq. ft. buffer impact (green hatched area in Figure # 7) from the City required improvement (widening) of Thorpe Road. According to the buffer averaging provisions of the City Code, buffer impact areas must be replaced with an equal or larger buffer area that is contiguous with the existing buffer so there is no net loss of buffer area. The 3665.18 sq. ft. and 1383.16 sq. ft. buffer impact areas total 5048.34 sq. ft. and would be replaced with a 5096.06 ft. sq. replacement area on the opposite side of the creek as represented by the blue hatched polygon in Figure # 7. The proposed 5048.34 sq. ft. buffer impact area would be mitigated with buffer averaging but also with vegetative enhancement of the buffer replacement area. The proposed buffer averaging will result in a small net increase in buffer area and habitat quality. On the right stream bank (N/E side of the creek) fill material will cover the entire 104,131.93+/- sq. ft. of riparian buffer to bring the land surface elevation to a height of one foot 17 BEi, 5E0.33, T.Z5N., R.44E., W.M. 5EC.34, T.25N., R.44E., W.M, NE , NEC. 4, T.24N., 5.445., W.M. CHESTER CREEK EXISTING DELINEATION & IMPACT STREAM BUFFER EXHIBIT KALE: • DATUM: NAVD - BB OF P.E.TUlt AMMO. SEWETIF,OECT ======.11. NAP. SCALE; PROJI, 13-114• 1.7. CMAINN: 2.1:1 FIEVIEWOO: TRW HOPISON17.1, A I JPP R.I.° PLANO 1 NO 1 DATE JPP 011101/.1. PRISPARICTION REVISIONS VCF1110.41., Nan — —• — 01101.1” N. CATER MARK (01-41.1) .15MC SiPEA4 OW. ORM., TON UNOURI0060 3555 MEAT 015-SAL5MICR S 811 au 11•1 MR. MIT 100K AREAS NE STREAM BUFFER 104.131.93 SF ± SW STREAM BUFFER 78,329,96 SF ± TOTAL — 182,461,09 SF ± EXISTING I M PACT AREA 1,572.9.3 SF 196,01 SF 1,206.33 SF A 3,726.54 SF 4,272.07 SF A 7,141.58 SF ± 488.67 SF ± TOTAL 18.604.23 SF ± Gay e1Spolunt Prol• CV Num', No.. SUBM15.10, 161.11x1A.10n) FP0.2016-0:07 ( ne.Plein Devalam•ntl O311.2.14-00, lenvin..0.1np) O .4 D r.ri 11.001.1 PA,M11,111. PLANS NOT APPROVED BY AGENCY E SPOKANE VALLEY PAINTED HILLS PRO EXIST. STREAM BUFFER EXHIBIT (ALT1) DISHMAN-MICA RD. SPOKANE VALLEY,WA SHEET 1 OF 3 JOB NUM2E11 13-1166 4) BE}, SEC.33, T.25N., R.44E., W.M. SW*, 5EC.34, T.25N., R.44E., W.M. NE * SEC. 4, T.24N., R.44E., W.M. CHESTER CREEK DELINEATION, IMPACT AND REMEDIATION LEGEN PHIL SC 25 50 I IR h SO It. (w FEEI ) 1 Inch F 00 Ft ""'''""'"'"74,T,';`,,STs(47-`) STREAM BUFFER REMEDIATION EXHIBIT DATUM: NAVD - 88 TBM55OF ThESOJIld KRA/ERMA SEWEEIRINSECE (LFRAFIF21. OF Asa, (SFRE02,2002 (Fr 1.X0FIR)ms us,u Eon KIVECNI.EATUFFI nits 4WCE 1.S0 SF ,/ I5350 PEussnam OWNS nOESxxst4 MAIL PROPER, ONE, Th.. OM IT SF 44.6 5 - OPDFNAAS RICK MUIR NEAR (CV.] STRESCIJEFER OFELINE.400,1 MIEN OF ENSTNG STREAM BUFFER TuFFACT RSA 41" PFICPOSEO SMEAR ourrcx IMPACT AREA OE STREAM AIRIER FIEFIECIATIOX sh IAIXEMOUND EJME Auer DIE—L41. NEMO t top 811 EMI no SAMS An ASA Al OFF AREAS NE STREAM BUFFER 104,131.93 SF A NE STREAM BUFFER REM, 5,096 06 SF ± SW STREAM BUFFER 78,329.96 SF TOTAL — 157,557.95 SF IMPACTS EXISTING IMPACTS: 1,572.93 SF 3,660.49 SF I 4,272.07 SF I 7,141.58 SF I + 48867 5F -I. 17,135.74 SF PRQP_PsED 3,565.18 SF ± 4 1 383 16 SF 5,048.34 SF TOTAL IMPACTS: 22,1E4.08 SF t REM EDIATIO N REMEOIAT1ON. 5,096.06 SF + 1.16 hiS TUISFE FIPV2.20hA SCALE: 1MIRIZOFFITA1.1 veanexi.: ARR, PPOJ Ix-11w oxrx 11/01111 ollAWRIF AFRO IFIIIVISW•12: RAW 1994,19 PAINTED HILLS PROP. STREAM BUFFER EXHIBIT (ALT 3) DISHWAKMICA RD. SPOKANE VALLEY,WA SHEET OF, 3 JOH NIIMBEFE 13.1166 above the BFE (see blue hatched area in the upper left corner of Figure # 7). The buffer is currently planted in non-native golf course turf grass and is almost totally devoid of woody vegetation. Only a handful of trees and shrubs would be impacted by the fill. This is a temporary buffer impact that will be mitigated by vegetative enhancement. No loss of buffer area will occur as a result of temporary impact. Existing trails will be removed and new trails of the same width will be built to replace the existing trails in the same location. Compared to Alternative #1, the trail impact area will be slightly less in Alternative #3 because some of the existing trail area will be eliminated. Alternative #3 proposes no new permanent buffer impact on the right stream bank (N/E side of the creek). The temporary buffer impact area on the right stream bank (N/E side of the creek) will be replanted with native grasses and native trees and shrubs at the industry standard rate of 350 stems per acre or 837 total plants. This represents a significant enhancement of wildlife habitat compared to the existing disturbed condition and previous land use as a golf course. Due to the proposed buffer width averaging, the Alternative #3 buffer total area would increase slightly (47.72 sq. ft.) compared to the existing condition. In Alternative #3, two small trail segments in the buffer totaling 1468.49 sq. ft. will be eliminated and not replaced so the Riparian Buffer area will also increase by that small amount compared to the Alternative #1 no development scenario. The remainder of the property would be developed with residential lots. In Alternative #3, the 10+ acre vegetated park/wildlife corridor along the southern border of the site would not be established and that area would be developed. Compared to the Alternative #1 no development scenario, Alternative #3 proposes 5048.34 sq. ft. of new buffer impact that would be replaced with a slightly larger 5096.06 sq. ft. replacement area as required for buffer width averaging. The proposed 5096.06 sq. ft. buffer replacement area would be enhanced with woody vegetative plantings. 5.3: Alternative #2 (Planned Residential Development, Figure #8) Alternative #2, a Planned Residential Development (PRD) is the preferred alternative due to the benefits of PRD mixed uses and the advantage of a 10+ acre park/wildlife corridor that is not offered in Alternative 3. Compared to Alternative #1, the Existing Buffer Impact Area is slightly smaller in Alternative #2 because some of the existing trail impacts in Alternative #1 are eliminated. The Alternative #2 and Alternative #3 scenarios both propose impacting the same 3665.18 sq. ft. buffer area polygon for expansion of the existing restaurant parking lot and the 1383.16 sq. ft. buffer impact from the required widening of Thorpe Road. Those two impacts are exactly the same as proposed in Alternative #3 and the impact area is included in the buffer averaging area. In Alternative #2, a 3665.18 sq. ft. polygon on the west side of the creek, east of the existing restaurant parking lot, would be impacted (green hatched area in Figure #8). The 100- foot buffer width would be reduced to the 75-foot minimum width allowed by the City Code so the restaurant parking lot could be expanded. Alternative #2 also proposes a 1383.16 sq. ft. buffer impact (green hatched area in Figure #8) from the City required improvement (widening) of Thorpe Road. According to the buffer averaging provisions of the City Code, buffer impact areas must be replaced with an equal or larger buffer area that is contiguous with the existing buffer so there is no net loss of buffer area. The 3665.18 sq. ft. and 1383.16 sq. ft. buffer impact areas total 5048.34 sq. ft. and would be replaced with a 5096.06 ft. sq. replacement area on the opposite side of the creek as represented by the blue hatched polygon in Figure #8. The proposed 5048.34 sq. ft. buffer impact area would be mitigated with buffer averaging but also 20 YI SE , 1600.23, T,2 5N., R.44E., W.M. SW , BEC.34, T.2519., R,44E., W.M. NE SEC. 4, 7,241.4„ R,44E., W.M. CHESTER CREEK DELINEATION, IMPACT AND REMEDIATION I I , 11 • LEGEN ( FEE TI 1 • 120 11. KG/11,1,1Z STREAM !SUFFER REMEDIATION EXHIBIT C19/151CO.T 1,512.93 552.69 61 141.30 51 — /-4 5143193/103 J 13B. • -- 'EEG EN D_ •—• — 0110/5511T HART 45. WAN (131111.) STREAM BUFFER 0221N/5110N SIKE115 GINTER 50E5 MCA CT COSTING 519115N BUFFER 1555C UREA OF PROPON9 51511. 011101271 501ACT MEM OF 57111.1 BUFFER BELE131519CN RCA& 1,50' 4. DATUM: NAVD - 88 31153601110 $019111101415105551.41431101 159,1591511NATON01 41351911956512093150.1115.150•111031.152,13/9111C31/05.1 0.191.1FOR 1E4 19/10 0ac4atoul4 20000 AWE irk 8 1 1 Nu 959904 15/015 100 115 AREAS NE STREAM SUFFER 98,80132 SF r. NE STREAM SUFFER REM 15,615.51 SF ± SW STREAM BUFFER 78,329.96 SF TOTAL. - 192,751.79 SF I M PA CTS EXISTING IMPACTS: 1,572.93 SF ± 2,174.04 SF' IN 4.272.C7 SF' ± 7,141.5$ SF ± F 488,67 SF ± 15,549.29 SE ± PADPOSEO IMPACTS: 857.69 SF ± 5616.36 SF ± 3,324.75 5F ± 249.65 sr ± 496.87 SF ± 3,665.18 SF ± + 1.383.16 SF ± 15,593,67 SF ± TOTAL IMPACTS: 31.242.96 SF A REM ED IATIO REMEDIATION 15,618.51 SF ± C1120(555955•NNY 1590411111111110N, 455-1011.0101 155141130,1013 1'151.10140907 50(Prowl Rain 0164905.56 50 110-5015 1551/1559retlOnAK0 05 5114951,Ano YUAN 0•9919,951 5.15.55, 0 Ctri=r 9.094.15.5 05,11.1.2 =Zeit Anew PLANS NOT APPROVED BY AGENCY 3 o 9.1 05.14.14 APB "07,7 /134111105 01-1.• 0111091110 ANAPANATON SCALE: 110111301.11A14 VONTICAU N/A 191110./ A: 13.1146 DATE: 05514/14 DRAWN: ONO 111111015331113, /TON moor AWCE .55.1.20.10.110015.291 15.NAKNA.9.04.45 951 n 59 ..59,5 SPOKANE VALLEY PAINTED HILLS PRD PROP. STREAM BUFFER EXHIBIT (ALT 2) DISHMAN.PSICA RD. SPOKANE VALLEY,WA SHEET 2 OF 3 JOB 131/ABEB 13-11E16 with vegetative enhancement of the buffer replacement area. The proposed buffer averaging will result in a small net increase in buffer area and habitat quality. This proposed buffer impact and the proposed mitigation is exactly the same as in Alternative #3, but the proposed buffer replacement area is in a different location. Compared to Alternative #3, the following additional 10,545.33 sq. ft. of buffer impacts are proposed in Alternative #2 on the right stream bank (N/E side of the creek). The additional impacts include three new trail segments and the extension of another trail segment. Some existing trail segments are eliminated in Alternative #2, and they offset part of the new trail impacts, but there will be a small net gain in trail impact area. The area of impact is included in the buffer replacement area proposed for impact mitigation. Alternative #2 proposes using buffer width averaging to reduce the buffer width by 25% on two lots adjacent to the southmost bridge (Figure #8). This will result in a 5616.36 sq. buffer impact that will be mitigated with buffer averaging. The Alternative #2 total combined buffer impact area is 15,593.67 sq. ft. Buffer Averaging is proposed for impact mitigation. The proposed Buffer Impact Replacement Area is 15,618.51 sq. ft. There will be no net loss of buffer area as a result of averaging. The Buffer Replacement Area is contiguous with the existing buffer. The mitigation area will be enhanced with the planting of trees and shrubs. The mitigation area is contiguous with the proposed 10+ acre Park/Wildlife Travel Corridor. Clusters of woody vegetative plantings will also be installed in this corridor to enhance wildlife habitat. 5.4: Summary of Alternative 1, 2, and 3 Buffer Impacts The existing trail areas differ in all three alternatives because the trail segments that are both eliminated and added in Alternative #2 and Alternative #3 are different. The Thorpe Road improvement Area impacts are the same for Alternative 2 and 3. Buffer impacts from the proposed parking lot expansion area on the left (S/W) side of the creek are the same for Alternative 2 and 3. Buffer Averaging is proposed for mitigating those buffer impacts and the replacement areas have the same square footage in both Alternatives 2 and 3. In both Alternatives #2 and #3, the 104,131.93+/- sq. ft. riparian buffer on the right stream bank (N/E side of the creek) will be filled with soil to a height of one foot above the Base Flood Elevation (see blue hatched area depicted in inset at top left corner of Figures 7 and 8). The buffer is currently planted in golf course turf grasses and is nearly devoid of woody vegetation. This temporary impact area will be mitigated by reseeding the area in native grasses and planting clusters of native woody vegetation. This will result in a significant improvement in buffer quality. Alternative #2 proposes additional buffer impacts by reducing the 100-foot buffer width to 75 feet on two lots adjacent to the southmost bridge on the right stream bank (N/E side of the creek). That 5616.36 sq. ft. buffer impact is not proposed in Alternative #3 so the buffer replacement area is proportionally larger in Alternative #2. The buffer replacement area will be enhanced by planting native trees and shrubs. Alternative #2 also proposes a 10+ acre Park/Wildlife Habitat Travel Corridor across the southern project boundary that is not proposed in Alternative #3. The 10+ acre Park/Wildlife Habitat Travel Corridor (Figure 3) will be enhanced by the planting of native trees and shrubs. 5.5: Temporary Buffer Impact Mitigation Any peripheral buffer areas that are inadvertently disturbed during construction will be planted with the specified native seed mix to prevent erosion. This work will be completed in 22 strict accordance with the IPEC Operation and Maintenance Manual and Best Management Practices. 5.6: Buffer impact Area from the Chester Creek Culvert Extension Thorpe Road will be made wider along its north side to meet City standards that require an additional 6.5 feet of pavement, a 2-foot curb, and 6-foot sidewalk. This will result in 1383.16 sq. ft. of riparian buffer impact. The impact area includes a new box culvert under the new road construction. A crane will install the concrete box culvert that will be capped and paved over. The culvert will be an extension of the existing culvert and will not cover or change the existing substrate on the stream bottom. All in-channel and over-channel work will occur during the summer/fall dry season so no over-water or in-water work will be required. The area of impact is counted in the total project buffer impact area calculations, buffer averaging replacement area calculations, and vegetative plantings are prescribed for the impact area as part of the proposed buffer impact mitigation for the project. 6.0: Rationale for Adjustment (Reductions) of Riparian Habitat Buffer The City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Section 21.40.034 states that "the habitat buffer width may be averaged (reduced in width near a development but widened elsewhere to retain the overall area of the habitat buffer) if all of the following conditions are met. Each proposed buffer impact and reduction is discussed in the following section in the context of the conditions set forth in the City Code. 1) The FWHCA has significant differences in characteristics that affect its habitat functions, such as a native forested component adjacent to a degraded herbaceous component. Alternative #2 Buffer Impacts from Two Lots A proposed 25% buffer reduction resulting in 5616.36 sq. ft. of buffer impact is proposed on the right stream bank (N/E side of the creek). The proposed impact is in close proximity to the southmost bridge across Chester Creek. The proposed buffer impact area is planted in non- native golf course turf grasses. The turf grass was maintained by treatment with herbicides and regular mowing. The proposed impact area has no trees and only one shrub. The 5616.36 sq. ft. area of proposed buffer impact experienced the highest intensity human activity on the property during the years of golf course operation. Foot and golf cart traffic from the club house was directed by cart paths over two bridges to the fairways, driving range, and practice areas across the creek where the buffer impact from two lots is proposed. In the Alternative #2 and #3 site plans, the existing bridges will be utilized and the golf cart paths will be extended east to connect the housing development on the east side of the creek to the bar and restaurant located in the former golf course clubhouse on the west side of the creek. Due to the existing trails and bridges, the Alternative #2 proposed area of buffer width reduction from two lots will continue to experience the highest intensity human activity on the property. This part of the buffer experienced the highest degree of historical degradation and will continue to experience the greatest intensity of human activity and foot traffic on the existing trails and bridges. The proposed impact area occurs in an existing highly disturbed area that would benefit the least from protection because this area did not function as buffer historically and from a habitat perspective will not in the future due to the intensity of human traffic funneled through this corridor. Mitigation for the proposed buffer impact is proposed 23 where it will have the greatest benefit for wildlife and greatest habitat function. If development is approved under Alternatives #2 or #3, then the buffer impact from Thorpe Road improvements is an unavoidable impact. The impact area immediately adjacent to the road provides the least habitat function on the property. The buffer replacement area will part of the best habitat on the property. If development is approved under Alternatives #2 or #3, then the buffer impact from expanding the existing parking lot on the left (west) side of the creek is the same for both alternatives. The impact area is immediately adjacent to an existing parking lot and building. The historically disturbed, high human traffic area has only herbaceous vegetation with no trees or shrubs to provide wildlife cover or habitat. The area where the buffer reduction is proposed will be enhanced with native trees and shrubs as will the buffer replacement area. The buffer reduction is proposed in a degraded herbaceous habitat component. The buffer will be replaced adjacent to the proposed 10+ acre wildlife corridor that will be enhanced with clusters of native trees and shrubs. 2) The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the FWHCA and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or less sensitive portion. The area where a 25% buffer reduction is proposed for two lots is the most disturbed buffer area on the site and the area where intense human activity will occur due to the existing trails and bridges that link the development on the east side of the creek to the commercial area on the west side of the creek. The trails and bridges create a corridor that runs perpendicular to the creek. The corridor passes through the entire buffer on both sides of the creek and funnels all human activity through that corridor. This area of concentrated activity is the lowest functioning part of the buffer on the property. This corridor for human traffic did not historically function as a buffer and will not in the future under either Alternative #2 or #3 development scenarios. North of the area proposed for buffer reduction is a large area of open space on the right stream bank (N/E side of the creek) that extends out away from the buffer and effectively widens the buffer in that area. This area will have a much lower level of human activity compared to the trail and bridge corridor. This is a higher functioning area of buffer compared to the proposed buffer reduction area. The buffer addition area is located south of the buffer impact area and expands the buffer eastward to connect with the designated wildlife travel corridor where human activity will be reduced to a minimum. The buffer replacement area will be planted with native grasses and clusters of native trees and shrubs. The intent is to make the buffer wider where there is least human activity and provide the most benefit for wildlife. Habitat functions are lowest where the reduction is proposed and highest where the buffer replacement will occur in a proposed wildlife travel corridor where dense vegetative plantings will be installed to enhance the existing woody vegetation and wildlife habitat. The buffer width increase will occur in the higher functioning area of habitat as suggested by the City Code and decrease adjacent to the least sensitive buffer. The Park/Wildlife Travel Corridor covers the entire southern border of the property, is over 350 feet wide, and has an area of over 10 acres. Variations in sensitivity are created by the existing physical characteristics (bridges and trails), historical land uses (vegetation removal and intense human activity), and the continued concentration of human activity on trails and bridges through that narrow corridor across the stream and buffer on both sides. That corridor has the least habitat function because it has the 24 least wildlife activity. The proposed buffer impact will occur in the least sensitive area from the perspective of wildlife presence, use, and function. Buffer enhancement will occur where there is the least human activity and the greatest benefit from the perspective of wildlife presence, use, and function. The total area contained within the buffer after averaging is greater than that contained within the standard buffer prior to averaging. 3) The total area of the buffer, after averaging, is equal or greater than the area required without averaging. The buffer averaging proposed in Alternatives #2 and #3 result in a small increase in buffer area. Alternative #3 proposes a total buffer impact area of 5048.34 sq. ft. (0.116 acres). Alternative #3 proposes a total buffer impact replacement area of 5096.06 sq. ft.(0.117 acres). Alternative #2 proposes a total buffer impact area of 15,593.67 sq. ft. (0.358 acres). Alternative #2 proposes a total buffer impact replacement area of 15,618.51 sq. ft. (0.359 acres). No net loss of buffer will occur from Alternative #2 or Alternative #3. 4) The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than 75 percent of the original habitat buffer width. Alternatives #2 and #3 propose buffer averaging. In each instance, the buffer will be reduced from 100 feet to 75 feet, so the buffer is not reduced to less than 75% of the original habitat buffer at any location. Mitigation Rationale Summary The continued use of the two bridges and trails crossing the stream and buffer has the effect of funneling, controlling, and limiting human access to this narrow corridor or choke point. Buffer reduction for two lots is proposed immediately adjacent to the high intensity human use corridor in the buffer. Three separate buffer impacts will occur from trails. Two of the impacts will result when the existing, trails are extended from the bridges into the development and connected to a proposed trail in the 10+ acre wildlife travel corridor. The proposed buffer mitigation provides adequate compensation for the proposed impacts as defined by the City Code. The areas of proposed buffer reduction will be enhanced by the planting of native tree and shrub patches. The remaining riparian buffer will also be enhanced by planting patches of native woody vegetation on both sides of the stream. The buffer replacement area will be enhanced by the planting of native tree and shrub patches. The buffer replacement area will be contiguous with the Wildlife Travel Corridor where additional tree and shrub plantings are proposed. Alternative #2 is the preferred alternative because it provides the 10+ acre Park/Wildlife Travel Corridor not included in Alternative #3. The proposed vegetative enhancement of the remaining buffer areas, replacement buffer areas, and wildlife travel corridor provides generous mitigation to offset the impacts. The proposed vegetative enhancement represents a significant improvement compared to the existing condition and historical land uses of the last several decades. Mitigation Sequencing Several development plans have been scrutinized over the last three years by the City of Spokane Valley and various firms employed to certify the levee on the right (east) bank of Chester Creek. Numerous changes have been implemented to the storm-water and flood control 75 plans for the site in order to arrive at the preferred final site plan. The levee certification involved earthwork on the levee, removal of all vegetation in the stream channel, and other options required for development approval. Those plan were all abandoned in favor of the three development alternatives analyzed in this report. In the end, Alternative #2 was favored by the City and the developer. While the preferred alternative results in more buffer impact than the other two alternatives, it was determined that the buffer enhancements and vegetative plantings proposed to improve habitat, the advantages of a Planned Residential Development, and the creation of a 10+ acre Park/Wildlife Travel Corridor far outweighed the benefits of the other two alternatives. The preferred alternative was determined to avoid the most impacts, minimize impacts to the stream channel. and provide the most benefits. 7.0 Impact Mitigation Strategy 7.1: Noxious weed control The dominant invasive species that were identified on the site include tumble mustard and knapweed. These species are known for their ability to propagate and spread rapidly with catastrophic impacts on native species. As required by Washington State Noxious Weed Control law, RCW 17.10, and the Spokane County Noxious Weed Board, invasive species will be managed through control measures that do not adversely impact native vegetation. Funds will be allocated for noxious weed monitoring and herbicide control as part of the proposed mitigation for this project. Black Realty or their designated Homeowners Association shall contract their preferred weed control specialist to monitor the site and provide weed control in the mitigation areas at appropriate intervals throughout the growing season to prevent seed set. 7.2: Revegetation with Woody Plants In addition to noxious weed control, mitigation for buffer impacts will include the planting of native trees and shrubs. The buffer will be re-vegetated with native plants including species from the tree, shrub, and grass vegetative strata. The replication of natural spatial relationships, structural complexity, vertical stratification, and microhabitat diversity will be stressed in the planting design to achieve a mosaic of open areas and dense tree/shrub clusters. Vegetation will not be planted in a uniform manner. Shrubs will be planted in grouped patches and interspersed with other shrub species and height classes. Patch size will be variable with curving edges. The incorporation of these elements will increase landscape diversity and promote habitat elements that are often scarce or absent at sites that have been disturbed. Native species and endemic plant materials will be selected for site revegetation to help maintain ecotypes that are adapted to local climatic and soil conditions and preserve local genotypes. 7.3: Rationale Structural complexity refers to the arrangement and degree of interspersion of plant community types throughout the system. Complex structural patterns (such as variable patch size, curving edges, and high degree of interspersion between species) increase the value of a system for wildlife. Good wildlife habitat consists of open areas interspersed with clusters of vegetation, several horizontal layers, and a variable structural pattern. Vertical stratification describes a community with good structural diversity and several horizontal layers (logs, woody debris, forbs, shrubs, and trees). Woody debris provides travel routes, perch sites, cover, and thermal refuge for a variety of small mammals and ground nesting birds. Microhabitat diversity refers to variety in microhabitat types. Examples of microhabitat types include 26 herbaceous cover and shrubs that provide food, habitat, and substrate for a variety of animals. 7.4: Objectives for the Restored Riparian Buffer Restoration will be achieved by planting native trees, shrubs and grasses primarily to provide food and cover for wildlife. The Vegetation Plan will incorporate as many design features as possible for each function in order to increase the value for that function. Objective a: Re-establish species diversity and structural diversity in the buffer by replanting native tree and shrub species from each vegetative class. Objective b: Re-establish vegetative species and structural diversity to re-establish bird and mammal habitat values in the enhanced buffer areas. Objective c: Re-establish vegetative density in the riparian buffer area. 8.0: Mitigation Planting Plan Woody plant materials will be installed at the industry standard density of 360 stems per acre. The buffer replacement area is 15,618.51 (0.359 acres) X 360 stems/acre = 130 containers. The Buffer Replacement Area shall have 130 containers planted within that polygon. An additional 100 containers will be distributed throughout the east and west sides of the creek in the buffer reduction areas (Zone 1 and Zone 2, Figure 9). An additional 200 containers shall be planted in patches of 20 containers throughout the designated wildlife travel corridor. An additional 200 containers shall be planted in patches of 20 containers throughout the buffer on the right stream bank (N/E side of the creek) where fill material will create a temporary 104,131.93+/- sq. ft. (2.39 acres) buffer impact. The 2.39-acre area of temporary impact will also be seeded with the prescribed native upland grass seed mix. Clusters of vegetation will be planted according to the guidelines prescribed above. The specified number of containers will be planted within each zone as shown in Figure 9. Area Mitigated buffer reduction areas right stream bank fill impact area buffer replacement Area wildlife travel corridor total Number of Plants Zone 100 1 250 1 130 2 150 3 630 Zone 1: Riparian Buffer on East and West Sides of Chester Creek A total of 350 containers planted in existing buffer areas Common Name Scientific Name # Planted Trees Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa 20 Large shrubs serviceberry Amelanchier alnifoloia 20 Rocky mountain juniper Juniperous scopulorum 30 mock orange Philadelphus lewisii 80 Small shrubs Wood's rose Rosa woodsii 60 common snowberry Symphoricarpos albus 60 Phlox sp. Phlox speciosa or longifolia 80 Total 350 27 // 2 g 1 .1 / SE1, SEC.3 3, T.25N., R.446., W.M. SW , 5E0.34, T.25N., R.44E., W.M. NE SEC. 4, T.2 4N., 18.44E. W.M. CHESTER CREEK DELINEATION, IMPACT AND FREMEDIATION — )-'-'\ 1 I ,, A , , ItI ' 1 9 ; 1 1 f: 43 III GRAPHIC SCALE ( lR 1158-• ) I DNA • IDO rt. `" 1PI00RAnr SmCAu °"7:4ct.g VP-2 Ilt [I , -I {n GRAPHIC SCALE 9irils —J --'_Ia— I IS• IN T -otTO ) rics,71rY \\- /airtime UNE. 1I7 cIaRNEcnun aME 857 OS sr / •;/ , / I ,re . I. AREA OF ArDUC FROM ICC IC IE. TN, HEUSI. 14,50 SF *51 ‘1, 10E--6 N — ORDINARY HIGH SAYER MARX (OH WM) STREAM BUFFER CalhEATICH TY UN Im /iee 6T SF ,te." • a , TWR 110.0,1 -I EN / 5,REAAI ',OFFER AREA AREA Cr errrnAr SIRE Au SUFFER IMPACT AREA OF PROPOSCO MEAN Et/FFER IMPACT MCA Or SINEAll 6U7YIR RENDIDADON STREAM BUFFER REMEDIATION EXHIBIT Q DATUM: NAVD - 88 1B4 8-5 0,1150.11 FOYLICROCA SEAT', IHOYCT .101 V ICTI 01.10053,111.4.11 .10.01 OIAT.I.SH WAS 110.0 OR NC VLF, 09, 501164 FOR /I C. Zon-e Zoete g '2.®n*Ci SCALE: ORIZONTAL. 1....00/ .100 VERTICAL. 'WA PROJ Ie 12-TIRO DATRI 08,141111 °PAWN: MHO REVIEWED TRW /WCE AMA. 0.1..51.G.FIA1 LAIMORAIMILVONOOD 1.0%.1,1411,. AMY MESEACM10 AIM 0E-MIA1 811 .11•131. FOS FOAM 10111111 AREAS NE STREAM BUFFER 98,803.32 SF ± NE STREAM BUFFER REM. 15.618.51 SF ± SW STREAM BUFFER 78,329.96 SF ± TOTAL — 192,751,79 SF I M PACTS EXISTING IMPACTS' 1,572.93 SF t 1,174.04 SF ± 4,272.07 SF 7,141,58 SF + 488.67 SFA 15,549.29 SF ± PROPOSED *WAD'S: 857.69 SF ± 5616.36 SF 3,324.75 SF ± 249.66 SF ± 496.87 SF A 3,665.18 SF + 1.383.16 SF ± 15.593.67 SF ± TOTAL IMPACTS' 31,242.95 SF REM ED I ATI N REMEOIATION: 15,618.51 SF ± PLANS NOT APPROVED BY AGENCY SPOKANE VALLEY PAINTED HILLS PRD PROP. STREAM BUFFER EXHIBIT (ALT 2) DISNMAN•MICA RD. SPOKANE VALLEY,WA at, tx 8501111 wary rtattatr•mottle. •1111.101.001 1.11.111.1.1 1011.027 (.1114:1AAIMmettm.,0 dOM OUR... ORIN* OvraolIR.ment O. r. Tri SHEET 2 OF 3 JON 010,06118 13-118S Zone 2 - Buffer Replacement Area 130 plants in patches Common Name Trees Ponderosa pine Large shrubs serviceberry Rocky mountain juniper chokecherry mock orange Small shrubs Wood's rose common snowberry Phlox sp. Total on East Side of Chester Creek Zone 3 - Wildlife Travel Corridor o 150 plants in patches Common Name Trees Ponderosa pine Large shrubs serviceberry chokecherry mock orange Small shrubs Wood's rose common snowberry Total Scientific Name Pinus ponderosa Amelanchier alnifoloia Juniperous scopulorum Prunus virginiana Philadelphus lewisii Rosa woodsii Symphoricarpos albus Phlox speciosa or longifolia # Planted 5 10 10 10 30 20 25 20 130 n East Side of Chester Creek Scientific Name Pinus ponderosa Amelanchier alnifoloia Prunus virginiana Philadelphus lewisii Rosa woodsii Symphoricarpos albus # Planted 20 20 10 40 30 30 150 The minimum container size shall be one half gallon. Vegetation shall be planted at the landscapers discretion according to conditions on the ground and the location of existing vegetation. Plantings shall be interspersed around existing vegetation, and where possible, in patches of 15-25 plants of mixed size and species as indicated in the plan. Shrubs shall be planted in the approximate prescribed quantities depending on plant availability. Large shrubs should be planted in clusters on 10-foot centers. Small upland shrubs should be clustered on 3-6 foot centers around large shrubs. Depending on availability, the mixture of grass species listed below should be drill seeded or hydroseeded at a density of 22 pounds PLS per acre in all disturbed areas. Grasses should be planted during the growing season when precipitation and temperature levels will insure germination and survival. Grasses should be planted early in the fall so that the crop is well established by October 15. If germination, growth, and root development are substantial before the end of the growing season, some degree of erosion control will be provided during the winter and spring months that follow. It may be necessary to irrigate the soil surface to keep it in a moist condition for the first two weeks after seeding. Irrigation should supplement rainfall as required to achieve a total from combined sources of 2 inches per week and no more than 0.25 inches per hour. Seed can also be installed to lie dormant over the winter and germinate in the spring. 28 Grasses Common Name Scientific Name Bunch or Sod PLS (lb/acre) bluebunch wheatgrass Idaho fescue prairie junegrass Agropyron spicatum Festuca idahoensis Koeleria cristata B B B 8.0 6.0 8.0 Total 22.0 A list of suppliers who will prepare the prescribed grass seed mixtures and supply nursery stock specified in the vegetation plan follows. Grass seed: Grassland West PO Box 489 908 Port Drive Clarkston, WA 99403 Trees, & Shrubs: 1-800-582-2070 Plants of the Wild PO Box 866 Tekoa, WA 99033 509-284-2848 Wildlife Habitat Institute 1025 East Hatter Creek Road Princeton, ID 83857 208-875-8704 8.1: Ponderosa Pine Planting ALWAYS plant after December 15 and before March 31. Plant ONLY conservation grade seedlings 20-24 feet from fast growing deciduous trees. Plant seedlings on 30 foot centers with no shrubs inter-planted close to the trees to prevent shading and competition that greatly reduces survival. A mulch of Ponderosa pine needles applied in a 3-6 foot radius around the tree trunk at planting will greatly reduce competition and increase tree survival. Ponderosa pine out-planting survival following Rhizopogon rubescens inoculation is 2-3 times higher compared to non-inoculated. Numerous studies have shown that ectomycorrhizal fungi can profoundly affect conifer performance by facilitating nutrient and water uptake, maintaining soil structure, and protecting roots from pathogens and environmental extremes. A specific ectomycorrhizal fungus, Rhizopogon rubescens, inoculated onto the root systems of Ponderosa pine seedlings greatly increase survival. Irrigation options are being explored at this mitigation site, but the landscaper should buy plants that have been inoculated or dust the planting holes with this fungi if it is available. 8.2: Additional Planting Guidelines Depending on availability, the mixture of grass species listed above should be seeded at a density of 22 pounds PLS per acre. Grasses should be planted during the growing season when precipitation and temperature levels will insure germination and survival. Grasses should be planted in early April so that the crop is well established before dry weather, in the fall so that the crop is well established before October 15, or dormant seeded late in the fall so the seed will not germinate until spring. Site preparation and planting should occur in the fall and winter. Seeding rates of live, genninable seed or Live Pure Seed (LPS) are a product of seed lot purity and germination percentage. LPS calculations are based on the number of seeds per pound and the number of seeds per square foot at one pound per acre. A nursery will prepare a custom seed mix with the prescribed LPS for each species. 29 Trees and shrubs should be planted after the end of the growing season when the plants are dormant. The best time to plant is late winter when sub-zero temperatures are over but plants are still dormant. Plants may be planted any time during the growing season when the daytime high temperatures are 70F or cooler if irrigation is available from the time of planting through the rest of the growing season. Each tree or shrub planted should be clearly identified with an easy to identify tag that identifies the species. Without such identification it is impossible for the monitoring biologist to tell which plants are enhancement plantings and which are native to the site. 8.3: Additional Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Requirements Area irrigation heads should be installed where native grasses are planted to insure germination and survival in the buffer enhancement areas. Drip irrigation should be installed for woody plantings where there is no coverage by area sprinkler heads. Irrigation shall continue until the plants are well established as determined by the project biologist. Mitigation plantings should be installed no later than the next growing season after completion of the buffer impacts, unless otherwise approved by the City Manager or designee. The timing may also depend on the installation of utilities and water supply for irrigation and will proceed as soon as those amenities are available. Regardless of which year construction begins, it is known that the first construction phase will include the stormwater plan and fill on the east side of the stream. The irrigation should be installed at the same time as the plantings. BSW will monitor site impacts and mitigation work to insure the work is completed as specified in this plan. The five year monitoring requirement for each phase will be implemented as described below. Mitigation areas shall be maintained to insure the mitigation and management plan objectives are successful. Maintenance shall include corrective actions to rectify problems, including rigorous, as-needed elimination of undesirable plants; protection of trees and shrubs from herbivory and competition by grasses and herbaceous plants; and repair and replacement of any dead woody plants. People may drive, park and passively enjoy recreation in the area so the enhancement areas must be protected from human traffic after planting. Signs should be posted every 100 feet to explain the sensitivity of the newly planted areas and discourage foot traffic in newly seeded areas. Permanent signs with Riparian Buffer Area, Natural Area Do Not Disturb, or similar language should be posted around the protected areas. 8.4: Willow Monitoring and Maintenance of the Chester Creek Channel Honey willows were planted in the channel about thirty years ago. All subsequent channel maintenance and dredging has avoided the willows that have now grown quite large. Honey willows are prone to dropping very large branches that catch additional debris and create channel obstructions, as will the trees themselves when they die and fall into the channel. The channel must be monitored regularly so potential obstructions may be identified and removed to eliminate potential problems as is required by the Inland Pacific Engineering Company (IPEC) Operation and Maintenance Manual. If channel obstruction, erosion, or maintenance is required, Best Management Practices and spill control protocols will be strictly adhered to and peripheral impacts will be held to a minimum. The channel may be dry, but the equipment operators must respect the sensitivity of 30 the area, install construction fences to identify minimized work areas, and take all prudent measures to minimize impact in the buffer. All temporary impact areas will be restored at the earliest possible moment to prevent soil erosion. The replacement woody vegetation plantings cannot be placed in or within 15 feet of the stream channel all replacement planting will occur in the riparian buffer and wildlife travel corridor as detailed later in this report. 8.5: Timeline for Construction Construction will begin as soon as permitted in 2019/2020 and continue is phases over the next few years. 8.6: ESA Compliance The purpose of this report is to confirm that the project is in compliance with Sections 9 and 10 of the Endangered Species Act. The proposed project will have no effect on any listed species. Mitigation actions are enhancement of the existing facility and the proposed changes will have no effect on any listed habitat or species. 9.0 THE MONITORING PLAN All monitoring plans require that a mitigation site be monitored annually to determine whether the goals and performance standards have been met. Monitoring typically lasts for 5 years or until the City of Spokane Valley is satisfied that the conditions of the mitigation plan have been met. The site should be monitored in the spring to evaluate the success of weed control from the previous year and prescribe weed control for the current year. The monitoring will also evaluate plant survival to insure that performance standards for percent ground cover of native vegetation are met. Planting of the original grass seed mixture will be repeated to fill in problem areas if they occur. The City of Spokane Valley will be notified immediately after diagnosis of failing functions, hydrologic systems, or biological vitality and integrity of the plantings as determined through annual monitoring. The herbaceous vegetation will be managed to insure 80% areal cover with native grasses after five years (year 1=20%, year 2-30%, year 3=50%, year 4=70%, year 5=80%). Tree and shrub stock will be monitored to insure 100% survival after the first year and 80% for each subsequent year. Reinforcement plantings will be performed annually as necessary to insure performance standards are met at the end of five years. If the final monitoring report clearly demonstrates that the site has achieved all of the goals and objectives set forth in this Habitat Management Plan, then the applicant shall be released from additional mitigation and reporting obligations. However, if performance objectives are not me at the end of five years, additional measures shall be implemented as required until the mitigation objectives are met. 31 10.0 Cost of Implementing Mitigation and Surety The cost of purchasing and installing vegetation, weed control, replacement plantings, site monitoring, and reporting for 5 years is estimated below. 630 stems @ $28/stem = $17,640.00 2 acres X 22/lbs per acre = 441bs. X $80/lb = $3,500.00 hydroseeding A $3000 per acre X 2 acres = $6,000.00 Annual weed control A $10000/yr = $50,000.00 Year 1 monitoring + as-built report $3,000.00 5 years monitoring @ $800/year = $4,000.00 5 years monitoring reports @ $1000/yr $5,000.00 630 stems X 15% annual mortality replacement = 95 stems/yr X $28/stem = $2,660.00X 5 yrs = $13,300.00 Total cost for 5 years $102,440.00 10.0 LIMITATIONS Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, BSW services have been executed in accordance with best available science and generally accepted professional practices for the conditions at the time the work was performed. This report is not intended to represent a legal opinion. Specifically, there is no positive or negative recommendation towards the purchase, sale, lease, or construction on the subject property. No warrant, expressed or implied, is made. arry ■ awes Principal Bi• ogist Biology Soil & Water, Inc. 3102 N. Girard Road Spokane Valley, WA 99212-1529 Phone 509-327-2684 Email: bswincgicehouse.net 5-4%2 0/7' Date BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SUGGESTED REFERENCES Berglund, Erwin R.. 1976. Seeding to Control Erosion Along Forest Roads. Extension Circular 885. Oregon State University Extension Service. 6-8p. City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code Carroll, Carlos; Noss, Reed F.; Paquet, Paul C. 2001. Carnivores as focal species for conservation planning in the Rocky Mountain region. Ecological Applications. 11(4): 961-980. Cooper, Stephen V., Kenneth E. Neiman, and David W. Roberts. 1991. Forest habitat Types of Northern Idaho: A second Approximation. USDA: Forest Service; Intermountain research Station. General Technical Report INT-236. 143 p. Dale, B. C. 1983. Habitat relationships of seven species of passerine birds at Last Mountain Lake, Saskatchewan. M.S. thesis. University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan. 119 pages. Daubenmire, R. 1969. Structure and ecology of coniferous forests of the northern Rocky Mountains. Pages 25-41 in R. D. Taber, ed. Coniferous forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains. Univ. Mont., Missoula. 395pp Davis, S. K. 2004. Area sensitivity in grassland passerines: effects of patch size, patch shape, and vegetation structure on bird abundance and occurrence in southern Saskatchewan. The Auk 121: 1130-1145. Delaney, Kevin. 1994. Wildlife Notebook Series. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, http:/www.hitime.com.sdscptn.htm. FERC. 2006. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Spokane River and Post Falls Hydroelectric Projects. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Office of Energy Projects. December 2006. Forman, R. T. and M. Gordon. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 619 p. Frissell, C.A. 1992. Cumulative effects of land use on salmonid habitat on southwest Oregon streams. Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR. Grubb, P. J. 1977. The maintenance of species richness in plant communities: The importance of regeneration niche. Biological Review 52: 107-145. Hitchcock, C. Leo, and Arthur Cronquist. 1994. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 730p. 33 Hitchcock, C. L., A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey, and J.W. Thompson. 1964. Vascular Plants of the Pacific Northwest, Part 2: Salicaceae to Saxifragaceae. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 597 pp. Koehler, Gary M. 1990. Population and habitat characteristics of lynx and snowshoe hares in north central Washington. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68: 845-851. Koehler, Gary M.; Aubry, Keith B. 1994. Lynx. In: Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Aubry, Keith B.; Buskirk, Steven W.; Lyon, L. Jack; Zielinski, William J., tech. eds. The scientific basis for conserving carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 74-98. Koehler, Gary M.; Britten, J. David. 1990. Managing spruce-fir habitat for lynx and snowshoe hares. Journal of Forestry. 88(10): 10-14. Koehler, Gary M.; Hornocker, Maurice G.; Hash, Howard S. 1979. Lynx movements and habitat use in Montana. The Canadian Field-Naturalist. 93(4): 441-442. Maher, W. J. 1973. Matador Project: Birds I. Population dynamics. Canadian Committee for the International Biological Programme, Matador Project, Technical Report 34. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. 56 pages. Mancuso, Michael, December 2000. Field Investigation for Spiranthes Diluvialis (Ute Ladies- tresses) on BLM Lands Managed by the Shoshone Field Office, South- Central Idaho. Conservation Data Center Martin, A. C., H. I. Zim, and A. L. Nelson. 1951. American Wildlife and Plants. Diver Publications, Inc., New York. 484 p. McCaffery, K. R., and W. A. Creed. 1969. Significance of forest openings for deer in northern Wisconsin. Technical Bulletin 44. Madison:Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 104 p. Moseley, R.K. 1998. Ute ladies tresses Spiranthes diluvialis in Idaho: 1997 status report. Report prepared by the Idaho Conservation Data Center, Boise, ID. Murray, Dennis L.; Boutin, Stan; O'Donoghue, Mark. 1994. Winter habitat selection by lynx and coyotes in relation to snowshoe hare abundance. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 72(8): 1444- 1451. NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. (PBTTAT) Panhandle Bull Trout Technical Advisory Team. 1998. Coeur d'Alene Lake Basin bull trout problem assessment. Draft. Prepared for the State of Idaho. December 1998. 34 Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2004. Version 2005.2. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD Simpson, J.C., and R.L. Wallace 1982. Fishes of Idaho. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow. Singer, F. J. 1979. Habitat partitioning and wildlife relationships of cervids in Glacier National Park, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 43(2):437-444. Spokane County Public Works Department: Building and Planning Division. 1996. Critical Areas Ordinance for the Protection of Wetlands, Fish and Wildlife Habitats and Geo- hazard Areas. Spokane County, WA. 69p. Stephens D. A. and S.H. Sturts. 1997. Idaho bird distribution. Idaho Museum of Natural History, Pocatello and Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: final rule to list silene spaldingii (Spalding's catchfly) as threatened. Federal Register. 66 (196) 51598-51606. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Upper Columbia Basin Working Group of Timber, Fish and Wildlife (TFW). 1996. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1996. Priority Habitats and Species List: Habitat Program. Olympia, Washington. 28p. Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission. 1997. Policy of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Tribes on Wild Salmonids. Washington Fish and Game Commission, Olympia, WA. 68p. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1997. Integrated Streambank Protection, Bank Erosion Assessment and Technique Selection Guidance, Section III, Biological Considerations. Water Quality Standards For Ground Waters of the State of Washington. Chapter 173-200, WAC. Wolff, Jerry 0. 1980. The role of habitat patchiness in the population dynamics of snowshoe hares. Ecological Monographs. 50(1): 111-130. Zim, H. S., A. C. Martin, and A. L. Nelson. 1961. American Wildlife & Plants: A Guide to Wildlife Food Habits. Dover Publications, Inc. New York, NY. 35 Appendix 1 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service SPOKANE COUNTY Updated 8/29/2015 LISTED Threatened Salvelinus confluentus) (Bull trout) — Columbia River distinct population segment Howellia aquatilis (Water howellia), plant Silene spaldingii (Spalding's silene), plant Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies'-tresses), plant Lynx canadensis (Canada lynx) Coccyzus americanus (Yellow-billed cuckoo) SPECIES OF CONCERN Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (delisted, monitor status) Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) California floater (Anodonta californiensis), mussel Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Giant Columbia spire snail (Fluminicola columbiana) Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) Pallid Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) (Delisted, monitor status) Redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus) Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) Vascular Plants Haplopappus liatriformis (Palouse goldenweed) M!He. United States Depai tnient of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington Fish And Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503-1263 Phone: (360) 753-9440 Fax: (360) 753-9405 http://www.fws.gov/wafwo In Reply Refer To: Consultation Code: 01EWFW00-2019-SLI-0368 Event Code: 0 I EWFW00-2019-E-00756 Project Name: Painted Hills PRD Vitali it WCLVIAFE NE-WICK January 29, 2019 Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, and proposed species, designated and proposed critical habitat, and candidate species that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. The species list is currently compiled at the county level. Additional information is available from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Priority Habitats and Species website: http://wdfw.wa.gov, mappingiphs/ or at our office website: http: /wwwfws.gov/wafwo/species_new.html. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)( I ) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environrnental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether or not the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species, and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of pelinit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.). You may visit our website at http:,'www.fws.gov/pacifc/ eagle/for information on disturbance or take of the species and information on how to get a permit and what current guidelines and regulations are. Some projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan: (http: ''www.fws.gov/windenergy, eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gpv/windenergy) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats. Also be aware that all marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas. The importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U.S. is also prohibited. More information can be found on the MMPA website: http: '"www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/mmpa/. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Related website: National Marine Fisheries Service: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/species list/ species_lists.html Attachment(s): • Official Species List 01/29/2019 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2019-E-00756 1 Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Washington Fish And Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503-1263 (360) 753-9440 Project Summary Consultation Code: 01EWFW00-2019-S1,1-0368 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2019-E-00756 Project Name: Painted Hills PRD Project Type: DEVEI ,OPMENT Project Description: The developer proposes constructing a 580 unit planned residential development. The project was planned for construction two years ago, and will be built as soon as permitted in 2019-2020. Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.corrilmaps/place/47.616722714208315N117.2421334615195W Counties: Spokane, WA 01/29/2019 Event Code: 01EWFVV00-2019-E-00756 Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 4 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries1, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. 1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Depai Intent of Commerce. Birds NAME STATUS Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Population: Western U.S. DPS There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.goviecp/species/3911 Threatened Fishes NAME STATUS Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Population: U.S.A., conterminous, lower 48 states There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fivs,gov/ecp/species/8212 01/29/2019 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2019-E-00756 4 Flowering Plants NAME STATUS Spalding's Catchfly Silene spaldingii Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3681 Water Howellia Howellia aquatilis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7090 Critical habitats Threatened THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. Appendix 2 Critical Areas Maps 47° 37 26"N 4P 36' 28" N 3 48.0400 4614 413!300 mr-serawiewmar Soil Map—Spokane County, Washington isectco 441C41 462200 4@2500 gar li 483IC, A3 E 44t h•Ave--7 E47tivAv, JP • " F • my 'At • • . • .4( • L . ," ypOti14:44•; 4- .6 • . 7170 d i • • ,. • 1 '; 1 ' -1200 -74,04z, #r-1080 Uri VeWay d '1030 &Thor peeRct 3.130 ' Ave , \ 5073 r.-~„i 5041 .-/ (5 040 j (. 3022 3054 4 4230400 3 I 4807230 481000 481300 Map ceal.: 1:12,700 If printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. 481600 Meters 0 150 300 600 900 Feet 0 500 1000 2030 3000 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: MN Zone UN WGS84 I I 1 7 481900 482200 482500 482800 483100 3 §) S USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/1/2015 re a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 47' 377e N 47. 35' 38'N Soil Map—Spokane County, Washington MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (A01) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your A01 were mapped at 1:24,000. ---' Area of Interest (A01) , Stony Spot Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Soils Stony Sp measurements. Very ot . _1 Soil Map Unit Polygons Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Wet Spot ..,-0 Soil Map Unit Lines Web Soil Survey LPL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda,gov Other Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) a Soil Map Unit Points ... Special Line Features Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Special Point Features projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts Water Features Q Blowout distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Streams and Canals Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate 27 Borrow Pit calculations of distance or area are required. Transportation X Clay Spot +-i-t Rails This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of ,,.5 Closed Depression ....• Interstate Highways the version date(s) listed below. , US Routes Gravel Pit Soil Survey Area: Spokane County, Washington Gravelly Spot Survey Area Data: Version 5, Sep 4, 2014 Major Roads Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 Landfill Local Roads or larger. A. Lava Flow Background Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 4, 2011—Jul 5, ,11 Marsh or swamp is Aerial Photography 2011 ":•L Mine or Quarry The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Miscellaneous Water compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting Perennial Water of map unit boundaries may be evident. Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot t Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 4/1/2015 Page 2 of 3 Soil Map—Spokane County, Washington Map Unit Legend Spokane County, Washington (WA063) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in A01 Percent of A01 1040 Hardesty ashy silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 14.4 2.3% 1080 Narcisse silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 108.4 17.7% 1200 Endoaquolls and Fluvaquents, 0 to 3 percent slopes 61.9 10.1% 3022 Bong ashy sandy loam, moist, 0 to 8 percent slopes 14.3 2.3% 1.2% 3054 Clayton ashy fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes 7.2 3130 Phoebe ashy sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 29.2 4.8% 5040 Spokane-Swakane complex, 3 to 15 percent slopes 7.9 1.3% 5041 Spokane-Swakane complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes 43.1 7.0% 5073 Lenz-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes 37.6 6.1% 7101 Pits-Dumps complex 12.0 2.0% 7110 Urban land-Opportunity, disturbed complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 11.4 1.9% 7122 7170 Urban land-Marble, disturbed complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes 0.1 0.0% Urban land-Springdale, disturbed complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 153.0 24.9% 7181 Urban land-Phoebe, disturbed complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes 112.9 18.4% 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 613.5 usDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/1/2015 -ilia Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 I -N. IlwfaS•nAorall,./.1t1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands inventory May 14, 2015 a. age 11! • 19, e'r a e 1 • V12 ; .19211114•CI 1 rt. Wetlands Freshwater Emergent INS Freshwater Forested/Shrub Estuarine and Marlene Deepwater Hilln 4 Estuarine and Marine Freshwater Pond Lake 41a. Rivarine Other of • A ti ow, 1 '14 ru. .41 User Remarks: -46111'?" • 4 ri POIF MD MY esri This map Is for general reference only. TM US Fish and Wildlife Service Is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the tither methdata found on the Wetlands Mapper web elle. A10 we. -ktiul hydrolv 6->-1 Wor a. cc.aefieivi.e/, • \ I -r; 0 u " a WHIM AMU '41‘ L I MN e; , as yirriCtli1 jort, V- I 1 61. IVA 0 loll gqiit ta L pirmiur preggirirr iiipoimtuoimpp jitlipprif ..1.8111711ttanfIMITIMMIUMATF 1. 1.111./.1114...1 fiLLUIS affifILEL43. 1.1a.> lattatf u ajtalt. r Wpm glItFIR IIIRPF.177r9,41111 ' PRIV' 49 4"1 rirgliffr 11:AFFIFF.19 '9411 11 tii,:trIALLALLAAA,',41,,,g,Liti bilgii: ,; lvliqvH 111°!Jci SITE ELEMENT PLAN Sheet C1.3 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT ONE—CALL NUMBER - SETTLING POND INFILTRATION - POND II S DRAIN GE; EASEMENT TO BE AL ERD AT FINAL PLAT two cc CHESTER CREEK EXISTING BOX CULVERT CHESTER CREEK 24 100' STREAM BUFFER-- CHESTER CR. BOX dAAPHIE SCALE 15.,1 4mm00 200 goo 200 1 ( IN FEET ) 1 Inch = 200 ft. DATUM: NAVD - 88 TBM S-5 OF THE SOUTH PONDEROSA SEWER PROJECT WITH AN ELEVATION OF 2005.87 (NAVD29)=2009.67 (NAVD88) WAS USED FOR THE VERTICAL DATUM FOR THIS MAP. STORAGE AREA #1 2-48" RCP , CONVEYANCE EXISTING LEVEE 100' STREAM BUFFER CULVERT EXTENSION ROADSIDE SWALE (TYPIC 2-48" RCP CONVEYANCE TEMPORARY DRAINAGE EASEMENT EXISTING LEVEE STREAM BUFFER IMPACT MITIGATION AREA TEMP. DRAINAGE EASEMENT CHESTER CREEK 40TH AVENUE BIOSWALE HEADWALL ROADSIDE SWALE (TYPICAL) 18" CULVERT 18" CULVERT 18" CULVERT 2-48" RCP CONVEYANCE " CULVERT 2-48" RCP CONVEYANCE LL STORAGE AREA #6 SEE GUSTIN PIPE PLAN SET FOR MORE DETAILS EXISTING 36"CULVERT 811 Call. IIUSNESS DAYS WINE YOU 010 TRIANGLE POND INFILTRATION FIELD SEE GUSTIN PIPE PLAN SET FOR MORE DETAILS EXISTING GROUND FUTURE TRACT/BORDER UTILITY EASEMENT 28' I Am ROW 30' 10' MEANDERING PATH 16' ROADSIDE SWALE PROPOSED 2-48" RCP PIPE MADISON RD EASEMENT PLAN NOT TO SCALE CONCRETE CHANNEL 3 EXISTING 15" CMP CULVERTS TO BE REMOVED THORPE RD BOX CULVERT 30'W X 3'H BOX CULVERT 2 013-14-16 JPP REVISED PLANS 1 06-12.16` JPP ORIGINAL PREPARATION .I DA SCALE: HORIZONTAL: I" = 200' VERTICAL: N/A PROJ #: DATE: DRAWN: REVIEWED: City of Spokane Valley Project/Permit No.: SUB-2010-0001 (Subdivision) FPD-2016-0007 (Flood Plain Development) EGR-2016.0066 (Engineered Grading) City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering se. street 110$ - Num q Not Reviewed Reviewed for Conformance to &met standards and Accepted per chapter la Date Accepted Acceptance Comments PLANS NOT APPROVED BY AGENCY 13-1166 X CNIL STRUCTURAL - SPOKANE VALLEY PAINTED HILLS PRD 06/14/18 JPP SURVEYING ~WCE SITE ELEMENT PLAN DISHMAN-MICA RD. TRAFFIC PLANNING WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2528 NORTH SULLIVAN ROAD LANDSCAPE TRW OTHER SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 99216 PH:509-893.2017 FAX 609.928-022/ SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 5462 o C2( SHEET 01.3 JOB NUMBER 13-1166 100 Year Flood Event Thorpe Road Crossing 64 cfs with Channel South of Thorpe 91 cfs without Channel South of Thorpe Madison Hills Flow to Culverts 15 cfs through 4 - 18" Culverts Gustin Pipe Flow to Triangle Pond 16 cfs through 36" Culvert under Highway 27 Ben Goodmansen From: Ken Puhn <kpuhn@westconsultants.com> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 8:37 AM To: Ben Goodmansen Subject: requested info for Painted Hills Ben, Per our conversation you had requested confirmation of water surface elevations in the vicinity of the Madison culverts and also the flood discharges entering your facilities. The 100-year water surface elevations calculated by our XPSWMM model within the Madison pipes are shown in the table below. The 100-yr discharges are shown in the 2' table below. Note that the levee breach discharge came down slightly once I had the final design in the model. Let me know if you need anything else. Ken Node Max 100-yr WSE Pipe_Inlet 2009.49 SDMH 1B 2008.30 SDMH 1A 2008.12 SDMH 2A 2007.61 SDMH 2B 2007.86 SDMH 3B 2006.51 SDMH 3A 2006.14 SDMH 4B 2005.64 SDMH 5B 2004.63 SDMH 4A 2004.11 SDMH 6B 2003.99 SDMH 5A 2003.81 Pipe_Outlet 2003.71 US of Spreader 2003.72 Location 100-yr (cfs) 100-yr levee breach (cfs) Gustin Ditch Downstream of Hwy 27 16 n/a Golf Course Overflow @ Thorpe 64 91 Golf Course Overflow plus Madison hills inflows 79 106 1 System Capacity Box Culvert Capacity 216.4 cfs @ 2 ft of depth, 1 ft of Freeboard Madison Mainline Pipe Capacity 154.32 cfs & 3.8 ft of depth Bio Filtration Channel 269.86 cfs @ 6 ft of depth Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodeskt AutoCAD8 Civil 3D: by Autodesk. Inc. Box Culvert Capacity Rectangular Highlighted Thursday, Jun 7 2018 Bottom Width (ft) = 28.33 Depth (ft) = 2.00 Total Depth (ft) = 3.00 Q (cfs) = 216.40 Area (sqft) = 56.66 Invert Elev (ft) = 1000.00 Velocity (ft/s) = 3.82 Slope (%) = 0.50 Wetted Perim (ft) = 32.33 N-Value = 0.040 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 1,22 Top Width (ft) = 28.33 Calculations EGL (ft) = 2.23 Compute by: Q vs Depth No. Increments = 30 1\1 fi e. -k-CePA 5 14\ vo.f ki, Rock 1', mok -TotrA344 TA‘etsiAcx Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 1004.00 1003.00 1002.00 1001 00 1000 00 - 999.00 4 00 3.00 2.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1.00 0.00 -1.00 Reach (ft) Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk6AutoCADO Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Madison Pipe (1- 48 in Pipe) Tuesday, Jun 19 2018 Circular Highlighted Diameter (ft) = 4.00 Depth (ft) = 3.80 Q (cfs) = 77.16 Area (sqft) = 12.34 Invert Elev (ft) = 1000.00 Velocity (ft/s) = 6.25 Slope (%) = 0.25 Aro -7-..?bie V-41 Wetted Perim (ft) = 10.78 N-Value = 0.013 Sg.‘ Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 2.66 Top Width (ft) = 1.73 Calculations EGL (ft) = 4.41 Compute by: Q vs Depth No. Increments = 20 PIPE rt n x FL 0,-/ ?Zioe MAr Ft 04/= !S.-4672 e4,5 Elev (ft) Depth (ft) Section 1005.00 5.00 1004.00 4.00 1003.00 3.00 1002.00 2.00 1001.00 1.00 1000.00 0.00 999.00 1.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Reach (ft) Channel Report Hydrafiow Express Extension for Autodesk®AutaCADS Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc Bioswale Capacity Trapezoidal Highlighted Thursday, Jun 7 2018 Bottom Width (ft) = 6.00 Depth (ft) = 6.00 Side Slopes (z:1) = 3.00, 3.00 Q (cfs) = 269.86 Total Depth (ft) = 6.00 Area (sqft) = 144.00 Invert Elev (ft) = 1000.00 Velocity (Ws) = 1.87 Slope (%) = 1.00 Wetted Perim (ft) = 43.95 N-Value = 0.175 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 2.64 Top Width (ft) = 42.00 Calculations EGL (ft) = 6.05 Compute by: Q vs Depth No. Increments = 20 Elev (ft) 1007.00 1006.00 1005.00 1004.00 1003.00 1002.00 1001.00 1000.00 999 00 Section Depth (ft) 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Reach (ft) Storage and Discharge Pond Summary Worksheet Settling Pond Infiltration Pond Emergency Park Storage GRAVEL GALLERY WORKSHEET - NORTH Outflow 162.64 cfs — Storage Volume 109,805 cf WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS POND VOLUME CALC SHEET Project: 13-1166 FLOOD PONDS Designer: PP Volume to Bioswale Outlet Date: 6/19/2018 Treatment Storutre Ponds Bottom Area sf Squared Side If Pond Bottom Elevation at Drywell Pond Drywell Elevation Pond Inlet Elevatior (avg) Conic Volume to Rim cf Side Slope Volume cf Total Volume to to Rim cf Conic Volume to Inlet cf Side Slope Volume cf Total Volume to Inlet cf STORAGE 61,004 247 1995.80 1996.80 1997.80 61,004 1,482 62,486 122,008 5,928 127,936 *SETTLING 7.172 85 1996.80 1996.80 1997.80 0 0 0 7,172 508 7,680 Total 68,176 62,486 135,616 *Assumes portion of Bioswale to reach a depth of I' but does not include additional volume Volume to Pipe Inlet Ponds Bottom Area sf Squared Side If Pond Bottom Elevation at Drywell Pond Drywell Elevation Pond Inlet Elevation (avg) Conic Volume to Rim cf Side Slope Volume cf Total Volume tc to Rim cf Conic Volume to Inlet cf Side Slope Volume cf *Total Volume to Inlet cf STORAGE 61,004 247 1995.80 1996.80 2000.24 61,004 1,482 62,486 270,858 29,214 300,072 SETTLING 7,172 85 1996.80 1996.80 2000.24 0 0 0 24,672 6,013 30,685 Total 68,176 _ 62,486 330,757 *Does not include additional storage prov ded by Bioswale Emergency Park Storage Ponds Bottom Area sf Squared Side If Pond Bottom Elevation at Drywell Pond Drywell Elevation Pond Inlet Elevation (avg) Conic Volume to Rim cf Side Slope Volume cf Total Volume to to Rim cf Conic Volume to Inlet cf Side Slope Volume cf *Total Volume to Inlet cf Rim 176,181 420 2006.00 _ is 2007.00 2011.00 176,181 12,518 178,699 880,905 62,961 943,866 at-ft = 4.10 21.67 WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS GRAVEL GALLERY CALC SHEET 5/15/2018 13-1166 Painted Hills PRD ENGINEER JPP Note: infiltration rates per IPEC Geotechnicat Report Dated December 31, 2013 Gallery Depth (Min) Porosity of Gravel (Typ) Infiltration Rate ft cf/cf cfsisf 10 0.3 f 1.80E-03 4 0.3 1.80E-03 Gallery Number of Galleries Length Width Ground Water EL. Gravel Gallery Bott. EL Volume Storage Volume Perimeter Sidewall Area Bottom Area Outflow ft ft ft_ ft cf cf ft sf sf cis CONTACT AREA 1 246.99 246.99 - - 244016 73205 988 3,952 61,004 116.92 A 1 280.00 10.00 - - 28,000 8,400 580 5,800 0 10.44 B 1 280.00 10.00 - - 28,000 8,400 580 5,800 0 10.44 C 1 280.00 10.00 - - 28,000 8,400 580 5,800 0 10.44 D 1 280.00 10.00 .. - 28,000 8,400 580 5,800 0 10.44 E 1 100.00 10.00 - - 10,000 3,000 220 2,200 0 3.96 Totals 109,805 162.64 *Note: Btm Area = Gallery Area - Contact Area Storage Volume = Volume* Porosity Sidewall Area= PerimeterDepth OutFlow = Sidewall Area+ Bottom Area * Infiltration Rate Note: Outflow Assumes a Full Gallery BIO-FILTRATION CHANNEL WORKSHEET 79 cfs With Channel South of Thorpe 83% of treatment achieved 106 cfs Without Channel South of Thorpe 69% of treatment achieved Open- Channel Hydraulics, Chow (reference) Bio-filtration Swale Design Based on King County 2005 Surface Water Design Manual (Section 6.2 and 6.3) Modified to model flow of flood water utilizing reference Open Channel Hydraulics. CHOW Design Flow: Q„ = 79.00 cfs With channel south of Thorpe Calculation of swale depth Q = 1.49 A R`' "S`" Manning's equation OR b = CL„, n,„ (1.49 67s0 OR Y =10,„ n,„ (1.49"b * SC' 5).116 Ow, where b QWQ = S = width known: b = 6.00 ft S = 0.010 ftift n„ = 0.175 y = 5.17 ft Determining design flow velocity: V„ = Q„ r A„, max 1.0 fps where V,„ = A„ = b'y + Z*y' A,„ = Z = Z= 2 A„ = 111.10 sf = 0.71 fps bottom width of swale (ft)..,minimum 2 ft width required, maximum 10 ft = water quality design flow (cfs) Manning's roughness coefficient for vegetal retardance conditions (CHOW) design flow depth longitudinal slope (along direction of flow) (ft/ft). slope shall be between 1%-6%. If less than 1.5%, underdrains must be provided. Slope less than 1% is considered a "wet biofiltration swale" and must be designed under those guidelines. Slope greater than 6% requires check dams with vertical drops of 12-inches design flow velocity (fps) cross-sectional area of flow at design depth (sf) side slope length per unit height (e.g. for 3:1. Z Calculate swale length to achieve a minimum hydraulic residence time of 9 minutes (540 seconds): L = 540 " V . minimum swale length is 100 ft L = 383.98 ft Calculation to verify n - value Per Table on page 182 of Open-Channel Hydraulics Area Wp Rh V 111.10 38.68 2.87 VRh =VR 0.71 2.04 n - plot 0.175 Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Bioswale @79 cfs Trapezoidal Highlighted Bottom Width (ft) = 6.00 Depth (ft) = 5.17 Side Slopes (z:1) = 3.00, 3.00 Q (cfs) = 190.65 Total Depth (ft) = 6.00 Area (sqft) = 111.08 Invert Elev (ft) = 1000.00 Velocity (ftls) = 1.72 Slope (%) = 1.00 Wetted Perim (ft) = 38.68 N-Value = 0.175 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 2.22 Top Width (ft) = 37.00 Calculations EGL (ft) = 5.21 Compute by: Q vs Depth No. Increments = 36 Tuesday, Jun 19 2018 D41 671 Vfi 6IA p ftirmv Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 7,00 1007.00 6,00 1006.00 1005.00 5.00 4.00 1004.00 1003.00 3.00 2.00 1002.00 1001.00 1.00 0.00 1000.00 999.00 -1.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Reach (ft) 35 40 45 50 55 Bio-filtration Swale Design Based on King County 2005 Surface Water Design Manual (Section 6.2 and 6.3) Modified to model flow of flood water utilizing reference Open Channel Hydraulics. CHOW Design Flow: 106.00 cfs Without channel south of Thorpe Calculation of swale depth = 1.49 A R°67Sc Manning's equation OR b = Q„, (1.49* yl 675'5) where b = bottom width of swale (ft)...minimum 2 ft width required, ' maximum 10 ft OR Ow, = water quality design flow (cfs) Manning's roughness coefficient for vegetal retardance Y [Q„ n„., (1 49 * b °S i]C 6 11,w4 = conditions (CHOW) y = design flow depth S = longitudinal slope (along direction of flow) (ftift), slope shall width known: b = 6.00 ft be between 1%-6%. If less than 1.5%, underdrains must S = 0.010 ft/ft be provided. Slope less than 1% is considered a "wet nwq = 0.130 biofiltration swale" and must be designed under those guidelines. Slope greater than 6% requires check dams y = 5.16 ft with vertical drops of 12-inches Determining design flow velocity: V,„ = Q„ A„, max 1.0 fps A„ = ry ° Z= where V„ = design flow velocity IPS ) = cross-sectional area of flow at design depth (sf) Z = side slope length per unit height (e.g. for 3:1. Z = 3) A„= 123.80 sf = 0.86 fps Calculate swale length to achieve a minimum hydraulic residence time of 9 minutes (540 seconds): L = 540 ' V„, minimum swale length is 100 ft L = 462.36 ft Calculation to verify n - value Per Table on page 182 of Open-Channel Hydraulics Area Wp Rh V 123.80 38.63 3,20 VRh =VR 0.86 2.74 n - plot 0.175 Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk i AutoCADr . Civil 3DP3 by Autodesk, Inc Bioswale @ 106 cfs Trapezoidal Highlighted Tuesday. Jul 17 2018 Bottom Width (ft) = 6.00 Depth (ft) = 5.16 Side Slopes (z:1) = 3.00, 3.00 Q (cfs) = 255.89 Total Depth (ft) = 6.00 Area (soft) = 110.84 Invert Elev (ft) = 1000,00 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.31 Slope (%) = 1.00 Wetted Perim (ft) = 38.63 N-Value = 0.130 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 2.57 Top Width (ft) = 36.96 Calculations EGL (ft) = 5.24 Compute by: Q vs Depth No. Increments = 50 Elev (ft) 1007.00 1006.00 1005.00 1004 00 1003.00 1002.00 1001.00 1000.00 999.00 Section 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Depth (ft) 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 Reach (ft) OPEN-CHANNEL HYDRAULICS YEN TE CHOW, Ph.D. Professor of Hydraulic Engineering University of Illinois McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY New York Toronto London 1959 184 v TABLE 7-5. GUIDE IN SELECTION OF VEGETAL RETARDANCE* Stand Average length of grass, in. Degree of retardance Good >30 11-24 6-10 2-6 <2 A Very high B High C Moderate D Low E Very low Fair >30 11-24 6-10 2-6 <2 B High C Moderate D Low D Low E Very low * U.S. Soil Conservation Service [41]. 7-18. The Permissible Velocity. The permissible velocity of flow in a grassed channel is the velocity that will prevent severe erosion in the channel for a reasonable length of time. Permissible velocities for differ- ent vegetal covers, channel slopes, and soil conditions, recommended on the basis of investigation by the Soil Conservation Service, are shown in Table 7-6. 7-19. Selection of Grass. The selection of grass for the channel lining depends mainly on the climate and soil in which the plant will grow and survive under the given conditions. From the hydraulic viewpoint, stability and other factors should also be considered. In general, a higher discharge requires a stronger or better lining. On steep slopes, bunch grasses, such as alfalfa, lespedeza, and kudzu, will develop channel- ing of the flow and, hence, are unsatisfactory for lining. For slopes greater than 5%, only fine and uniformly distributed sod-forming grasses, such as Bermuda grass, Kentucky bluegrass, and smooth brome, n-re recommended for lining where the main flow occurs. Because of the objectionable spreading nature of sod-forming grasses, the top portion of the sides and the berm may be planted with grasses that do not spread easily, such as weeping love grass. For fast establishment of the lining, Bermuda grass and weeping love grass are recommended. Sometimes annuals are used as temporary protection until permanent covers by native grasses are established. Silt deposition in channels may be con- trolled by lining with bunch grasses, which will develop channeled flow, increase velocity, and thus reduce silting. 7-20. Procedure of Design. After the kind of grass for channel lining is selected, the degree of retardance can be determined from the condition of the stem length and the density of growth. During the period of DESIGN OF CHANNELS FOR UNIFORM FLOW 185 itiblishment, the grass will grow and the channel will be stabilized under a ndition of low degree of retardance. The channel will not reach its intLxinium capacity until the grass cover is fully developed and well irablished. Therefore, it is suggested that the hydraulic design of a grassed channel consist of two stages. The first stage (A) is to design the channel for stability, that is, to determine the channel dimensions under the condition of a lower degree of retardance. The second stage TABLE 7-6. PERMISSIBLE VELOCITIES FOR CHANNELS LINED WITH GRASS* Cover Slope range, Permissible velocity, fps Erosion-resistant soils Easily eroded soils rmuds grass 0-5 5-10 >10 8 7 6 6 5 4 Buffalo grass, Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, blue grama 0-5 5-10 >10 7 6 5 5 4 3 Grass mixture 0-5 5 5-10 4 Do not use on slopes steeper than 10% 3 Lespedeza sericea, weeping love grass, ischaemum (yellow blue- stem), kudzu, alfalfa, crabgrass 0-5 3.5 2.5 Do not use on slopes, steeper than 5%, except for side slopes in a combination channel Iffnuals—used on mild slopes or as 0-5 I 3.5 2.5 ',temporary protection until per- Use on slopes steeper than 5% is not recom- manent covers are established, mended common lespedeza, Sudan grass REMA.RES. The values apply to average, uniform stands of each type of cover. Use velocities exceeding 5 fps only where good covers and proper maintenance can be stained. * U.S. Soil Conservation Service [41]. jE) is to review the design for maximum capacity, that is, to determine thQ increase in depth of flow necessary to maintain a maximum capacity 1/nd(.1 the condition of a higher degree of retardance. For instance, if Enimon lespedeza is selected as the grass for lining, the common lespedeza of low vegetal retardance (green, average length 4.5 in.) is used for the first stage in design. Then, in the second stage, the common lespedeza of moderate vegetal retardance (green, uncut, average length 11 in.) o' 1d be used. Finally, a proper freeboard is added to the computed OPEN clieuviva lirdnia“ 182 UNIFORM FLOW .o .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 _ . ).13 ... ...-- • ......-•----- -- ....--' ...sok...0 ... '.'"''''. . I------" ..„....---•...--•-''-'' :- _ WEEPING LOVEGRASS GREEN,2ND AVE. LENGTH SEASON 30" -T .. ..,. .46.,. . .„2.,,;,.. .1 .03 .06 .05 .04 .03 .02 • - .- r. ....„.:::....., ISC EMUM L C,....„.„..... SEASON 36 ......... 1ST LENGTH GREEN, AVE. AVERAGE - (A) . .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .8 . I ..-•-••. 2 4013 4 5 6 B 10 20 & .8 .6 V R (a) Curves for A or ver h vegetal retardance. 1 1 1 BERMUDA GRASS I I GREEN, AVE LENGTH le Geotechnical Reports Triangle Pond Infiltration (Storage Area 6) IPEC Proposed Stormwater Pond dated October 14, 2014 North Pond Location Boring IPEC Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation dated April 19, 2016 Pavement Design (Public Roads) IPEC Geotechnical Evaluation — Proposed Street Improvements dated June 26, 2017 Full-Scale Drywell Testing IPEC Full-Scale Drywell Testing dated August 21, 2017 IPEC Addendum to Full-Scale Drywell Testing dated August 22, 2017 Mounding Analysis IPEC Mounding Analysis dated August 22, 2017 REPORT 2 Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Stormwater Pond, dated October 14, 2014 IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting October 14. 2014 Project No. 14-086 NAI Black cio Mr. Bryan Walker 107 South Howard Suite 500 Spokane, WA 99201 Re: Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Stormwater Pond Parcel No. 45343.9052 Spokane Valley. WA Dear Mr. Walker: As you authorized, we have completed a geotechnical evaluation for geotechnical evaluation at the above-referenced site in Spokane Valley, Washington. The purpose of our services is to evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions relative to use as a stormwater management facility as part of the Painted Hills golf course property stormwater management system, This report summarizes the results of our site investigation, engineering analyses and recommendations. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand that the proposed project may consist of a residential development. The site consists of 91 acres currently developed as a golf course. Stonnwater runoff will be treated using drvwells and/or gravel galleries for subsurface infiltration. These type of facilities will also be used to manage potential floodwaters. if needed. To account for stormwater runoff volumes from the unnamed tributary along State Highway 27. you propose to use this parcel as a stormwater pond with drvwells for subsurface infiltration. P.O. Box 1566, Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-209-6262 Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Stormwater Pond Spokane County, WA Inland Pacific Engineering Company Project No. 14-086 Parcel No. 45343.9052 October 14, 2014 Page 2 AVAILABLE INFORMATION We were provided a conceptual site plan for the project by Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. (WCE). This plan showed the proposed pond limits, proposed and existing ground surface elevation contours, and property lines. This plan was prepared by WCE and was not dated. FIELD EVALUATION Procedures A geotechnical engineer from Inland Pacific Engineering Company (IPEC) observed the excavation of four test pits at the site. The test pits were excavated on October 1, 2014 using a rubber-tired backhoe operated by an independent firm working under subcontract to IPEC. The geotechnical engineer from IPEC observed the test pit excavations and logged the surface and subsurface conditions. Ground surface elevations at the test pits were interpolated from the contours shown on the site plan. The soils encountered in the test pits were visually and manually classified in the field by our field personnel in accordance with ASTM D 2488, "Description and Identification of Soils (Visual- Manual Procedures)". The samples were returned to our facility for review of the classification by a geotechnical engineer and laboratory testing. Soils Encountered The test pist encountered glacially deposited silty sand at the surface overlying poorly graded sands to the termination depths of the test pits. Groundwater was not encountered in the test pits during or after excavation. Well log data in the vicinity of the site indicate that groundwater levels range from approximately 90 to 100 feet. Geologic maps indicate the soils in this area consist primarily of glacially deposited sands and gravels. According to the Soil Survey of Spokane County, the site soils are classified as Urban land-Springdale, disturbed complex. These soils are described as somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in sandy and gravelly glaciofluvial deposits with minor amounts of volcanic ash and loess in the upper part. The native soils exposed in the test pits were consistent with the NRCS data. Laboratory Testing We performed grain size analysis tests on samples obtained from the test pits. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Method of Test D 6913. The results of the tests performed are attached to this report. Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Stormwater Pond Spokane County, WA Inland Pacific Engineering Company Project No. 14-086 Parcel No. 45343.9052 October 14, 2014 Page 3 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Stormwater Recommendations Based on the data obtained from the test pits, field permeability test, and laboratory tests performed, it is our opinion that swales and drywells would be suitable for infiltration of stormwater. We estimated a design outflow rate for drywells using the results of the laboratory tests and the procedures described in the SRSM manual, Appendix 4A (Spokane 200 Method). The following table summarizes the results of the analysis. Test Pit Depth (feet) USCS Classification Percent Fines Normalized Outflow Rate (cfs/ft) Recommended Design Drywell Outflow Rate (cfs) Type A Type B TP-1 10 — 12 SP 1.0 0.5 0.3 1.0 TP-2 10 — 12 SP 1.5 0.5 0.3 1.0 TP-3 10 — 12 SP 1.4 0.5 0.3 1.0 TP-4 10 — 12 SP 1.6 0.5 0.3 1.0 These recommended design outflow rates include a safety factor of 1.3 as required by the SRSM. REMARKS This report is for the exclusive use of the addressee and the copied parties to use in design of the proposed project and to prepare construction documents. In the absence of our written approval, we make no representations and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. The data, analyses, and recommendations may not be appropriate for other structures or purposes. We recommend that parties contemplating other structures or purposes contact us. Services performed by the geotechnical engineers for this project have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar budget and time restraints. No warranty, expressed or implied, is intended or made. Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Stermwater Pond Spokane County, WA Inland Pacific Engineering Cornpan Project No. 14-086 Parcel No. 45343.9052 October 14. :014 Page 4 GENERAL REMARKS It has been a pleasure being of service to you for this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at (509) 209-6262 at your convenience. Sincerely, Inland Pacific Engineering Company Paul T. Nelson, P.E. Principal Engineer Attachments: Figure 1, Site Location Map Figure 2, NRCS Map Figure 3, Test Pit Location Map Logs of Test Pits TP- I through TP-4 Descriptive Terminology Laboratory Test Results T N 0 WAS 0 /4,h,e‘• w0 (N .9k. 228 ,c) 6)&1 G/STV*" ONAL tel-M-14( FIGURE 1 — ' • M I r . t—rT'14—f .r - 3 -, I. J -ILI' 11, - i 1--P l' ' g r • 11 ; — iei 41' .! i :. k - 6 .... I 6. .0 , ' ' ' . 42,...'' t i.'-' ', a ..-' ii- e3 ' ■ i —v-..4.,. ,-.,...- .4'co.(-- e. ../ , a ... ..i2V: ..4 .4%4_, & 11 IA -,,,•.,.657 , 'Ik,:, •. • ,ip.:-.''" . -41 / ' .,..,_ , 4, J. r-',' ---zi;:- . A F' ' /! / 'ItR IV •Pr'''''' f I • a "L. $6,11". • / /- 411; • ar,.1! _2 4.1:4 rf)%." ■ ■ '1 • 4 • I I SITE 0 11 a Li C; e1 o o g . IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting Site Location Map Project No. 14-086 Proposed Stormwater Pond Parcel No. 45343.9052 Spokane County, WA October 9, 2014 FIGURE 2 '4Ssti / Ti LT_ SITE ••• IMC11010id 411/4 ; • to! yr; •••• • IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consubing NRCS Map Project No. 14-086 Proposed Stormwater Pond Parcel No. 45343.9052 Spokane County, WA October 9, 2014 FIGURE 3 r - -- 1,, / // -- .......,-------. ---- ---...----:,---,...4..s-- \ •..„...„:„....,..,..., , 1. .....Z)110..,% \ \\\\\ \\ ,/ \\i,k1 \ /Molk \ 4/ illki \IN / 7 1 '‘10\v ! / 1 \\O\ ..,C ...-"Y‘ *1z.,,,, f' I///fr ___ ,- A 1 ,-\\ -,---4 '-'' —\ * ... :•-•.' -,--,„..,-- . (0/1,- :, 4 1;-1 1 Ilin \ ter -,.. xx„.\\:, ilk ... ,N. \ ,,. .... \ • ) i ',... t • - " \\\V-) -_ -..... -Z \* \'\ / .... -_ , __ ....„.., ,.., ........, -....', \':',.. \ `,•,‘"\\`' \ / / ...." --. .....". ..,,, \ .\\‘‘, '1,v. ...*-- , \ N,\?..,..NNKI,N. -,,,,......\\ -,;;.N,:••• - '''<, „, I /* ..- '%70„ ••.. \N.- • \ / \ ; 1 \\\.1-1rly‘kiI,A.W,,,, )1...,,Ael,,,,,iirti TP-1 • TP-2. I • .1, I° TP43 ,, / Iiiiirr P I I S40.,„ ,..., „. tit ,,,...„:„,,....,4!..:.p,-,.t 4 .....--., ..... , 4 , ./i 'N...N.%* ....."....Z.• 01,....:,•-. .1.9.417: N.. 11 ...• , • \ • ;...,-, N `,:,'.`..q .)1 . .S.."7:;7-- -..---=,•-.....--- I; I Test Pit Location Map IPEC Project No. 14-086 October 9, 2014 Proposed Stormwater Pond Parcel No. 45343.9052 Spokane County, WA Inland Pa cifc Engmeenng Company Geoteelnkal Engineering and Conndting IPEC LOG OF TEST PIT Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting PROJECT: 14-086 Geotechnical Proposed Parcel No. Spokane 'TEST PIT: TP-1 Evaluation LOCATION: See Test Pit Location Stormwater Pond Map 45343.9052 County, WA DATE: 10/1/14 SCALE: 1"=2' ELEV. 1994.5 DEPTH 0.0 ASTM 02487 Symbol DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS WL TESTS OR NOTES 1993.5 1.0 SM SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, brown, moist. (Glacial Outwash) 1979.5 15.0 SP POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL, medium to coarse grained, with Cobbles, brown, moist. (Glacial Outwash) End of test pit. Groundwater not encountered. Test pit immediately backfilled. LOG OF TEST PIT IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting I PROJECT: 14-086 Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Stormwater Pond Parcel No. 45343.9052 Spokane County, WA TEST PIT: TP-2 LOCATION: See Test Pit Location Map DATE: 10/1/14 SCALE: 1"7--21 ELEV, 1994,5 DEPTH 0.0 ASTM D2487 Symbol DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS WL TESTS OR NOTES 1993.0 1.5 SM SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, brown, moist. (Glacial Outwash) 1979.5 15.0 SP POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL, medium to coarse grained, with Cobbles, brown, moist. (Glacial Outwash) End of test pit. Groundwater not encountered. Test pit immediately backfilled. LOG OF TEST PIT IPEC Ina/ld Pacific 1141nm:ins Comp any Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting PROJECT: 14-086 Geotechnical Proposed Stormwater Parcel No. Spokane County, TEST PIT: TP-3 Evaluation LOCATION: See Test Pit Location Pond Map 45343.9052 WA ,DATE: 10/1/14 SCALE: 1"=2' ELEV. 1995 DEPTH 0.0 ASTM D2487 Symbol DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS WL TESTS OR NOTES 1994 1.0 SM SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, brown, moist. (Glacial Outwash) 1980 15.0 SP POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL, medium to coarse grained, with Cobbles, brown, moist. (Glacial Outwash) End of test pit. Groundwater not encountered. Test pit immediately backfilled. LOG OF TEST PIT IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geote clinical Engineering and Consulting PROJECT: 14-086 Geotechnical Proposed Stormwater Parcel No. Spokane County, !TEST PIT: TP-4 Evaluation *LOCATION: See Test Pit Location Pond Map 45343.9052 WA jDATE: 10/1/14 SCALE: 1".2' ELEV. 1996 DEPTH 0.0 ASTM D2487 Symbol DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS WL TESTS OR NOTES 1995 1981 1.0 15.0 SM SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, brown, moist. (Glacial Outwash) SP POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL,medium to coarse grained, with Cobbles, brown, moist. (Glacial Outwash) End of test pit. Groundwater not encountered. Test pit immediately backfilled. i IPEC Inland Pacific Engineenng Cornisam. Geote chime al Engine enng and Consulting RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N-VALVE COARSE-GRAINED SOILS FLNE-GRAINED SOILS DENSITY N(BLOWS/FT) CONSISTENCY N(BLOWS/FTi Very Loose 0 - 4 Very Soft 0 - 1 Loose 4 - 10 Soft 2 - 3 Medium-Dense 11 - 30 Rather Soft 4 - 5 Medium 6 - 8 Dense 31 - 50 Rather Stiff 9 - 12 Stiff 13 - 16 Very Dense > 50 Very Stiff 17 - 30 Hard > 30 USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DESCRIPTIONS Coarse- Grained Soils <50% passes #200 sieve Gras el and Gra\ elly Soils <50q coarse fraction passes #4 sieve Graff el _ . .. , OW Well Graded Gravel GP Poorly Graded Gravel Gras el :,.:;. ,:.-.: %,..., GM Silty Gravel GC Clayey Gravel Sandy and Sandy Soils >50ci coarse fraction passes #4 sieve Sand -, , ,. . SW Well Graded Sand SP Poorly Graded Sand Sand ,,,,,i.,,: , n,,,,, SM Silty Sand SC Clayey Sand Fine- Grained Soils >50% passes #200 sie‘e Silt and Clay Liquid Limit < 50 ML CL OL Silt Lean Clay Organic Silt and Clay (lov. plasticity) Sall and Clay Liquid Limit > 50 MH CH OH Inorganic Silt Fat Clay Organic Clay and Silt , med ti• high pliitii:it i Highly Organic Soils PT Peat Muck MODIFIERS DESCRIPTION RANGE Occasional <5% Trace 5% - 12% With >12% MOISTURE CONTENT DESCRIPTION FIELD OBSERVATION Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry t ) the touch Moist Dry' of optimum moisture content Wet ,, Wet of optimum moisture content MAJOR DIVISIONS WITH GRAIN SIZE SIEVE SIZE 12'. 3" 3/4" 4 10 40 200 GRAIN SIZE (INCHES ) 12 3 0.75 0.19 0.079 0.0171 0.0029 Boulders Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt and Ciay Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine 3" 3/4" #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200 100.0 0 n a S S n 9 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 100 10 GRAIN SIZE (mm) 01 0.01 100 0.001 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE FINES SYSTEM GRAVEL GRAVEL SAND SAND SAND Sample Identification: L14-039 Sample Description: SP Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 e n R a n e d Lab No. • L14-039 IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company Creoteehnical Engineering and Consulting .0 Box 1,1 i_limmoontr,_ WA 99037 209-6262 GRAIN SIZE REPORT Cl 40th Avenue Stormwater TP-1 @ 10-12' hill No.: Date: 14-086 10/1/2014 3" 3/4" #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200 100.0 0 P C e n P a n 9 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 100 10 GRAIN SIZE (mm) 01 0.01 100 0.001 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE FINES SYSTEM GRAVEL GRAVEL SAND SAND SAND Sample Identification: L14-040 Sample Description: SP Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 P e e n R a n d Lab No. L14-040 .0 Box 1 IPEC Inland P2 cific Engineering Company Geotechrucal Engineering and Consulting fr,3-.0 WA 99037 209-6262 _ GRAIN SIZE REPORT ."oluci• 40th Avenue Stormwater Location: TP-2 © 10-12' IA No.: 14-086 IDate: 10/1/2014 100.0 90.0 80.0 P e 70.0 e n 60.0 50.0 P a S 40.0 S n 30.0 9 20.0 10.0 0.0 3" 3/4" #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200 100 10 GRAIN SIZE (mm) 01 0.01 100 0.001 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE FINES SYSTEM GRAVEL GRAVEL SAND SAND SAND r Sample Identification: L14-041 Sample Description: SP Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 P? PO P a R e a n e d Lab No. L14-041 IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting P.O Box 1566, Veradale, WA 99037 (509) 209-6262 GRAIN SIZE REPORT Project: 40th Avenue Stormwater Location: TP-3 CO 10-12' Job No.: 14-086 Date: 10/1/2014 P e e n a S n 9 3/4' #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200 100.0 I 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 # is 100 10 GRAIN SIZE (mm) 01 0.01 100 0.001 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE FINES SYSTEM GRAVEL GRAVEL SAND SAND SAND Sample Identification: L14-042 Sample Description: SP Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 e C n e a n d Lab No. L14-042 IPEC Inland Pacific F-nginetimg Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting P.O Box 1566, Veradale, WA 99037 (509) 209-6262 GRAIN SIZE REPORT Project: 40th Avenue Stormwater Location: TP-4 @ 10-12' Job No.: 14-086 Date: 10/1/2014 Royal Myhre From: Gorman, Connie <Connie.Gorman@avistacorp.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2019 10:53 AM To: Royal Myhre Subject: RE: [External] SEWER-WATER-STREETS-GAS-POWER-PHONE-CABLE PLANS FOR 19-2320 Attachments: Pittsburg and Rosewood - ELECT.pdf; Pittsburg and Rosewood - GAS.pdf Here you go!! From: Royal Myhre [mailto:royalm@whipplece.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2019 10:22 AM To: AITOR LACAMBRA (AITOR.LACAMBRA@CENTURYLINK.COM) <AITOR.LACAMBRA@CENTURYLINK.COM>; BRYAN RICHARDSON (BRYAN RICHARDSON@CABLE.COMCAST.COM) <BRYAN RICHARDSON@CABLECOMCAST.COM>; Gorman, Connie <Connie.Gorman@avistacorp.com>; TIM NASH (TNASH@SPOKANECITY.ORG) <TNASH@SPOKANECITY.ORG> Subject: [External] SEWER-WATER-STREETS-GAS-POWER-PHONE-CABLE PLANS FOR 19-2320 TO ALL, WE ARE DOING A PROJECT ON THE NORTH WEST CORNER OSF PITTSBURG AND ROSEWOOD WE WOULD LIKE TO GET THE ABOVE PLANS FOR OUR PROJECT THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR HELP Royal Myhre Engineering Tech, Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Phone: 509.893.2617 I Fax: 509.926.0227 AWC E Whipple Consulting Engineers WCE provides Land Development services in the following areas. Land Surveying, Civil. Structural and Traffic Engineering. Land Planning and Landscape Architecture. 21 South Pints Road • Spokane Valley. WA 99206 WhlopteCE coin EnD 1 USE CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER Do not click on links or open attachments that are not familiar. For questions or concerns, please e-mail phishing@avistacorp.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or an agent of the intended recipient, or if this message has been addressed to you in error. please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. 2 REPORT 8 Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation, dated April 19, 2016 IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting April 19, 2016 Project No. 16-249 NAI Black cio Mr. Bryan Walker 107 South Howard Suite 500 Spokane, WA 99201 Re: Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation Painted Hills Golf Course Property 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road Spokane Valley, WA Dear Mr. Walker: As you authorized, we have completed the supplemental geotechnical evaluation for the Painted Hills Golf Course property at the above-referenced site in Spokane Valley, Washington. The purpose of the supplemental evaluation is to provide additional soil and groundwater data to address concerns of the City of Spokane Valley. This report summarizes the results of our field investigation, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and our opinions and recommendations for stormwater management. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand that the proposed project may consist of a residential development. The site consists of 91 acres currently developed as a golf course. Stonnwater runoff will be treated using diywells and/or gravel galleries for subsurface infiltration. These type of facilities will also be used to manage potential floodwaters, if needed. This supplemental evaluation is intended to provide additional subsurface data at the north end of the site to assist in identifying areas where subsurface infiltration of stormwater may be feasible due to the presence of suitable soils at depth. P.O. Box 1566, Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-209-6262 Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation Painted Hills Golf Course Property Spokane Valley, WA Inland Pacific Engineering Company Project No. 16-249 Parcel No. 45344.9108 April 19, 2016 Page 2 AVAILABLE INFORMATION We were provided a topographic survey for the project site by Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. (WCE). This topographic survey showed the existing roadways, existing structures, property lines, and existing ground surface elevation contours. This plan was prepared by WCE and was dated November 7, 2013. The site was used as a golf course prior to our evaluation. The site is relatively level with some elevated golf greens and excavated areas for water hazards. The site is primarily grass-covered with scattered trees along the fairways and pine trees in the undeveloped area to the northwest. The clubhouse building is present at the southwest corner. In addition, we performed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the property in December 2013. The results of that evaluation, along with our opinions and recommendations, are summarized in our Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation dated December 31, 2013. We also performed a geotechnical evaluation for certification of the existing levee along Chester Creek in April 2014. The results of that evaluation are summarized in our Geotechnical Evaluation report dated February 12, 2015. Lastly, we performed a geotechnical evaluation in July 2015 consisting of ten 50-foot borings in the south half of the property. The results of that evaluation are summarized in our Geotechnical Evaluation Phase 2 report dated July 23, 2015. FIELD EVALUATION Procedures A geotechnical engineer from Inland Pacific Engineering Company (IPEC) observed the drilling of three penetration test borings at the site. The borings were drilled between March 17 and 19, 2016 using a truck-mounted drill operated by an independent firm working under subcontract to IPEC. A geotechnical engineer or engineering assistant from IPEC observed the borings and logged the surface and subsurface conditions. After we logged the borings, they were abandoned in accordance with state requirements. Ground surface elevations at the borings were provided by WCE. The soils encountered in the borings were visually and manually classified in the field by our field personnel in accordance with ASTM D 2488, "Description and Identification of Soils (Visual- Manual Procedures)". The samples were returned to our facility for review of the classification by a geotechnical engineer and laboratory testing. Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation Painted Hills Golf Course Property Spokane Valley, WA Inland Pacific Engineering Company Project No. 16-249 Parcel No. 45344.9108 April 19, 2016 Page 3 Soils Encountered In general, the borings encountered 2 feet of topsoil at the surface. Below the topsoil, the borings generally encountered glacially-deposited silty to clayey sands and/or gravels overlying poorly graded sands to termination depths of the borings. The clayey sands and gravels were generally encountered in the upper 12 to 18 feet. Penetration resistances in the sands and gravels ranged from 15 to 90 blows per foot (BPF) and averaged 37 BPF, indicating that these soils were medium dense to very dense, but were typically dense. Geologic maps indicate the soils in this area consist primarily of alluvial and/or glacially deposited silts, clays, sands, and gravels. According to the Soil Survey of Spokane County, the site soils are classified by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) as Hardesty ashy silt loam, Narcisse silt loam, Endoaquolls and Fluvaquents, Phoebe ashy sandy loam, and Urban land-Springdale disturbed complex. The native soils encountered in the borings were consistent with the NRCS data. Groundwater was encountered in Boring B-2 at a depth of 71 feet. This depth corresponds to an elevation of 1934.6. Groundwater was not encountered in the remaining borings. The observed water levels further indicates that groundwater levels drop generally from south to north with higher levels near Chester Creek. Fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to rainfall, flooding, irrigation, spring thaw and other seasonal and annual factors not evident at the time the observations were made. ANALYSIS, OPINIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the data obtained from the recent and previous borings, previous test pits, field permeability tests, and laboratory tests performed, it is our opinion that subsurface infiltration of stormwater is feasible. The most promising layers are the glacial sands and gravels. These soils would be suitable for infiltration using standard drywells. We will perform a mounding analysis for the drywells after the proposed full-scale drywell test is completed to assess down-gradient impacts REMARKS This report is for the exclusive use of the addressee and the copied parties to use in design of the proposed project and to prepare construction documents. In the absence of our written approval, we make no representations and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. The data, analyses, and recommendations may not be appropriate for other structures or purposes. We recommend that parties contemplating other structures or purposes contact us. Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation Painted Hills Golf Course Property Spokane Valley, WA Inland Pacific Engineering Company Project No. 16-249 Parcel No. 45344.9108 April 19, 2016 Page 4 Services performed by the geotechnical engineers for this project have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar budget and time restraints. No warranty, expressed or implied, is intended or made. GENERAL REMARKS It has been a pleasure being of service to you for this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at (509) 209-6262 at your convenience. Sincerely, Paul T. Nelson, P.E. Principal Engineer Attachments: Figure 1, Site Location Map Figure 2, NRCS Map Figure 3, Boring Location Map Logs of Borings B-1 through 8-3 Descriptive Terminology Laboratory Test Results ‘k.. N 4,s, 0 i ,9 37228 • ( S €0/STE9*",,0 SIGN N' cc FIGURE 1 AVAIL . ' 441116.4 • - , 3 • . f`f • 404 N a oil 411L 11. SITE C.> 2013 Go_og Site Location Map II2 Project No. 16-249 April 19, 2016 Painted Hills Golf Course 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road Spokane County, WA Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geoteclmical Engineering and Consulting FIGURE 2 > - - Cl.a.r • - -r. . te - ' r* ' All ...,* • . - ? 1 . ;. • 3 iit'''' ‘ M, • r i i 'lid o 111 I Tlri.r. ... ..- .•r , .,.../. ,v ,-.- 1, , c- -. it 4 r I . L . (;11, ir 6,•• I- ..' , r' .. .1. $1 • •r- i • , ..al, • -) , - t".. ' _, '•;.• . '",..-i 11! .' '' - ., • ., .- _ -1, 41 1 11:Fil? .),Irreagler ,r rl 7,1) .rr.il n ,r - Iffirl ijk ) .. ,I. :.------------------ 4040 .C• 1'200\ 7101 1080 SITE Ott. riOipoltd • •J ,••• 3430 5073f I 0041 5041( 3054 F NRCS Map IPEC Project No. 16-249 April 19, 2016 Painted Hills Golf Course 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road Spokane County, WA Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting FIGURE 3 ----- e'., / I I i 1 I I\ •\x i --• --C. , I I I Li) -- ZGRiszas-j— aT ammo— :x II MEWL♦ on 0 amawr ) ' • ..1 Rif • .1! , ITMIRMITIPwa ele 4 11,11111111111111•11s ---- B-3 es, Boring Location Map IPEC Project No. 16-249 April 19, 2016 Painted Hills Golf Course 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road Spokane County, WA Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting LU CD zz w z a. 7 z cr, (14 0 0 LU 0 0 C0 0 0 co z cC LU Inland C 3012 Spokane IPE Telephone: Pacific Engineering Company BORING NUMBER B-1 North Sullivan Road, Suite C Valley, WA 99216 509-209-6262 PAGE 1 OF 2 509-290-5734 PROJECT NAME Painted Hills Supplemental CLIENT PROJECT DATE DRILLING DRILLING LOGGED NOTES Fax: NAI Black NUMBER STARTED CONTRACTOR METHOD BY 16-249 PROJECT LOCATION 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road 3/17/16 COMPLETED Drilling 3/17/16 GROUND ELEVATION 2005,9 ft HOLE SIZE 8 inches Johnson Exploration GROUND WATER LEVELS: Hollow Stem Auger AT TIME OF DRILLING — Not encountered PRF CHECKED BY PTN AT END OF DRILLING — Not encountered AFTER DRILLING -- Not encountered o DEPTH (ft) SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER TESTS . c5 cn: D GRAPHIC LOG MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Fines = 7% sm L.: .• .. ‘, , 2.0 (SM) SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained, with roots, dark brown, moist. (Topsoil) 2003.9 SP- SM ' 17.0 ‘ (SP-SM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, medium to coarse grained, a trace of Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Outwash) 1988.9 ss 10 SS 15 SS r _ 20 SP SS (SP) POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL, medium to coarse grained, brown, moist, very dense to medium dense. (Glacial Outwash) SS 25 30 SS (Continued Next Page) 0_ z - CD CD O 111 H z H LLJ LL h:2L 0 0 CD LU O - 0 IL q 07 < (l; 7 H H B CD 0 IPEC CLIENT NAI Black Inland Pacific Engineering Company 3012 North Sullivan Road, Suite C Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Telephone: 509-209-6262 Fax: 509-290-5734 PROJECT NUMBER 16-249 BORING NUMBER B-1 PAGE 2 OF 2 PROJECT NAME Painted Hills Supplemental PROJECT LOCATION 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road a LU w >-1/ w 2 2z Coco TESTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 35 40 X SS 45 50 SS c. 7 SS SS SP 50.5 (SP) POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL, medium to coarse grained, brown, moist, very dense to medium dense. (Glacial Outwash) (continued) 1955.4 End of boring. Groundwater not encountered with 49' of hollow-stem auger in the ground. Groundwater not encountered immediately after withdrawal of the auger. Bore hole then abandoned. S SUPPLEMENTALGPJ z H 2 9) 0 LLI 0 0_ 0 in H O ‘`)i ft Cc IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company 3012 North Sullivan Road, Suite C Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Telephone: 509-209-6262 Fax: 509-290-5734 BORING NUMBER B-2 PAGE 1 OF 3 CLIENT NAI Black PROJECT NAME Painted Hills Supplemental PROJECT NUMBER 16-249 PROJECT LOCATION 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road DATE STARTED 3/17/16 COMPLETED 3118/16 GROUND ELEVATION 2005.6 ft HOLE SIZE 8 inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR Johnson Exploration Drilling GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger AT TIME OF DRILLING -- Not encontered LOGGED BY PRF CHECKED BY PTN AT END OF DRILLING 71.00 ft I Elev 1934.60 ft NOTES 7 AFTER DRILLING 73.50 ft i Elev 1932.10 ft 0-1.1.1 5 10 SS 15 s 20 S 25 X SS 30 SS S LLJ Z < mo z(.0 TESTS U_I 0a0 CD sm ;kt; s2.0 SC 6.5 12-33 45 GC 24-20 (44) 12.0 24-29 (53) 25-28 (53) SP 10-18 Fines = 8% (28) 11-13 (24) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION (SM) SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained, with roots, dark brown, moist. (Topsoil) 2003.6 (SC) CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, medium to coarse grained, brown, moist to wet, dense. (Glacial Outwash) 1999.1 (GC) CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND, fine to coarse grained, brown, moist, dense. (Glacial Outwash) 1993.6 (SP) POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL, medium to coarse grained, a trace of Cobbles, brown, moist, very dense to medium dense. (Glacial Outwash) (Continued Next Page) co uJ co LU 1p z LU LU H o_ H IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company 3012 North Sullivan Road, Suite C Spokane Valley. WA 99216 Telephone: 509-209-6262 Fax: 509-290-5734 BORING NUMBER B-2 PAGE 2 OF 3 CLIENT NAI Black PROJECT NAME Painted Hills Supplemental PROJECT NUMBER 16-249 PROJECT LOCATION 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road LLJ 0 TESTS SCS a Jo MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 35 40 S 28-37 (65) 45 SS 50/5' S 1 50/5" -C3 0_ 0)H _ 0 55 - LUc0 z- 8 (7 Ci 60 65 50/5' SS 8-17 (25) SP (SP) POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL, medium to coarse grained, a trace of Cobbles. brown, moist, very dense to medium dense. (Glacial Outwash) (continued) (Continued Next Page) PPLEMENTAL GINT I 16-249 PAINTED HILLS SUPPLEMENTAL.GPJ 6 - J:\ IPEC PROJECTS \ 2016 PROJECTS419-249 PAI I WELL GINT STD US L AELGDT - 4/5/16 1 IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company 3012 North Sullivan Road, Suite C Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Telephone: 509-209-6262 Fax: 509-290-5734 BORING NUMBER B-2 PAGE 3 OF 3 CLIENT NAI Black PROJECT NAME Painted Hills Supplemental PROJECT NUMBER 16-249 PROJECT LOCATION 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road 7 0_ 1.1.1 UJ 0 CO 0 > D < TESTS 1E1 21-11 32) SP E 0 0 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION (SP) POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL, medium to coarse grained, a trace of Cobbles, brown, moist, very dense to medium dense. 31 (Glacial Outwash) (continued) 75.0 1.930.6 End of boring. Groundwater encountered at 71' with 75' of hollow-stem auger in the ground. Goundwater encountered at 73.5' 10 minutes later. Groundwater not encountered to cave-in depth of 15' immediately after withdrawal of the auger. Bore hole then abandoned. al r. ra. CL S V) CoH a Co ti z :2LL.1 0.1 0- 0 0_ rn Co Co Co O Co w H 0) 0 cn Inland IPEC 3012 Spokane Telephone: Pacific Engineering Company BORING NUMBER B-3 North Sullivan Road, Suite C Valley, WA 99216 509-209-6262 PAGE 1 OF 2 509-290-5734 PROJECT NAME Painted Hills Supplemental CLIENT PROJECT DATE DRILLING DRILLING LOGGED NOTES Fax: NAI Black NUMBER STARTED CONTRACTOR METHOD BY 16-249 PROJECT LOCATION 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road 3/18/16 COMPLETED Drilling 3/19/16 GROUND ELEVATION 2004.5 ft HOLE SIZE 8 inches Johnson Exploration GROUND WATER LEVELS: Hollow Stern Auger AT TIME OF DRILLING -- Not encountered PRF CHECKED BY PTN AT END OF DRILLING -- Not encountered AFTER DRILLING --- Not encountered c) DEPTH (ft) SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER TESTS vi cifc_.5 ?1 GRAPHIC LOG MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - Fines = 6% ML I, , i; • oo Nk 2.0 (ML) SANDY SILT, with roots, dark brown, moist. (Topsoil) 2002.5 GC 8.0 (GC) CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND, fine to coarse grained, brown, moist, dense. (Glacial Outwash) 1996.5 SS _ - 10 SC 12.0 (SC) CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, medium to coarse grained, brown, moist to wet, dense. (Glacial Outwash) 1992.5 SS _ _ 15 GC 18.0 (GC) SILTY CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND, fine to coarse grained, brown, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Outwash) 1986.5 SS - 20 SP (SP) POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL, medium to coarse grained, a trace of Cobbles, brown, moist, very dense to medium dense. (Glacial Outwash) 1 SS 25 SS 30 kx / SS r \ (Continued Next Page) IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company 3012 North Sullivan Road, Suite C Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Telephone: 509-209-6262 Fax: 509-290-5734 BORING NUMBER B-3 PAGE 2 OF 2 CLIENT NAI Black PROJECT NAME Painted Hills Supplemental PROJECT NUMBER 16-249 PROJECT LOCATION 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road 0-LU TESTS 6. L vR U_ 0 CD MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 35 2 o_ O r- - a 40 z c, O5 C-C_ TD US LAB.GDT CD 2 S SS 50 SS SS SP 50.5 (SP) POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL, medium to coarse grained, a trace of Cobbles, brown, moist, very dense to medium dense. (Glacial Outwash) (continued) 1954.0 End of boring. Groundwater not encountered with 49' of hollow-stem auger in the ground. Groundwater not encountered immediately after withdrawal of the auger. Bore hole then abandoned. IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnic al Engineering and Consulting RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N-VALVE COARSE-GRAINED SOILS FINE-GRAINED SOILS DENSITY N(BLOWS/FT) CONSISTENCY N(BLOWS/FT) Very Loose 0 - 4 Very Soft 0 - 1 Loose 4 - 10 Soft 2 - 3 Medium-Dense 11 - 30 Rather Soft 4 - 5 Medium 6 - 8 Dense 31 - 50 Rather Stiff 9 - 12 Stiff 13 - 16 Very Dense > 50 Very Stiff 17 - 30 Hard > 30 USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DESCRIPTIONS Coarse- Grained Soils <50% passes #200 sieve Gravel and Gravelly Soils <50% coarse fraction passes #4 sieve Gravel is,i, Link ., a, fino) GW Well Graded Gravel GP Poorly Graded Gravel Gravel is,iria >12% fines) GM Silty Gravel GC Clayey Gravel Sandy and Sandy Soils >50% coarse fraction passes #4 sieve Sand n.iiisiinkor.c..0 SW Well Graded Sand SP Poorly Graded Sand Sand (with >ii% som) SM Silty Sand SC Clayey Sand Fine- Grained Soils >50% passes #200 sieve Silt and Clay Liquid Limit < 50 ML CL OL Silt Lean Clay Organic Silt and Clay (low plasticity) MB Salt and Clay CH Liquid Limit > 50 OH Inorganic Silt Fat Clay Organic Clay and Silt (med to high plasticity) Highly Organic Soils PT Peat Muck MODIFIERS DESCRIPTION RANGE Occasional <5% Trace 5% - 12% With >12% MOISTURE CONTENT DESCRIPTION FIELD OBSERVATION Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Moist Dry of optimum moisture content Wet Wet of optimum moisture content MAJOR DIVISIONS WITH GRAIN SIZE SIEVE SIZE 12" 3" 3/4" 4 10 40 200 GRAIN SIZE (INCHES) 12 3 0.75 0.19 0.079 0.0171 0.0029 Boulders Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt and Clay Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Inland Pacific Engineering Company GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION IPEC 3012 North Sullivan Road, Suite C Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Telephone: 509-209-6262 Fax: 509-290-5734 CLIENT NAI Black PROJECT NAME Painted Hills Supplemental PROJECT NUMBER 16-249 PROJECT LOCATION 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 I U.S. SIEVE Nur, BERS I HYDROMETER ' 1/2318 3 4 6 810 14 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200 100 1 I I I I II 11 I I I I 95 90 it 3.\\85 80 _ 75 70 \H 65 i L.0 iir,TL 60 )- 55 cc cc w 50 1 \ \ \ t \ EZ 1\ \ H 45 z LU (--) \ \ 1 1 CC 40 LLJ o_ 1 \ \ 35 1 \ 30 25 1 \ \\ 20 15 \\ \ ., 10 _1 5 0 100 10 1 GRAIN SIZE IN 0.1 0.01 0.001 MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND COBBLES coarse fine coarse medium fine SILT OR CLAY BOREHOLE DEPTH Classification l LL PL PI Cc Cu • B-1 30.0 _ SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand with Silt 1.37 8.65 I B-2 25.0 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand with Silt 1 , 2.10 8.72 • B-3 30.0 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand with Silt 1.85 1 9.95 1 BOREHOLE DEPTH D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay • B-1 30.0 19 2.679 1.065 0.31 21.9 71.2 6.8 X B-2 25.0 19 1.992 0.977 0.228 13.9 77.9 8.2 • B-3 30.0 19 4.708 2.032 0.473 39.7 54.1 6.2 W I J> ) 00 LU z 05 0 u_ u.; co O cc 8 re ,73 Inland Pacific Engineering Company GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION IPEC 3012 North S Sullivan Road. Suite C pokane Valley, WA 9921 Telephone: 509-209-62626 Fax: 509-290-5734 CLIENT NAI Black PROJECT NAME Gustin Levee PROJECT NUMBER 14-037B PROJECT LOCATION Spokane County U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1 5 1/2318 3 4 6 810 14 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200 100 I I I I I I I I . 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 H m CD w 60 >- 55 co et w 50 Z TL H 45 z w II° 40 w 0 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 100 10 1 GRAIN SIZE IN 0 1 0.01 0.001 MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COBBLES coarse fine coarse medium fine BOREHOLE DEPTH Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu • TP-3 3.5 SM Silty Sand with Gravel I TP-5 4.0 SM Silty Sand • TP-6 4.0 SM Silty Sand with Gravel BOREHOLE DEPTH D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay • TP-3 3.5 25 2.902 0.336 30.4 47.8 21.8 I TP-5 4.0 19 1 0.179 12.6 38.9 48.5 • TP-6 4.0 37.5 3.959 0.195 36.9 37.6 25.4 -----; REPORT 10 Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Street Improvements (Pavement Design) dated June 26, 2017 U IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting June 26, 2017 Project No. 16-249D Mr. Bryan Walker NAI Black 107 S Howard Suite 500 Spokane, WA 99201 Re: Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Street Improvements 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road Spokane Valley, WA Dear Mr. Walker: As you authorized, we have completed a geotechnical evaluation for the proposed street improvements to the roadways adjacent to the above referenced site in Spokane Valley, Washington. The purpose of the evaluation is to provide earthwork recommendations and pavement design for the proposed improvements. This report summarizes the results of our site observations, engineering analyses and recommendations. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of street improvements to the roadways adjacent to the proposed Painted Hills residential development located at the above referenced address. The improvements consist of about 6,000 feet of roadway on South Dislunan Mica Road, East Thorpe Road, and South Madison Road. P.O. Box 1566, Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-209-6262 Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Street Improvements Spokane Valley, WA Inland Pacific Engineering Company Project No. 16-249D 4403 S Dishman-Mica Rd June 26, 2017 Page 2 AVAILABLE INFORMATION We were provided a topographic survey for the project site by Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. (WCE). This topographic survey showed the existing roadways, existing structures, property lines, and existing ground surface elevation contours. This plan was prepared by WCE and was dated November 7, 2013. The site was used as a golf course prior to our evaluation. The site is relatively level with some elevated golf greens and excavated areas for water hazards. The site is primarily grass-covered with scattered trees along the fairways and pine trees in the undeveloped area to the northwest. The clubhouse building is present at the southwest corner. We were also provided civil plans for the roadway improvements. The plans showed the layout and elevations of the proposed roadways and elevation contours. The plans were prepared by WCE and dated August 17, 2016. In addition, we performed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the property in December 2013. The results of that evaluation, along with our opinions and recommendations, are summarized in our Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation dated December 31, 2013. We also performed a geotechnical evaluation for certification of the existing levee along Chester Creek in April 2014. The results of that evaluation are summarized in our Geotechnical Evaluation report dated February 12, 2015. Furthermore, we performed a supplemental geotechnical evaluation in July 2015 consisting of ten, 50-foot borings in the south half of the property. The results of that evaluation are summarized in our Geotechnical Evaluation Phase 2 report dated July 23, 2015. We also performed a second supplemental geotechnical evaluation at the north end of the property to evaluate soil conditions at depth and to better define the static groundwater elevation in this area. We then performed a full-scale drywell test on a drywell installed near Boring B-1 from our second supplemental geotechnical evaluation. The results of these evaluations are summarized in our Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation dated April 19, 2016 and our Full-Scale Drywell Testing report dated June 28, 2016. Lastly, we performed bore hole permeability testing at the north end of the property to evaluate infiltration rates at the depth of the drywell tested in our Full-Scale Drywell Testing report. We also tested infiltration rates at deeper depths. The results of that evaluation are summarized in our Bore Hole Permeability Testing report dated September 16, 2016. Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Street Improvements Spokane Valley, WA Inland Pacific Engineering Company Project No. 16-249D 4403 S Dishman-Mica Rd June 26, 2017 Page 3 FIELD EVALUATION Procedures A geotechnical engineer from Inland Pacific Engineering Company (IPEC) observed the excavation of twelve test pits at the site. The test pits were excavated on February 23, 2017 using a backhoe operated by an independent firm under subcontract to IPEC. A geotechnical engineer from IPEC observed the test pit excavations and logged the surface and subsurface conditions. After we logged each test pit, the test pit was immediately backfilled. The soils encountered in the test pits were visually and manually classified in the field by our field personnel in accordance with ASTM D 2488, "Description and Identification of Soils (Visual- Manual Procedures)". The samples were returned to our facility for review of the classification by a geotechnical engineer and potential laboratory testing. Soils Encountered Geologic maps indicate the soils in this area consist primarily of alluvial and/or glacially deposited silts, clays, sands, and gravels. According to the Soil Survey of Spokane County, the site soils are classified by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) as Narcisse silt loam (1080), Endoaquolls and Fluvaquents (1200), Hardesty ashy silt loam (1040), Phoebe ashy sandy loam (3130), Bong ashy loam, moist (3022), and Urban land-Springdale, disturbed complex (7170). The native soils encountered in the teste pits were consistent with the NRCS data. At the surface, the test pits encountered topsoil ranging from about 1/2 to 2 feet. The topsoil consisted of clayey to silty sand, silty gravel, and lean clay. Below the topsoil, the test pits along Dishman-Mica and Thorpe Road generally encountered alluvial soils to their termination depths. The alluvial soils consisted of lean clay and clayey to silty sand. Below the topsoil, the test pits along Madison Road generally encountered glacial outwash or alluvial soils to their termination depths. The glacial outwash consisted of clayey and silty to poorly graded sand with silt and silty gravel. The alluvial soils consisted of lean clay and clayey sand. Groundwater was encountered in Test Pits TP-4 through TP-7 at depths ranging from 2 to 4 feet below existing grades at the time of our exploration. Seasonal and annual fluctuations of groundwater levels should be anticipated. Laboratory Testing We obtained samples of the subgrade soil from Test Pit TP-2, TP-4, and TP-7 during our site investigation. Grain size analyses and modified Proctor tests were performed by us on the samples obtained from TP-4 and TP-7 in accordance with ASTM D6913 and ASTM D1557, respectively. The results of the tests are attached. Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Street Improvements Spokane Valley, WA Inland Pacific Engineering Company Project No. 16-249D 4403 S Dishman-Mica Rd June 26, 2017 Page 4 In addition, resilient modulus (Mr) tests were performed on the samples obtained from TP-4 and TP-7 in accordance with AASHTO T307. The Mr tests were performed by Braun Intertec in Bloomington, Minnesota. Attached are data sheets summarizing the tests performed. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS S ub grade Preparation After removing the asphalt from the existing roadways, we anticipate the subgrade will consist of existing roadway embankment fill. We have assumed that during the construction of the existing roadways, the fill was compacted in accordance with local jurisdiction standards. Where road widening is planned, we recommend removing any existing topsoil. We recommend that the upper 8 inches of the resulting subgrade be scarified, moistened or dried to within 3 percent of optimum moisture, and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Where fill is required, we recommend that it be similarly moisture conditioned and compacted. If there are areas that cannot be compacted, we recommend that the unstable soils be removed and replaced with soils similar to the surrounding subgrade soils. We recommend that the subgrade surface be shaped to provide for positive drainage to minimize the potential for water to pond in the subgrade. Because the site soils are low to highly frost- susceptible, it will be important to avoid creating "bathtubs" in the subgrade where water can pond and freeze, which could heave the pavement. If site grading and construction are anticipated during cold weather, recommend that good winter construction practices be observed. All snow and ice should be removed from excavated and fill areas prior to additional earthwork or construction. No fill or pavements should be placed on soil which have frozen or contain frozen material. Frozen soils should not be used as backfill or fill. Test Rolling Prior to placing the aggregate base, we recommend that all subgrade areas be proof-rolled with a loaded dump truck. This precautionary measure would assist in detecting any localized soft areas. Any soft areas discovered during the proof-rolling operation should be excavated and replaced with a suitable structural fill material. The structural fill should be similar to the existing subgrade soil type to provide a uniform subgrade. We recommend that the proof-rolling process be observed by an experienced geotechnical engineer to make the final evaluation of the subgrade. Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Street Improvements Spokane Valley, WA Inland Pacific Engineering Company Project No. 16-249D 4403 S Dishman-Mica Rd June 26, 2017 Page 5 Pavement Section Design We performed a pavement section analysis in accordance with the "AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, 1993" by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). For our analysis, we were provided an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) value of 5,300 for Dishman-Mica Road, 1,400 for Thorpe Road, and 1,700 for Madison Road. We were also provided percent trucks values of 2 percent for Thorpe and Madison Road, and 5 percent for Dishman-Mica Road. We were provided a percent growth value of 1.1 percent. Based on these provided parameters, we calculated the following Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL): • Dishman-Mica Road: 2,617,545 • Thorpe Road: 330,000 • Madison Road: 389,954 We used resilient modulus values from the laboratory test results of (Mr) of 5,821 pounds per square inch (psi) for Thorpe Road and an Mr of 11,985 psi for Dishman-Mica and Madison Road. We also used the following parameters in our analysis provided in Chapter 8 of the City of Spokane Valley Street Standards, dated December of 2009: • • • • Reliability: Standard Deviation: Initial Serviceability Index: Terminal Serviceability Index: 90 percent 0.45 4.2 o Dishman-Mica Road: 2.50 o Thorpe Road: 2.25 o Madison Road: 2.25 • Structural Layer Coefficients: ■ Asphalt: 0.42 ■ Aggregate Base: 0.14 • Drainage Layer Coefficient: o Dishman-Mica Road: 1.05 o Thorpe Road: 0.85 o Madison Road: 0.95 Based on this data, we calculated the following design structural numbers: • Dishman-Mica Road: • Thorpe Road: • Madison Road: 3.4 3.1 2.5 Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Street Improvements Spokane Valley, WA Inland Pacific Engineering Company Project No. 16-249D 4403 S Dishman-Mica Rd June 26, 2017 Page 6 Based on our analysis, we recommend the following pavement sections: • Dishman-Mica Road: o 4 inches of asphalt overlying • Thorpe Road: o 4 inches of asphalt overlying • Madison Road: o 4 inches of asphalt overlying 12 inches of crushed aggregate base 12 inches of crushed aggregate base 6 inches of crushed aggregate base We recommend specifying crushed aggregate base meeting the requirements of the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specification 9-03.9(3) for crushed gravel surfacing (base course and/or top course). We recommend that the asphalt concrete pavement meet the requirements of WSDOT Standard Specification for Class 'A inch HMA asphalt concrete pavements. We recommend that the crushed gravel surfacing be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. We recommend that the asphaltic concrete surface be compacted to minimum of 92 percent of the Rice density. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the data obtained from the test pits excavated at the locations indicated on the Test Pit Location Map on Figure 3. It should be recognized that the explorations performed for this evaluation reveal subsurface conditions only at discreet locations across the project site and that actual conditions in other areas could vary. Furthermore, the nature and extent of any such variations would not become evident until additional explorations are performed or until construction activities have begun. If significant variations are observed at that time, we may need to modify our conclusions and recommendations contained in this report to reflect the actual site conditions. We made water level observations in the test pits at the times and conditions stated on the test pit logs. These data were interpreted in the text of this report. The period of observation was relatively short and fluctuation in the groundwater level may occur due to rainfall, flooding, irrigation, spring thaw and other seasonal and annual factors not evident at the time the observations were made. Design drawings and specifications and construction planning should recognize the possibility of fluctuations. Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Street Improvements Spokane Valley, WA Inland Pacific Engineering Company REMARKS Project No. 16-249D 4403 S Dishman-Mica Rd June 26, 2017 Page 7 This report is for the exclusive use of the addressee and the copied parties to use in design of the proposed project and to prepare construction documents. In the absence of our written approval, we make no representations and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. The data, analyses, and recommendations may not be appropriate for other structures or purposes. We recommend that parties contemplating other structures or purposes contact us. Services performed by the geotechnical engineers for this project have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar budget and time restraints. No warranty, expressed or implied, is intended or made. GENERAL REMARKS It has been a pleasure being of service to you for this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at (509) 209-6262 at your convenience. Sincerely, Inland Pacific Engineering Company Gregory J. Voigt, P.E. Paul T. Nelson, P.E. Project Engineer Principal Engineer Attachments: Figure 1, Site Location Map Figure 2, NRCS Map Figure 3, Test Pit Location Maps Logs of Test Pits Descriptive Terminology Laboratory Test Results (*kV J. 4tz.. of v4A8694,`1,..v C./ •,:o 0 ...A \"CtGisTEO_c, A0NALsi FIGURE 1 ,•7•1!' Lr r ••••• • • ez o f . } 4 R I : Hate 4 :s s - ..i- e ; 0:r cu • • • 1 • • 4 ow, „ ,vo.t177. ,41 SITE ;J. 11 r Site Location Map IF'EC Project No. 16-249D June 26, 2017 Proposed Street Improvements 4403 S Dishman-Mica Rd Spokane Valley, WA Inland Pa dfic Engineering Company Geotrth:Eic al Er_ ..r, 2nd Comt*ing FIGURE 2 r • G • j.' %mow r. • ;.4 , si Jr L s • , „ .1231 71h .771 a eiiie0 if•it)01 — I 9% r1 'SITE E T horpe Rd • E4Oth Arr • , ! 3130 3064 • NRCS Map LPEC Project No. 16-249D June 26, 2017 Proposed Street Improvements 4403 S Dishman-Mica Rd Spokane Valley, WA bland Pacific Eopincesing Company GeotethMcalEngineesMgandConnailg FIGURE 3 _ 2 11, I 3 mir - • 011 L ,j,i -T Oagie s •ve* Test Pit Location Map 1 IPEC Project No. 16-249D June 26, 2017 Proposed Street Improvements 4403 S Dishman-Mica Rd Spokane Valley, WA Inland Pacific Engineeling Company Gentechnical Enejnetaing and Cansuking a_ cU U) H Luw cL H z z U) U z z z U) z < (.D ULLI z 0 U)H 00 U) U w 0 •Tr Cers4: CU 0 U H U GENERAL BH / TP IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company 3012 North Sullivan Road. Suite C Spokane Valley. WA 99216 Telephone: 509-209-6262 Fax: 509-290-5734 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT NAI Black PROJECT NAME Proposed Street Improvements PROJECT NUMBER 16-249D PROJECT LOCATION Spokane Valley. WA DATE STARTED 2/23/17 COMPLETED 2/23/17 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Alpine Excavating EXCAVATION METHOD Backhoe LOGGED BY GV GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE 30 inches GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -- Not encountered CHECKED BY PTN AT END OF EXCAVATION — Not encountered NOTES AFTER EXCAVATION — Not encountered a. Cl j 0.0 CL < MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SC CL 2.5 0.5 (SC) CLAYEY SAND, fine-grained, trace roots, dark brown. moist. (Topsoil) (CL) LEAN CLAY with SAND, brown, moist. (Alluvium) 3.0 SC 5.0 5.0 (SC) CLAYEY SAND, fine-grained, brown, moist. (Alluvium) End of test pit. Groundwater not encountered. Test pit immediately backfilled. VEMENT DESIGN.GPJ 07 1L?.J z CP 0 z ."L1.1 07 GN \GINT A rz 07 - CC 07 O 07 O in cn 0.4 (-15 GINT STD US LAB.GD NERAL BH IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company 3012 North Sullivan Road, Suite C Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Telephone: 509-209-6262 Fax: 509-290-5734 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT NAI Black PROJECT NAME Proposed Street Improvements PROJECT NUMBER 16-249D PROJECT LOCATION Spokane Valley. WA DATE STARTED 2/23/17 COMPLETED 2/23/17 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Alpine Excavating EXCAVATION METHOD Backhoe LOGGED BY GV GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE 30 inches GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -- Not encountered CHECKED BY PTN AT END OF EXCAVATION — Not encountered NOTES AFTER EXCAVATION — Not encountered U 02 uJ 0.0 111- 0 < CD MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GM CL 2.5 SC 5.0 ily .1_ A (GM) SILTY GRAVEL, fine to coarse-grained, trace roots, dark brown, moist. 0.5 \ (Topsoil) 3. 5.0 (CL) LEAN CLAY with SAND, brown, moist. (Alluvium) (SC) CLAYEY SAND. fine-grained, brown, moist. (Alluvium) End of test pit. Groundwater not encountered. Test pit immediately backfilled. CD U) Lu fp z Lu z z 0 U) F- Lu Lu a a, U) 0 a 3 a a LLi a a, fV c7, Co q a CD U) z cD a a LU Lu IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company 3012 North Sullivan Road, Suite C Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Telephone: 509-209-6262 Fax: 509-290-5734 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 PAGE 1 OF 1 CUENT NAI Black PROJECT NAME Proposed Street Improvements PROJECT NUMBER 16-249D PROJECT LOCATION Spokane Valley, WA DATE STARTED 2/23/17 COMPLETED 2/23/17 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Alpine Excavating EXCAVATION METHOD Backhoe GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE 30 inches GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — Not encountered LOGGED BY GV CHECKED BY PTN AT END OF EXCAVATION — Not encountered NOTES AFTER EXCAVATION — Not encountered ,_, D (1). 0.0 I a0 Ur < MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SM ' 2.5 SM 5.0 (SM) SILTY SAND, fine-grained, dark brown, moist. 0.5 \ (Topsoil) 5.0 (SM) SILTY SAND, fine-grained, brown, moist. (Alluvium) End of test pit. Groundwater not encountered. Test pit immediately backfilled. S PAVEMENT DESIGN. GPJ 9D PAINTED HI IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company 3012 North Sullivan Road. Suite C Spokane Valley. WA 99216 Telephone: 509-209-6262 Fax: 509-290-5734 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4 PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT NAI Black PROJECT NAME Proposed Street Improvements PROJECT NUMBER 16-249D PROJECT LOCATION Spokane Valley, WA DATE STARTED 2/23/17 COMPLETED 2/23/17 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Alpine Excavating EXCAVATION METHOD Backhoe GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE GROUND WATER LEVELS: 7_ AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 2.00 ft 30 inches LOGGED BY GV CHECKED BY PTN 1 AT END OF EXCAVATION 2.00 ft NOTES 2 AFTER EXCAVATION 2.00 ft 0— cr-- a 0.0 z 0 0 z _ 2.5 0 Co - 0 F-z o_ 0 0 C PROJECTS% 2 0 0 CD UJ z UJ 5.0 w o_ >-HW II, co —J 0_ a 2z c.o TESTS Fines = 38% Ci) a CL SM C7 2.0 V 5 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION (CL) LEAN CLAY with SAND, dark brown, moist. (Topsoil) (SM) SILTY SAND, fine-grained, with seams of Silt, brown, water-bearing. (Alluvium) End of test pit. Groundwater encountered at 2 feet. Test pit immediately backfilled. 6-249D PAINTED HILLS PAVEMENT DESIGN.GPJ IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company 3012 North Sullivan Road, Suite C Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Telephone: 509-209-6262 Fax: 509-290-5734 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-5 PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT NAI Black PROJECT NAME Proposed Street Improvements PROJECT NUMBER 16-249D PROJECT LOCATION Spokane Valley. WA DATE STARTED 2/23/17 COMPLETED EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Alpine Excavating EXCAVATION METHOD Backhoe 2/23/17 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE 30 inches LOGGED BY GV CHECKED BY PTN NOTES GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 2.00 ft AT END OF EXCAVATION 2.00 ft 2 AFTER EXCAVATION 2.00 ft 0_ LIJ 0 0.0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 5 0 0 2.5 F- L11 0 = a- U. J 1_IPEC PROJECTS1_2016 PROJ ti T STD US LAB.G 5.0 C :X ;/ N' , • CL 2.0 V 5. (CL) LEAN CLAY with SAND. trace roots, dark brown, moist. (Topsoil) (CL) LEAN CLAY with SAND, brown. wet. (Alluvium) End of test pit. Groundwater encountered at 2 feet. Test pit immediately backfilled. 0_ 0 U) 0 > ":( 0_ Un z 0_ .7o_ 45 0.0 0 0 z- 00 0 2.5 IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company 3012 North Sullivan Road, Suite C Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Telephone: 509-209-6262 Fax: 509-290-5734 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-6 PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT NAI Black PROJECT NAME Proposed Street Improvements PROJECT NUMBER 16-249D PROJECT LOCATION Spokane Valley. WA DATE STARTED 2/23/17 COMPLETED 2/23/17 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Alpine Excavating EXCAVATION METHOD Backhoe LOGGED BY GV CHECKED BY PTN NOTES GROUND ELEVATION GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 3.50 ft TEST PIT SIZE 30 inches AT END OF EXCAVATION 3.50 ft AFTER EXCAVATION 3.50 ft - W 0 0_ 0 a_ C ,ROJECTS C US LAB.GOT - 6/21/17 12.49 - J I I H 0 0 5.0 W 0_ >- LJJ W CD D Z U (1). SC SC E g MATERIAL DESCRIPTION (SC) CLAYEY SAND, fine-grained, dark brown, moist. 0.5 \ (Topsoil) 1.5 (SC) CLAYEY SAND, fine-grained, brown, moist. (Alluvium) SP- SM 5.0 (SP-SM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine to coarse-grained, brown, moist to water-bearing. (Glacial Outwash) End of test pit. Groundwater encountered at 3 1/2 feet. Test pit immediately backfilled. U) H LU o_ LU LU LL1 a_ 1_5 0 z LULU111 H z LL LU LU a_ Co 0 N O LU ry cd LULU H (/) (0 LULJJ LL1 (-7 IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company 3012 North Sullivan Road, Suite C Spokane Valley. WA 99216 Telephone: 509-209-6262 Fax: 509-290-5734 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-7 PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT NAI Black PROJECT NAME Proposed Street Improvements PROJECT NUMBER 16-249D PROJECT LOCATION Spokane Valley. WA DATE STARTED 2/23/17 COMPLETED 2/23/17 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Alpine Excavating EXCAVATION METHOD Backhoe GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 4.00 ft 30 inches LOGGED BY GV CHECKED BY PTN 1 AT END OF EXCAVATION 4.00 ft NOTES 7 AFTER EXCAVATION 4.00 ft 0_ 0.0 TESTS E 0 o __, 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 2.5 Fines = 50% 5.0 CL 2.0 (CL) LEAN CLAY with SAND, trace roots, dark brown. moist. (Topsoil) CL 5.0 (CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown, moist to wet. (Alluvium) End of test pit. Groundwater encountered at 4 feet. Test pit immediately backfilled. LU as a LU 0-q LI) CO q 3 55 0 LI) _J q a fD "'Jr) a a (-5 a a a N [Id UJ a q (0 a CO UiUJ z UJ IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company 3012 North Sullivan Road, Suite C Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Telephone: 509-209-6262 Fax: 509-290-5734 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-8 PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT NAI Black PROJECT NAME Proposed Street Improvements PROJECT NUMBER 16-2490 PROJECT LOCATION Spokane Valley, WA DATE STARTED 2/23/17 COMPLETED 2/23/17 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Alpine Excavating EXCAVATION METHOD Backhoe LOGGED BY GV GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE 30 inches GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — Not encountered CHECKED BY PTN AT END OF EXCAVATION — Not encountered NOTES AFTER EXCAVATION — Not encountered = o v 0.0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SC • 1.0 (SC) CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, fine to medium-grained, dark brown, moist. (Topsoil) 2.5 SC 5.0 7 . , . 5.0 (SC) CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, fine to medium-grained, brown, moist. (Glacial Outwash) End of test pit. Groundwater not encountered. Test pit immediately backfilled. CD cD Cl z ) F- 2 LU ry CDUJ CO 0 CD O CD 0 z z — U L1J rf ,r7 o_ rr co 0 w 0 CD O CD O CD O co 0 rf, H :75 z CO 7/- z 111 IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company 3012 North Sullivan Road, Suite C Spokane Valley. WA 99216 Telephone: 509-209-6262 Fax: 509-290-5734 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-9 PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT NAI Black PROJECT NAME Proposed Street Improvements PROJECT NUMBER 16-249D PROJECT LOCATION Spokane Valley, WA DATE STARTED 2/23/17 COMPLETED 2/23/17 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE 30 inches EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Alpine Excavating EXCAVATION METHOD Backhoe LOGGED BY GV CHECKED BY PTN NOTES GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -- Not encountered AT END OF EXCAVATION — Not encountered AFTER EXCAVATION --- Not encountered 0- 0.0 >- Hw m 2z cr) cd. cn 0 12- 0 < MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SC e .0 1.0 (SC) CLAYEY SAND, fine-grained, dark brown, moist. (Topsoil) SM 2.0 (SM) SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, fine to medium-grained, brown, moist. (Glacial Outwash) 2.5 GM 5.0 (GM) SILTY GRAVEL, fine to coarse-grained, brown, moist. (Glacial Outwash) End of test pit. Groundwater not encountered. Test pit immediately backfilled. IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Comp any Geotechnic al Engineering and Consulting RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N-VALVE COARSE-GRAINED SOILS FINE-GRAINED SOILS DENSITY N(BLOWS/FT) CONSISTENCY N(BLOWS/FT) Very Loose 0 - 4 Very Soft 0 - 1 Loose 5 - 10 Soft -) _ 3 Medium-Dense 11 - 30 Rather Soft 4 - 5 Medium 6 - 8 Dense 31 - 50 Rather Stiff 9 - 12 Stiff 13 - 16 Very Dense > 50 Very Stiff 17 - 30 Hard > 30 USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DESCRIPTIONS Coarse- Grained Soils <50% passes #200 sieve Gravel and Gravelly Soils <50°° coarse fraction passes #4 sieve Gravel ,,,,,,,,,„ ,,„ GW Well Graded Gravel GP Poorly Graded Gravel Gravel ,,,,th. ,:,'.. rm.. GM Silty Gravel GC Clayey Gravel Sandy and Sandy Soils >5(1% coarse fraction passes #4 sieve Sand SW Well Graded Sand SP Poorly Graded Sand Sand ,,,•i: -: 2„ finc,: SM Silty Sand SC Clayey Sand Fine- Grained Soils >50% passes 4200 sieve Silt and Clay Liquid Limit < 50 ML CL OL Silt Lean Clay Organic Silt and Clay (low plasticity) Salt and Clay Liquid Limit > 50 MH CH OH Inorganic Silt Fat Clay Organic Clay and Silt lined to high plasticityl Highly Organic Soils PT Peat Muck MODIFIERS DESCRIPTION RANGE Occasional <5% Trace 5% - 12% With >12% MOISTURE CON1ENT DESCRIPTION FIELD OBSERVATION Dry Absence of moisture, dusty. dry to the touch Moist Dry of optimum moisture content Wet Wet of optimum moisture content MAJOR DIVISIONS WITH GRAIN SIZE SIEVE SIZE 12" 3" 3/4" 4 10 40 200 GRAIN SIZE (INCHES) 12 3 0.75 0.19 0.079 0.0171 0.0029 Boulders Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt and Clay Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine U) L1.1 0_ U z a q H t..1 0_ zz U) O 0_ ;6 H U 0 Fr5 ai 10 N 0 Inland Pacific Engineering Company GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION IPEC 3012 North Sullivan Road. Suite C Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Telephone: 509-209-6262 Fax. 509-290-5734 CLIENT NAI Black PROJECT NAME Proposed Street Improvements PROJECT NUMBER 16-249D PROJECT LOCATION Spokane Valley. WA U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 34 I 3 U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 810 1416 210 30 40 50 60 10101410200 100 I 11 95 1\ 90 \ \ 0 85 )1080 75 \ 70 65 H (.) 60 >- 55 cci ix 50 z LT. I--45 z Li (..) \0 ce 40 ui o_ \•• 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 100 10 1 0 1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND il COBBLES coarse fine coarse medium fine SILT OR CLAY BOREHOLE DEPTI- Classification LL PL I PI Cc Cu • TP-4 3.0 SILTY SAND(SM) X TP-7 3.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) BOREHOLE DEPTI- D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay • TP-4 3.0 12.7 0.245 3.4 58.8 37.8 X TP-7 3.0 9.5 0.268 0.2 49.7 50.1 Resilient Modulus Testing - AASHTO T307 US Customary Units Date: April 10, 2017 Client: Inland Pacific Engineering Company Paul Nelson P.O. Box 1566 Veradale, WA 99037 Sample Information Braun Sample ID./ File Name: 1 Sample Diameter, in.: 2.82 Sample M.C., % before, after: 13.9, 13.6 Sample Type: Type 2 Sample Height, in.: 5.58 Sample Dry Den., pcf: 97.8 Test Date: 06-Apr-2017 Desired M.C., %: 13.5 Failed in Shear?: YES Comments: Spokane Valley, WA Desired Dry Density., pcf: 98.8 Triaxial Shear Strength, psi: 44.2 Project: B1702069 Project Description: Resilient Modulus Test AASHTO T307 Client ID: Proposed Street Improvements Station: TP-4 COLUMN # PARAMETER DESIGNATION UNIT PRECISION SEQUENCE 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Chamber Confining Pressure Nominal Maximum Axial Stress Cycle No. Actual Applied Maximum Axial Load Actual Applied Cyclic Load Actual Applied Contact Load Actual Applied Maximum Axial Stress Actual Applied Cyclic Stress Actual Applied Contact Stress Recov Def. LVDT 1 Reading Recov Def. LVDT 2 Reading Average Recov Def LVDT 1 and LVDT 2 Resilient Strain Resilient Modulus S3 Scyclic cl Pmax Pcyclic Pcontact Smax Scyclic Scontact HI H2 H average Mr psi psi --- lbs. lbs. lbs. psi psi psi inches inches inches in/in psi 1 13.4 11.0 2.4 2.2 1.8 0.4 0.00074 0.00063 0.00069 0.00012 14,342 2 13.4 11.0 2.4 2.1 1.8 0.4 0.00071 0.00060 0.00066 0.00012 15,062 6.0 2.1 3 13.2 10.7 2.5 2.1 1.7 0.4 0.00078 0.00067 0.00072 0.00013 13,377 4 13.3 10.9 2.4 2.1 1.8 0.4 0.00085 0.00074 0.00079 0.00014 12,325 5 13.5 11.1 2.5 2.2 1.8 0.4 0.00082 0.00071 0.00077 0.00014 12,968 COLUMN AVERAGE 13.4 10.9 2.4 2.1 1.8 0.4 0.00078 0.00067 0.00073 0.00013 13,615 STANDARD DEV. 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00006 0.00005 0.00006 0.00001 1,091 COLUMN # SEQUENCE 2 COLUMN # SEQUENCE 3 COLUMN 4 SEQUENCE 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 25.2 21.3 3.9 4.1 3.4 0.6 0.00168 0.00149 0.00159 0.00028 12,106 2 25.2 21.3 3.9 4.0 3.4 0.6 0.00175 0.00156 0.00165 0.00030 11,586 6.0 4.0 3 25.2 21.4 3.8 4.0 3.4 0.6 0,00154 0.00136 0.00145 0.00026 13,326 4 25.2 21.6 3.6 4.1 3.5 0.6 0.00168 0.00149 0.00158 0.00028 12,307 5 25.1 21.2 3.8 4.0 3.4 0.6 0.00168 0.00149 0.00159 0.00028 12,060 COLUMN AVERAGE 25.2 21.4 3.8 4.0 3.4 0.6 0.00167 0.00148 0.00157 0.00028 12,277 STANDARD DEV. 0.07 0.14 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00008 0.00007 0.00008 0.00001 643 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 35.7 31.0 4.7 5.7 5.0 0.8 0.00257 0.00230 0.00244 0.00044 11,443 2 35.4 30.4 5.1 5.7 4.9 0.8 0.00267 0.00239 0.00253 0.00045 10,797 6.0 5.7 3 35.7 31.0 4.8 5.7 5.0 0.8 0.00257 0.00230 0.00243 0.00043 11,461 4 35.6 30.7 4.9 5.7 4.9 0.8 0.00267 0.00239 0.00253 0.00045 10,906 5 35.5 30.7 4.8 5.7 4.9 0.8 0.00278 0.00249 0.00264 0.00047 10,474 COLUMN AVERAGE 35.6 30.8 4.8 5.7 4.9 0.8 0.00260 0.00233 0.00246 0.00044 11,016 STANDARD DEV. 0.12 0.25 0.14 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.00006 0.00005 0.00006 0.00001 429 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6.0 8.1 1 50.7 44.2 6.5 8.1 7.1 1.0 0.00385 0.00414 0.00400 0.00071 9,961 2 50.6 43.8 6.8 8.1 7.0 1.1 0.00383 0.00412 0.00397 0.00071 9,914 3 50.6 43.9 6.7 8.1 7.1 1.1 0.00384 0.00413 0.00398 0.00071 9,925 4 50.5 43.8 6.7 8.1 7.0 1.1 0.00365 0.00393 0.00379 0.00068 10,400 5 50.6 44.9 5.8 8.1 7.2 0.9 0.00384 0.00414 0.00399 0.00071 10,110 COLUMN AVERAGE 50.6 44.1 6.5 8.1 7.1 1.0 0.00380 0.00409 0.00395 0.00070 10,062 STANDARD DEV. 0.07 0.44 0.41 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.00008 0.00009 0.00009 0.00002 204 Sample ID: 1 Project: B1702069 Sheet No. 2 of 7 COLUMN # SEQUENCES COLUMN # SEQUENCE 6 COLUMN # SEQUENCE 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 1 62.9 56.3 6.6 10.1 9.0 1.1 0.00483 0.00524 0.00503 0.00090 10,059 2 62.8 56.0 6.8 10.1 9.0 1.1 0.00481 0.00521 0.00501 0.00089 10,073 6.0 10.1 3 62.9 54.9 8.0 10.1 8.8 1.3 0.00482 0.00523 0.00502 0.00090 9,840 4 62.9 55.0 7.9 10.1 8.8 1.3 0.00462 0.00500 0.00481 0.00086 10,292 5 63.0 54.9 8.1 10.1 8.8 1.3 0.00481 0.00521 0.00501 0.00090 9,855 COLUMN AVERAGE 62.9 55.4 7.5 10.1 8.9 1.2 0.00478 0.00518 0.00498 0.00089 10,024 STANDARD DEV. 0.05 0.68 0.71 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.00009 0.00010 0.00010 0.00002 186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 11 I 12 14 1 13.0 11.0 2.0 2.1 1.8 0.3 0.00057 0.00085 0,00071 0.00013 13,985 2 13.0 11.0 2.0 2.1 1.8 0.3 0.00059 0.00088 0.00073 0.00013 13,512 4.0 2.1 3 13.0 10.9 2.1 2.1 1.8 0.3 0.00062 0.00092 0.00077 0.00014 12,725 4 13.0 11.0 2.0 2.1 1.8 0.3 0.00063 0.00093 0.00078 0.00014 12,771 5 13.0 11.0 2.0 2.1 1.8 0.3 0.00058 0.00087 0.00073 0.00013 13,602 COLUMN AVERAGE 13.0 11.0 2.0 2.1 1.8 0.3 0.00060 0.00089 0.00074 0.00013 13,319 STANDARD DEV. 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00003 0.00004 0.00003 0.00001 551 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 24.8 21.3 3.5 4.0 3.4 0.6 0.00194 0.00206 0.00200 0.00036 9,597 2 24.8 21.7 3.1 4.0 3.5 0.5 0.00203 0.00215 0.00209 0.00037 9,312 4.0 4.0 3 24.7 21.4 3.3 4.0 3.4 0.5 0.00193 0.00205 0.00199 0.00036 9,649 4 25.0 21.7 3.3 4.0 3.5 0.5 0.00208 0.00220 0.00214 0.00038 9,128 5 24.8 21.4 3.4 4.0 3.4 0.6 0.00195 0.00207 0.00201 0.00036 9,541 COLUMN AVERAGE 24.8 21.5 3.3 4.0 3.5 0.5 0.00199 0.00211 0.00205 0.00037 9,445 STANDARD DEV. 0.09 0.18 0.14 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.00006 0.00007 0.00007 0.00001 219 Sample ID: 1 Project: B1702069 Sheet No. 3 of 7 COLUMN # SEQUENCE 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 36.6 32.1 4.5 5.9 5.2 0.7 0.00319 0.00338 0.00328 0.00059 8,804 2 36.6 32.2 4.4 5.9 5.2 0.7 0.00333 0.00353 0.00343 0.00061 8,450 4.0 5.9 3 36.6 32.0 4.6 5.9 5.1 0.7 0.00318 0.00337 0.00328 0.00059 8,788 4 36.7 32.1 4.6 5.9 5.2 0.7 0.00317 0.00336 0.00327 0.00058 8,845 5 36.6 32.0 4.6 5.9 5.1 0.7 0.00346 0.00367 0.00356 0.00064 8,085 COLUMN AVERAGE 36.6 32.1 4.5 5.9 5.2 0.7 0.00327 0.00346 0.00336 0.00060 8,595 • STANDARD DEV. , 0.03 0.08 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00012 0.00013 0.00013 0.00002 326 COLUMN # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I 12 13 14 1 48.8 43.2 5.5 7.8 .6.9 0.9 0.00444 0.00469 0.00457 0.00082 8,523 2 48.6 42.9 5.7 7.8 6.9 0.9 0.00462 0.00488 0.00475 0.00085 8,120 SEQUENCE 9 4.0 7.8 3 48.6 42.1 6.5 7.8 6.8 1.1 0.00463 0.00489 0.00476 0.00085 7,969 4 48.7 43.8 4.9 7.8 7.0 0.8 0.00462 0.00489 0.00475 0.00085 8,295 5 48.8 42.8 5.9 7.8 6.9 1.0 0.00463 0.00489 0.00476 0.00085 8,095 COLUMN # SEQUENCE 10 COLUMN AVERAGE 48.7 43.0 5.7 7.8 6.9 0.9 0.00459 0.00485 0.00472 0.00084 8,200 STANDARD DEV. 0.09 0.63 0.59 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.00008 0.00009 0.00008 0.00002 214 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 61.2 54.6 6.6 9.8 8.8 1.1 0.00562 0.00594 0.00578 0.00103 8,496 2 61.3 54.0 7.2 9.8 8.7 1.2 0.00566 0.00598 0.00582 0.00104 8,358 4.0 9.8 3 61.2 53.2 8.0 9.8 8.6 1.3 0.00565 0.00596 0.00580 0.00104 8,256 4 61.2 54.4 6.8 9.8 8.7 1.1 0.00561 0.00591 0.00576 0.00103 8,497 5 61.2 53.8 7.4 9.8 8.6 1.2 0.00539 0.00568 0.00554 0.00099 8,735 COLUMN AVERAGE 61.2 54.0 7.2 9.8 8.7 1.2 0.00558 0.00589 0.00574 0.00103 8,468 STANDARD DEV. 0.04 0.53 0.53 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.00011 0.00012 0.00012 0.00002 180 Sample ID: 1 Project: B1702069 Sheet No. 4 of 7 COLUMN # SEQUENCE 11 COLUMN # SEQUENCE 12 COLUMN 4 SEQUENCE 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 2.0 1.8 2 3 4 5 9.5 1.6 1.8 1.5 0.3 0.00041 0.00083 0.00062 0.00011 13,686 9.5 1.6 1.8 1,5 0.3 0.00051 0.00095 0.00073 0.00013 11,774 9.4 1.7 1.8 1.5 0.3 0.00045 0.00089 0.00067 0.00012 12,675 9.5 1.6 1.8 1.5 0.3 0.00040 0.00083 0.00062 0.00011 13,915 11.0 9.4 1.7 1.8 1.5 0.3 0.00049 0.00095 0.00072 0.00013 11,666 COLUMN AVERAGE 11.1 9.5 1.6 1.8 1.5 0.3 0.00045 0.00089 0.00067 0.00012 12,743 STANDARD DEV 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00005 0.00006 0.00005 0.00001 1,045 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 23.1 20.2 2.9 3.7 3.2 0.5 0.00234 0.00258 0.00246 0.00044 7,387 2 23.0 20.2 2.8 3.7 3.2 0.5 0.00245 0.00268 0.00257 0.00046 7,088 2.0 3.7 3 23.0 20.2 2.8 3.7 3.3 0.4 0.00244 0.00268 0.00256 0.00046 7,118 4 23.0 20.2 2.9 3.7 3.2 0.5 0.00233 0.00256 0.00245 0.00044 7,413 5 23.1 20.3 2.8 3.7 3.3 0.5 0.00234 0.00258 0.00246 0.00044 7,423 COLUMN AVERAGE 23.0 20.2 2.8 3.7 3.2 0.5 0.00238 0.00262 0.00250 0.00045 7,286 STANDARD DEV. 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00006 0.00006 0.00006 0.00001 168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2.0 5.3 1 33.2 29.2 4.0 5.3 4.7 0.7 0.00393 0.00411 0.00402 0.00072 6,526 2 33.2 28.9 4.3 5.3 4.6 0.7 0.00410 0.00429 0.00419 0.00075 6,200 3 33.2 29.3 3.9 5.3 4.7 0.6 0.00409 0.00428 0.00419 0.00075 6,308 4 33.2 28.7 4.4 5.3 4.6 0.7 0.00392 0.00411 0.00402 0.00072 6,441 5 33.2 29.1 4.1 5.3 4.7 0.7 0.00391 0.00410 0.00401 0.00072 6,538 COLUMN AVERAGE 33.2 29.0 4.1 5.3 4.7 0.7 0.00399 0.00418 0.00408 0.00073 6,402 STANDARD DEV. 0.04 0.23 0.23 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.00009 0.00010 0.00009 0.00002 146 Sample ID: 1 Project: B1702069 Sheet No. 5 of 7 COLUMN I) SEW lENCE 14 COLUMN SEQI1ENCE 15 1 :_. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 I 44 7 36 2 8.5 7 2 5 8 1 4 0 00547 0 00573 0 00560 0 o0100 5,821 2 44 6 16 8 7.8 7 2 5 9 1 3 0.00549 0 00575 0.00562 0.00100 5,886 2 0 7 2 3 44 6 36 5 8.1 7 2 5 9 1 3 0 00523 0 00548 0 00536 0 00096 6.134 4 44 6 37 .3 7 3 7 2 6 0 1 2 0 00549 0 00575 0 00562 0 00100 5,978 5 44 7 36 3 8.4 7 2 5 8 1 3 0 00548 0.00573 0.00560 0 00100 5,830 COLUMN AVERAGE 44 7 36 6 8.0 7 2 5.9 1 3 0 00543 0 00569 0.00556 0 00099 5,930 STANDARD DEN 0 04 0.44 0 46 0 01 0 07 0 07 0 00011 0.00012 0 0001 1 0.00002 130 1 2 , 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 1 56 7 47 0 9.6 9 1 7 6 1 5 0 00669 0 00695 0.00682 0 00122 6.202 2 56 7 48 2 8.6 9 I 7 7 14 0 00704 0 00729 0.00716 0 00128 6,050 2 0 q I 3 56 7 48 0 8.7 9 1 7 7 14 0 00704 0 00729 0 00716 0 00128 0,024 4 56 7 47 9 8.9 9 1 7 7 1 4 0 00672 0.00696 0.00684 0 00122 6,298 5 56 7 46 8 9.9 9 1 7 5 1.6 0 00674 0.00698 0.00686 0 00123 6,136 COLUMN AVERAGE 56 7 47 6 9.1 9 I 7 6 1 5 0 00685 0.00709 0 00697 0 00124 6.142 STANDARD DEV 0 03 0 60 0 59 0 01 0 10 0 10 0 00017 0.00018 0.00018 0 00003 112 Sample II) 1 Protect 131702069 Sheet No 6 017 Erik J. Knudson I.aboratory Technician Quick Shear Confining Pressure 4 PSI Peak Shear Stress (psi) = 44.2 50.00 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 ,—, :6 25' 00 r II Un CW ;.• -1••• to 20.00 15.00 10 00 5.00 000 0 2 3 4 5 6 % Strain Sample ID. I Project: B1702069 Sheet No. 7 of 7 Universal Model Calculations - US Customary Units Braun Sample ID: 1 Station: TP-4 Seq. Conf. psi Axial Stress psi Bulk psi Deviator psi Mr psi Pred. Mr psi Ln(Mr) Ln(Bulk) Ln(Dev) 1 6.0 2.1 20.1 1.8 13,615 16,232 9.519 3.003 0.563 2 6.0 4.0 22.0 3.4 12,277 12,263 9.415 3.093 L233 3 6.0 5.7 23.7 4.9 11,016 10,688 9.307 3.166 1.598 4 6.0 8.1 26.1 7.1 10,062 9,465 9.217 3.263 1.959 5 6.0 10.1 28.1 8.9 10,024 8,828 9.213 3.336 2.187 6 4.0 2.1 14.1 1.8 13,319 13,025 9.497 2.645 0.569 7 4.0 4.0 16.0 3.5 9,445 10,061 9.153 2.772 1.239 8 4.0 5.9 17.9 5.2 8,595 8,818 9.059 2.884 1.640 9 4.0 7.8 19.8 6.9 8,200 8,112 9.012 2.987 1.932 10 4.0 9.8 21.8 8.7 8,468 7,672 9.044 3.084 2.161 11 2.0 1.8 7.8 1.5 12,743 9,796 9.453 2.052 0.418 12 2.0 3.7 9.7 3.2 7,286 7,662 8.894 2.272 1.178 13 2.0 5.3 11.3 4.7 6,402 7,026 8.764 2.428 1.540 14 2.0 7.2 13.2 5.9 5,930 6,853 8.688 2.578 1.773 15 2.0 9.1 15.1 7.6 6,142 6,534 8.723 2.714 2.034 Project: B1702069 Universal Model Calculations - US Customary Units Braun Sample ID: 1 Station: TP-4 SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error Observations 0.918187299 0.843067917 0.816912569 0.11966659 15 ANOVA ax5 Value t-Stat kl k2 k3 3475.7918 0.606811974 -0.499551386 32.43723 5.954231958 -7.74275784 R-sqr Adj. 0.8169126 Std Err 0.1196666 or 12.71% Regression Residual Total df 2 12 14 SS MS 0.923161964 0.461581 0.171841114 0.0143201 1.095003078 F Significance F 32.2331 1.49372E-05 Project: B1702069 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat 8.153577586 0.606811974 -0.49955139 P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% Intercept X Variable 1 X Variable 2 0.251364796 32.43723 4.661E-13 0.10191272 5.954232 6.67E-05 0.064518534 -7.742758 5.246E-06 7.605900745 0.384763232 -0.640125196 8.701254427 0.828860715 -0.358977576 7.605900745 8.701254427 0.384763232 0.828860715 -0.640125196 -0.358977576 Universal Model Graph - US Customary Units Braun Sample ID: 1 Station: TP-4 Project: B1702069 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 '1: 10,000 z 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1 0 0 • —1-- —IF- —1r- 0 0 A a 0 0 II A A • 0 A 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Deviator Stress, psi 7 8 9 10 6 psi 4 psi 2 psi Predicted 6 psi Predicted 4 psi Predicted 2 psi z 0 UiLIJ H 0 o_ 0 z a z UiLIJ 0 LIJ a a, C O LLI LUO H H 0 c d (0 (7, 0 a C- IPEC Inland 3012 Spokane Telephone: Fax: Pacific North V a lley. 509-290-5734 Engineering Sullivan Road. WA 9921 509-209-62626 Company Suite C PROJECT PROJECT MOISTURE NAME LOCATION Proposed -DENSITY RELATIONSHIP Street Improvements CLIENT PROJECT NAI Black NUMBER 16-249D Spokane Valley, WA DRY DENSITY, pcf —4 CO CO (0 CD 0 0 ._, _.> I \J IV C.A.) OJ cri © cri cp CT! 0 cri c. (11 0 Crl 0 cr .---, Sample Description Test Method ID of Material Maximum Optimum TEST Dry Water ATTERBERG LL TP-4 \ \ SILTY SAND(SM) ASTM D1557 Method A RESULTS Density Specific Content of 100% LIMITS PL 104.0 PCF % PI 13.5 Equal 2.80 2.70 2.60 '', \ \ Curves for Gravity Saturation to: 1 -I 1 , ■I 5 10 15 20 WATER CONTENT. 25 30 % 35 40 45 Resilient Modulus Testing - AASHTO T307 US Customary Units Date: April 10, 2017 Client: Inland Pacific Engineering Company Paul Nelson P.O. Box 1566 Veradale, WA 99037 Sample Information Braun Sample ID./ File Name: 1 Sample Diameter, in.: 2.80 Sample M.C., % before, after: 14.7, 14.2 Sample Type: Type 2 Sample Height, in.: 5.51 Sample Thy Den., pcf: 106.1 Test Date: 06-Apr-2017 Desired ME., %: 14.3 Failed in Shear?: YES Comments: Spokane Valley, WA Desired Dry Density., pcf: 104.7 Triaxial Shear Strength, psi: 45.3 Project: B1702069 Project Description: Resilient Modulus Test AASHTO T307 Client ID: Proposed Street Improvements Station: TP-7 COLUMN 4 PARAMETER DESIGNATION UNIT PRECISION SEQUENCE 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Chamber Confining Pressure Nominal Maximum Axial Stress Cycle No. Actual Applied Maximum Axial Load Actual Applied Cyclic Load Actual Applied Contact Load Actual Applied Maximum Axial Stress Actual Applied Cyclic Stress Actual Applied Contact Stress Recov Def LVDT 1 Reading Recov Def. LVDT 2 Reading Average Recov Def LVDT 1 and LVDT 2 Resilient Strain Resilient Modulus S3 Scyclic cl Pmax Pcyclic Pcontact Smax Scyclic Scontact HI H2 H average Mr psi psi --- lbs. lbs. lbs. psi psi psi inches inches inches in/in psi 1 14.2 11.8 2.4 2.3 1.9 0.4 0.00049 0.00052 0.00051 0.00009 21,081 2 14.3 11.9 2.3 2.3 1.9 0.4 0.00052 0.00057 0.00054 0.00010 19,724 6.0 2.3 3 14.2 11.8 2.4 2.3 1.9 0.4 0.00051 0.00056 0.00053 0.00010 19,921 4 14.2 11.8 2.4 2.3 1.9 0.4 0.00047 0.00051 0.00049 0.00009 21,508 5 14.2 11.8 2.5 2.3 1.9 0.4 0.00050 0.00055 0.00053 0.00010 20,044 COLUMN AVERAGE 14.2 11.8 2.4 2.3 1.9 0.4 0.00050 0.00054 0.00052 0.00009 20,456 STANDARD DEV. 0.02 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00000 789 COLUMN # SEQUENCE 2 COLUMN # SEQUENCE 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 26.5 22.8 33 4.3 3.7 0.6 0.00104 0.00112 0.00108 0.00020 18,948 2 26.5 22.9 3.6 4.3 3.7 0.6 0.00100 0.00107 0.00103 0.00019 19,938 6.0 4.3 3 26.5 22.8 3.7 4.3 3.7 0,6 0.00099 0.00107 0.00103 0.00019 19,878 4 26.4 22.8 3.6 4.3 3.7 0.6 0.00099 0.00107 0.00103 0.00019 19,906 5 26.3 22.7 3.6 4.3 3.7 0.6 0.00095 0.00102 0.00099 0.00018 20,678 COLUMN AVERAGE 26.4 22.8 3.6 4.3 3.7 0.6 0.00099 0.00107 0.00103 0.00019 19,870 STANDARD DEV. 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00003 0.00004 0.00003 0.00001 614 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 38.3 33.5 4.8 6.2 5.4 0.8 0.00165 0.00180 0.00173 0.00031 17,453 2 38.3 33.4 4.9 6.2 5.4 0.8 0.00150 0.00164 0.00157 0.00028 19,131 6.0 6.2 3 38.3 33.5 4.8 6.2 5.4 0.8 0.00157 0.00172 0.00164 0.00030 18,362 4 38.4 33.6 4.8 6.2 5.4 0.8 0.00157 0.00172 0.00165 0.00030 18,344 5 38.5 33.6 4.9 6.2 5.4 0.8 0.00156 0.00171 0.00164 0.00030 18,434 COLUMN AVERAGE 38.4 33.5 4.8 6.2 5.4 0.8 0.00157 0.00172 0.00165 0.00030 18,345 STANDARD DEV. _ 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00007 0.00008 0.00008 0.00001 596 1 2 3 4 5 I 6 7 8 I 9 10 I 11 12 13 14 1 51.1 45.2 5.9 8.3 7.3 1.0 0.00218 0.00237 0.00227 0.00041 17,902 2 51.2 45.2 6.0 8.3 7.3 1.0 0.00217 0.00237 0.00227 0.00041 17,907 6.0 8.3 3 51.1 45.2 6.0 8.3 7.3 1.0 0.00227 0.00247 0.00237 0.00043 17,140 4 51.2 45.3 5.8 8.3 7.3 0.9 0.00216 0.00235 0.00226 0.00041 18,047 5 51.1 45.2 5.9 8.3 7.3 1.0 0.00226 0.00246 0.00236 0.00043 17,232 COLUMN AVERAGE 51.2 45.2 5.9 8.3 7.3 1.0 0.00221 0.00240 0.00231 0.00042 17,645 STANDARD DEV. 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00005 0.00006 0.00005 0.00001 425 COLUMN 4 SEQUENCE 4 Sample ID: 1 Project: B1702069 Sheet No. 2 of 7 COLUMN # SEQUENCE 5 COLUMN # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 63.5 55.7 7.8 10.3 9.0 1.3 0.00279 0.00305 0.00292 0.00053 17,171 2 63.5 56.3 7.2 10.3 9.1 1.2 0.00291 0.00319 0.00305 0.00055 16,615 6.0 10.3 3 63.3 56.4 6.9 10.3 9.1 1.1 0.00278 0.00304 0.00291 0.00053 17,403 4 63.6 56.5 7.1 10.3 9.1 1.2 0.00292 0.00319 0.00306 0.00055 16,605 5 63.4 55.7 7.7 10.3 9.0 1.3 0.00295 0.00322 0.00308 0.00056 16,264 COLUMN AVERAGE 63.5 56.1 7.3 10.3 9.1 1.2 0.00287 0.00314 0.00300 0.00054 16,812 STANDARD DEV. 0.10 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.00008 0.00008 0.00008 0.00001 464 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 13.2 11.2 1.9 2.1 1.8 0.3 0.00046 0.00056 0.00051 0.00009 19,788 2 13.2 11.2 2.0 2.1 1.8 0.3 0.00042 0.00052 0.00047 0.00009 21,408 4.0 2.1 3 13.2 11.2 2.0 2.1 1.8 0.3 0.00040 0.00051 0.00046 0.00008 22,194 4 13.2 11.3 1.9 2.1 1.8 0.3 0.00042 0.00052 0.00047 0.00009 21,464 5 13.2 11.2 2.0 2.1 1.8 0.3 0.00046 0.00057 0.00051 0.00009 19,655 COLUMN AVERAGE 13.2 11,2 2.0 2.1 1.8 0.3 0.00043 0.00054 0.00048 0.00009 20,902 STANDARD DEV. 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00002 0.00003 0.00003 0.00000 1,122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 25.6 22.3 3.4 4.2 3.6 0.5 0.00109 0.00117 0.00113 0.00020 17,677 2 25.6 22.2 3.4 4.1 3.6 0.6 0.00108 0.00116 0.00112 0.00020 17,900 4.0 4.1 3 25.6 22.5 3.1 4.2 3.6 0.5 0.00108 0.00116 0.00112 0.00020 18,068 4 25.5 22.2 3.3 4.1 3.6 0.5 0.00107 0.00115 0.00111 0.00020 18,003 5 25.6 22.5 3.1 4.1 3.6 0.5 0.00113 0.00121 0.00117 0.00021 17,291 COLUMN AVERAGE 25.6 22.3 3.3 4.1 3.6 0.5 0.00109 0.00117 0.00113 0.00020 17,788 STANDARD DEV. 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00000 315 SEQUENCE 6 COLUMN # SEQUENCE 7 Sample ID: 1 Project: B1702069 Sheet No. 3 of 7 COLUMN # SEQUENCE 8 COLUMN # SEQUENCE 9 COLUMN # SEQUENCE 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 37.7 33.4 4.3 6.1 5.4 0.7 0.00184 0.00196 0.00190 0.00034 15,850 2 37.8 33.5 4.3 6.1 5.4 0.7 0.00174 0.00186 0.00180 0.00033 16,722 4.0 6.1 3 37.7 33.6 4.1 6.1 5.4 0.7 0.00184 0.00196 0.00190 0.00034 15,865 4 37.8 33.2 4.6 6.1 5.4 0.7 0.00167 0.00178 0.00173 0.00031 17,283 5 37.8 33.8 4.1 6.1 5.5 0.7 0.00168 0.00179 0.00174 0.00031 17,479 COLUMN AVERAGE 37.8 33.5 4.3 6.1 5.4 0.7 0_00175 0.00187 0.00181 0.00033 16,640 STANDARD DEV. 0.05 0.22 0.20 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.00008 0.00009 0.00008 0.00002 766 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 49.8 44.2 5.6 8.1 7.2 0.9 0.00247 0.00261 0.00254 0.00046 15,656 2 49.9 44.3 5.6 8.1 7.2 0.9 0.00249 0.00263 0.00256 0.00046 15,588 4.0 8.1 3 50.0 44.3 5.7 8.1 7.2 0.9 0.00247 0.00261 0.00254 0.00046 15,672 4 49.9 43.9 6.0 8.1 7.1 1.0 0.00249 0.00263 0.00256 0.00046 15,404 5 49.9 44.2 5.7 8.1 7.2 0.9 0.00248 0.00262 0.00255 0.00046 15,577 COLUMN AVERAGE 49.9 44.2 5.7 8.1 7.2 0.9 0.00248 0.00262 0.00255 0.00046 15,579 STANDARD DEV. 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00001 0.00001 0.00001 0.00000 107 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 61.1 54.6 6.5 9.9 8.8 1.0 0.00320 0.00340 0.00330 0.00060 14,869 2 60.6 53.2 7.4 9.8 8.6 1.2 0.00298 0.00317 0.00308 0.00055 15,573 4.0 10.0 3 62.2 55.2 7.0 10.1 8.9 1.1 0.00317 0.00338 0.00328 0.00059 15,159 4 62.0 54.7 7.3 10.0 8.9 1.2 0.00301 0.00321 0.00311 0.00056 15,843 5 62.1 54.8 7.4 10.1 8.9 1.2 0.00331 0.00352 0.00342 0.00062 14,431 COLUMN AVERAGE 61.6 54.5 7.1 10.0 8.8 1.1 0.00314 0.00334 0.00324 0.00058 15,175 STANDARD DEV. 0.72 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.12 0.06 0.00014 0.00014 0.00014 0.00003 560 Sample ID: 1 Project: B1702069 Sheet No. 4 of 7 COLUMN # SEQUENCE 11 COLUMN # SEQUENCE 12 COLUMN # SEQUENCE 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 L 11 12 13 14 1.9 1.9 I 2 3 4 5 12.0 10.4 1.6 2.0 1.7 0.3 0.00028 0.00059 0.00043 0.00008 21,647 12.0 10.4 1.6 1.9 1.7 0.3 0.00032 0.00063 0.00047 0.00009 19,828 12.0 10.3 1.7 1.9 1.7 0.3 0.00028 0.00060 0.00044 0.00008 21,125 12.0 10.3 1.7 1.9 1.7 0.3 0.00025 0.00055 0.00040 0.00007 23,217 12.0 10.4 1.6 2.0 1.7 0.3 0.00028 0.00059 0.00044 0.00008 21,354 COLUMN AVERAGE 12.0 10.4 1.7 1.9 1.7 0.3 0.00028 0.00059 0.00044 0.00008 21,434 STANDARD DEV. 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00002 0.00003 0.00002 0.00000 1,215 1 2 3 4 5 6 L 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 24.1 21.3 2.8 3.9 3.4 0.5 0.00130 0.00137 0.00134 0.00024 14,305 2 24.0 21.3 2.7 3.9 3.5 0.4 0.00130 0.00137 0.00134 0.00024 14,336 2.0 3.9 3 24.1 21.2 2.9 3.9 3.4 0.5 0.00131 0.00138 0.00134 0.00024 14,185 4 24.1 21.2 2.9 3.9 3.4 0.5 0.00131 0.00138 0.00134 0.00024 14,196 5 24.0 21.2 2.8 3.9 3.4 0.4 0.00119 0.00126 0.00123 0.00022 15,568 COLUMN AVERAGE 24.1 21.2 2.8 3.9 3.4 0.5 0.00128 0.00135 0.00132 0.00024 14,518 STANDARD DEV. 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005 0.00001 591 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 11 12 13 14 1 35.9 32.2 3.8 5.8 5.2 0.6 0.00212 0.00223 0.00217 0.00039 13,293 2 35.9 31.9 4.0 5.8 5.2 0.7 0.00204 0.00214 0.00218 0.00038 13,745 2.0 5.8 3 35.9 32.3 3.6 5.8 5.2 0.6 0.00213 0.00224 0.00218 0.00039 13,317 4 36.0 32.3 3.7 5.8 5.2 0.6 0.00213 0.00224 0.00218 0.00039 13,323 5 35.9 32.0 3.9 5.8 5.2 0.6 0.00203 0.00214 0.00209 0.00038 13,800 COLUMN AVERAGE 35.9 32.1 3.8 5.8 5.2 0.6 0.00209 0.00220 0.00216 0.00039 13,496 STANDARD DEV. 0.04 0.18 0.16 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00005 0.00005 0.00004 0.00001 254 Sample ID: 1 Project: B1702069 Sheet No. 5 of 7 1) C014 IMN 50Q1IENCE 14 COLA WIN if SEQUENCE: 15 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2 0 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 48 1 40 2 - 8 7 8 6 5 1 3 0 00287 0 00301 0 00294 0 00053 12,301 48 0 41 5 6 5 7 8 6.7 1 1 0.00287 0.00300 0 00293 0.00053 12,736 48 I 41 4 6 7 7 8 6 7 1 1 0 00300 0 00314 (I 00307 0 00055 12,111 48 0 39 9 8.1 7 8 6 5 1.3 0 00286 0 00299 0 00293 0 00053 12,280 48 I 41 3 6.8 7 8 6.7 I I 0 00300 0 00314 0300307 0 00055 12,089 C01.1 WIN AVERAGE 48 0 40 9 7.2 7.8 6 6 1 2 0 00292 0 00305 0 00299 0310054 12,307 STANDARD DIN 0 03 0 72 0 72 0 01 0 12 0 12 0 00007 0 00008 0 00007 0 00001 257 1 2 - 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 1 60 3 50 9 9 4 9 8 8 2 1 5 0 00352 0 00369 0 00361 0 00065 12,699 2 60 2 51 I 9 2 9 8 8 3 1 5 0 00351 0 00367 0.00359 0.00065 12,792 2 0 0 8 3 60 3 51 0 5 4 9 8 8 4 1 4 0 00352 0 00369 0 00361 0 00065 12.940 4 60 2 52 4 7.8 9 8 S 5 3 0 00384 0 00402 (100393 0 00071 11.985 5 60 3 52 I 8.2 9 8 8 5 1 .3 0 00369 0 00387 0 00378 0 00068 12,409 COLUMN AVERAGE 60.2 51 7 8.6 9.8 8 4 14 0 00362 0 00379 0 00370 0 00067 12,565 STANDARD DEN 0 04 0 67 0 67 0 01 0 1 1 0 11 0 00014 0.00015 0 00015 0 00003 378 Sample II) I riThect 181702060 Sheet No 6 47 br ( J. Knudson Laboratory Technician Quick Shear Confining Pressure 4 PSI Peak Shear Stress (psi) = 45.3 50.00 45.00 6 Fil•—• -------...„.........„,......... 40.00 35 00 30.00 25.00 tu s. (7) 20.00 15.00 -- 10.00 5.00 0.00 0 2 3 4 5 °A) Strain Sample ID: 1 Project: B1702069 Sheet No. 7 of 7 Universal Model Calculations - US Customary Units Braun Sample ID: 1 Project: B1702069 Station: TP-7 Seq. Conf. psi Axial Stress psi Bulk psi Deviator psi Mr psi Pred. Mr psi Ln(Mr) Ln(Bulk) Ln(Dev) 1 6.0 2.3 20.3 1.9 20,456 23,592 9.926 3.011 0.650 2 6.0 4.3 22.3 3.7 19,870 19,613 9.897 3.104 1.307 3 6.0 6.2 24.2 5.4 18,345 17,768 9.817 3.187 1.692 4 6.0 8.3 26.3 7.3 17,645 16,552 9.778 3.269 1.992 5 6.0 10.3 28.3 9.1 16,812 15,799 9.730 3.342 2.208 6 4.0 2.1 14.1 1.8 20,902 21,278 9.948 2.649 0.598 7 4.0 4.1 16.1 3.6 17,788 17,740 9.786 2.782 1.287 8 4.0 6.1 18.1 5.4 16,640 16,138 9.720 2.897 1.692 9 4.0 8.1 20.1 7.2 15,579 15,250 9.654 3.000 1.969 10 4.0 10.0 22.0 8.8 15,175 14,667 9.627 3.090 2.178 11 1.9 1.9 7.7 1.7 21,434 17,875 9.973 2.047 0.519 12 2.0 3.9 9.9 3.4 14,518 15,326 9.583 2.293 1.236 13 2.0 5.8 11.8 5.2 13,496 14,194 9.510 2.470 1.650 14 2.0 7.8 13.8 6.6 12,307 13,802 9.418 2.623 1.890 15 2.0 9.8 15.8 8.4 12,565 13,363 9.439 2.758 2.125 Universal Model Calculations - US Customary Units Braun Sample ID: 1 Station: TP-7 SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error Observations 0.897916763 0.806254513 0.773963599 0.085509723 15 ANOVA ax5 Value t-Stat kl k2 k3 10724.224 0.332780325 -0.328339683 51.11372 4.526286657 -7.010227266 R-sqr Adj. 0.7739636 Std Err 0.0855097 or 8.93% df SS MS F Significance F Regression Residual Total 2 0.365134451 0.1825672 24.968463 5.28919E-05 12 0.087742953 0.0073119 14 0.452877404 Project: B1702069 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% 9.28026037 0.332780325 -0.32833968 Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% Intercept X Variable 1 X Variable 2 0.181561043 51.11372 2.065E-15 0.073521708 4.5262867 0.0006942 0.046837238 -7.010227 1.414E-05 8.884672839 0.172590285 -0.430389258 9.675847901 0.492970365 -0.226290108 8.884672839 9.675847901 0.172590285 0.492970365 -0.430389258 -0.226290108 Universal Model Graph - US Customary Units Braun Sample ID: 1 Station: TP-7 Project: B1702069 26,000 24,000 22,000 20,000 18,000 ▪ 16,000 o. 14,000 • 12,000 ° 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1 0 -------------1 ---------'• —0-6 psi —1111--4 psi —A— 2 psi 0 Predicted 6 psi 0 Predicted 4 psi — Predicted 2 psi ---i • 0 n A A 0 2 3 4 5 6 Deviator Stress, psi 7 8 9 10 0. 0 U)CD U 0 Zt- 0 7.4 I- CD CD z < 0_ I .7tC— cs, 0_ in 0 0 (.0 0 0 0 U) r Z, I 0 CD U) c=5 0 IPE Inland 3012 Spokane Telephone: Fax: 509-290-5734 Pacific Engineering North Sullivan Road, \ , VA 509-209-6262 99216 Valley. Company Suite C PROJECT PROJECT MOISTURE NAME LOCATION Proposed -DENSITY RELATIONSHIP Street Improvements CLIENT PROJECT NAI Black NUMBER 16-249D Spokane Valleys WA DRY DENSITY, pcf V 00 00 CO CO CD 0 _. __.a N.3 N.) 0..) 01 CD 01 0 01 CD (J1 CD 01 0 01 CD Vi .—, 1 \ \ Sample Description Test Method ID of Material Maximum Optimum TEST Dry Water ATTERBERG LL Curves for TP-7 \ \ \ \ \ SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) ASTM D1557 Method A RESULTS Density Specific Content of 100% Gravity LIMITS PL 110.2 PCF 14.3 % \ PI \ i i \ R \ Saturation Equal to: 2.80 2.70 2.60 \ \ _I I I I 5 10 15 20 25 WATER CONTENT. % 30 35 40 45 REPORT 9 Full-Scale Drywell Testing, dated June 28, 2016 IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting August 22. 2017 Project No. 16-249A NAI Black c/o Mr. Bryan Walker 107 South Howard Suite 500 Spokane, WA 99201 Re: Addendum to Full-Scale Drywell Testing Proposed Stormwater Management Facility 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road Spokane Valley, WA Dear Mr. Walker: As you authorized, we have completed a full-scale drywell test on the diywell installed at the above-referenced site in Spokane Valley, Washington. The purpose of the testing was to establish a design flow rate. This addendum provides our recommendations for a design infiltration rate for proposed gravel galleries between the drywells. AVAILABLE INFORMATION We were provided a topographic survey for the project site by Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. (WCE). This topographic survey showed the existing roadways. existing structures, property lines, and existing ground surface elevation contours. This plan was prepared by WCE and was dated November 7, 2013. The site was used as a golf course prior to our evaluation. The site is relatively level with some elevated golf greens and excavated areas for water hazards. The site is primarily grass-covered with scattered trees along the fairways and pine trees in the undeveloped area to the northwest. The clubhouse building is present at the southwest corner. In addition, we performed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the property in December 2013. The results of that evaluation. along with our opinions and recommendations. are summarized in our Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation dated December 31, 2013. P.O. Box 1566, Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-209-6262 Addendum to Full-Scale Drywell Testing Painted Hills Golf Course Spokane Valley, WA Inland Pacific Engineering Company Project No. 16-249A 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road August 22, 2017 Page 2 We also performed a geotechnical evaluation for certification of the existing levee along Chester Creek in April 2014. The results of that evaluation are summarized in our Geotechnical Evaluation report dated February 12, 2015. Lastly, we performed a geotechnical evaluation in July 2015 consisting of ten 50-foot borings in the south half of the property. The results of that evaluation are summarized in our Geotechnical Evaluation Phase 2 report dated July 23, 2015. FIELD EVALUATION A geotechnical engineer from Inland Pacific Engineering Company (IPEC) performed a full-scale drywell test on the Type 2 drywell (double depth) on May 6, 2016. The drywell test was performed in accordance with the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual, Appendix 4B procedures. The drywell was installed at the location shown on Figure 3 (attached). ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We calculated a design outflow rate for the existing drywell to be 1.05 cfs for design. This recommended design outflow rate included a safety factor of 1.1 as required by the SRSM. Using this design outflow rate and assuming a typical infiltration area of 600 square feet for a Type 2 drywell, we recommend using a design infiltration rate of 1.8 x 10-3 cubic feet per second per square foot (cfs/ft). This recommended infiltration rate also includes a safety factor of 1.1. REMARKS This report is for the exclusive use of the addressee and the copied parties to use in design of the proposed project and to prepare construction documents. In the absence of our written approval, we make no representations and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. The data, analyses, and recommendations may not be appropriate for other structures or purposes. We recommend that parties contemplating other structures or purposes contact us. Services performed by the geotechnical engineers for this project have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar budget and time restraints. No warranty, expressed or implied, is intended or made. Addendum to Full-Scale Drywell Testing Painted Hills Golf Course Spokane Valley, WA Inland Pacific Engineering Company GENERAL REMARKS Project No. 16-249A 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road August 22, 2017 Page 3 It has been a pleasure being of service to you for this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at (509) 209-6262 at your convenience. Sincerely, Inland Pacific Engineering Company Paul T. Nelson, P.E. Principal Engineer J ETt;;-. WAS; + °. JET NFL 111 <1/4's, 37228 m 6b/s-reccc-,&C, u/ON At- - IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting June 28. 2016 Project No, 16-249A NAI Black c/o Mr. Bryan Walker 107 South Howard Suite 500 Spokane, WA 99201 Re: Full-Scale Drywell Testing Proposed Stormwater Management Facility 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road Spokane Valley, WA Dear Mr. Walker: As you authorized, we have completed a full-scale drywell test on the drywell installed at the above-referenced site in Spokane Valley, Washington. The purpose of the testing was to establish a design flow rate. This report summarizes the results of our site investigation, engineering analyses and recommendations. AVAILABLE INFORMATION We were provided a topographic survey for the project site by Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. (WCE). This topographic survey showed the existing roadways, existing structures, property lines, and existing ground surface elevation contours. This plan was prepared by WCE and was dated November 7, 2013. The site was used as a golf course prior to our evaluation. The site is relatively level with some elevated golf greens and excavated areas for water hazards. The site is primarily grass-covered with scattered trees along the fairways and pine trees in the undeveloped area to the northwest. The clubhouse building is present at the southwest corner. In addition, we performed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the property in December 2013. The results of that evaluation, along with our opinions and recommendations, are summarized in our Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation dated December 31. 2013. P.O. Box 1566, Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-209-6262 Full-Scale Drywell Testing Painted Hills Golf Course Spokane Valley, WA Inland Pacific Engineering Company Project No. 16-249A 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road June 28, 2016 Page 2 We also performed a geotechnical evaluation for certification of the existing levee along Chester Creek in April 2014. The results of that evaluation are summarized in our Geotechnical Evaluation report dated February 12, 2015. Lastly, we performed a geotechnical evaluation in July 2015 consisting of ten 50-foot borings in the south half of the property. The results of that evaluation are summarized in our Geotechnical Evaluation Phase 2 report dated July 23, 2015. FIELD EVALUATION A geotechnical engineer from Inland Pacific Engineering Company (IPEC) performed a full-scale drywell test on the Type 2 drywell on May 6, 2016. The drywell test was performed in accordance with the Spokane Regional Stonnwater Manual, Appendix 4B procedures. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We calculated a design outflow rate for the existing drywell using the results of the recent and previous laboratory tests and the procedures described in the SRSM manual, Appendix 4B (Full- Scale Drywell Test Method). Based on the test performed, we recommend using a design flow rate of 1.05 cfs for design. This recommended design outflow rate includes a safety factor of 1.1 as required by the SRSM. REMARKS This report is for the exclusive use of the addressee and the copied parties to use in design of the proposed project and to prepare construction documents. In the absence of our written approval, we make no representations and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. The data, analyses, and recommendations may not be appropriate for other structures or purposes. We recommend that parties contemplating other structures or purposes contact us. Services performed by the geotechnical engineers for this project have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar budget and time restraints. No warranty, expressed or implied, is intended or made. Full-Scale Drywell Testing Painted Hills Golf Course Spokane Valley, WA Inland Pacific Engineering Company GENERAL REMARKS Project No. 16-249A 4403 South Dishman-Mica Road June 28, 2016 Page 3 It has been a pleasure being of service to you for this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at (509) 209-6262 at your convenience. Sincerely, Inland Pacific Engineering Company Paul T. Nelson, P.E. Principal Engineer Attachments: Figure 1, Site Location Map Figure 2, MRCS Map Laboratory Test Results Full-Scale Drywell Test Results NS\' NE( '90 wAs , A As<0 -V 0,0, w Zct LU ILI '<k-53.e7/40-(33N17S22:1-'74Q *,\