The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 10/11/2012 �C1TY�� Vall�+ x � Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. October 11, 2012 6:00 p.m. L CALL TO ORDER IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IIL ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 27, 2012 VL PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda VIL COMMISSION REPORTS VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS L UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a. Deliberations Shoreline Master Program— Shoreline Environmental Designations 2. NEW BUSINESS: a. Public Hearing - CTA-03-12 Proposed Amendments to SVMC regarding multifamily next to single family developments b. Study Session— Shoreline Master Program—Shoreline Restoration Program. X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XL ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF BILL BATES-CHAIR JOHN HOHMAN,CD DIRECTOR FRED BEAULAC SCOTT KUHTA,PLANNING MGR,AICP JOHN G. CARROLL RusTiN HaLL RoD HIGGINs STEVEN NEILL DEANNA GRIPFITH,SECRETARY JOE STOY-VICE CHAIR WWW.SPOKANEVALLEY.ORG Spokane Valley Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. September 27, 2012 L CALL TO ORDER Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance IIL ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF Bill Bates -Chair Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager John G. Carroll Cary Driskell, Ciry Attorney Rustin Hall Lori Barlow, Sr.Planner Rod Higgins Steven Neill � �'� Fred Beaulac Joe Stoy—Vice Chair Deanna Griffith, Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Higgins made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Stoy made a motion to approve the amended September 13, 2012 minutes as provided. This motion was passed unanimously. VL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VIL COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Bates reported he had met with Mr. Kuhta the Monday prior to this meeting, which he does prior to every meeting. Mr. Bates said staff will work to arrange the public hearing for a subject closer to the study session whenever possible. VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager Kuhta reported the Ciry Council had adopted the changes to the Permitted Use Matrix. He said on Oct. 2, 2012 staff will be discussing the Comprehensive Plan docket Planning Commission Minutes 09-27-12 Page 1 of 7 for the upcoming year with the City Council. Mr. Kuhta also reminded the Commissioners about the Planning Short Course which is being offered by the Dept. of Commerce and the Planning Association of Washington on October 5, 2012. The Commissioners were reminded to register if they were interested in training. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: There was no unfinished business B. New Business: Public Hearing on the Draft Shoreline Environmental Designations Report and Map. Chairman Bates opened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. Commissioner Stoy read the rules of a public hearing for those in attendance. Sr. Planner Lori Barlow began with a presentation regarding the updated shoreline designations. Ms. Barlow said the shoreline designation map had also been updated. Ms. Barlow informed the Commission that on September 20, 2012 the City had held an Open House to discuss the Shoreline Designations with the public and had mailed notices to properties within the shoreline jurisdiction. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners the Environmental Designations are classifications of shoreline areas that reflect local shoreline conditions, including ecological functions and shoreline development. These environmental designations provide the framework for implementing shoreline policies and regulations. The Environmental Designations are also a requirement of the SMP. Ms. Barlow then turned to the Environment Designation Map. She explained an alternate designation map with two shoreline residential designations and an aquatic environmental, waterward of the OHWM. She explained at the study session, there had been three designations on the map, Shoreline Residential (SR), Urban Conservancy (UC), and Urban Conservancy — High Quality (UC- HQ). She then talked about the comments which had been received since the study session. Ms. Barlow said the Designation Map and the Draft Environmental Designations report was sent to the technical review group. Ms. Barlow said the Ciry had received three comments, one from the Department of Ecology, from Avista and the Coeur d'Alene Tribe. The comments from DOE said they would like to see the Urban Conservancy designation applied to public land utilizing a parallel designation, add an Aquatic Designation and modify the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Trailside Development Area (near Coyote Rock Development). Avista's comments asked to have the maintenance in the Urban Conservancy — High Qualiry area clarified. Avista has a transmission line in a UC- HQ area and are concerned about being able to maintain that line. The Coeur d'Alene Tribe did comment, however there were no technical requests made. Ms. Barlow explained to the Commission the suggested changes staff had made to the Draft Environmental Designations Report and Map since the study session. Staff had added three new designations: Shoreline Residential—Upland(which is property separated from the water by public lands, areas like Greenacres and Shelley Lake), Shoreline Residential — Waterfront (which would be property which has access to the water, areas like Orchard Ave and Coyote Rock) and Aquatic. Planning Commission Minutes 09-27-12 Page 2 of 7 Staff also added clarifying language for the Urban Conservancy — High Quality which clarifies Avista's maintenance issues, also added descriptive language to further define why areas were identi�ed as conservation in the report. DOE requested the City separate out the publicly owned land from the privately owned land and divide the designations, which resulted in the Urban Conservancy and Urban Conservancy—High Quality. The Map has been modified to show the Mirabeau Trailhead as UC,it was formerly marked as UC- HQ. Also, the area west of Barker Rd and south of the railroad right-of-way was looked at again and staff feels this area meets the criteria for UC not UGHQ. Ms. Barlow explained the likelihood of development in this area would be minimal because the area is mostly publicly owned lands. The designation of Aquatic lands has also been added. This would be land waterward of the OHWM. This designation is set to protect, restore, and manage the unique characteristics and resources of the area waterward of the OHWM. The last change staff is proposing is DOE has requested to change the OHWM in the area known as Trailside � Development, which is near Coyote Rock Ms. Barlow stated DOE had been in this area on review recently, pertaining to another matter, and had made a determination the OHWM was actually in the location shown on the new map. DOE would like the OHWM in this area changed to reflect their determination. Ms. Barlow reported the draft report and map were sent to our outside legal counsel and Mr. Kisielius has reviewed it and found nothing of no�e or objection in either. Ms. Barlow also stated staff had received comments from Futurewise but had not had an opportuniry to completely review. However, she did a cursory review and she does not feel there was anything of significant changes being requested. She did offer to send the letter to Mr. Kisielius for legal evaluation. Commissioner Neill had a question regarding the aquatic designation, specifically the statement of only allowing overwater structures only for water dependent uses, single family residential docks, public access or ecological restoration. His asked if this would affect multifamily developments. Ms. Barlow answered yes, if one looked at the goals and policies they have established the City would not allow any over the water structures uses. She commented there would be some allowances for an overhang, or a family dock for a single family structure but otherwise no over water structure would be allowed. Commissioner Carroll referred to a comment in staff's memo which suggested UC — HQ, partly failed to meet the criteria for the Natural designation and he wanted to know what they were. Ms. Barlow replied the UC-HQ is very similar to the Natural designation, but staff felt it did not apply in our circumstance. This is mainly because, due to development along the shoreline, the City cannot not say those areas are mostly intact. Staff felt those areas had been impac�ed along the shoreline and would continue to be impacted by uses like the Centennial Trail and Kaiser. Commissioner Carroll wanted to know what the difference between UC-HQ and UC. Ms. Barlow answered UC-HQ is intended to protect those areas which are mostly intact except in very rare cases, like public access type uses. UC acknowledges there are some areas which have ecological functions which should be protected while allowing some compatible uses. UC designation actually acknowledges there will be some compatible development within that area. The designation also notes that these are prime spots for restoration. Mr. Carroll wanted to know how close in comparison the UC-HQ was to the Natural designation. Ms. Barlow responded it was very close to the Natural designation. The Ciry Planning Commission Minutes 09-27-12 Page 3 of 7 maintains it does not have areas of the shoreline were the ecological function has not been impacted. The Ciry does have some high qualiry areas, but some areas are already impacted, with uses like the Centennial Trail, but the Trail could need maintenance or might need to be expanded in some areas. The City has modified the Natural designation to reflect our circumstances. The City maintained a lot of the criteria within the Natural Designation. Modifications of the designations are allowed within the WAC, but must be consistent within the WAC and SMA. Commissioner Bates asked what other limited, low impact public uses would be allowed in this designation. It was the City's intention to restrict it to those very specific uses (the Centennial Trail, public access and maintenance for Avista utility corridors). The Ciry acknowledges with this plan the Trail is a huge asset. Staff wanted to create a designation to protect connections to it and to allow maintenance and did not want to create a barrier to it. This is the plan's most protected designation. Commissioner Bates had another question regarding the report. He said on Page 3, item C, in UC-HQ, it reports "single family residential shall be allowed within this environment if the density and intensity of such use is limited." Mr. Bates wanted to clarify such a use would be allowed in this area where the ecological function would be so highly protected. Ms. Barlow respond a single family residence is a preferred use in the designation, and all designations. Ms. Barlow also invited Mr. John Patrouch to assist in answering questions for the commissioners. Mr. Patrouch, a consultan� with the URS Corporation, is assisting in the drafting and writing of the Shoreline Master Program for the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Patrouch, stated he would offer a few answers: Single family residential is in state law, these uses preempt just about everything else. URS does not see any development of this kind happening along the shoreline in HQ areas. Mr. Patrouch said he felt Ms. Barlow had explained the designations well about the HQ areas. Mr. Patrouch said one challenge staff faced was to designate on a map areas which look very good, which had high ecological value, but needed to be noted on the map. Mr. Patrouch said he felt these areas do not need a Natural designation but are very close and the City did want them protected. The Commissioners had no other questions so they began taking public testimony. Kitty Klitzke, Spokane Program Director, Futurewise, 35 W Main St.: Ms. Klitzke represents Riverkeepers, Spokane Lands Council and Futurewise. Ms. Klitzke stated her organizations strongly support the update of the SMP and the updated designations. Her groups would like to make a couple of requests as follows: Please change the reference to no net loss from a goal to a requirement. Please see Proposed Shoreline Environmental Designations p. 1 First Paragraph as such: This is necessary so that shoreline development will reasonably protect existing uses and � shoreline character so that th�e statewide �requirement for `No Net Loss" of shoreline ecological functions is achieved. Please change the UC-HQ designation to Natural. The groups feel this is more purposeful and still applies to the areas designated as such. Although the groups support the UC-HQ designation, they remember Spokane Counry had started with this designation as well but concerns were raised as to what would be allowed in these areas. Planning Commission Minutes 09-27-12 Page 4 of 7 Please modify the designation SR-W purpose so it is more consistent with the purpose � statement from the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) guidelines. Ms. Klitzke stated this purpose statement provides that the "purpose of the `shoreline residential' environment is to accommodate residential development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with this chapter." The proposed SR—WE purpose does not include the concept of being consistent with the Shoreline Management Act. Purpose The purpose of the "shoreline residential-waterf�'ont" environment is to accommodate residential uses on lots within existin,g residential areas where the lot is � immediatel�diacent to the shoreline'^�„� �';��' ��°° *^ �'^� ,.,^*��consistent with the Shoreline Management Act. Please modify the SR-U purpose so it is more consistent with the purpose statement from the SMP guidelines. Like the SR-W, the SR-U purpose tracks the purpose statement from WAC well but does not include the concept of being "consistent with the Shoreline Management Act." Purpose The purpose of the "shoreline residential-upland" environment is to accommodate residential uses within existin� residential areas that are separated from the shoreline bv other properties consistent with the Shoreline Mana�ement Act. Please include the full range of management policies from WAC 173-26-2ll(5)(c)(ii) of the SMP Guidelines in the Aquatic Shoreline Environment. Ms. Klitzke said her groups support including an Aquatic environment. Such an environment allows the policies applicable to open water areas to be customized for the circumstances of the Spokane River and Shelley Lalce. However, the proposed aquatic environment designation omits several management policies required by the WAC and her groups are recommending they be added in. (ii) Management policies. (A)Allow new over-water structures only for water-dependent uses, public access, or ecological restoration. (B)The size of new over-water structures should be limited to the minimum necessary to support the structure's intended use. (C)In order to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective use of water resources, multiple use of over-water facilities should be encouraged. (D)All developments and uses on navigable waters or their beds should be located and designed to minimize interference with surface navigation, to consider impacts to public views, and to allow for the safe, unobstructed passage of fish and wildlife, particularly those species dependent on migration. (E)Uses that adversely impact the ecological functions of critical saltwater and freshwater habitats should not be allowed except where necessary to achieve the objectives of RCW 90.58.020, and then only when their impacts are mitigated according to the sequence described in WAC 173- 26-201(2)(e) as necessary to assure no net loss of ecological functions. Planning Commission Minutes 09-27-12 Page 5 of 7 (F) Shoreline uses and modifications should be designed and managed to prevent degradation of water qualiry and alteration of natural hydrographic conditions. (G) Local governments should reserve shoreline space for shoreline preferred uses. Such planning should consider upland and in-water uses, water quality, navigation, presence of aquatic vegetation, existing shellfish protection districts and critical habitats, aesthetics, public access and views. Ms. Klitzke also said her groups support the Alternate Draft Environment Designation Map with improvements because it better fits the City of Spokane Valley and the Shoreline Management Act. The Alternative Draft Map also included recommendations for Aquatic environments and for the use of parallel environment designations of Urban Conservancy for the state parks property along the river and Shoreline Residential for the upland residential areas. Her groups believe these suggestions also fit the needs of the City of Spokane Valley and the shorelines environment. Ms. Klitzke recommends the Mirabeau Trailhead retain its proposed UC-HQ designation. • The area has important vegetation that needs �o be protected to provide for no net loss of shoreline functions. • It is a low intensity water-oriented recreational is allowed in this environment both by the SMP Guidelines and UC-HQ designation. This is the rype of recreation that occurs at the Mirabeau Trailhead. Lastly Ms. Klitzke said her groups also recommend that the area downstream from Barlcer, adjacent to the railroad tracics, retain its proposed UC-HQ designation. The area has important vegetation that needs to be protected to provide for no net loss of shoreline functions. The old concrete structures associated with the past railroad do not disqualify the area for UC-HQ, rather it is the existing ecologically intact shorelines that qualify it for the UC-HQ designation. Seeing no one else who wished to testify, Chairman Bates closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Neill moved to accept the Shoreline Designations as proposed. Commissioner Bates stated staff had done a great job of amending the draft report and map based on what he had heard through the presentation. He also commented that having the special council make no objection to anything at this point indicated a lot to him. However, after discussion among the Commissioners there was consensus to send the Futurewise letter to Mr. Kisielius for his consideration and possible comment before continuing deliberations. Commissioner Bates asked Ms. Barlow about the comments from Avista regarding the maintenance, and her reply was she felt it had been addressed through other intents. She also stated the City has been conscious of Avista's concerns and have tried to address them whenever they have arisen. Planning Commission Minutes 09-27-12 Page 6 of 7 Commission agreed to accept written testimony until close of business on October 4, 2012. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order. XL ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:19 p.m. Bill Bates, Chairperson � Deanna Griffith, PC Secretary � � _ .M�. Date signed Planning Commission Minutes 09-27-12 Page 7 of 7 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: October ll, 2012 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business � public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-03-12 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing — Amendment to Chapter 19, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A city initiated text amendment proposing to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code sections 19.40.070, 19.40.080, 19.60.070 and 19.60.080 to include standards for multi-family development when it is adjacent to single-family development. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A106; SVMC 17.80150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Planning Commission conducted a study session on September 13, 2012. BACKGROUND: The City has processed a number of contentious,privately initiated, site-specific map amendments through the Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA)process. As a result, staff has researched changes to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to mitigate the impacts of multifamily development when it is adj acent to single-family development. NOTICE: Notice for the proposed amendment to SVMC was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on September 21, 2012. Notice for the proposed amendment was provided consistent with applicable provisions of SVMC 17.80.150D. APPROVAL CRITERIA: SVMC 17.80150(F)provides approval criteria for text amendments to the SVMC. The criterion stipulates that the proposed amendment(s)must be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. OPTIONS: Planning Commission may recommend approval as presented, recommend approval with modifications,recommend the proposal not be adopted, or forward no recommendation to City Council. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Staff report Page 1 of 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT S`nO�nQ PLANNING DIVISION �r �7 V[`L�lE.'�� STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: August 30, 2012 HEAx�1vG DATE A1vn LocAT�o1v: October ll, 2012, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, ll707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. FILE NUMBER: CTA-03-12 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The City has processed a number Figure 1 of contentious, privately initiated, site-specific map �� , amendments through the Annual Comprehensive Plan i - , Amendment (CPA) process. As a result, staff has researched i _ changes to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to mitigate the i , impacts of multifamily development when it is adjacent to ! single-family development. The proposal is to establish a � � �� ! � relational height limit to single residential use or zone. Where � � i new multifamily development is abutting an adjacent parcel i � - with a single-family use or zone the minimum setback will be � 10 feet from the property line and a 1 to 1 height-to-setback i ratio will be established(see Figure 1). �! A city initiated text amendment proposing to amend Spokane � ° � Valley Municipal Code sections 19.40.070, 19.40.080, 19.60.070 and 19.60.080 to include standards for multi-family development when it is adjacent to single- family development. APPL�cANT(s): City of Spokane Valley APPxovAL C�TE�A: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions. STAFF PLANNER Mike Basinger, AICP, Senior Planner, Community Development Department REVIEwED BY: Scott Kuhta, AICP,Planning Manager, Community Development Department A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPL�cAT�o1v PxocESS�1vG: SVMC 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures. The following summarizes application procedures for the proposal. Process Date Published Notice of Public Hearing: September 21, 2012 Posted Notice at City Hall and Main Library Branch: September 21, 2012 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-03-12 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150F Approval Criteria a. The proposed privately initiated text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Finding(s): i. Goal LUG-1: Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. ii. Policy LUP-11: Maintain and protect the character of e�sting and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. iii. Policy LUP-1.2: Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non-residential uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. iv. Policy LUP-13: Review and revise as necessary, existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units and in-fill development. v. Policy LUP-2.4: Residential development should be designed to provide privacy and common open space. Open space areas shall be proportionate to the size of the residential development. vi. Policy HP-13: Establish development regulations and incentives for greater diversity of housing types, costs and designs, that may include bonus incentives, clustering, and transfer of development rights. b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment Finding(s): i. The proposed text amendment will assist in mitigating the impacts to single-family residential development when it is adjacent to new multifamily development. ii. The public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment are furthered by ensuring that the City's development regulations are consistent with goals and policies in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 2. Conclusion(s): a. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria contained in the SVMC 17.80150F. b. The Growth Management Act(GMA) stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. C. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Finding(s): a. No public comments have been received to date. Page 2 of 3 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-03-12 2. Conclusion(s): a. Adequate public noticing was conducted for CTA-03-12 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. D. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Finding(s): a. No agency comments have been received to date. 2. Conclusion(s): a. No concerns are noted. E. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed text amendment is consistent with Chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act) and City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends the proposed code text amendment to mitigate the impacts to single-family residential development when it is adj acent to new multi-family development. G. RECOMMENDED MOTION I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of CTA-03-12 to mitigate the impacts to single-family residential development when it is adjacent to new multifamily development, to the City Council. H. ATTACHMENTS Proposed Text Amendment Page 3 of 3 19.40.070 MF-1—Medium Density Multifamily Residential district. A. The Medium Density Multifamily Residential (MF-1) designation represents an opportunity to provide a range of housing types to accommodate anticipated residential growth.The increase in population, decline in average family size, and increased cost of single-family homes have created increased demand for new housing types. Multifamily residential zones with densities not to exceed 12 units per acre should be used as transitional zoning between higher intensity land uses such as commercial and office to lower density single-family neighborhoods. Additionally, medium density residential areas should be located near services and high capacity transit facilities or transit routes. (Ord. 07- 015 §4, 2007). B. Supplemental Permitted Use Re�ulations 1. Multifamily adiacent to Sin�le-Family Residential uses or zonin� a. A relational hei�ht limit to sin�le residential uses or zone is established (see Fi�ure 1) i. Where new multifamily development is abuttin�an adiacent parcel with a sin�le-family use or zone, the hei�ht of the new multifamily development may not increase by more than 45 de�rees when measured from the an�le that ori�inates at 15 feet above the applicable property line (creatin�a 1 to 1 hei�ht-to-setback ratio)to the abuttin�sin�le- family use or zone. b. The minimum setback from a sin�le-family use or zone shall be 10 feet from property line. 19.40.080 MF-2—High Density Multifamily Residential district. A. The High Density Multifamily Residential (MF-2) designation represents an opportunity to provide a range of housing types to accommodate anticipated residential growth with densities not to exceed 22 units per acre. Multifamily residential zones should be used as transitional zoning between higher intensity land uses, such as commercial and office, to medium and lower density single-family neighborhoods. High density residential areas should be located near services and high capacity transit facilities or transit routes. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). B. Supplemental Permitted Use Re�ulations 1. Multifamily adiacent to Sin�le-Family Residential uses or zonin� a. A relational hei�ht limit to sin�le residential uses or zone is established (see Fi�ure 1) i. Where new multifamily development is abuttin�an adiacent parcel with a sin�le-family use or zone, the hei�ht of the new multifamily development may not increase by more than 45 de�rees when measured from the an�le that ori�inates at 15 feet above the applicable property line (creatin�a 1 to 1 hei�ht-to-setback ratio)to the abuttin�sin�le- family use or zone. b. The minimum setback from a sin�le-family use or zone shall be 10 feet from property line. 19.60.070 MUC, Mixed Use Center district. A. The Mixed Use Center designation allows two or more uses on a site that can either be vertically or horizontally mixed and includes employment, lodging, and retail along with higher density residential uses. B. Supplemental Permitted Use Regulations. 1. The outdoor storage provisions contained in SVMC 19.60.050(B)(3) shall apply to the MUC district. 2. Front and flanking street yard setbacks shall be 20 feet, except as otherwise provided. 3. Projects with residential components shall provide 210 square feet of open space per dwelling unit conforming to the requirements of SVMC 19.40.020(E) and eligible for reduction for improvements on the same basis; provided, that: a. The requirement does not apply to the development of less than 10 new dwelling units; and b. Additional open space is not required for residential development located within 1,300 feet of a public park. A fee in lieu of land dedication may be assessed for the development of public parks and open spaces to meet the needs of the residents of this district.This assessment will be determined by the council and reviewed on an annual basis. 4. Indoor kennels, doggie day care facilities and kennels associated with veterinarian clinics; provided, that: a. There are no outside runs or areas; b. The structure(s) housing animals is adequately soundproof to meet the requirements of Chapter 173-060 WAC; c. One parking stall provided for every 10 animal confinement areas; and d. Compliance with noise standards for a commercial noise source as identified by WAC 173- 60-040 has been demonstrated by the applicant. (Ord. 08-002 § 1, 2008; Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 5. Multifamily adiacent to Sin�le-Family Residential uses or zonin� a. A relational hei�ht limit to sin�le residential uses or zone is established (see Fi�ure 1) i. Where new multifamily development is abuttin� an adiacent parcel with a sin�le-family use or zone, the hei�ht of the new multifamily development may not increase by more than 45 de�rees when measured from the an�le that ori�inates at 15 feet above the applicable property line (creatin�a 1 to 1 hei�ht-to-setback ratio) to the abuttin� sin�le-family use or zone. b. The minimum setback from a sin�le-familv use or zone shall be 10 feet from propertv line. 19.60.080 CMU, Corridor Mixed Use district. A. The Mixed Use Center designation allows two or more uses on a site that can either be vertically or horizontally mixed and includes employment, lodging, and retail along with higher density residential uses. B. Supplemental Permitted Use Regulations. 1. The outdoor storage provisions contained in SVMC 19.60.050(B)(3) shall apply to the MUC district. 2. Front and flanking street yard setbacks shall be 20 feet, except as otherwise provided. 3. Projects with residential components shall provide 210 square feet of open space per dwelling unit conforming to the requirements of SVMC 19.40.020(E) and eligible for reduction for improvements on the same basis; provided, that: a. The requirement does not apply to the development of less than 10 new dwelling units; and b. Additional open space is not required for residential development located within 1,300 feet of a public park. A fee in lieu of land dedication may be assessed for the development of public parks and open spaces to meet the needs of the residents of this district. This assessment will be determined by the council and reviewed on an annual basis. 4. Indoor kennels, doggie day care facilities and kennels associated with veterinarian clinics; provided, that: a. There are no outside runs or areas; b. The structure(s) housing animals is adequately soundproof to meet the requirements of Chapter 173-060 WAC; c. One parking stall provided for every 10 animal confinement areas; and d. Compliance with noise standards for a commercial noise source as identified by WAC 173- 60-040 has been demonstrated by the applicant. (Ord. 08-002 § 1, 2008; Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 5. Recycling facility; provided, that: a. All recyclable materials and equipment must be contained indoors; b. All activities must meet the noise requirements of SVMC 7.05.040(L); c. When adjacent to an existing residential use or residential zone, screening in SVMC 22.70.030(B) shall be required; d. The site must have frontage on an existing arterial or state highway and access will be limited to such frontage; and e. No dangerous or hazardous materials as defined in Appendix A shall be recycled or processed on site. (Ord. 11-021 § 1, 2011; Ord. 08-002 § 1, 2008; Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 6. Multifamily adiacent to Sin�le-Family Residential uses or zonin� a. A relational hei�ht limit to sin�le residential uses or zone is established (see Fi�ure 1) i. Where new multifamily development is abuttin� an adiacent parcel with a sin�le-family use or zone, the hei�ht of the new multifamily development may not increase by more than 45 de�rees when measured from the an�le that ori�inates at 15 feet above the applicable property line (creatin�a 1 to 1 hei�ht-to-setback ratio) to the abuttin� sin�le-family use or zone. b. The minimum setback from a sin�le-familv use or zone shall be 10 feet from propertv line. Figure 1: Relational Height Limit I��'��'jF'EF'fi''r LI4';JE /' ;-, ,�r�.E M�� I r�l��<<l�1,qR l � Hc�iy�-il I ii��il � � �— � - . l•: -,. =!�i�.i,._i �I — I - � � -. - � �::; � _.-. - - � � � � � � _ � _ � :i --- � . � / - I f_: :��i i- !.�_ . _ - _ ..'.i_� ,,_ . �� ' Department of Community Development �: � Spokane , - j'Ualle Planning Division �. � ";r Multifamil Develo ment Y p Standards October 11, 2012 �� ' Department of Community Development �: � Spokane , - j'Ualle Planning Division �. � ";r Additional Noticin g • Spokane Home Builders Association • Developer review • Consultant review �� ' Department of Community Development �: � Spokane , - j'Ualle Planning Division �. � ";r Pro osed Code Text Amendment p • A relational height limit to SF residential use or zone — 1 : 1 height to setback ratio to abutting SF use or zone • 10' Minimum setback from SF residential use or zone �� ' Department of Community Development �: � Spokane , - j'Ualley Planning Division �. � ";r Relational Hei ht Limit g I,i�;��_.�i��F�=,:�� i_�i�.,� ; � , ' r��nl�k ��FEFt I L'r1�J1�1CrA�.-r I � I �- � � „ w � _.., � � � �-;.etL��_-1�-=H�i��h-�t—1`�' � u;�4 � ,!�' � � � \ � � � . i;� 20� 30' .�-_.� �_,r -�_,,,:_ :;,_.;�.;.,:�, setback setback �� ' Department of Community Development �: � Spokane , - j'Ualle Planning Division �. � ";r Setback Formula Example 1 : Setback = Height — 15 feet Setback = 50 feet — 15 feet Setback = 35 feet Example 2: Setback = Height — 15 feet Setback = 35 feet — 15 feet Setback = 20 feet �� ' Department of Community Development �: � Spokane , - j'Ualley Planning Division �. � ";r Relational Setback 25' (�a, Property Line i1��:c,i t hT r ; ;,,F 1 /,'-", rl!�I��d FlRFI+. ;I.!P.If!AR'r � � Ileiflh� Lir��fl �► 5l]� � Setb��ck.=Hr�qh�—:a�� I "p. � ?�� 5�nglc fnri�ily � � use c,r �uric I[i' -n�r- _ztt�o•:b �� ' Department of Community Development �: � Spokane , - j'Ualle Planning Division �. � ";r Setback Formula Example 1 : Setback = Height — 25 feet Setback = 50 feet — 25 feet Setback = 25 feet Example 2: Setback = Height — 25 feet Setback = 35 feet — 25 feet Setback = 10 feet �� ' Department of Community Development �: � Spokane , - j'Ualle Planning Division �. � ";r Existin MF Develo ment g p . ��.��. -:�� rt �' ��.� �, . � � - '- � '" 1 '�� , �.� �'� � ° � .. g � �� X ` '�='.a. �l ,f� .v �'1t� ,�y � �u� :iR. � � _ �`�`�si�� d�( � � r �� r� �,_., � � �d � I� u� � �::,�� .�—�'" " � A� _ � � '��' �� ' � ll �I 'r�T �°�-��'�" ;..�-- ,,, - �.'�� _ .�T� : --- _ :a. �� . �� ' Department of Community Development - �: Spokane � - j'Ualle Planning Division ��. � _ Existin MF Develo ment g p � ...� � _ _ � .� „. �-� ;��,�� - _ ' .� ±. ,_� �, .� .� ,. ^�► � z� , �� "� - -— --- _ ,�> ;�� -a�� ' ,� <f�,�, �� C � �*, � ' �"� r' , t , �� '``� ^�i �� _�:�^r� �;�'� � - � ��' �r t �0 - - '� �� -�"r � y'F� � �� . - - -- -_ __ .. - �n — _� a . � : , _ :� -�-�4 °��:, �. �� ' Department of Community Development - �: Spokane � - j'Ualle Planning Division ��. � _ Q uestions CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Review Meeting Date: October 11, 2012 Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑new business � public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin.report ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: Shoreline Master Program Update AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing—Draft Shoreline Environment Designations GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) under RCW 90.58 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: A study session was held on August 23, 2012 and a public hearing conducted on September 27, 2012. The written public comment period was extended to October 4, 2012 and deliberations were continued. BACKGROUND: The City's Shoreline Master Program update team has completed the Draft Shoreline Environment Designations for the Shoreline Master Program Update. The following three Environment Designations were proposed: Urban-Conservancy— High Quality (UC-HQ), Urban Conservancy (UC), and Shoreline Residential (SR). The UC and SR designations reflect the state recommended classification system, while the UC-HQ designation modified the state recommended designation to reflect local conditions. The Draft Environment Designations Report and map were circulated to the Technical Review Group. Written comments were received from DOE and Avista (see attached). As a result, significant changes were made to the Environment Designation Report and map. The changes generally included establishing two residential designations, as opposed to one, creating an aquatic environment, modifying the ordinary high water mark east of the foot near the Trailside Development, redesignating the publicly owned lands on the east corporate limits to Urban Conservancy utilizing parallel environments, and re-designating two areas as Urban Conservancy from UC-HQ. Both the Maps and Report were modified to reflect the changes. At the public hearing written comments were received from Futurewise, and the Commission opted to delay deliberations until the comments could be reviewed by Attorney Tadas Kisielius. John Patrouch, URS Corporation, also provided a response. Both comments are attached for your review. As result of the comments two changes are proposed to the report, and no changes are proposed to the map. The two changes are generally described as follows: 1. Section 1.0 Introduction has been revised such that the new text referencing "No Net Loss" mirrors the language from the WAC which reads "assure" no net loss. 2. The management policies for the proposed Aquatic Environment have been expanded to include all the generic protective state recommended management policies. Initially only those determined relevant to anticipated land uses were included. However, since not all uses can be predicted, the more generic policies were included. Staff will discuss the proposed changes to the report. At this time the Planning Commission should review the changes proposed, consider the public input, and provide a recommendation to the City Council. Since the report and map have been modified 1of2 through the course of the Planning Commission review, the draft and map is now identified as the Planning Commission Recommended Draft Environment Designation Report and Map. The revised draft Report, Map and comments are attached for your review. NOTICE: Notice for the public hearing was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on September 7, 2012. The notice was consistent with the applicable provisions of SVMC 17.80.150D. Additionally, all property owners with property located within shoreline jurisdiction were notified of the upcoming open house and public hearing by mail. APPROVAL CRITERIA: RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26 define the process for approval of an SMP and require that the document be consistent with the goals and policies of the SMA. OPTIONS: The Planning Commission may recommend that the Council accept the draft environment designation report and map as presented; recommend acceptance with modifications, recommend the proposal not be accepted, or forward no recommendation to City Council. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Recommended Draft Shoreline Environment Designations Report 2. Planning Commission Draft Environment Designation Map 3. John Patrouch Memo dated October 2,2012—with attachments 4. Tadas Kisielius Memo dated October 3,2012 2of2 � `{{. _ Q ,� , r �, t�O ....d r s.,,�.�;.,- _ _ t .V., - _ ° . '�-{ 1 ;� . ,r ,,1 � 'r� c_';'�" �_ . [.....x:-�- - `r A � �`-°_- � �aR'vF }d°�.'•- � �, i W�,� � ,kf,i . �� ' . . r �4�" i rR..�R�R' r° __. .�� ' �� f _ i , ... —�,j� � �'R�.:er-��ti,-:._ aa:a�!r. � � �F`�� "` ,,�� ` - ��. . �� K :.t�P�E4,e , , a , . , � , �_,�,_: -.. "-�:�� ,R�P� xY� . -:: miA � �" �..� i I . ��yv��'-�/�11 f,ST ,� ��F � ,�_. 1f� � �. i�_ x �� „� - ' -.f�z' x I�. ��Ybeu� �,y �� ' `dt`r�. 6}f�P .':�V Q �� '� � '! Ae.�* Ra�rr(.!� i � � "1` '�'� .�� ' ,�* . . " . . , . 7F"�ya��,+� ``� ��r'� I� _ � I It.srl�1�� E I ^�.' " �, t._ , . s �, � ', -� z�� i Ilr�lea�! - _ .. ��Y ,f� �[�1 L �.�y� ,� ��"�� >�I �� : EUCLIDAV I EUCLIDAV .f_I'l � ! �i.y r T". il� � df��. -_ 'J ��. r � {.. i p F ' � � I . ' ��I�-'1 �7 + ,y�� 'I I 'I � - . � I � ! � � . l, �t:-...��Lh EUCWAV� ��C I f t. �� 1'.h •;N.y�Wr ��.'�.�� 7 I I � "� � �. .:. F � �i�Y Y F ��.�1. `�' ��^ � V' � p� . ' I r � �A � � � b �G. k ( � �y \ EttP - � � - 1��. � IF r .�9 a ri � �-�� < <`� � R�_,w� , . �j � '� r.t � '.a p�1�� . rqu,�TGOMERYA�r� e� �1.' .��1�, A . � '. _ _ _ -fr—5— . ' `�� . i �. .. �).,ts r - . �h. �M . . 4.' { �! 1�. 4.-., `� f ti,�.1ry� .��_ � i il-��'•� _�� .... . ,-. .-iK .; . es'��d s � "�� ..� � . . v : .� ` . . ..,, `` ` _`--" r �� tF n-. „� � � _ �. � , � .. � � � � � l 6I�'� � 1 � 4 `��.-�� y J _ +°',�.. ....<V � -.+� � . �� ' _h �, _ , , � -.��r n tlg � 1 �: �. � ..�l.l, � � � y ;r ._ ' �� r0�., �� 1 =t.�� F' . ,�. ..� �•". •" - � INDIANAAV ' I [ p�p' F� . � '. �� F � , � _-_�tl �lt(- ` � J �"�aJV ! � ��.�� /� � .. pt'. .� . , �� g� �� - IK!�� I m�ersoxoeso moersox�so � -- �� ull � .-,� . x. . � � i � r� �� t � ,�. < � � :. .��t �ri � r- � �-- ,r,� :_ {. . �- � ��af„w4 1� � . T�.�r' ',�•.. - � t. a{ ��'`w.�� _ � ��, , .:�L �� .- . . 'Missibr�Av . - �t - .�'°�...� I + s.'. ` . � misswNaf�' . . :��:, _ - w�� _ . . _ . . '� '.,�;, � � ';1 tw ' " �'ti»� � .�'� � .. 5 .. . . � , � � � �.,., ., : = a �`• x , ' � ^'�;� _ `� ' � ,�� y� . �.:s �"r� ` �;�r� �i�� '� ± .�' ; . �. € , '.,. � '. 5�v„i $' i�.•.�' . '. r "",1�� '.--,r �� 8��a��ffi'�t � : ' ,:. � ,� �� . .. �}f ' ;�. z, i r I � 'Q*�g .. � , , . � . `ti �` �• , •� � � ��'+� I I �.. � ,..p F 't !�E . OADWAYAV :" -i�l� �� I�.R` �}� A' ',e��0 4 i u ` _ � ' 1� rJ w -�„ , � � ��f�i � .... �rc 'j . i . .- /�� ' �' ,` *•� M . . �� ta �, ♦ _ . � �I . � e. - aa . �� y �i , ' . . , �:►�� /i, �t�.;�9. � � 5 � e `s'!� � �.:��Mr' .. �• � 2. �VALlEYWAYAV .. � �.. � ,\�I�IIIIIIII�� • ' .._ �..'' �X� ,.. �S r ;. ' R�' � w . . . ' �+�LEYWAVAV /� �� ' ',.- , � . �r�'. .., ,�, �1' � � � . . rc .� sit-;:,. , , f��f�ll� . � Orchard A en e � > , �, , � � . f j; . . , � Q � ,hq :'�A�:� �iN.��a M .� �� _ ¢ , . _ , , � , . .. - . . �Shelley Lake . . ' _ . . . ' " ��.i"'i . . . . _ .�� . '. � - . � � '�. � - � .J '.��i�. . . r., ___ ... . .�..: _ .r ,._ P ,-,. .—,.. �--,-- . -- � . N . . . �Shoreline Residential-Upland ,. I Aquatic Environment � Planning Commisslon ReCOmmended -Shoreline Residential-Waterfront ----�Centennial Trail ---` -- DRAFT Environment Designation Map � .UrbanConservancy Parcels � ce„��_ srzln~�.w _.._..� �on„n:��,ee:°�P� CityofSpokaneValley �I Urban Conservancy HQ �.._.._City of Spokane Valley , , snorer�ne nnasreraroqram updares �`�„�s October 11,2012 Planninq Commission Recommended Draft City of Spokane Valley October 11, 2012 Shoreline Master Program Environment Designations City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Proposed Shoreline Environmental Designations Plannin� Commission Recommended Draft Prepared by URS Corporation lA Introduction—Environmental Designations Shoreline Environmental Designations (SED) are analogous to zoning designations for areas within the shoreline jurisdiction. SEDs provide a uniform basis for applying policies and use regulations within each designation, if allowed by underlaying zoning requirements. SEDs are intended to encourage appropriate uses and activities while providing for protection and restoration of shoreline ecological functions. It is anticipated that reasonable standards, restrictions, and prohibitions on shoreline developments will be instituted as shoreline regulations. This is necessary so that shoreline development will reasonably protect e�sting uses � and shoreline character and assure � t�* *'�° �*�*°�� a° ��' ��- "No Net Loss" of shoreline ecological functions is achieved. SEDs are established based on existing use patterns, the biological and physical character of the shoreline, and the goals and aspirations of the community as expressed through comprehensive plans. For the City of Spokane Valley, the Inventory and Characterization Report, prepared by URS Corp, 2010 provided information on shoreline ecological functions; development patterns as represented by e�sting building lots, zoning and land use designations; and on current and projected uses that were used to determine appropriate SEDs. The shoreline designations are illustrated on the Shorelines Designations Map which is an integral part of the Shoreline Master Program. Characteristics and general management policies for each of the designations are given below. They provide the basis for development of regulations for each SED. 2.0 City of Spokane Valley Environmental Designations The information provided for each SED generally follows the state classi�cation guidelines (WAC 173-26-2ll (4) and (5)). The state guidelines provide a recommended classi�cation system. Local governments may establish a different designation system or may retain their current environment designations (WAC 173-26-2ll(5), 2ll(4)(c)(i)). The existing Pastoral, Conservancy, and Urban SEDs are proposed to be changed to new SEDs that reflect the findings of the 2010 shoreline inventory and of current shoreline uses as well as to allow for management of the shorelines under the new state guidelines. The �proposed SED categories are Urban-Conservancy-High Quality (UGHQ), Urban Conservancy (UC), � Shoreline Residential—Waterfront (SR-W), Shoreline Residential-Upland (SR�, and Aquatic (AQ) for those areas within the ordinary hi�h water mark. �°�re-�'ne�zsit�e��s�g��t�en Much of the Spokane River shoreline is designated as UC, with conservation areas identified in the 2010 inventory as UC-HQ. These designations closely reflect the e�sting Pastoral and � � Planninq Commission Recommended Draft City of Spokane Valley October 11, 2012 Shoreline Master Program Environment Designations � Conservancy designations. Two �4 shoreline residential (-�} environments� have been a°°��*�� '��° '�°°� added along the Spokane River and at Shelley Lake to include those areas currently zoned Single Family Residential and that have e�sting single family residences. The Shoreline Residential designation provides a means to allow for appropriate residential uses for those areas directly adjacent to the water(SR-V� and for upland residential areas (SR-U). Each of the SEDs is described more fully below. Each SED includes a purpose statement, the designation criteria and basic management policies. Urban Conservancy—High Quality Environment(UC-HQ) Purpose The purpose of the "Urban Conservancy - High Quality" environment is to protect existing ecological functions where they occur in high quality environments, while allowing very limited compatible uses. High quality environments are those that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions sensitive to human use. These areas require that only very low intensity uses be allowed in order to maintain existing ecological functions. Desi�nation Criteria Assign an "Urban Conservancy — High Quality" environment designation to shoreline areas that were identified in the Inventory as hi�h quality environments exhibitin� si�nificant habitat diversity and were noted on the Inventory as�conservation� areas�i�.�`�' un o�. :,.,,�,,,o�� .,,.o �i� _These areas � come close to meeting the State's "Natural" designation but due to existing development impacts do not meet all the criteria to classify them as "Natural". These areas are appropriate for limited low impact public uses and for restoration activities. This designation generally impacts public lands - Only three locations are located on private property. An "Urban Conservancy- High Quality" environment designation is assigned to shoreline areas if any of the following characteristics apply: (A) The shoreline is ecologically intact and is performing important, shoreline functions or ecosystem-wide process that would be damaged by human activity; (B) The shoreline is considered to represent ecosystems and geologic types that are of particular scientific and educational interest or (C) The shoreline is unable to support new development or uses without significant adverse impacts to ecological functions or risk to human safety, with the exception of the Centennial Trail and other existing low impact public uses. Ecologically intact shorelines can include large reaches covering multiple properties to small areas located within a single property, and as used here, means those shoreline areas that retain the majority of their natural shoreline functions, as evidenced by the shoreline con�guration and the presence of native vegetation. Generally,but not necessarily, ecologically intact shorelines are free of structural shoreline modifications, structures, and intensive human uses. � 2 Planninq Commission Recommended Draft City of Spokane Valley October 11, 2012 Shoreline Master Program Environment Designations Management Policies (A) Any use that would substantially degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline area should not be allowed. (B) The following new uses should not be allowed: • Commercial uses. • Industrial uses. • Nonwater-oriented recreation. (Note: This does not preclude development associated with the Centennial Trail and other limited low impact public uses.) • Roads, utility corridors, and parking areas that can be located outside of UC-HQ designated shorelines. (C) Single family residential development shall be allowed within this environment if the density and intensity of such use is limited to protect ecological functions and be consistent with the purpose of the environment. (D) Scientific, historical, cultural, educational research uses, and low-intensity water-oriented recreational access uses may be allowed provided that no significant ecological impact on the area will result. (E) New development or significant vegetation removal that would reduce the capability of vegetation to perform normal ecological functions should not be allowed. Do not allow the subdivision of property in a configuration that, to achieve its intended purpose, will require significant vegetation removal or shoreline modification that adversely impacts ecological functions. (F) Maintenance of eXistin�utility corridor-and infrastructure shall be allowed. If existin�h�i�h c�uality ve�etated areas are disturbed by maintenance activities miti�ation shall be required. Urban Conservancy Environment(UC) Purpose The purpose of the "Urban Conservancy" environment is to protect and restore ecological functions of open space, floodplain and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing for compatible uses, including appropriate public access and recreational uses. Designation Criteria Assign an "Urban Conservancy" environment designation to shoreline areas appropriate and planned for development that is compatible with maintaining or restoring the ecological functions of the area and that are not generally suitable for water-dependent uses if any of the following characteristics apply: (A) They are suitable for water-related or water-enjoyment uses; (B) They are open space, flood plain or other sensitive areas that should not be intensively developed; (C) They have potential for ecological restoration; � 3 Planninq Commission Recommended Draft City of Spokane Valley October 11, 2012 Shoreline Master Program Environment Designations (D) They retain important ecological functions, even though partially developed; or (E) They have the potential for development that is compatible with ecological restoration. (F) Areas within shoreline jurisdiction that are not mapped and /or designated are automatically assigned as "urban conservancy" until the shoreline can be redesignated through a master program amendment. In the COSV, the Urban Conservancy Environment is located along much of the river with the exception of areas that are either designated as UGHQ or as Shoreline Residential. As shown in the inventory much of the near shoreline (riparian) areas are owned by the state and managed by State Parks. Many upland areas in this designation are privately owned large tracts. Mana�ement Policies (A) Uses that preserve the natural character of the area or promote preservation of open space, floodplain or sensitive lands either directly or over the long term should be the primary allowed uses. Uses that result in restoration of ecological functions should be allowed if the use is otherwise compatible with the purpose of the environment and the setting. (B) Standards should be established for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications within the "urban conservancy" designation. These standards shall ensure that new development does not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or further degrade other shoreline values. (C) Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented whenever feasible and significant ecological impacts can be mitigated. (D) Water-oriented uses should be given priority over non-water oriented uses. Shoreline Residential—Waterfront Environment(SR-V� Purpose The �ur�ose of the "shoreline residential-waterfront" environment is to accommodate residential uses on lots within existin� residential areas where the lot is �immediatelv adjacent to the shoreline'��° a�r°�+ � � +� +'�°, ,�+°,. Desi�nation Criteria Assi�n a"shoreline residential-waterfront" environment desi�nation to shoreline areas if they are predominantly sin�le-family or multifamily residential development or are planned and platted for residential develo�ment and where the lot is immediatelv adjacent to the shoreline . Within the Ci .t�pokane Valley, areas that are included in this desi�nation include Orchard Avenue, and�ortions of the Covote Rocks develo�ment. Mana�ement Policies (A1 Standards for densitv or minimum fronta�e width, buffers and setbacks, lot covera� limitations, shoreline stabilization,ve�etation conservation, critical area�rotection, and water quality shall be set to assure no net loss of shoreline ecolo�ical functions, takin� into account � 4 Planninq Commission Recommended Draft City of Spokane Valley October 11, 2012 Shoreline Master Program Environment Designations the environmental limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline area, the level of infrastructure and services available, existin�zonin� and other com�rehensive�lannin� considerations. (B) Multifamily and multi-lot residential and recreational developments should provide public access and joint use for community recreational facilities unless a�ropriate public access is a�ailable as determined bv a Public Access Plan. (C) Access, utilities, and public services should be a�ailable and adequate to serve existin� needs and/or�lanned future develo�ment. (D) Mana�ement policies for direct access to the water, docks, and shoreline stabiliaation techniques shall be included for this desi�nation. Shoreline Residential—Unland Environment(SR� Purpose The purpose of the "shoreline residential-upland" environment is to accommodate residential uses within existin�residential areas that are se�arated from the shoreline bv other�ro�erties- Desi�nation Criteria � Assign a "shoreline residential-upland" environment designation to shoreline areas if they are predominantly single-family or multifamily residential development or are planned and platted � for residential development and that are separated from the shoreline by either state parks land and/or bv lots dedicated as o�en s�ace, for exam�le lots mana�ed by a nei�hborhood association. Within the City of Spokane Valley, areas � located within �r° ��'��a°a �� this desi�nation include �e�sting residential uses including �c��r�e��the Greenacres neighborhood and , Shelley Lake. Mana�ementPolicies ��''�'� r�'�p �,;�'�';,��°' (A) Standards that take into consideration that these �ro�erties are se�arated from the waterfront for density or minimum frontage width, buffers and setbacks, lot coverage limitations, � ��e�'�° °*�'��'��*��, vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality shall be set to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, taking into account the � environmental limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline upland areas the level of infrastructure and services available, existing zoning and other comprehensive planning considerations. (B) Multifamily and multi-lot residential and recreational developments should provide public � access to the adjacent public lands ��a � �*� ° �� '� �*��r�' ��'�*�°� unless appropriate public access is available as determined by a Public Access Plan. (C) Access, utilities, and public services should be a�ailable and adequate to serve existing needs and/or planned future development. Aquatic" Environment(AQ) Purpose The purpose of the "ac�uatic" environment is to protect, restore, and mana�e the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary hi�h-water mark. � 5 Planninq Commission Recommended Draft City of Spokane Valley October 11, 2012 Shoreline Master Program Environment Designations Desi�nation Criteria Assi�n an "ac�uatic" environment desi�nation to lands waterward of the ordinarv hi�h-water mark. Mana eg ment policies (A) Allow new over-water structures only for water-dependent uses, sin�le family residential docks,public access, or ecolo�ical restoration. � Permittin� for activities and structures within the ac�uatic environment shall com�lv with all state and federal laws,includin� coordination with a�licable a�encies. (Cl The ac�uatic environment shall allow for�ublic use on�ublic waterwa,�. (D) The size of new over-water structures should be limited to the minimum necessar��to su�ort the structure's intended use. (E) In order to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective use of water resources, multi�le use of over-water facilities should be encoura�ed. (F) All developments and uses on navi�able waters or their beds should be located and desi�ned to minimiae interference with surface navi�ation, to consider impacts to public views, and to allow for the safe,unobstructed�assa�e of fish and wildlife. (G) Uses that adversel�pact the ecolo�ical functions of freshwater habitats should not be allowed exce�t where necessarv to achieve the objectives of RCW 90.58.020, and then only when their im�acts are miti�ated accordin�to the sequence described in WAC 173-26-201(2)(e) as necessarv to assure no net loss of ecolo�ical functions. (Hl Shoreline uses and modifications should be desi�ned and mana e� d to�revent de�radation of water quality and alteration of natural h, d��raphic conditions. (I) Local�overnments should reserve shoreline s�ace for shoreline�referred uses. Such plannin� should consider upland and in-water uses, water quality, na�i�ation, presence of aquatic ve�etation, critical habitats, aesthetics,public access and views. � 6 Planninq Commission Recommended Draft City of Spokane Valley October 11, 2012 Shoreline Master Program Environment Designations 3.0 Background—Existing City of Spokane Valley Environmental Designations Most of the Spokane River shorelines have an existing SED of Pastoral. There are four areas within the City that due to existing uses have been designated as Conservancy. Two of these areas are associated with railroads; the other two are Sullivan Park and Mirabeau Park. Shorelines in the Orchard Avenue area are designated as Urban. The shorelines around Shelley Lake are designated entirely as Conservancy. The gra�el pits were not designated in the current Shoreline Master Program, though the Sullivan Road grave pit has a shoreline permit. The Pastoral and Conservancy designations are both protective of the natural environment and limit many uses. A description of each of the current environmental designations is provided below as well as a summary of some of the relevant Goals and Policies contained in Chapter 8 of the City Comprehensive Plan. The Pastoral Area Desi�nation The Pastoral area is intended to protect and maintain those shorelines which have historically been subject to limited human interference and have preserved their natural quality as wildlife habitat and places of scenic beauty. These areas are appropriate for passive agricultural and recreational uses. Areas most appropriate are: 1) open spaces used for livestock grazing and harvesting of non-cultivated crops; 2) shorelines which ha�e physical limitations which would preclude permanent structures, such as floodplains, meandering stream ways, cliffs, and steep slope areas subject to landslides; and 3) wildlife habitats and areas of beauty whose ecological systems will only tolerate limited human interference. Because the areas are not suited for permanent structures, they are valued wildlife areas which provide for grazing and "wild hay" for dispersed-use outdoor recreation. Management of the area should be designed to prevent the loss or reduction of the wetland area and to restrict development from hazardous areas. The Conservancv Area Desi�nation The Conservancy Area is designated in Spokane Valley for the purpose of maintaining the existing character of shoreline resources while providing for non-intensive uses. Those uses that are preferred in the Conservancy Area are those which may utilize the natural resources on a sustained-yield basis. These uses include passive agricultural activity, timber harvesting on a sustained yield basis, and diffuse outdoor recreation. The Conservancy Area is designated to protect agricultural land from encroachment by urban uses while providing for recreation wherever recreation will not interfere with agricultural practices. Nonpermanent kinds of structures and uses which will not reduce the quantity or quality of the physical and biological resources of the area are to be given priority in the Conservancy Area. The Conservancy Area is intended to prohibit intensive use of areas having physical hazards, severe biophysical limitations which would not be appropriate for rural or urban uses, areas prone to flooding, and areas which cannot provide adequate water supply or sewage disposal for intensive activities. The Urban Area Desi�nation The Urban Area designation is intended to accommodate compatible water-dependent and water- oriented uses in shoreline areas. The Urban Area is to be managed so that shoreline developments will enhance and maintain the shoreline for a multiplicity of uses. The Urban Area is designated in Spokane Valley to encourage the redevelopment of existing urban areas and to control the � 7 Planninq Commission Recommended Draft City of Spokane Valley October 11, 2012 Shoreline Master Program Environment Designations expansion of urban uses in characteristically rural areas of the County. Those urban uses which are water-dependent and can provide visual and/or safe access to the waterfront are to be given priority for shoreline locations. � 8 MEMORANDUM From John C.Patrouch,PE To Lori Barlow, City of Spokane Valley Date October 2, 2012 Project No. 36310034 Project Name: City of Spokane Valley SMP—Response to Futurewise Comment Letter, September 27, 2012 regarding Environmental Designation Revisions Lori, Futurewise provided comments for the Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Designations for the City. The following are our responses to those comments: 1. Chan�e No Net Loss reference from�oal to required. The City is addressing this separately. 2. Consider chan��UC-HQ to Natural . Answer needed by URS 3. Modi , SR-W�ur�ose statement. The City is addressing this separately. 4. Modi . SR-U purpose statement. The City is addressing this separately. 5. Include the full range of SMP Guidelines in the Aquatic Designation: a. The Aquatic designation management policies contained in the draft EDs were developed based on the Ecology standard policies but modified to fit the City shorelines and to reduce redundancy. b. Standard management policies B and C reference overwater structures probably including docks and cantilevered overwater platforms. Policies for docks are addressed in other policies and not needed here. c. Standard management policy D should be added to the city policies. It provides protection to the navigable waters that is not addressed elsewhere in the City policies. d. Standard management policy E should be added to the Ciry policies. The critical areas ordinance identi�es the river corridor as a critical habitat. e. Standard management policies F and G appear to be standard clauses that are addressed elsewhere in the city goals and policies. 6. Draft Environment Designation Map a. Mirabeau Trailhead revised from UGHQ to UC. The UGHQ designation was applied initially due to the priority habitat mapping supplied by WDFW. During review of the ED maps, the URS biologist who performed the initial inventory questioned the UGHQ designation and thought that UC was more suitable designation due to the e�sting recreational land use intensity at that location. This was discussed with WDFW, they agreed and the change from UGHQ to UC was made. Management as a day use area (picnic tables, benches) is identified in the draft Public Access Plan. The UC environment provides protection of the e�sting ecology while allowing the City and State Parks to manage the area effectively. (Inventory map attached) b. An area downstream of Barker Road close to the Union Paci�c Railroad Tracks was initially designated as UGHQ due to it being owned by State Parks and was adjacent to P:AComtnunity DeveLopment\07 PLanning Commission�2012 Meetings-PLanning Commission\10-11-12 PC Meeting PH mLtfam setbk�Environment Designalions\SMP URS Response Future�vise ComnTS 10-2-12.doc the high quality vegetation (conservation) layer. During review of the mapping and inventory this area does not meet the criteria for UC-HQ. The parcel is owned by State Parks and is disturbed by past railroad activities. The shoreline inventory identifies the area as vegetated but as a conservation area. It is not ecologically intact, does not represent unique ecosystems or geological types, and is able to support new development or uses without significant adverse impact. It does meet the criteria for UC and was changed. (Inventory map attached). P:AComtnunity DeveLopment\07 PLanning Commission�2012 Meetings-PLanning Commission\10-11-12 PC Meeting PH mLtfam setbk�Environment Designalions\SMP URS Response Future�vise ComnTS 10-2-12.doc �_- r � _ - � rt ��4 1 � - ' " . ��- � , r �`�`�� .� -- � ' � �� p '� "-� � ��"�F�''.��'-r _ - ;_S ' . �� _ _ .�-� . �� i.a _ d _, _ + '�_ J�" � .-7 '��`T� � y, � 1'��,�•�'-P° �� ' �V t`_.�� ; �. � ' �� . �$4:�.... 1� . r±�°p�i:. ' '� f- . � �. � "�.-" ' `fi �' ._ yy.�Y yy�/"1� ' . • � f_ _i�.�. » — �_ ___ . 1- � . �* k' � — . � � � _ �� - - � x � � ��,�.�� _ _ . ' • . - _ � -� r- � . �'- - �, � $ _ _ � �-�. . .t v _ . _ . " _ .��, __ `� , � s _, _ . ��J. ��.�_� � ,�'4, - ' �..� .� " `��r�' `" _ " � � � � ; '� �� ,� � �n.3ir t I..TM li� I ,t..0 ati.,r ° �. + . _ . "C�"' _:�. , :- e� e.� � - - S�I�=' - �7� � . � ,� 'S � ]A '¢ �k b ...��' !_' �y + � � ,+, , .+,� � � .�' a � k,'^�`:di%� • � . : �� a �:1 't°�_' .Y .. �j'� �+ �� ,�'�a.�. .. /, p �• ' ��-{'�+� / . `4� .n. � ' {�� .�, 1a,�.[yi� , r � w -F ,y� e �tJ r �,d��sb� LA � � Zyv C"'-. k�.F �� :�J d'�0.I A� � ;S k. r � } �. , � # � .�r-; � -. ��"�w�l,�„y :-� �,�-�..��, _ ��L� k"�'�,��- �� y� �, � � �� . s � .. , �� y ��' p �� a" �.x� r� ' - y � . .� �:. ,.. , _ e� � �� •�� k�� '� . � �r . . . 4 + '�' �� ° p.�'f��ay��"4� � �f M1 `.[`O 9 S - � � .'�.. r � #� _ � . . � ..C� -;. . ? .$� �1 U'� F.i 'y.�� .ii I�I��,i�f . I .l". 4,.1. ,:I'r•i I .il�::,: i iirr� �"' 3,��;+�� - F Ir n_StoGG K iTdllir�P R.].;� rr��.:E�r�, � .r' ; � . _ ' �+ .. � �.f�` �'p. t..� ,� `�+�•''�,� . .�..` � ; � x,¢��.♦ ��.yy . 4,� 1F�. .::"� . �� `�F !� w ,�, .& f�. ,�r fy °,- ��`*�? � � � �� i'�.� '� r'�lE�r �'k°i. -i":- F � -- � e � �y -�y+�' Y� ad v.ie - �`, �.. �+`�1"t " � �'� �;.` t _' .. j��;�c 7�-5 7 ° 5�'� '' .. �s A W +! ��'! 'P��i d''}' � r".��'f �JS�Y'.'.-.;..'�1 . .�;` ..r =� ' '��. - a � ... ��!.' ' �. � . �_�� t� � ..'k ` � -� � ��- ' i�. v+ �{ - :�, � ... �.. ' ,� • 4, F P � - s � �,!�. �� -�.�. 1� *.i � - � + � * ,z '�, 4��' � '��r y� � ' r� �: , �' ti 6 ^�p- �' , � . �j��{,, �'�" '� � . ' ` �� F ' --` � � � �� s � ➢�� y� Y•�, ,�- . � f� ... . .. ..�� l�}�'k }. � � � * } ; Tr' � t.��' �� t � ,.u��.uni.S l�ili;at�t i �.ri�.�i pl�.ntinys• �� r ':x�� y�, � � ��!"' � _ w � � ` �, �: •�^�r. ��f - °�'M � �� '1, r i►� . �� . 55. , � �_ � � �� * f,�,. ./ �1 � ��!��^�` � � �,: l �1 ' �,'�'f � - �y� �r � $' T, �T' k� x ,5,. � �y�� S!� - &1� `T" , c ��" ' _ ��'� �•, � � 'F 1 � {f ' _ � ��'..� • � " �� ' r � �� '�� N C�. �� `�� nyF �,.},'�;;` �!�,.- � ;�+' , - - � �, '� € ,s - . �. _ _ , �t ,.� � �''� � , _ �� y� ,'„ i� ti� . . � 4 �� '4, � � `�� I " , a , t� , � �y , � . , * ` ,' � . � � . � � _ �� '�� 'i i�`�� . ti .� � r 'il.,. '",h. � `_w, .. .. y1 �k' �� .?�" � ��7 , � t � ,� . , '� ��; � ' l rF�:,c:ae 3 .f�i�=F ut,r-.�s rF; Fr ��- �tF. ��• � , _ 1.']�k�' ,b '►'A��o'� y �. ' . ��.; �. �"' �i�� ', .,� � -y►. Y'- �� . �' � . �. � � y � ..�. A� � �� ' � r _ �� . .. *.' F 4. � � � �' k I '� ' S, '� � �� '� '� Ak '�- � y Y r M � `�,` * � � Y } 4� F '1*". �, '.: � � �� . Fi u i.:reir��c•ti�;��r•tz. ` �,a . � � �� y � `��`` . � � �. ., _ ,� � � �` � �. � . � �,�- , • °� - . '� ,� �'�,��'� v `� ` 1� � �� y`` �� ` �`#;`��'�.: ��:_ � ' � � � �`�`: r. _ .� _ � _ _ � � '�`'�,�.� � �r � �� a' � �� '�'� ' Y�'R 3�.:- ;� �, � . `� . _ _ �, -��. �_ . ,'��_ . ,�: � , '�'� ., - . ' � � � �. ; �"'`'��-+ , .. .� ¢, • , . : r � .�`.� � , : _ � � ,� . .._ {�. . . _f. , r . � `:. �� . °. ` - _. �. .- - "� .�.� , _, . : �p� , ,� , 1 f . ��. .� �� . � . . . � _' +V - " . . '1I � �. � � . . . .. Y �� . +� e L�_ .. Y V� ' }..� , .. t. � r �6 .�'� �t •�� J' - - �� . . f�f x 'r� $�' � •��..y � �1� ' Y �1 �JP � S '- . N � ��".' '2��w�•� �. y y 1 .� � � * � - �r :� � J� � � .i• `� `� ' . . �.x � r �. }C _1 Y � � ��.... . _ .: �� .^: . f'� � . � �_�w . -�. _ " . �� 4 n 1, � �i,�', '"�.4� � � _ " _ � Y , , �� !,��`�� t n.� } '-_�_.. �R. F ° �''�„r��', ,� � �� ql� - - . 4'�i �,I.� . :5� . . .:� �n ,.� d^i. ., . � • r� �ay +:�&k �Fr '3�'"� . . . � - . ��, �- ss �� °� �. . . , � . .. • � F r .' �`� . '� � , � .�E' ..�.,�" . �'-� :� � ...:+r..,•,,,y��".- � .� - �°� �,�,�i � ,��:°.,�,�sr w.._ ' ' _ �r�� . . � f :� ��tw��i . . ..: . �.: . . � �, . � ;�3� fi��/ }�. . , ,: f�� ;,•.,�� = �;fi ' ,., _. ,e y,,�_-. ,•� '•.� .;�: - � �. * J �. `-�� :, ' r o .�'#f �� n� . .�.� -. �� .� y,- ��, _ � � �, '" {s^:, � -x�:� _— , „_ .--- > . . . �� .� r � ' " �.: ` �. . + n ' , _ a . , .x ` _ • rt : :. �-�, �� i . �._._ ' *�' . a � K . " � � , '� 9 ' '�!�``� � ��``` ',�`��4"��a-�"' � �``�`��,.�� ;:,�� ti,, '� .. �' ��'� �'��; Var�lVess Felc�man Millennium Tower 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 GordoriDer�r Seattle,Washington 98104 AT T O R N E Y S AT LAW 206-623-9372 P 206-623-4986 F SEATT�E, WA • WASHINGTpN, DC MEMORANDUM TO: John Hohman CC: Lori Barlow, Scott Kuhta, and Cary Driskell FROM: Tadas Kisielius DATE: October 4, 2012 RE: Review of Futurewise Comments You have asked me to review the comments provided by Futurewise in its letter dated September 27, 2012 regarding the draft Shoreline Environment Designations (SEDs). This response addresses Futurewise's comments in order, with the exception of the comments related to designations proposed at specific locations that are addressed separately by John Patrouch. 1. Description of"no net loss" standard. Futurewise identifies a sentence in the draft document that describes the "no net loss" standard as a"goal" and asks the Ciry to instead characterize the standard as a"requirement." The no net loss standard is articulated in RCW 36.70A.480(4): Shoreline master programs shall provide a level of protection to critical areas located within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecolo�ical functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined by department of ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060. RCW 36.70A.480(4) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the sentence identified by Futurewise should be revised to match the statutory standard. For clarity and to avoid any mischaracterizations the Ciry could consider an edit that mirrors the statutory language as follows: This is necessary so that the Ci �'��r°'��° a°T�°'�rm°�*will reasonably protect existing uses and shoreline character ��*'��**'�° �*�*°T��a° ��' �r and assure "No Net Loss" of shoreline ecological functions � ��. The Seattle Office of Van Ness Feldman,A Professional Corporation Memorandum - 2 - October 4, 2012 2. Urban Conservancv—Hi�h Qualitv Environment. While Futurewise "strongly supports" the Urban Conservancy—High Qualiry Environment(UC-HQ), Futurewise recommends changing the name from UC-HQ to "Natural," to better match the name of one of the default shoreline environment designations in the state regulations. We do not recommend changing the name of the designation because it could lead to confusion. As noted in our memo dated September 19, 2012, the City's draft includes UC-HQ in a very deliberate attempt to depart from the default options in the state regulations to better capture unique local circumstances. As noted by Futurewise, the UC-HQ designation criteria and management policies are very similar to the default "natural" designation in the regulations but the UC-HQ environment includes important and key differences; UC-HQ is designed to capture those areas in the City that have many of the characteristics of the "Natural" designation but include or are near low-intensity development that is more intense than what is typically found in the standard"Natural" designation. Accordingly, the proposed SEDs provide for an alternative that is more restrictive than Urban Conservancy, but still permits and facilitates low- impact public uses that otherwise would be more restricted in a Natural designation. In particular, the UC-HQ seeks to recognize the Centennial Trail, other public uses, and utility corridors. To simply revert to the name of the default"natural" designation would mask this key distinction and might lead to some confusion regarding the City's departures from the default designations in the regulations. 3. Insertin�the Phrase "Consistent with the Shoreline Mana�ement Act". Futurewise asserts that the City should amend the statements of purpose of the shoreline residential designations to include the phrase "consistent with the Shoreline Management Act." As noted by Futurewise, the shoreline regulations include the phrase "consistent with this chapter [ch. 173-26 WAC]"when describing the purpose of residential SEDs: Purpose. The purpose of the "shoreline residential" environment is to accommodate residential development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with this chapter. An additional purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses. WAC 173-26-2ll(5)(f)(ii) (emphasis added). The Ciry can choose to include this phrase as recommended by Futurewise, but the amendment is not necessary. Regardless of its inclusion in the text, the City's residential designations and Shoreline Master Program more generally, are adopted pursuant to the SMA and must be consistent with the SMA's requirements as well as other legal authorities, including the constitution. Futurewise's proposed revision is therefore accurate but not essential. The Memorandum - 3 - October 4, 2012 failure to include the phrase does not imply that the City is proposing an approach that is inconsistent with the SMA. The proposed revision accurately reflects the legal framework but the framework exists regardless of whether the City inserts the phrase in the selected sentences. If the City chooses to include the edit, it should consider moving it earlier in the sentence so that the phrase modifies "residential uses": The purpose of the `shoreline residential-waterfront' environment is to accommodate residential uses and develo�ment that are consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and are on lots within existing residential areas where the lot is immediately adjacent to the shoreline. Inserting the phrase at the end may inadvertently cause confusion regarding the subject that the phrase is intended to modify. 4. Expandin� Mana�ement Policies of the Apuatic Environment. Futurewise recommends expanding the management policies of the aquatic designation to include the full range of criteria recommended in the default regulations. The aquatic environment will be applied waterward of the ordinary high water mark and, as such, will apply to those limited uses and development that will be allowed in that location (for example, docks, bridges and utility crossings). While many of the management policies included in the state regulations could be captured in regulations, rather than management policies, the Ciry's aquatic policies can be expanded to include more of the identified policies. The City should, however, exclude irrelevant language, including language pertaining to shellfish and saltwater habitat. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Review Meeting Date: October ll, 2012 Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑new business ❑public hearing � information ❑ admin.report ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: Shoreline Master Program Update AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study Session—Draft Shoreline Restoration Plan BACKGROUND: The City's Shoreline Master Program update team has completed a Draft Restoration Plan for the Shoreline Master Program Update. The Restoration Plan is the fourth phase of the Shoreline Update Process, and is required by the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC 173-26-201(2)(�)identifies the required elements for the plan. The Restoration Plan establishes overall goals and objectives for citywide shoreline restoration efforts. It addresses degraded areas and impaired ecological functions identi�ed in the inventory and analysis report, identifies and prioritizes restoration opportunities, and prescribes generalized treatment options for various restoration scenarios. The Plan also identifies current and ongoing programs that contribute to achieving these goals as well as additional projects or programs necessary for success. Lastly, this plan seeks to develop a draft implementation strategy, including funding options,proposed timelines, and adaptive management strategy, and benchmarks. The plan is based on the inventory and analysis report and a review of other plans and assessments aimed at improving the ecological health of the Spokane River and Shelley Lake. Staff will discuss the Draft Restoration Plan, and the WAC requirements to develop the Plan. At this time the Planning Commission is tasked with reviewing the document, conducting a public hearing, considering public input, and finally providing a recommendation to the City Council. The draft Plan is attached for your review. Attorney Tadas Kisielius has completed a review of the Draft Restoration Plan to identify areas where the draft plan may exceed, meet, or fall below the state guidelines. He has provided input that has been incorporated in to the draft. At this time no written comments are anticipated. Mr. Kisielius is not expected to attend the Planning Commission deliberations unless issues warrant his attendance. A public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for October 25, 2012 with deliberations to follow. Public notice will be conducted, as required,prior to the hearing. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act(SMA)under RCW 90.58 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Numerous discussions regarding SMP Update. APPROVAL CRITERIA: RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26 define the process for approval of an SMP and require that the document be consistent with the goals and policies of the SMA. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Restoration Plan 1of1 SHORELINE RESTORATION PLAN (Technical Review Group DRAFT ) City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 17, 2012 j a. �;�� d�� , .r ��. �, � �� , � �� . � �� .�K � n•� y� (' ¢ _ ��i r�� ...a. �qC' .. � �."�,��:� ��Tk� �:y„7� . ,_r;�^e�.•.;�.�._.�.,..,�• z.. � , ,� ,�� w�� r .a�., , . .... _ _ '+. . � .. . .- _ � _ �, �� s, - ^ �_.r' � _ - -�g�y.�^ �+ ��f:+�� R°;,r_�. Tr�� Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department Spokane Valley Ciry Hall 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 Prepared bv: Noah Herlocker, PWS URS Corporation 111 S.W. Columbia, Suite 1500 Portland, Oregon 97201-5814 URS Project Number 36298174 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section1 Introduction........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Shoreline Restoration in the SMP Update Process (Overview)............... 1-1 1.2 Context for the City of Spokane Valley................................................... 1-1 1.3 Required Elements of Restoration Planning for SMP Updates ............... 1-3 Section 2 Restoration Goals and Supporting Policies....................................................................2 Section 3 Existing and Ongoing Projects and Programs ...............................................................3 3.1 Summary of Limiting Factors..................................................................3-1 3.2 Existing and Ongoing Projects and Programs .........................................3-2 3.3 Additional Projects and Programs Needed to Achieve Shoreline RestorationGoals.....................................................................................3-6 Section 4 Prioritization Methodology...............................................................................................4 Section 5 Restoration Opportunities................................................................................................5 5.1 Programmatic Restoration Opportunities ................................................5-1 5.2 Site-specific Restoration Opportunities...................................................5-2 5.3 Conceptual Restoration Approaches........................................................5-8 Section 6 Implementation Plan .........................................................................................................6 6.1 Potential Restoration Parmers..................................................................6-1 6.2 Potential Sources of Funding...................................................................6-3 6.3 Timeline and Benchmarks for Implementing Restoration Plan...............6-5 Section 7 Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management...................................................7 7.1 Monitoring Plan.......................................................................................7-1 7.2 Maintenance................................................................................................... Section8 References.........................................................................................................................9 Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, ZO�ZP:\Community Development\07 Planning Commission\2012 Meetings-Planning Commission\10-11-12 PC Meeting PH mltfam setbk\Restoration Plan\DRAFT COSV_SMP_Restoration_Plan_for TAG Review_09 17 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Tables Table 1: Required Elements of Restoration Planning for SMP Updates Table 2: Summary of Factors Limiting the Proper Functioning Condition of the COSV's SMA-Regulated Waters. Table 3: Restoration Priority Scoring Criteria Table 4: Shoreline Restoration Opportunities Table 5: Existing Partnership Opportunities Table 6: Timeline and Benchmarks Figures Figure 1: Project Vicinity Figure 2: Shoreline Restoration Opportunity Index Map Figure 3a-3c Shoreline Restoration Opportunities Appendices Appendix A: Representative Photographs Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, ZO�ZP:\Community Development\07 Planning Commission\2012 Meetings-Planning Commission\10-11-12 PC Meeting PH mltfam setbk\Restoration Plan\DRAFT COSV_SMP_Restoration_Plan_for TAG Review_09 17 11 Acronyms ALEA Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account CIP Capital Improvement Project COSV Ciry of Spokane Valley DIP Detailed Implementation Plan DNR Washington Department of Natural Resources Ecology Washington Department of Ecology GIS Geographical Information Systems INLT Inland Northwest Land Trust IPM Integrated Pest Management LWD Large Woody Debris NPCC Northwest Power and Conservation Council OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark REI Recreational Equipment Incorporated ROW Right-of-Way SCD Spokane Conservation District SMA Shoreline Management Act SMP Shoreline Master Program SSP Spokane Subbasin Plan State Parks Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load URS URS Corporation(author) WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 111 SECTIONONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 SHORELINE RESTORATION IN THE SMP UPDATE PROCESS (OVERVIEW) Under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), each city and county with "shorelines of the state" must adopt a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) based on state laws and rules but tailored to the specific geographic, economic, and environmental needs of the community. The primary goal that must be addressed in an SMP update is how to achieve "no net loss of ecological shoreline functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources" (Ecology 2004). This shoreline restoration plan describes actions intended to compensate for anticipated future shoreline habitat degradation associated with development and increased land use pressure. Incorporating shoreline restoration planning into the SMP update process allows the City of Spokane Valley (COSV) to balance anticipated shoreline habitat degradation and enhancement in a manner that maintains the overall existing ecological condition of shorelines. Within the COSV, only the Spokane River shorelines meet the definition of "shorelines of statewide significance." Additionally, all waters over 20 acres in area fall under the jurisdiction of the SMA as "waters of the state." As such, all areas within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark(OHWM) of Shelley Lake are also regulated under the SMA and considered in the COSV's SMP updates. Two active gravel mine pits have exposed the aquifer resulting in areas of water greater than 20 acres. However, as active mine pits are regulated under the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), these features are not addressed in this plan. Updating the SMP involves several elements, including a baseline inventory of regulated shoreline areas, an assessment of key issues and opportunities for improvement within such areas, and a restoration plan to provide guidance for carrying out restoration in a comprehensive manner. The baseline characterization and the assessment of key issues and opportunities have been completed by URS Corporation (URS) in coordination with the COSV's Planning Department. These efforts were documented in a report titled City of Spokane T�alley Shoreline Master Program Update, Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report(URS 2010). This restoration plan establishes overall goals and objectives for citywide shoreline restoration efforts. It addresses degraded areas and impaired ecological functions identified in the inventory and analysis report, identifies and prioritizes restoration opportunities, and prescribes generalized treatment options for various restoration scenarios. The plan also identifies current and ongoing programs that contribute to achieving these goals, as well as additional projects or programs necessary for success. Lastly, this plan seeks to develop a draft implementation strategy, including funding options, proposed timelines, an adaptive management strategy, and benchmarks. The plan is based on the inventory and analysis report and a review of other plans and assessments aimed at improving the ecological health of the Spokane River and Shelley Lake. The term "restoration" has many definitions, both scientific and regulatory. For the purpose of this plan, restoration is defined as: The reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 1-1 SECTIONONE INTRODUCTION area to aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions. (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 173-26-020(27)) Under the SMP, the COSV's role in shoreline restoration includes collaborative planning, regulation, preservation of high quality shoreline areas, and aiding communiry efforts to restore degraded portions of COSV's shorelines. A well-designed restoration plan can help local governments meet the "no net loss" standard of the SMP Guidelines. Restoration planning must, therefore, include some form of monitoring to ensure that intended restoration actions are offsetting the expected loss of function that will occur from incremental impacts sustained over time(Ecology 2010a). 1.2 CONTEXT FOR THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY This plan provides a framework for restoration of the COSV's SMA-regulated shorelines. Specifically, it describes how the COSV plans to develop and monitor a restoration program as part of its SMP. Upon acceptance by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), the COSV will oversee the implementation,progress, and monitoring of this restoration plan. The COSV's role in the restoration of shorelines will focus on the fostering, coordinating, and documenting of restoration partnerships as described in Sections 6.1 and 63. Upon forming these parmerships, the COSV and its restoration parmers would work together on securing restoration funding, as per Section 62. The COSV realizes the importance of implementing this plan and will strive to attain the timelines and benchmarks described herein as funding allows. Per WAC 173-26-201(2)(�, the process to prepare a restoration plan may vary significantly among local jurisdictions depending on a variety of factors including size of the jurisdiction; extent and condition of shorelines; the availabiliry of grants, volunteer programs, or other tools for restoration; and the nature of the ecological functions to be addressed. The COSV is unique in that most of the near-shore riparian habitat along the Spokane River within the ciry limits is managed as natural area by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (State Parks). Due to this designation, the shoreline condition is in a relatively natural and stable state compared with other urban environments. However, recreational use is projected to increase and future developments are anticipated within the shoreline jurisdiction. To balance this increased land use pressure, which has the potential to negatively affect shoreline ecological functions, implementing the restoration actions described in this plan will help the COSV meet the goal of "no net loss of shoreline ecological functions." A limitation to Spokane River aquatic habitat quality is the presence of dams above and below the ciry. The dams limit summer flows and also create slack water at the west end of the ciry. Operation of the dams is a factor that is mostly beyond the control of the COSV. The restoration element of the COSV's SMP update is focused on the identification of restoration opportunities, ranking of those opportunities, and identifying partnerships, planning elements, and grant options to implement these opportunities. It should be noted that coordination between the COSV and State Parks will be required to further many of the restoration opportunities identified in this plan. Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 1-2 SECTIONONE INTRODUCTION 1.3 REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF RESTORATION PLANNING FOR SMP UPDATES The state guidelines (WAC 173-26-201(2)(�) provide six necessary elements for a complete shoreline restoration plan. These elements are summarized in Table 1 with reference to the section of this report in which that element is addressed. Table 1. Required Elements of Restoration Planning for SMP Updates Shoreline Restoration Plan Elements for SMP Updates Section in this Report Identify degraded areas,iinpaired ecological functions,and sites with potential Section 3: Existing and Ongoing for ecological restoration. Projects and Programs -and- Section 5:Restoration Opporiunities Establish overall goals and priorities for restoration of degraded areas and Section 2:Restoration Goals and impaired ecological functions. Supporting Policies -and- Section 4:Prioritization Methodology Identify existing and ongoing projects and programs currently being Section 3:Existing and Ongoing implemented that are designed to contribute to local restoration goals(such as Projects and Programs capital improvement programs [CIPs] and watershed plam�ing efforts). Identify additional projects and programs needed to achieve local restoration Section 3:Existing and Ongoing goals and unplementation strategies,including identifying prospective funding Projects and Programs sources for those projects and prograins. -and- Section 6:I�n lementation Plan Identify timelines and benchinarks for implementing restoration projects and Section 6:I�nplementation Plan programs,and achieving local restoration goals. Provide for mechanisms or strategies to ensure that restoration projects and Section 7:Monitoring and programs will be unplemented according to plans and to appropriately review Maintenance the effectiveness of the projects and programs in meeting the overall restoration goals(e.g.,monitoring of restoration project sites). Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 1-3 SECTIONTWO RESTORATION GOALSAND SUPPORTING POLICIES The goals and policies of this plan direct the course of the COSV's shoreline restoration efforts. This plan's goals and policies are an expansion of the proposed SMP Restoration Element goals and policies and are tailored to address the findings and recommendations of relevant plans and assessments reviewed for this plan. Goal SMP 6: Conservation : Preserve for the future those natural resources,including the unique,fragile and scenic qualities of the shoreline,which cannot be replaced. Achieve no net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline. Goal SMP 7: Restoration: Restore habitat and the natural systems to improve shoreline ecological functions. Restoration Plan Policy 1: Summarize degraded shoreline areas and functions documented by previous assessments. This plan documents areas identified as restoration opportunities by the City of Spokane T�alley Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (URS 2010). For each restoration opportunity identified by the Inventory and Characterization Report, the plan documents the apparent impairment (cause of degradation to shoreline ecological functions) and a conceptual restoration approach. Restoration Plan Policy 2: Prioritize restoration opportunities to identify projects with greatest benefit to shoreline areas. In order to most effectively proceed with restoration efforts, this plan prioritizes restoration opportunities in terms of overall benefit to the waterway. Restoration priorities are based on an assessment of limiting factors (as summarized in Section 3.1, below) in combination with the ease of project implementation (e.g., on public land), and project size. Prioritization methods are described in Section 4. Restoration Plan Policy 3: Establish an implementation strategy. As directed by WAC 173-26-201(2)(f)(iii-iv), an adequate restoration plan must identify potential restoration partners, potential funding mechanisms, timelines, and benchmarks. Together, these elements comprise an implementation strategy. This plan includes these elements and organizes them to facilitate a workable implementation strategy. Restoration Plan Policy 4: Identify existing and prospective projects and programs that are contributing or likely to contribute towards local shoreline restoration efforts. An assortment of existing project and programs are in effect to support shoreline restoration efforts. Some are located within the COSV while others are regional. This plan includes an assessment of the existing project and programs to determine where gaps exist with regard to achieving the goal of this plan. This plan then describes additional projects and/or programs that have the potential to fill in those gaps. Restoration Plan Policy 5: Work with public and private partners to encourage restoration and enhancement of Spokane T�alley's shoreline areas Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 2-1 SECTIONTWO RESTORATION GOALSAND SUPPORTING POLICIES The COSV will work to establish partnerships with public and private groups on specific restoration projects and/or programs, as funding allows. Special emphasis will be placed on creating partnerships with State Parks as they own a majority of the land within the COSV's shoreline jurisdiction. Restoration Plan Policy 6: Monitor success of restoration activities and adapt strategies based on monitoring results. This plan establishes a monitoring protocol to evaluate the effectiveness of the COSV's efforts to implement the restoration plan and meet the overall restoration goal. Monitoring data may be used to identify successful project designs �hat serve as examples for future restoration projects. In addition, where monitoring data documents failed designs, the data will be used to modify the strategy for subsequent restoration design projects. Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 2-2 SECTIONTHREE Existing and Ongoing Prolects and Programs This section summarizes existing factors limiting the functionality of the shoreline ecosystem within the COSV. It then identifies existing ongoing projects and programs that are contributing or likely to contribute towards local shoreline restoration efforts. Lastly, this section identifies additional projects and programs that, in combination with existing projects and programs, would meet the goals of this plan and address the limiting factors. 3.1 SUMMARY OF LIMITING FACTORS Based on shoreline observations and existing natural resource assessments and watershed plans reviewed while preparing the City of Spokane T�alley Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (URS 2010), the following table provides a summary of limiting factors for the Spokane River and Shelley Lake shoreline ecosystems. Limiting factors are environmental variables whose presence, absence, or abundance restricts the distribution, numbers, or condition of one or more organisms (Webster 2007). These factors impair ecosystem processes and limit the capacity of ecological functions. Restoration activities should be developed to address the cause of these limiting factors, where possible. Table 2. Summary of Factors Limiting the Proper Functioning Condition of the COSV's SMA-Regulated Waters LIMITING FACTOR ASSUMED CAUSE(S) AFFECTED WATER Dissolved metals (toxics) Past industrial practices Spokane River High summer water temperature Lack of riparian cover,low/restricted Spokane River, Shelley Lake flows Lack of riparian cover Adjacent land management Spokane River (transportation/utility corridor right- of-way [ROW] maintenance), pedestrian degradation,non-native species establishinent,urban land use (turf,concrete,etc.) Lack of lake fringe vegetation Dramatic drawdown zone on steep Shelley Lake lacustrine banks inhibits natural recruitment of permanent lakeside vegetation. Presence/spread of noxious vegetation Prior introductions,funding Spokane River that displaces higher functioning insufficient to treat cause or contain native habitat existing populations,continued transport along Centennial Trail. Low dissolved o�rygen Eutrophication due to high nutrient Spokane River, Shelley Lake inputs from non-point sources in WA and ID,low flow in slack water portions of river. Lack of fish passage Multiple hydroelectric dains and Spokane River Spokane Falls. Low suimner flows Dams hold back water in Lake Coeur Spokane River, Shelley Lake d'Alene and Saltese Creek,which results in low si�ii�tiier flows to the river and lake,respectively Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 3-1 SECTIONTHREE Existing and Ongoing Prolects and Programs 3.2 EXISTING AND ONGOING PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS 3.2.1 Spokane Subbasin Plan The Spokane Subbasin Plan (SSP), contained within the larger Intermountain Subbasin Plan, was prepared by GEI Consultants Inc. for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) in 2004 (GEI Consultants Inc. 2004). The NPCC is responsible for developing a fish and wildlife program to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by hydroelectric development in the Columbia River Basin, and make annual funding recommendations to the Bonneville Power Administration for projects to implement the program. The SSP assessed existing conditions within the subbasin and was developed in an open public process, incorporating feedback from a wide range of state, federal, tribal and local managers, experts, landowners,local governments, and stakeholders. The primary purpose of the plan is to guide the design and funding of projects that protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife that have been adversely impacted by the development and operation of the Columbia River hydropower system. The construction and maintenance of dams, habitat degradation caused by agriculture and timber harvest, pollutants from point and non-point sources, sedimentation, declining stream flows, urbanization, fish barriers, and nonnative fish have all contributed to the decline of native species in the Intermountain Subbasin. The SSP contains a management plan that outlines goals and objectives which prioritize implementation strategies to address the degraded fish habitat specifically within the Spokane Subbasin. The SSP evaluates the health of the major water bodies included within the Spokane Subbasin, including the Spokane River. The SSP provides province level objectives as well as specific objectives and strategies for effectively managing priority fish species within the Spokane Subbasin. Objectives and strategies within the SSP include the following: • Complete assessments of resident fish losses throughout the Spokane Subbasin resulting from dam construction and operation by year 2020. . Develop and implement projects directed at protecting, restoring, and enhancing fish habitat for both native and nonnative resident fish through improvements in riparian conditions, fish passage, and aquatic conditions. . Develop and meet recovery plan goals for sensitive native resident fish species. • Conduct baseline investigations to determine native resident and resident fish stock composition, distribution, and relative abundance in the Subbasin. . Protect, restore, and enhance existing terrestrial and aquatic resources in order to meet the increased demands (cultural, subsistence, and recreational) on these resources associated with the extirpation of anadromous fisheries. . Where possible, acquire prioriry properties that can be protected or restored to support native ecosystem/watershed function through title acquisition, conservation easements, and/or long-term leases. • Create or use existing incentive programs for private landowners to protect and/or restore habitats to support native ecosystem/watershed function. . Enhance populations of sensitive native resident fish through habitat improvements and artificial production in concert with recovery plans. Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 3-2 SECTIONTHREE Existing and Ongoing Prolects and Programs 3.2.2 Spokane River Water Quality Managed Implementation Plan for Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 57 Watershed planning is being conducted in the Middle Spokane River Basin (WRIA 57) through grants from Ecology. WRIA 57 comprises the portions of the drainage basin of the Spokane River upstream of the confluence with Latah Creek to Washington State's eastern boundary, including all portions of the river within the COSV. Spokane Counry is the lead agency of a planning unit that was formed in 1999 and includes broad representation of local agencies and various interest groups in the basin. The Planning Unit holds monthly meetings that are open to the public. The WRIA 55 & 57 Watershed Management Plan was adopted by the Pend Oreille, Spokane, and Stevens County Commissioners on January 31, 2006. The WRIA 55 & 57 Watershed Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP) was approved by the Watershed Implementation Team on February 20, 2008. The DIP is a blueprint for coordinating and implementing 107 recommendations outlined in the Watershed Management Plan for the Little and Middle Spokane River Basins. The watershed planning effort has identified a variety of water management challenges. The recommendations fall into the following categories: . Instream flow needs . Water conservation,reclamation, and reuse . Domestic exempt wells . Water rights and claims • Strategies for base flow augmentation • Strategies for ground water recharge augmentation . Approaches to plan implementation The watershed plan and associated DIP have resulted in the various key projects being implemented within the watershed. Some future projects may occur within the COSV. Coordination and participation in the watershed planning unit can help implement shoreline restoration projects within the COSV that can help support the SOSV's shoreline restoration goal. 3.2.3 Spokane River TMDL Management Plan The total maximum daily load (TMDL) water quality improvement report was prepared by Ecology in 2007 and revised in 2010 (Ecology 2010b). The report establishes a management plan to address the problem of low dissolved oxygen occurring in the river due to eutrophication in the Spokane River and Lake Spokane. Eutrophication is a process where excess aquatic plant growth and algal blooms occur in water due to high levels of nutrients such as phosphorus. The excessive plant growth consumes large amounts of dissolved oxygen in the water, reducing it to levels that are harmful for fish and other aquatic species. The report includes a Managed Implementation Plan. The goals of the Managed Implementation Plan are to reduce significant amounts of phosphorus in the Spolcane River during the April through October season and achieve water quality standards for dissolved oxygen. The plan Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 3-3 SECTIONTHREE Existing and Ongoing Prolects and Programs establishes limits for ammonia, total phosphorus, and carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand. The plan focuses on strategies to reduce phosphorus because the strategies will likely result in reductions of these and other important pollutants. The plan sets limits on point sources, including the Kaiser industrial facility in the COSV. In addition, the plan must also assign pollutant loads to non-point sources in the watershed. Non- point sources are addressed by a Regional Non-Point Source Reduction Program and a Septic Tank Elimination Program. 3.2.4 Spokane River Hazardous Metals Cleanup Efforts As part of the Eastern Washington Clean Sites Initiative, Ecology is engaged in an effort that involves communities and other partners in shaping cleanup projects, including sites within the COSV. Through the initiative, Ecology is attempting to reduce toxic threats to people and the environment associated with historical mining practices in the Coeur d'Alene Basin. These historical mining practices resulted in contaminants known as heavy metals washing downstream from Idaho. The metals include lead, arsenic, zinc, and cadmium, and they have settled in soil and river sediments at certain shoreline areas along the Spokane River. Within the COSV, cleanup efforts are planned at four sites. In 2012, cleanup efforts will commence at the Barker Road North beach, which lies on the north side of the Spokane River east of the Barker Road Bridge. The other three beaches proposed for cleanup within the COSV are Islands Lagoon, Myrtle Point and Flora Road, which are all on the south side of the Spokane River. Initial cleanup work was done at the Flora Road beach in 2009. However, heavy spring runoff in 2011 damaged portions of the protective soil cap. The new cap will be designed to minimize future erosion. Ecology and local river groups intend to plant native vegetation on the soil caps to help stabilize the banks, thus reducing future erosion concerns at cleanup sites. COSV coordination in these projects may help ensure that revegetation efforts are successful. 3.2.5 Riverside State ParklCentennial Trail Management Activities Through State Parks' Classification and Management Planning Proj ect, the Riverside State Park Management Plan was created in 2005 to establish a management plan for the park that is consistent with the agency's goal to identify appropriate recreational experiences that meet the needs of the public while protecting natural, cultural, and recreational resources for future generations (State Parks 2005). The park includes several subareas. The Centennial Trail subarea is the park area found along the Spokane River in a narrow band along much of both shorelines through the COSV. According to the plan, there are two relevant natural resource management issues for the Centennial Trail subarea. These include noxious weed control and protection of wildlife habitat/natural ecosystems. As part of the park-wide vegetation management program, the plan directs park staff to coordinate with their Regional Stewardship Manager to solicit cooperation from local governments to enhance noxious weed control efforts along segments of the Centennial Trail for which they have management responsibiliry. To achieve this, park staff is expected to actively solicit volunteer participation in manual removal of noxious weeds along the Centennial Trail. Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 3-4 SECTIONTHREE Existing and Ongoing Prolects and Programs The plan directs wildlife habitat and natural ecosystem protection efforts to focus on riparian planting projects. Specifically, the plans' maintenance program includes planting of appropriate native vegetation along the shoulders of the Centennial Trail to reduce noxious weed invasion and enhance slope stability. 3.2.6 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Habitat Mitigation Fund The WDFW issues Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permits to projects proposing construction within flowing waters. In order to issue an HPA, the WDFW must ensure that project-related impacts to fish habitat are mitigated. Using money collected through past permit violations as well as payments made in lieu of onsite compensatory mitigation from various bridge projects along the Spokane River, the WDFW created a habitat mitigation fund. The purpose of this fund is to provide dollars for fish enhancement projects within the river that offset past habitat impacts associated with the permitted projects and violations. Typically, the fund is passed on to local conservation organizations that implement specific shoreline restoration projects. Use of the fund is discontinuing as the agency is moving away from the current process, which often makes the link between project impacts and future restoration projects difficult to follow. Future bridge projects, like the Sullivan Road Bridge repair project proposed by the COSV, will likely need to prepare project-specific mitigation plans in order to obtain an HPA. However, remaining money in the fund may be available for shoreline restoration projects within the COSV. To be eligible, the restoration project must benefit fish habitat. As riparian restoration projects and shoreline stabilization/erosion control project benefit fish habitat, it is possible that these projects would be eligible for use of any remaining funds. 3.2.7 Local Volunteer Groups The COSV is fortunate to receive help from a variery of volunteer groups that engage in habitat restoration, often in shoreline areas. These groups include the Spokane River Forum, Friends of the Falls, the Spokane Canoe and Kayak Club, the Northwest Whitewater Association, Trout Unlimited, and the Veterans Conservation Corps among others. Recent shoreline restoration projects implemented by such groups include riparian plantings and the restoration of Mirabeau Park This project involved debris and weed removal, a drain system to remedy shoreline erosion from stormwater runoff, and hydro-seeding with native plants to stabilize the affected shoreline area and provide native plant community support. Other recent volunteer efforts in the COSV include the 2012 Spokane River Clean-Up. This year's event is planned to cover the Universiry District, Sullivan Park, Barker Road, and Harvard Road in Spokane Valley. Each year, the amount of litter removed from the Spokane River's shorelines grows as more volunteers show up and cover more area. A growing list of groups and organizations participate each year, including high schools, churches, whitewater groups, service clubs, and others. Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 3-5 SECTIONTHREE Existing and Ongoing Prolects and Programs In addition, the Lands Council planted a mix of about 50 native shrubs at the Barker Road trailhead during the Spokane River Cleanup in 2011 and about 1,200 ponderosa pines along the Spokane River near Sullivan Park during Reforest Spokane Day in 2011. The Lands Council plans to continue these efforts in Spokane Valley during future Reforest Spokane Days and has identified high schools that may be interested in assisting with volunteer efforts. Shoreline restoration opportunities described in this plan would be of assistance to the council as they plan for future shoreline planting projects. 3.3 ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE SHORELINE RESTORATION GOALS The following proposed additional projects and programs may augment the existing, ongoing projects and programs in a manner that addresses the limiting factors and, thereby, meets the shoreline restoration goal (Section 2.1): • Support volunteer groups engaged in shoreline restoration activities • Coordinate with WDFW to direct wildlife mitigation funds towards shoreline enhancement projects within COSV and/or develop habitat enhancement strategies to offset impacts associated with proposed bridge projects • Work with the Ecology to incorporate revegetation into future hazardous materials cleanup activities located along the river • Work with project managers within COSV government to incorporate shoreline restoration into proposed capital improvement projects located near Shoreline of the State • Generate funding through fees to support staff availabiliry for shoreline restoration coordination The existing level of local interest in shoreline habitat enhancements is promising but, as a volunteer and grant funding-dependent venture, it cannot be relied upon alone to realize the goal of no net loss of ecological functions within the SMP planning area. However, grant-funded volunteer efforts have contributed greatly towards shoreline restoration efforts, as noted above, and the COSV should periodically check in with these volunteer organizations to see how the COSV can assist with planning for future shoreline restoration efforts. Regional WDFW mitigation funds have been and will continue to be provided to either the Spokane Conservation District (SCD) or Trout Unlimited to be used for implementing habitat enhancements. To tap into these, the COSV will need to coordinate with the SCD, Trout Unlimited, and the WDFW to create agreements for the design, permitting (as necessary), implementation, and maintenance of shoreline enhancement projects. Therefore, the COSV planning staff should begin to regularly coordinate with these groups to steer funds towards identified restoration priorities. Ecology's river cleanup plans currently lack robust vegetation enhancement components. Cleanup sites noted near Sullivan appear to involve a gravel cap with no vegetation. These Ecology cleanup efforts should be encouraged to incorporate a vegetative restoration component, preferably with input from State Parks and the COSV, to ensure that the projects are consistent with the Shoreline Restoration Goals of the SMP. Capital improvement projects slated within the shoreline areas have the potential to be planned and funded so as to include an element of shoreline restoration. This includes the Sullivan Road Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 3-6 SECTIONTHREE Existing and Ongoing Prolects and Programs Bridge repair project and enhanced formal river access developments described in the access management plan element of the COSV SMP update. When discussing justification for the spending of tax dollars on shoreline restoration elements of future capital improvement projects, this plan may be referenced as it describes the role of shoreline restoration under the SMP. Lastly, the COSV may modify shoreline development permit fees so that they generate sufficient income to cover the cost of staff involvement in shoreline restoration coordination. Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 3-7 SECTIONFOUR Prioritization Methodology The prioritization methodology described in this plan was created specifically for the shoreline conditions along the Spokane River and Shelley Lake. Prioritization of restoration areas was based on five factors that are simple to measure and greatly influence the value of shoreline enhancements. Geographical Information Systems (GIS) technology was utilized to measure and score each site. Each site is scored on a scale of 1 to 5 for each of the five factors. The sum of the scores for these five factors provided an overall priority score for each site. This score illuminates restoration opportunities that are both practical to develop and result in the greatest benefit to shoreline functions. Table 3. Restoration Priorit Scorin Criteria Factor Measurement Scoring Criteria Ease of property Public ownership Public(5)or private(1) ac uisition Shade benefit Aspect along stream South bank(5),west bank(3),east bank(2),or north (thermoregulation) corridor(for planting of bank(1). Sites with inore than one aspect receive the woody vegetation) highest aspect score. Sites that would not produce shade are scored as 0. Scale of restoration Size(acreage) Area>2 acres (5),> 1 but<2 acres(3),>0.5 but Q activity acre(2),and area smaller than 0.5 acres(1) Role within context of Habitat connectivity Creates or fills gaps in wildlife habitat corridor surrounding habitat matrix (continuous woody vegetation cover)to produce a corridor that is greater than 10001inear feet(5),500 to 9991inear feet(3), 100 to 4991inear feet(2),or under 1001inear feet(1). Restoration opporiunities that would not create shade within 100 feet of the shoreline are not a licable and receive a score of 0. Consistency with other Supports at least one other This plan addresses SMP Goal#7(Restore habitat and SMP goals SMP goal the natural systeins to iinprove shoreline ecological functions).For shoreline restoration actions that have the additional merit of supporting other SMP goals,such as flood hazard reduction(Goal#9)or safe public access (Goal#10),those actions will receive a score of 5 for this factor. Natural Heritage Data and Prioriry Habitat & Species data were also factored in the prioritization analysis but these data did not affect any one site more than the others based on a lack of known populations within the COSV's shoreline areas. The priority scores are ranked from highest to lowest in Table 4 of this report. Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 4-1 SECTIONFIVE Restoration Opportunities Restoration opportunities are discussed below as either a programmatic opportuniry or as a site- specific opportunity. Site-specific opportunities draw directly from physical shoreline assessments that identified sites where degraded conditions could be restored to a properly functioning condition. These are opportunities for shoreline restoration for the COSV's consideration as the plan is implemented. As restoration opportunities identified in this plan are voluntary and subject to available funding, the COSV is not obligated to implement these opportunities directly. However, the COSV should reference these projects when reviewing shoreline development proposals or discussing shoreline projects with public agencies or interested volunteer groups. Where possible, the COSV should attempt to incorporate shoreline restoration into prospective projects, and track such progress, to document compliance with the shoreline restoration element of the SMP. 5.1 PROGRAMMATIC RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES Programmatic opportunities are those that can be incorporated into existing or proposed programs with the goal of restoring ecological functions to the waterways without focusing on specific sites. Programmatic opportunities include approaches like public education or regulatory policy changes. These changes do not address specific sites, but rather, modify the way in which the public generally uses and views the shoreline areas in Spokane. OPPORTUNITY STRATEGY 1. Public Education Examples include incorporation of stream restoration practices (planting) and stewardship opportunities (minimal water use, litter removal) into environmental education curriculum at Spokane Valley Public Schools and colleges. Also, schools can be assigned to specific shoreline reaches to foster a conservation relationship between students and their local environment. 2. Shoreline Regulations The COSV manages development by regulating use, setbacks, height, and Enforcement design, and other standards to reduce impacts to ecological functions. 3. Shoreline Maintenance The following are examples of ways in which the COSV can restore shoreline areas through COSV maintenance programs: a. Identify potential funding sources to support the development and implementation of shoreline maintenance and enhancement strategies and low impact development strategies for COSV parks located in shoreline areas. This would apply to the following parks managed or maintained by the Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department (within SMA jurisdiction): Sullivan Park, Mirabeau Park, the Myrtle Point Natural Area, and any portions of the Centennial Trail maintained by the COSV. b. Develop roadside maintenance and enhancement strategies with the City of Spokane Valley Public Works Department for road ROW areas within SMA jurisdiction. Maintenance strategies can include slope stabilization (seeding/planting of bare soil areas), noxious weed control, and protection of native vegetation. Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 5-1 SECTIONFIVE Restoration Opportunities Representative streets include North Barker Road, North Flora Road, North Sullivan Road, South Mirabeau Parkway, and East Coyote Rock Drive. 4. Conservation Futures The COSV may utilize conservation futures funding to purchase private properties with high restoration potential or developments within a flood zone to enhance shoreline areas. 5. Stormwater Plan/ The COSV's stormwater master planning may identify ways to Development Standards reduce non-treated runoff from entering aquatic habitats. Additionally, development standards may be reviewed to determine whether updated standards would provide opportunities for reducing pollution associated with stormwater. 5.2. SITE-SPECIFIC RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES Table 4 summarizes the site-specific restoration opportunities that were identified during detailed stream assessments that occurred in 2010 as summarized in the City of Spokane T�alley Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (URS 2010). For each opportunity, the cause of degradation (impairment), functions affected, conceptual restoration strategy, and restoration priority are provided. Photographs representative of the general impairments encountered at the restoration opportunity sites are contained in Appendix B. Opportunities are arranged by their priority score. Spokane River restoration opportunities can be seen on Figures 3a, 3b, and 3c. Shelley Lake restoration opportunities can also be seen in an inset on Figure 3c. Sites are generally numbered progressively along the waterway, beginning at the downstream extent and continuing progressively up river to the east. It should be noted that opportunities for enhancing the drawdown zone (shorelines between seasonal high and low water levels) around Shelley Lake were investigated. Little research exists on successful revegetation practices for drawdown environments. A review of historical photography indicates that vegetation did not naturally establish along the north, west, and south sides of the lake. Therefore, efforts to establish vegetation there would be better described as enhancement rather than restoration. Recent past efforts to establish vegetation were unsuccessful according to local residents. Vegetation establishment along the lake's northern, western, and southern drawdown zones would likely require either stabilizing lake water levels, benching/terracing the shoreline, or irrigation. Due to the proximity of the lake's shorelines to adjacent, developed residential properties and the frequency of human visitors on and around the lake, enhancement of the lake's steep shorelines would seem to be a low prioriry within the greater COSV. This is especially true with regard to ensuring no-net-loss of shoreline ecological functions when considering the degree of difficulty associated with water level management and/or shoreline grading around Shelley Lake. As such, the shoreline restoration opportunities identified around Shelley Lake (see Table 4) focus on the restoration of habitat along the east end of the lake and a wetland area just southeast of the lake where shorelines are more likely to support successful plantings. Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 5-2 SECTIONFIVE RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES Table 4. Shoreline Restoration Opportunities Site Priority j� Waterway Impairment Conceptual Restoraflon Approach Acres Public No Photoi Score Area of bank erosion due to high A coinbination of slope bioengineering 22 30 Spokane winter flow energy directed against combined with potential upstream fluvial River bank.Heavily rip-rapped moditications to decrease�low energy 0.65 YES 3-C 1 Managed access and noxious weed Degraded habitat with large controL If off-road driving is curtailed, 20 31 Spokane concentration of noxious weeds and several pine saplings will develop into River off-road vehicle traffic productive riparian forest habitat 2.88 YES 3-C 18 11 Spokane Fence along access road areates Create wildlife undercrossing beneath River impasse for wildlife fenced roadway 0.03 YES 3-B 18 Zq Spokane Remnant patches of native prairie Weed control and seeding with native 3-B,3- River habitat competing with weeds prairie species 3.63 YES C Spokane Break in corridar full of spotted 17 13 River knapweed Riparian plantings OJS YES 3-B Spokane Degraded habitat clearing 17 23 River associated with old road. Riparian forestplantings 0.44 YES 3-B Managed access and noxious weed 17 33 Degraded habitat with large controL If off-road driving is curtailed, Spokane concentration of noxious weeds and several pine saplings will develop into River off-road vehicle traffic productive riparian forest habitat 0.60 YES 3-C 2 Signage indicating riparian rehabilitation 16 6 Spokane Break in high quality riparian shrub to allow for passive restoration.Many River corridor saplings here 0.30 YES 3-A Fonnal trail establishment beriveen 16 10 Spokane Habitat degradation due to parking areas and rock outcropping along River unmanaged pedestrian traffic shoreline. Signage,plantings,and 8.47 YES 3-B Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan,September 17,2012 5-3 SECTIONFIVE RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES s�ce Priority j� R'aterway Impairment Conceptual Restoration Approach Acres Public No Photoi Score between parking areas and shoreline. strategic fencing to limit dispersed travel 16 18 Spokane Remnantpatches ofnative prairie Riparian forestplantings along banks and River habitat competing with weeds prairie restoration on terrace above 2.57 YES 3-B 16 Zp Spokane Disturbed/cleared area with large River spotted knapweed infestation Riparian farest plantings 0.11 YES 3-B 16 Z 1 Spokane Disturbed/cleared area with large River spotted knapweed infestation Riparian forest plantings 0.13 YES 3-B 3 16 29 Spokane Ecology clean up area resulting in Riparian plantings and habitat features River bare gravel fill (woody debris) 0.28 YES 3-C 4 Spokane Slope bioengineering and riparian 16 36 River Erosive gully plantings 0.09 YES 3-C 5 Fonnal access combined with native Recently burnt area with heavy foot plantings and weed control to deter 16 38 Spokane traffic associated with recreation transition to post-fire cheat-grass River access coinmunity 2.07 YES 3-C 6 Remnants of native Rathdrum Prairie 15 5 Spokane habitat competing with noxious River weeds Weed control 3.94 YES 3-A 15 � Spokane Degraded riparian slope area with River heavy foot traffic Riparian plantings 1.36 YES 3-A 7 Plant height appropriate shrubs along 15 16 Spokane Eroding area beneath transmission slope beneath powerline to create cover River line,break in riparian corridar for wildlife and slope stabilization 1.77 YES 3-B Spokane 15 26 Eroding,steep streambank beneath River trail. Support for trail and bench Slope bioengineering 0.61 YES 3-C Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan,September 17,2012 5-4 SECTIONFIVE RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES s�ce Priority j� R'aterway Impairment Conceptual Restoration Approach Acres Public No Photoi Score felture are failing Wetland functions including water filtration,temperature regulation,and 15 40 habitat complexity would be enhanced by Shelley Wetland along tributary to lake lacks planting native shrubs in upper fringe of Lake cover/shade wetland and trees along wetland buffer 2.25 NO 3-C 8 14 12 Spokane Sparse riparian vegetation lacks River cover/shade Riparian plantings/underplantings 1.41 YES 3-B Opportunity for narive plant 14 32 Spokane Area historically cultivated for apple establishment and/or upland native prairie River trees seeding 1.48 YES 3-C 13 19 Spokane Remnant patches of native prairie Controlled burn combined with native River habitat competing with weeds seeding and knapweed control 0.65 YES 3-B 12 4 Spokane Area full of construction debris and Debris removal,managed access,and River disturbed by random trails riparian plantings 0.55 NO 3-A 12 8 Spokane Sparse riparian vegetation lacks Riparian shrub plantings and native River cover/shade prairie enhancement 4.59 NO 3-B 12 17 Spokane Slope erosion due to heavy foot Controlled access/stairs would allow for River traf£ic passive restoration 0.28 YES 3-B 9 11 3 Spokane River Erosion/break in corridor Slope stabilization/plantings 0.14 NO 3-A 11 9 Spokane River Degraded riparian habitat Shoreline stabilization/riparian plantings 0.30 YES 3-B 11 14 Spokane Erosion associated with heavy foot Bioengineered slope stabilization and River traffic managed/fonnal access 0.04 YES 3-B 10 Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan,September 17,2012 5-5 SECTIONFIVE RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES s�ce Priority j� R'aterway Impairment Conceptual Restoration Approach Acres Public No Photoi Score 11 15 Spokane Reinnant patches of native praiiie Weed control and seeding with native River habitat competing with weeds prairie species 0.50 NO 3-B 11 22 Spokane Disturbed/cleared area with large River spotted knapweed infestation Riparian forest plantings 0.12 YES 3-B Provide a return flow culvert to drain 11 34 Spokane flood waters that otherwise erode trail River Flood erosion undercutting trail and adjacent habitat areas 0.02 YES 3-C Spokane Degraded shoreline habitat with high 11 37 River spotted knapweed concentration Riparian plantings 1.87 NO 3-C 11 9 1 Spokane Habitat degraded by old road River resulting in break in riparian corridor Riparian plantings 0.33 NO 3-A 9 35 Spokane Degraded shoreline habitat with high River spotted knapweed concentration Riparian plantings 0.25 YES 3-C 12 8 39 Shelley Reed canarygrass removal;native plant Lake Noxious weeds establishinent 0.27 NO 3-C � Z Spokane River Eroded gully Slope stabilization/plantings 0.01 NO 3-A � 28 Spokane Break in vegetation corridor on steep River slope Riparian forestplantings 0.10 NO 3-C 13 Degraded grassland habitat 6 25 Spokane dominated by non-native vegetation, River break in riparian forest corridor Riparian plantings 0.49 NO 3-C Spokane Remnant patches of native prairie Selective weed control and passive 3 27 River habitat competing with weeds restoration 0.67 NO 3-C 1Photo Numbers Refer to Appendix A. Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan,September 17,2012 5-6 SECTIONFIVE RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES 5.3 CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION APPROACHES Restoration opportunities listed in Table 4 of this plan include conceptual restoration approaches. These approaches address the specific impairments at each restoration opportuniry site. Where possible, they attempt to address the cause of the impairment to achieve long-term gains in shoreline ecological functions. The majoriry of the recommended restoration approaches have to do with riparian forest or scrub-shrub plantings. This is because these types of restoration projects tend to provide multiple ecological benefits that enhance various shoreline functions. According to research conducted while preparing the City of Spokane T�alley Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (URS 2010), riparian plantings tend to provide the greatest return on investment along the Spokane River, considering the options available to the COSV. Plantings within areas of active river flow tend to require greater planning; these areas often require additional restoration factors to ensure that plantings are not washed out with the first high water of the season. Riparian planting projects located above the area of seasonally high water are generally much simpler to establish. This section provides generalized restoration information associated with the conceptual approaches noted in Table 4 to aid in developing site specific restoration plans. 5.3.1 Riparian Plantings Native riparian plantings almost always enhance quality of riparian habitats. The qualiry of riparian habitat promotes several beneficial functions to both the terrestrial and aquatic habitat components. These include pollutant filtering, wildlife habitat (cover, food, roosting), habitat connectivity, shading/temperature control of water, and input of organic matter (e.g., leaf litter) that provides food web support to aquatic species, including support for benthic invertebrates (Covitch et. al. 1999). Benthic invertebrates, or insects that live in the river soils, are a primary food source for native fish but heavy concentrations of inetals in the river substrate have negatively affected the invertebrates, thus affecting the overall food web (Ecology 2005). Planning for riparian planting projects must address the physical and ecological site conditions such as soil stabiliry, moisture availabiliry, and aspect (amount of sun). Successful riparian plantings require appropriate species selection for a given set of local site conditions. Some species are found more commonly on the north, dry banks of the Spokane River, while others prefer the less-exposed southern banks. Certain species grow near the river edge while others prefer the elevations slightly above the water but where roots can reach the seasonally low water table. For these reasons, a qualified ecologist with riparian planting experience should assist with developing planting plans for specific areas whenever possible. Appendix C of the City of Spokane T�alley Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (URS 2010) includes a list of vegetation inventoried along the shoreline. Native species contained in this list provide a good starting point for the development of a restoration project plant list. 5.3.2 Streambank Stabilization Streambanks often become unstable as a result of natural forces, such as increased water velocity. Where vegetation is present, the water scour energy is dissipated by the vegetation and Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 5-7 SECTIONFIVE RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES the soils are bound by the roots, thus resulting in less erosion. However, where vegetation is absent or degraded, often in association with pedestrian foot traffic or historical clearing, soils become less stable and prone to erosion. Erosion, although a natural process, can be detrimental to aquatic organisms when the amount of loose sediments in the river (turbidity) exceeds low densities. In addition to protecting human infrastructure, such as the Centennial Trail, streambank stabilization reduces the potential for shoreline erosion. Depending on site-specific conditions, one or more actions may be appropriate to stabilize an eroding shoreline area. Riparian plantings contribute greatly to bank stabilization by binding soil in roots and acting as a buffer to water velociry and abrasive materials transported in water. Based on existing streambank conditions, stabilization may also require engineering techniques such as slope set-back, terracing, soil wraps, or placement of large woody debris (LWD), to promote long-term stabiliry. The term "bioengineering" used in Table 4 refers to the use of both engineering materials and biological materials that can grow within an engineered structure to provide structural support as well as habitat and shade functions. Examples include large rock or soil wrapped in geotextile fabric and secured with willow stakes. Streambank bioengineering in low precipitation areas often include live-stake plantings, brush or tree revetments, erosion control straw blankets, and willow fascines (Hoag and Fripp 2002). In certain situations, more durability is needed to secure banks against high water velociry, to protect property and stabilize eroding riparian habitat. Hard devices such as rip-rap should be specifically sized and configured to the situation by a qualified person or team. Where possible, they should incorporate plantings. Geotechnical and hydraulic considerations are important to assess on a site-specific basis. 5.3.3 Noxious Weed Control Noxious weed control is an essential component of riparian vegetation maintenance and restoration. Native vegetation,in many areas throughout Spokane Valley,has the potential to re-establish through passive means (i.e.,by itsel�but competition from non-native and noxious vegetation in many areas is sufficient to prevent its successful growth. The installation of native vegetation in areas where weeds are prevalent requires careful site preparation and noxious weed maintenance. Given realistic constraints on long-term site maintenance, the best opportuniry to control weeds is to select plants to install that can compete against the weed(s), and in the best case scenario outcompete (i.e., shade out)weeds. The goal should be to establish a"weed-resistant"plant communiry to the extent possible. An Integrated Pest Management(Il'M) approach to establishing fa�orable conditions for native plantsand controlling invasive plants should be used. Several references are a�ailable on weed control and specialists with the County Noxious Weed Control Board are very knowledgeable of current control strategies. Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 5-g SECTIONSIX IMPLEMENTATION PLAN This section addresses an implementation framework for the COSV's shoreline restoration planning as per WAC 173-26-201 (2)(f)(vi). An implementation plan must include identified partners,potential funding sources, timelines, and benchmarks. 6.1 POTENTIAL RESTORATION PARTNERS The following organizations have demonstrated an interest in shoreline protection or restoration in the viciniry of Spokane Valley. These organizations may be contacted when seeking partners for restoration project funding, construction, and/or maintenance and monitoring. Table 5: Existing Partnership Opportunities Organization Summary Washington The WCC is an affiliate of the Ainericorps prograin administered by Ecology. The Conservation Corps WCC provides members the opportunity to develop skills in environmental (WCC) restoration,trail work,environmental education, and disaster response. City of Spokane Valley Water districts are involved in planning for water use within the COSV. They may be Water Districts interested in partnering on projects that conserve water or enhance habitat. Friends of the Falls Friends of the Falls is a non-profit organization working to implement projects identified in the Strategic Master Plan for the Spokane River area. Inland Northwest Land INLT is a local,non-profit,non-political organization with over 450 members. Trust(INLT) Through easements,acquisitions,and by working with other conservation partners, INLT works to preserve wetlands,shorelines,fannlands,and forests in eastern Washington and northern Idaho. Local Academia Three local colleges have biology programs that include riparian ecology studies. By coordinating with biology professors,the COSV may be able to create mutually beneficial relationships with their biology studies,particularly with graduate students studying riparian ecology. Gonzaga and Whitworth college have undergraduate biology programs. Eastern Washington University has undergraduate and graduate biology programs. Riverside State Park The foundation is a volunteer group that assists the efforts of State Parks staff by Foundafion raising funds for the park,accomplishing specific projects,and being a helpful source for working with the community in many ways.The mission of the foundation is to preserve and protect the natural resources and inherent beauty of Riverside State Park. Sierra Club Upper The Sierra Club is a non-profit volunteer organization that has been working to protect Columbia River Group the natural environment and communities.The club is one of the largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States. Spokane Audubon The inission of the Spokane Audubon Society is to provide services to the Spokane Society region that allow natural ecosystems to become more healthy,thriving,and restorative, to nurture and protect birds and other wildlife and their habitats,and to encourage biological diversity for the benefit of people and nature in the Spokane region and the world. Spokane Canoe and The Spokane Canoe and Kayak Club is an organization of individuals who are Kayak Club enthusiastic about human-powered watercraft.In recent years the club has participated Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 6-1 SECTIONSIX IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Organization Summary in joint habitat restoration projects,including the Spokane River Cleanup and tree plantings at Mirabeau Park. Spokane Conservation The Washington Conservation District Law (RCW 89.08)describes the responsibilities District(SCCD) and purpose of conservation districts,which include: •Conducting education and demonstration projects. •Carrying out improvements to conserve natural resources. •Cooperating or entering into agreements with others,including other districts. •Making equipment and materials available to landowners to assist them in conserving natural resources. The mission of the SCD is to promote the sustainable use of natural resources within Spokane County. The district provides information on their available programs and services, as well as potential funding sources froin outside agencies. Spokane River Forum The forum is a non-profit organization that creates materials,events,and activities that promote regional dialogs for sustaining a healthy river system while meeting the needs of a growing population. The forum has been involved in various shoreline restoration projects,including tree plantings at Mirabeau Park The Lands Council The Lands Council is a Spokane-area grassroots,non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the quality of life in the Inland Northwest.The Lands Council has protected thousands of acres of public land,and in the process worked to preserve forests,water, and wildlife. Trout Unlimited, The mission of Trout Unlimited is to conserve,protect,and restore cold water fisheries, Spokane Falls Chapter their watersheds,and ecosysteins as a means of maintaining our quality of life. The Spokane Falls Chapter of Trout Unlimited does this by promoting effective fish manageinent decisions,and by taking an active part in habitat restoration and fish production proj ects. Veterans Conservation The mission of the Veterans Conservation Corps is to assist veterans by providing Corps training and volunteer opporiunities that help to restore and protect Washington state's natural resources.Volunteer and internship opportunities include: •Streain restoration and inonitoring •Revegetation of native plants •Restoration of watersheds,forests,prairies or native grasslands •Environmental ar community education •Other protection or restoration activities WDFW's Habitat The Restoration Division leads WDFW's efforts to restore and protect aquatic Program,Restoration ecosystems by providing scientific,engineering,and planning e�ertise through Division cooperative partnerships.The division's focus areas include: •Providing near shore ecosystein assessment,strategic planning,and funding assistance to local communities. •Identifying and prioritizing needed projects to remove fish passage barriers. •Providing training and guidance to local restoration project proponents to help communities inventory fish passage and successfully restore habitat. Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 6-2 SECTIONSIX IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Organization Summary • Supporting aquatic habitat restoration by providing environmental engineering review,design,and technical guidance to public and private landowners and restoration entities. In addition to the partnership opportunities listed above, many others are likely. For example, local schools may be interested in supporting shoreline restoration projects. 6.2 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF FUNDING There are several sources of potential funding available to the COSV and potential restoration parmers for shoreline restoration projects. This section summarizes the most likely and available funding sources. Potential restoration partners in the Spokane Valley area have indicated that the following grants have been, or are likely to be, used to fund previous shoreline restoration projects. Environmental Protection Agency: • Five-Star Restoration Pro�ram - This grant funds community-based wetland restoration having a strong "on-the-ground" component, with long-term ecological, educational, and/or socio-economic benefits to the communiry. This grant is available to citizen volunteer organizations, corporations, landowners, federal, state, tribal agencies, local government, charitable foundations, and youth groups. The grant provides $5,000- $20,000 on average. A $10,000 grant requires in-kind or cash match at l:l. Each project ideally involves five partners. Apply in March - awards in May. For further information contact John Pai, US EPA, Wetlands Division, 202-260-8076,pai.john@epa.gov. http://www.epa.�ov/owow/wetlands/restore/5 star/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: • Habitat Conservation - Partners for Fish and Wildlife Pro�ram - This program provides expert technical assistance and cost-share incentives to private landowners to restore fish and wildlife habitats. Any privately owned land is potentially eligible. After signing a cooperative agreement with a minimum duration of 10 years, the landowner works one- on-one with a local Service biologist to develop a project plan addressing the goals and objectives of the landowner and the Service to benefit fish and wildlife species on his/her land. The landowner is reimbursed after project completion, based on the cost-sharing formula in the agreement. For further information contact Juliet Barenti, Eastern Washington Coordinator, 11103 East Montgomery #2, Spokane, WA 99206, 509-893- 8005, Juliet Barenti@fws.gov. • Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office Recoverv Pro�ram - Recovery grants are available to fund restoration, recovery, assessment, or research projects with an emphasis on well-planned "on-the-ground" projects that restore or enhance fish and wildlife and/or their habitats, benefit federally listed/candidate species and their habitats, or improve listed species numbers. Non-profits and private landowners are eligible. There is no Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 6-3 SECTIONSIX IMPLEMENTATION PLAN match requirement; however, projects with some cost share or in-kind support may be prioritized. Proposals are accepted near the beginning of each fiscal year for restoration or recovery projects to be funded during that fiscal year. For further information contact Suzanne Audet at (509) 893-8002, Juliet Barenti at (509) 893-8005, or Greg Van Stralen at (509) 665-3508 ext. 20, or by email at: suzanne_audet@fws.gov, juliet_barenti@fws.gov, or greg_vanstralen@fws.gov. Washington State Department of Ecology: • Centennial Clean Water Fund - Provides funding for activities to reduce nonpoint pollution, comprehensive planning (sewer, storm water, watershed), and/or construction point source facilities. Available to local governments, tribes, and special purpose districts such as sewer, health, conservation districts. The funding is capped at $250,000 for up to four years and requires a 25 percent match except for construction projects, which require a 50 percent match. Funding is awarded annually. Notice and workshops occurs in December and January. Applications are due late February. For further information contact Tim Hilliard at Ecology, (360) 407-6429, thi1461(a�ecv.wa._gov. http://www.ecv.wa.�ov/fap.html • Flood Control Assistance Account Pro_rg am _ This statewide financial assistance program funds proposals that can demonstrate a propensiry for preservation, restoration, or enhancement of Endangered Species Act-listed fishery resources through planning or flood damage reduction projects. Any public entity that belongs to the National Flood Insurance Program, including towns, cities, counties, and eligible Native American tribes throughout the state are eligible. Funding is capped at $500,000 per county per biennium and requires a 25-50 percent match, depending on the project. Applications are due in May, with funds available in September. For further information contact Ted Olson at Ecology, (509) 329-3413, to1s461(a�ecv.wa._gov. • Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant (319) Pro�ram - This fund provides grants to local governments, Native American tribes, state agencies, and nonprofit organizations to address identified non-point source pollution and to improve and protect water qualiry. Grant funds available for each state are determined by an Environmental Protection Agency-developed allocation formula. Grants are awarded annually. For further information contact Helen Bresler at Ecology, (360) 407-6180, hbre461@ecy.wa.gov. • Watershed Plannin� Grant Pro�ram - This program provides funds for the organizational, assessment, and planning phases of watershed related projects. The program requires a 10 percent match for Phase 4 watershed planning implementation. Eligible candidates include government agencies or tribes who wish to apply for grant funds for watershed related projects. To be eligible for Phase 4 funding, the Watershed Plan must have received approval from the planning unit and the county government(s). Grant amounts vary depending on which phase of planning is to be funded and whether projects involve one or more than one WRIA. Grants are funded on a fiscal year basis. Applications are due in June and awards are announced in July. For further information contact Cathy Hubbard, Grants Administrator, at Ecology, (360) 407-6491, cahu461 @ecy.wa.gov. Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 6-4 SECTIONSIX IMPLEMENTATION PLAN • Washington Coastal Protection Fund — Terrv Husseman Water Qualitv Account - This account is used to fund environmental, recreational, and aesthetic restoration and enhancement projects. Funding is available to local governments, tribes, watershed planning units, nonprofits, and state agencies. Prioriry is given to projects that involve parmerships with local resources/ volunteers. Requires Ecology partner. Total available funding is $200,000 for all projects. Match not required but given points. Applications are accepted year-round. For further information contact Melissa Gildersleeve, Watershed Coordinator, (360) 407-6548, m�i1461(a�ecv.wa.�ov. Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office: • Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) - This grant supports the purchase, improvement, or protection of aquatic lands for public purposes, including improved accessibiliry. The grant is available to local governments, state agencies, and tribes. Applicants must provide at least 50 percent in matching resources. Projects must be consistent with the local shoreline master program and must be located on lands adjoining a water body that meets the definition of"navigable." For further information contact Kim Sellers, Outdoor Grant Manager, (360)902-3082, lcims(cr�,rco.wa.�ov. Washington State Department of Natural Resources: • Restoration Fundin�Pro�ram — The DNR funds projects associated with its aquatic lands lease program. Funding rypically comes from the ALEA, as described above under the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office. Under the ALEA, the DNR is instructed to ensure that revenue generated from state-owned aquatic land leases goes back to helping restore aquatic environments. Recently, the DNR funded a riparian restoration project at Riverwalk Park in the Ciry of Spokane. For further information contact Monica Shoemaker at(206)799-2949, monica.shoemaker(a�dnr.wa.�ov. Recreational Equipment Incorporated (REI): • Stewardship Grants - Every year, REI gives 3 percent of its previous year's operating profit to organizations that employees have identified as important players in local conservation activities. In 2010, the company gave $3.7 million in grants to more than 330 groups across the country. The Spokane River Forum is one of three Spokane-area groups to receive an REI grant in 2011. The grant was used to provide improved river access and signage as well as habitat restoration at Mirabeau Park. 6.3 TIMELINE AND BENCHMARKS FOR IMPLEMENTING RESTORATION PLAN Restoration plans involve long-term goals and efforts with major developments generally occurring as funding becomes available. As per WAC 173-26-201(c), master programs must "include planning elements that, when implemented, serve to improve the overall condition of habitat and resources within the shoreline area." To facilitate this policy, this plan ou�lines five steps that the COSV may pursue to implement the restoration element of the updated SMP and the policies in this plan. The first step will be to establish a restoration program within a department of city government. Within one year of the SMP's formal adoption by the COSV and the state of Washington, the COSV will begin implementing this plan. Implementation Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 6-5 SECTIONSIX IMPLEMENTATION PLAN includes the dedication of staff resources and the formation of a central shoreline restoration file that will contain all documents associated with efforts to coordinate, implement, or otherwise support shoreline restoration activities. Once familiar with the goals, policies, and opportunities contained in this plan, COSV staff would begin the second step, outreach activities. Outreach is likely to include efforts to form partnerships on site-specific restoration opportunities, meetings with potential restoration parmers to develop inter-agency/department plans for shoreline restoration, and/or efforts to meet with public and private schools to foster shoreline education and volunteer opportunities. Once the COSV has identified potential restoration parmers and specific programmatic or site- specific projects, the third step would involve supporting requests for funding. This would likely happen as a parmership with one of the organizations identified in Section 6.1. Applications for funding will likely target one of the sources identified in Section 62. The fourth step involves support throughout the construction phase of a restoration activity. Examples of COSV support may include, but are not limited to, provision of ciry resources such as material transport, site preparation, signage, or public outreach. The fifth and final step would monitor the success of the restoration program, as measured by meeting the benchmarks of this plan, and assess the existing program based on monitoring results. The results of this assessment will document progress in implementing the restoration element of the SMP and aid in determining whether a subsequent update is necessary to the SMP, as required under RCW 90.58.080(4). While exact dates cannot be specified for these five steps due to uncertainties in the SMP update adoption schedule and funding availabiliry, Table 6 provides a target timeline to aid in conceptualizing the process. Benchmarks associated with each implementation step were developed to provide a means of demonstrating progress and compliance with SMP restoration goals. Because of uncertain external funding sources and partnership opportunities, benchmarks for site-specific restoration projects are not the focus of this plan. Dates associated with each benchmark are based on an estimated formal SMP update adoption date on or before December 31, 2012. A later adoption date would affect the timeline relative to the period of delay. Benchmark dates are not meant to impede any progress that might occur prior to the date given; any early shoreline restoration progress should be documented and stored in the COSV's files. Table 6: Timeline and Benchmarks Year Step Descripfion Benchmark Ending 1 2013 COSV allocates resources for portion of COSV verifies that sufficient resources have been one full time employee(10-25%) as per allocated by 12/31/2013. COSV will create a this plan. shoreline restoration project file to store and track progress. 2 2014 COSV restoration staff has met with COSV will have met with potential restoration several key groups to create partnerships p�ers. Meetings minutes will be documented on specific shoreline restoration projects. and stored in restoration project file. COSV restoration staff has met with other COSV departments to look for shoreline restoration opporiunities associated with Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 6-6 SECTIONSIX IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Year Step Descripfion Benchmark Ending proposed CIPs within SMP jurisdiction. 3 2016 COSV,in partnership with others,will COSV will participate in one or more apply for restoration funding. applications for restoration funding in partnership with organizations identified through outreach activities by 12/31/2016. 4 2018 COSV supports funded restoration COSV will provide support(as described in projects,as able,with materials, Section 6.3,above)for at least one restoration transportation,site preparation,signage, projectby 12/31/2018. engineering,etc. 5 2020 COSV monitors progress of program and COSV will monitor the progress and success of specific opporiunities. COSV assesses the COSV's restoration program,as per Section progress,determines need for additional �•1 of this reportby 12/31/2020. SMP updates. Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 6-7 SECTIONSEVEN MONITORING, MAINTENANCE,ANDADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 7.1 MONITORING PLAN This section provides steps for monitoring the successful implementation of this plan as well as a process for monitoring site-specific restoration projects. Monitoring data will be utilized for ongoing maintenance strategies, adaptive management, future grant applications, and subsequent SMP updates. 7.1.1 Monitoring of Plan Benchmarks The following monitoring methods are designed to document progress with the implementation of this restoration plan. Proposed monitoring activities are tied to the benchmarks established in Table 6, above. Future SMP updates will benefit from data collected in this regard. Monitoring will highlight where the COSV's plan is most successful and where it may need improvement prior to the next round of SMP updates. Benchmark 1: Allocate staff resources by 2013. Monitorin� Method: Review and evaluate annual restoration budget to determine if existing funding is sufficient to support implementation of restoration goals. Contin�ency. Request budget summary for projects with restoration element. Ada�tive Mana_eg ment: If the COSV cannot allocate financing for staff to implement a restoration program, the responsibiliry may need to be parsed out and delegated to a variery of departments. If this is the case, it will be important to have a central shoreline restoration file to track overall progress. Benchmark 2: Meet with potential restoration partners by the end of 2014. Monitorin� Method: Document that meetings have occurred or that an attempt was made to schedule meetings. Contin�ency. Document internal COSV meetings where restoration concepts were incorporated into shoreline development projects, such as new bridge work. Adaptive Mana�ement: If the COSV is unsuccessful at organizing a meeting with potential restoration partners, the COSV may delegate COSV's position to a restoration partner with demonstrated restoration goals that complement those of the COSV. Benchmark 3: Apply for funding by 2016 (with partners). Monitorin�Method: Document application for restoration funding. Contin_gencX: Document why no action was made (e.g., lack of partners, staff una�ailable, etc.) and how to ensure future action. Ada�tive Mana_eg ment: If the COSV is unable to partner on restoration funding applications for any reason, the COSV may alternately seek funding through council for programmatic restoration opportunities within the COSV, examples of which are provided in Section 5.1. Benchmark 4: COSV will participate in and provide support for a restoration project by the end of 2018. Monitorin�Method: Document participation in a restoration project. Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 7-1 SECTIONSEVEN MONITORING, MAINTENANCE,ANDADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Contin_�encX: Summarize attempts made to assist restoration projects and revise strategy to a method more capable of yielding results. Ada�tive Mana_eg ment: If the COSV is unable for any reason to support a restoration project, the COSV may revise its strategy for obtaining restoration partners and implementing restoration projects. Benchmark 5: Monitor and summarize success of implementing restoration plan by 2020. Monitoring Method: COSV may prepare status reports documenting the COSV's progress toward achieving the goal and policies of this plan, recommended adaptive management strategies, and the need for updating the restoration plan during the next cycle of SMP updates. Contin�ency: Document cause of noncompliance with SMP/failure to implement. Ada�tive Mana_e� ment: COSV will revise strategy based on experience over the first five years since restoration plan was implemented. 7.1.2 Restoration Site Monitoring Several of the site-specific restoration activities are similar in nature. Due to this fact, it is especially important to monitor the success of individual restoration activities so that subsequent restoration projects can be modified based on the particular successes and failures of each completed project. In addition to monitoring new shoreline restoration projects, it is advisable that the COSV or their partner contact existing shoreline restoration project proponents to see if they are monitoring their restoration projects and, if so, if they will share their monitoring data. When applying for restoration project funding, the COSV and partners should include funding for follow up monitoring in the funding application. Monitoring data can be used to direct maintenance activities and demonstrate that the COSV is following through on the grant-funded projects. In addition, it can ensure grantors that future grant-funded restoration projects will have the benefit of lessons learned from past projects. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program provides the following description of the process for implementing monitoring for riparian restoration projects: The general process for implementing riparian restoration and monitoring is outlined in five basic steps. These include: (1) setting goals and objectives, (2) developing a monitoring protocol, (3) designing and implementing data collection, (4) analyzing and interpreting monitoring data, and(5) assessing restoration efforts. This process is helpful for monitoring all shoreline projects described by this plan. Additional detail for each of the five steps is provided in the literature (Guilfoyle and Fischer 2006). 7.2 MAINTENANCE Maintenance responsibilities will depend on the specific project and the dynamics of the parmership between the COSV and its restoration parmer(s). Maintenance is an important aspect of project completion. The COSV is already committed to maintaining various areas under its park maintenance responsibilities. Often these overlap with State Parks' maintenance responsibilities throughout Riverside Park. Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 7-2 SECTIONSEVEN MONITORING, MAINTENANCE,ANDADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Specific maintenance activities will depend on site conditions and monitoring results. For example, restoration projects proposed at sites with identified noxious vegetation will need to maintain weed population reductions. Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 7-3 SECTIONEIGHT REFERENCES Covich et. al. 1999. The Role of Benthic Invertebrate Species in Freshwater Ecosystems. Bioscience. Vol. 49, No. 2. February 1999. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology ). 2002. Washington State Wetland Evaluation Study, Phase 2: Evaluating Success. Ecology publication#02-06-009. Lacey, Washington. Ecology. 2003. Introduction to Washington's Shoreline Management Act(RCW 90.58). Ecology Publication 99-113 (2003). Lacey, Washington 2 pp. Ecology. 2004 Restoration Planning and the 2003 Shoreline Management Guidelines. Ecology Publication#04-06-022. Lacey, Washington. 7pp. Ecology. 2005. Draft Cleanup Action Plan, Spokane River Upriver Dam PCB Site, Spokane, WA. Toxics Cleanup Program, Eastern Regional Office. Spokane, WA. Ecology. 2006. Spokane River Water Quality Managed Implementation Plan. Spokane, WA. Ecology. 2010a. Shoreline Master Program Handbook. Ecology Publication #11-06-010. Lacey, Washington. Ecology. 2010b. Spokane River and Lake Spokane Dissolved Oxygen Total Maximum Daily Load: Water Quality Improvement Report. Ecology Publication#07-10-073. Lacey, WA. GEI Consultants. 2004. Intermountain Province Subbasin Plan. Prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Spokane, Washington Hoag, C. and J. Fripp (Prepared by), for Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2002. Streambank Soil Bioengineering Field Guide for Low Precipitation Areas. USDA NRCS Plant Material Center, Aberdeen, ID. Guilfoyle and Fischer. 2006. Guidelines for establishing monitoring programs to assess the success of riparian restoration efforts in arid and semi-arid landscapes. US Army Corps of Engineers Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program. Technical Note ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-50 Spokane Counry Conservation District (SCCD). 2005. Spokane County Proper Functioning Condition Stream Inventory & Assessment. Spokane, WA. State Parks (Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission). 2005. Riverside State Park Management Plan. Olympia, WA. URS Corporation. 2010. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update, Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Spokane Valley, WA. Webster2007. New MillenniumTM Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.7) Copyright� 2003-2007 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 g-1 FIGURES Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 APPENDIK A Draft COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan, September 17, 2012 , , _ _, l. l ... _,,,��°�- 6� ' - 3.a� � �, h e - �.:�y � � �. ,:*.� ,.$!-'.�� t`,/i_ ';ti ��r��i.4 �� r,Y�>s�--�- `� \�� a ?�i `,��. i � �.. r �� i�' ,¢, �t�i:lrv '� a ; , 4 ' . .. � . � �. ;si'3 �� ilfAE-"°' i '�f�.'i f��. �'�1 �� --� - �.� �a-i I �.�� i- ` . , -- �..,; ��'f' 1�� '��1� � .t�ar�lr . l . � ;�*�"`-�� I r il��i�twitqv^�� .� - ,��„C.a"~ tI � °� �� c +..G Boundary of WRIA 57: t- r , ' � 4. ' a � ti.. s : : �� M ��,�,,� �'��,�k o Middle Spokane River ,pa�pc1en Par4; �s ,�`��,.ra i ;;.��' � t o�1� ��r� F, � ,°�'i' �!' �r Y' � - ,. - � �` .__ _ /'��t � � ..;� � � � � .{ � .r .� " a_ .1 f �� - ( � __ g � I ��t}h 1 1�, � 7��- „�� ' I �, �-�,�-_ - `� ,�,� �,. a �a�:�� + � s; ,�i _ � � --� -�� '� _ , : �� t '' � �� , � 4— i . lar� �� ,,� ��, 2 q �y � _�� ,�'.� -4. 6 �� ' � F�_ / _ \ i �a�. " _.I .' � � _ � � ��..,.� �� `�� r ��1€�S� ' �r .�. ��it��i`�� • `� ,�'��rf �` ` � �i� i e .a i� ~ _ t a ' � � � � � � � . I *4�` ^_ 3�� ,� � , � , � ,� i t i -.l _ � /�,_ -'�'.�t, : �� .,'�S`t"�'Ov�+e '�fG� / 1`�`- r' ' �'. 4' '� p c� �_ .�� '..� �� ° , .�,. � 4"�J J. �'�I '� {r t L ti �T\ 1 j .. L'YOI'Ry��. '�YtS' �' '�sk / � . � �- r � JnGt . \r _.. I :� -�"t°an ��`r�n�< ,�tu�r ��' � � , � ^� ,tr ��.� - ��_ rt�� Figure r ! '�_��- � � r ��q� 1 ��- ��C�#'�_ � .�a �4� �. t i� �2rk� '� � ��'�� /��;,. � � •V/�. �,r_ Y"�r��'e�•�`r� [P�r ��i^�� .�' ""`�.�� i` ��..'� i i.�r 2 -�� - �r��ti. � �"� !': � ' f� Y` i�' � i i�j �� . �� i �"-t � t ..i ri `Y I _ ry.�..r __ � Y'^e �+ �.a 7� � i ��, #r � a t'' �d d [ j �'i VA�i Y 4� �� _�_ r -'� ..-.n.. �' ,.;. i , �.14��i j � :Y _s .. 1 ...... ..� �� F �.., ''�" � j �� ' � i �/`' t —_ - 1�,,.� � � � H_ ' 4 l i �r}., �„ �„�„ k 4: � �:-. d� . i ..,.�'..- ,'�� - ;�-'�'+,�* '�� ,nPiS d�:� - y-ra,1 , �.:,, l a.� ,r•,�j i� �+ -."1 ��f°�c*��C#tll: �' . Fliylle�n� ..L,;�`_ . '8�"1 . �- q�"r .` ., ...� T� i �f152� r ry � _�,;�y�' � "�;_ r'� !1'NG�� ..� �'�8�4�7�1't� r ,,..,_„��.. ,-.—�«-+ ��..•.-+»M� �• ° n � ( } � ,Y_ �. .9ac:L t� �i��i I k a��"""�" � 1-a t r w�^ ' ��_� s' `�' y—� ) ` � 4 :r, �S� .,��i� �f , . �`'rer �� " ' t { T � ( r, u`�".;� __�—''�._ �+� Ht a i #�'° + f ., _ , } y 1�_�i u i- ��, Y ,:.eY :""�� ` "� �?�` I �,� ... {' k �.�r P CR,T' �i.x _ � a� 4 I ,..' {.�t '.. .0 '*.?... ...._4 �� .T. ��"'',t�A' - t�l` ..-� �` �w � ��F '`�r;. .. ',--�,t�'.� -'�� !- '- . ..�. r ° L ' v � Y� µ l.. 1� ' I ♦� �� _ � .�„ `�^-�. � '� `c - .� ,.," x�_�y � ;yoi + . 4 i� �"' ,-- �'��,;'5�3��`��sY'�,d '� 4 �-��w ' "'�1' _ ,�� °��~ "� S,. � .,�i i�,v�`"�4 d�$['"�C �� . 3e,�k �... ' -�..� L ,n�r"�� °'^} i] f"^` _: �� { ` r I.t K� �,�m� ..-°' � f ��.�., [�� .�a , �� t,rt: ✓._ 4� i �.. C� ."'� � / . w �`.�j r,r �" `�.iw-� ,p p�.� �. �i,�y� ,�+ Y ` r� �- + � f k.. � � .�r � r+ c�j,� � �;� '•.�\ `.r '�,;'��d'"-�si � �� I �� T, f '' N -'-•� � i ��: -a� � t'.� ' ��w. �� 'i -.-. �� r�,7 � .u"' . Pt.T•�i:�ir_.,� y�,'?:.a r �,x � � � � �;w1:w� ..�. .. �_. � ¢ E *..,.. .a.Mr i �-1. ��',^ 'Y .. � �;; f::�, �E �l �'"�� \'.� ��. , r 0 :� ..., _._ -�--..r �e`'3�1 . d L �r,-i, ti �t :�f� � � a. � r ., 1 ` `1 ,�Tn � � }i .I : F �, � �- ., . J . ,� r .._°„� ;_•m.� .. S�-� � � � �R f��`� .'.. � �� S F ��j� "�,�..I __. � . 4i� �'�` g� �'+'d�� ' �f� _ . I ` 1 • .. , _. ( �r h � ;.�... . �.,� p r . � �"�� ,.. � � F 'Or� ...i i' b. � _ _ � . - � �'P i' I.� `� , .. �� 1 i � \�%\1� \�1 5'�. � � g � "rv 4 'k �� :.-� . � # .n, � l . , . ..yMl�wrf ` .. 5i1.�'�.� �4 �� , `, i! � � l`� I � '` �`e��`'P y � � C� � 1��rv ,k #�t+`. '�}•� , ~`r"` � �. S.'� y � ' �-� �,,tl � � �k �f �3, � ' '; �'{ �� '� �, , ti��r 1 �9 �,}, r 4„ �/ ,,_ Y$ f `!t p a � � k ' �. �'p-f�,�3_� '! Yf� i ��*�.iWF, � ��6. . 'w;_: � J ,' _.'+.�_`� ��l,=�i� ' 'r+��,i' � r'�1�.� ti- ..� ��1 � �- ,�� . �� .��. � � ,��. �� Y p "� 1. _ A r" 7 I.�lj �f.:_ � S . �u �( �. . r� l r 'f : �f' � ir ��P � s[.r�l i;.�� f ; � .�i ` t #r " eri„tit. � 4 ��p.n�� " � I J I �- � �i k�, 'I s +i:.,:v I y�.�` �..�le ..� 7 ; iJ�` ��' . . \ .. l-�S ! `�.`�F 7 ;. �'� F ��9 !"�u. pY��g � �' g p ' • „ Y ;� r 4� �; . �� i Co ri�ht OO 2010 Nation3i Geo ra'hic SocieE Map Features N Figure 1:Overview of City of �,J Spokane Valley City Limits W�E Spokane Valley Shorelines ___j SMP Planning Area s City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Restoration Plan Q Restoration Opportunity Map Index � � 2 Shoreline Master Program Update Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA)#57 Miles �uiy 2ot2 �I� , � ,.� �, a- �a r ,. � v _ .�„lr.yt "�¢+,e +4'��`� �'t �rr:- si �;.� �, �- r . p ,,,,� r.� � .�,T.�' - .t'► . � �.�,�as k�'n'` i� r ,a� l J�� e='�e'�a• Rich� W�.�'._'''� y a;��< . � � � � � � , . P. �r�� I ��. �� ' .. ,� .,.. ��V�k, ;'�� - � ��3 cn� a`, � m� , �>�7 �m 'I m � ` r'a a� � � �, I �` Opp #5� f ` ko° �� `�m \ �� -e� . � ,< �,.,��}„ �r. '?;` . .: ', t� `°a � - �o�i,n � � �c� _ . ' e� ",d.q, , .,,°:'�'�' �.. ,�-,. .. _., !.,,.��. ,� ��a. . �I. . \' ��L. _ - - � � `" , � � t' , �� r��E�t.�m .�"�' "f� ��. P ."� q j= �' � "o�' �-a �- - � � _ -.- 2,,,ti �' n� "` :: � .• R F,' . I.�. . � � fl, w' :•� .. " w� v � p i� m�`°#S r � ��` �� d �� r a�d a.�- �Trent � �« � ' � � :: r / °��'"�� kas. '� ��'� �#1�` ��"� �"" � '. - Op�#6�, �, '�,, ' �?�-'�,,� ,R...�. . ,`� __ �� yy' �., '.:�f�6�'� '� ;�,' , . . � �r„ � .� ' ��.- ��. ..a� .. . . -�- � �g�, . _: �ti,'. - '. }K� G�, \ �. ' .. A� :n T „ � , � / � � � , . �� .� . � 7 ,r� �,� , 4 � � � �. � � a '``, � �/ "�� # - +°� �_ � . ,a" � ,. . �, �� ' �� '�S� °' ° � � � (1�P��t�r .�� oy,.r-"`� � �� ' �� tl' �,�.�� ,!� M . �� A�G�, _ � , � E� `h r � d Ow''�ie" � ��Vl/ r a11��4'a�n`R'� �,�k rOpp.�#2 ' �o c + -..� ��a� � �a-�'. � - . a�e s� Opp #4� �- °«� s�^ -- ,.„, b , � � ,�yI.t �Go`l � ��h "��.��, ,,,� k:��, y�.� ,'*,�M. . . . .. . �f'�^� � � � ' � . . . /� �„ . � � � �.: y�� rY N .t � ,.=. �i?. ( �/ , ., e��s �+�.� � "�:M� . . \ � __� k '�OM��. 4 7�-1..�2s,�. . J \ �"�<.�ph �,_.. _ � / �, O r #3 0��`� y � �'"a�� o ��ek'' y � ��r n e��{t� � a �� pp• � . \ F , -�j . p�� , � � O #8 � � pp � � � � , � � ' �� `'" � '� _ �_, 4 \ � �_� �; � �- '�� • Opp \ ..r�� r ;�, � � M= 4'� � ' -- � � . . � :'� ,�\, , •. Y, � , F,R. r,�. . - ' r a . .. . ,_,�t �� "i�a.�.. � � a4 ��" �� 3 aJ..- s��' I:�r ;�-T � �a . �� . . Mirabezu.', . A ti..,ry1 � _^-.,� . I /" Fta �" ,� ` t�` � � � ..- ��` i, � t ,�,„ : k` �� a J<� � �*s,r��ah k f i t sR_` �7^r- i `� i r--- �, �� r , �� " ,�'' r., « , �� rt.�s �� d ' ,�rederick ' � ,.+ � m,i �+ , r �ti� � ��3 z �k . �, \ � �a �� f kr7'r w, � r �r +j� w m: �s, *M7 g j., y�,, �� j?'� � � �.:�{�. i � Frederick a- F _� � �+:�*��'a��r r r �~ �';��; "ytie'r �••-.�'� c` �e �"" �+��"'�� c! }� ��" �� ... i r.r,t� r yX':.. � •r. ,t.'il:E %" � �}k».- k�' .,�� 6v�i �1,A,h, � ' �\ . �°�•yj _ _ �, .' ,�-#1'� ��•. Fairyiew++�-*�_.. � rr-; `'� �� '�� . �- t`-,- a'° ..?_Y�` f'' �_•. .,�-,- � �.#a ,��+S r; —�:_� �-s..� �;,3 $,{� ..;$� �a 0.+ `!.S 4p A�� ;4�¢'� i'� s�i l. �� 1. ,• � F'• � Fairwew ',��, �F. .._a� � _ � � J` �c�4+b i< � a � '� a�� lc e C��" � ��m,� .�'r .� r ♦ t 7,,'qti�,� � 4 ,� �� .�a�,� t�,1..��'g�3 r�� *;'^u �`i�,\. _ ��y �4}T � �"rfi �a_-,.�. Tr4` ��...°P��Y� �G�ace, s��s - ° �'"�'�'��S��"'� �.Ci�� y�\*°��r��;;�„ ��s�` 1 f��,a�: +r.� titi�'�p,i� ..+�I�� .cw� �e, �"o S"" 1,i?i` d�1C yz �.� :.,. ,�. , ve°. .� t �_ ai:O '�#70��'9, ,'[-��' , � � Grace �"e__� rF.fi-r,.�F o�� Buckeye m r.,t `�. ��^}��R r 3� � ; � b� �yn� P`P�,a.,,x.�.^�:x, '��. ; ��. .� �a� _;: -r : .'+�Y� �'�'~�� a�!�,�,^"�i�5 ��fi� �6. •+;'#�� ,^�6�'��i� I > � W r�� Cg�.s '� P? � �"��r 9� ,rAo ?.'?��.x e4;P'dE.._4', 4 s.;:. f J ,�..: � Ff' � !G e t A� 4 � 6:,`'�,`4 't � �Z� . � � t .r,.i' � ,,�.�. �T-. _ � r r rj�i' BuCkeYe N.. . � �..�_ � ^ +�,5 ,�&� ., a" �� •��*� •:�.�` ,'f,y,�'�t� `{ ,, �''�l.`.. ��r�V 'r� ti'. , _r.- "'.BuckeYe �� ` � � ' — - . � � ,. ,�. ., r. ' x �r. . G) T.Yi"-c ',s,D F;a; ' �.. �' . �� 5 . , '"�..�"t't� � �ti� -� � �+._ 'k � � t. a� e � � p �'i lr A� . .��' � ... �'�`��4 � Fw� � ... o ��M Mar'ietta � . ' Ur3�",� �� 'w �,� �� ,. ��s,�s -��M 4 �. � "'':� T i�l�"� t 5 iE "'� i "�v,."'• � �k � ��;,:.-+, 'M �� _ e.. dcY ~ � �,*� } � .. ` x � ��'�Y r"� �� r��`�' r ,+. � ,PrkSO r n�r.^r�`1< t +.��` � +�:� � F a � r�� ,�� i"" %m i .r--' . . 3�++ �',� _� .m ,� .p,., �` : � '�'r�.+�F� 7 �C m ; �.�� . � � �u.� � � - � � � � � �� Jackson _.. - , . c .w. �;',��'m ' :. +++�.• x V� � �� o- � a'dM�� 'RA��A� �►� �� ., _ � y t� .� � � �� S � �`� .p � _Montgo eryi., w+,+sFwe> a w_ e �+ti '4�� `.�h , c1: s -.'.. -�.. �- y\'*� �..�.��S�i91B �� ''��.��t��'� `'�.�� 'r'°".�''�e..��NS 5v��.0 .r� �,0�� y:. �� °' i:i. �'�"��"; �� ''= L�Sf��`�''„' '-`e�1� �;; ��i t y1��' �a�,.. . ,,��1 , — �.- 'Iy •.�� "�, - � �M��7A�� A„� .� �. .�..4��,� \ �,� �' t .irk., '4 d°•�,' �,r.r.� �F��I "i Map Features N Figure 2-A Shoreline Restoration Opportunities j _] SMP Planning Area �,J City Limits w�E Spokane River Shoreline Restoration O ortunit S City of Spokane Valley pp y Shoreline Restoration Plan Public Shoreline Property �� Shoreline Master Program Update � Private Shoreline Property Feet �uiy 2ot2 =,. . �� "i—a' ��v . > > �� +AA '�.��y� �i— -J-- �� e�'� Opp.#8 � "��' > > �,. �'�� '�� `./ . '. ,_ � �} ` Y�� 1 . �— I �? `m Industrial Park,E ��.„ a '�. I r r - -�� ",� R�� '�? :�� :.. � � °',�.. a ,'�i m .,i +,j.. s..; .�c '�� ^ r_.. �,, � �.�' .'_?. r •. Y f�' �n�l � �' .�� ` �Y � �� {�.�r q. _ _ _ ,., `�_. ' . e. :�6a'-.�r [ � - - - � " - � �y4I f - y�,.� _ d . M� �� l `•� . V�-�.. '� i � -� f ., . � .. _�i.._ �: r�� . . '" � (`."Sf. �111 �+t�. �,�y.��, d # . �..° .�'. ., � l �., \; �� '�� - �� :: , I� - , �—� 7M+* . .�`-.a �I�.. -��. �a-a �°�� ! c. � y =.J�� .�, a � •'-`+�� _—� - .Y.,�.. � ... �� t� -.!m� � � �..�e��Clid� . �d•,. .� ' \ \ '' k" y,,,,_ 7E� i. �"t.. .� y�,_.,,_, . ..' S.� r � M �f "k :,� - �S Fairnew e,w o �--- ;} � � ,�� O #9 � � � �-- � � �` �g . �� t4a \g�~� � pp.. � lir..r.�� a I °i i j I �. 1 , �,►r i`Ti�` � : �c �y��o. 1 'O :#11� _ . � �I_� � �,.�: �3�' � � , pp • � �� ia ��: �`} � i a � ' �r�r�arar�+�'�"'��. , ` � � � '� , _n ,r etty � � r i,� , .. kp � ,e � �'�,,,,�,.aw,_ � _ ' � r..� j �� 'm ��,.�'a� �'v� .,r [�,` ��i -��. I � . �� ..s✓' .. ..,r'r�` .a � v Oka.h#�Ot.t'. \�~ y, � , • ' , ��.� � r!+ .:r �� _ pp , .;, �''� , =r �' �,�;��, '�� '•�� Opp.#12 � � �—� ��}�i"''�'°�l;.,"'T"„r`' '�_ �� ;t ,�� `�t`� ��w `_� � _ >�° `" r ° «w , , °it$t � # Opp.#14 .„, m 'e�� O` g. . �}�^. \ a��, � ,�.� * m�i�.-� s+�— 7 � �� . , . .'_ ' _— '- . .sz �� s � �_ ,'� k , °, ;,' .�,_-: pp' .+�~� ` � . j f A f�� , ,' �'� �e° ^ �, +��'l,!.� _�«�a O #15 r. ` ° A i ��°'° � �� '*+'^ ' '��. ��,� ff ;�.� �+ ��. � �'� . ��t . 'Z. �y'�E .: �W 'r,,�'��y,e - _�: �r F ..,� y�"''. .. 1,,.�. �, . .t,yL �,.� } .y� a°' � °:.�.. � o,x ..^`��'� � �� ',� �.a, '.`�.°� ^w,��:- � �... � � .. � � . � �� ,� � �._ ,��- "��, � � �.Opp.#16 � 4' �i �" �' � � .,��fa�� Mansfield � x� •a�pp #��3 �liu�;,'��aFl�'^�;�� `� � �� , �� ir,� � ��P t C� � " �; ,, ,.., , .+. ,. . � - '�� ,I►': ' � .. :... ��°':, � � �,��" � . , � � � a;� . � � __ ��_� -� a. � P� �;- �, p na'_( - � �' ' 4 k�4 + � � �� " �� India i� # � � �.. `�:�-� `� , �� ».... pp• ,��. � . � i a- ._. � � � �� w � r ,�x� �" O #77 � G` � y �+w r f�" � S p�+ �n� . ��'.I�� 9 � ` �R �' �}F �t \ i'� \ �iR �•. ;� _ , , - - ^ - . �" � 6 � �g` ��, r. � Opp #24 �, .� .,.cl�s'Q...— . �,` fi� . � �� } °�.�tY �K�-,f�,4�. � _ ' ....T,�. � ' ' _ – i so wzso oN '� �� r �. � ` "� r � .Nora �90 E290 OFF � �! �::. F ' c�S�g r,., �, M�� `;? ��a s,Fjo� Opp.#19 - , 1�� + � � s -Or i u, z � f � ,�p a � � � ��: a� �:k' . �90. �ai r . c�a, �e,,r, �`7� �� ,:.� �NM-.��`�a��k I1 €� _ A/t� - - �k�,.�� 4� ��1 � � �ai ' . _ �`s T' �, / ,� �-..y �'", t � . . i -� k .,r�.l F.+�'k�" s i�'� �1�. -�.a°' � .. ; � ��e°� �� ti �-.4a � ,�,c"]otR_�, t � � � i. w�� "le�r4'" a+ +s3 t�,�� I so E2so oN ��`'�'�.w�`��„� �V Opp��.#18'_ �� t �z �,�' � � 'a+�' � �'''��y�,��' �^' ..w�+:�.`—- 1 ,°r� '� F � .... ._9 ' t � . '�1�'` m �� 6 t 3 �,�-� e / 0 ��:,w,_ , � 91 �� ,�,' �i „w �'t��,, "�,;" M�ss�on - ` ��`w�'E2g10F l 190'E291`ON �90W2 �N � ��, _ �./ � 'a vrt��id {��;�r�I ° ,,+c�,�"'�� s s F 90 , Opp.#20 'Opp.#21 f��. ��, 4' ;^�ti e��t,�' �w:a; �r�f Sinto,, �„��"ffi �A.!�`wk :t�.�� "a•,�, f �.-�Opp.#22 O . #23 . � • . � .' � ' t� k. -. �t . , �3�i+,� . - , �r_,:. • _ �1��( � �' � _ pp• - r Map Features N Figure 2-8:Shoreline Restoration Opportunities SMP Plannin Area Cit Limits w�E Spokane River and Shelley Lake(Inset) L—_� 9 L.J Y Shoreline Restoration O ortunit S City of Spokane Valley pp y Shoreline Restoration Plan Public Shoreline Property �� Shoreline Master Program Update � Private Shoreline Property Feet �uiy 2ot2 h� �, i � �t-a�� E: __ r - �-.� '' -�. r�F_':': .�.� .�.:�i . :..�f— � 1 � .�_.r � t� t�� a,::..:... qQ,, Oa\to� Y _ .. �t,g'�• .S r '� :,�+�1�3 'w x' t* •. r � R � � - r Dalton„ � '�t' r�( i '�✓ r.- Na�yme ¢ �, - Euclid „ � k - - � - � - r-- I4I � - . , � ;� - - . � .. .��u _ , �. j�_.� a � I�I �. , E�clid w �� r _. - �pp n, ; _ _. ..� .� . � i �' ` #32 �. } y� ,.�". -�� _ �� - ! r �z� �`r �-- ' �� ,� �W � �� . :� ' r:� /�• - �' L �:, i� �� 1 - >m. �.�11' - ..) �� .-.�w� � .F . ma� e�'�m'��_„tk� ° I � � r�,`o � .-.� ,��- � -�'�� r��t.r��'Favv,iew� - ��:. v . i a j��' �� 4- - 4'+x'�,.,��! - .. � � � �-.e�#.�.st A y�s,.i t a e,�' 8:. .� �[ T_r 1_ �o_+- �i•" •q�' .tA�.,.:^I.f :��L �� '� {..". ♦f- �tp, t r, ,��lS .. .. .. i CR_. g�p� .S �o � Euclid� . �� a�* � sr� Gra _q ,�� '� _ �� .�-,- ' * tn / `� � m- � irK-!"1 --;'�i� e : �,o. / S.-'._ ;. �e. : r� � �� `��, r Y„� � 4�'"��". ��y�� r.a � I // n r,� ��'�� ,ss,y a'� .Bu 4keYe . � .'r'+''' �- e � i�... �> . y ew'� ' . � F: .�� )\ � .� �,�'s � � �. ^� g�:�.i�� 4-�'..M1,'y p S.F ,,. ��'� Ih �`�}� �..� �.�� q'� � �' h\Opp 1#31� � `` tie�� _' �� ,!� Opp.#38� �� .,� �, r,r?j-. �y""f..:.1'� � . ; � �,l� 0., / � � /::im��'J"" . ,\� .�� \ �.J S �.,,.. ary,nA�^.a�� ` - i :1� r . , ,'- i. . - �,�1� �i ��`. � �>Opp #29 ��1 rr'� • � �.i��c3 ,,, �'�, �G ��`�-^`" �; �""�'' � i: r - . - - b �i .�;��r fi1... iS a �k ,�.°y;� � ` ._s . _ �� s . ti � .4; \ #' � �V .. T' ��Y- +{ .i�`'R'� / , . � � � � , y �,.'^y ��` , .l��e�.�, �"1��i �`� � "! ,'� a�'��' � Opp #35a'i y ," 1�+ � . I �� e a^�.��"/' � s�d� / � �a r�y 9� �<Mti� ��,tt'� � �' �p�,k#,$�4 � .,. 71 . �� ,r . . _ I �143 ' +�� , I� 1k. . t.' ,y�'t� ♦ �x .:::�+� r ' \\�1•f��+' d�9,ty �.�°-� r . "r� ��fJY„��` �;,'��"e�'��"�.y:� ��"' ��4i �"i i'�"� \C¢ I �s�'..- �� \��`� _ `ae' a�`1�.. �. r i � Opp:#27 ', .� � a `E� -�' d y�r- `- �:s�� Opp.#3,0 �l��T ' �::x, � „w � ��" � _ �� rl F.,- _ �" rm - � I ' � ,,` I� � _`�;�.s --._ .. ' "� .; �c 0.F w '� Fr1�� r r � F 3�r' I �i" I -1" \�'�_ o� � � /i �, ��,�W P"4�' � �t9°f�•'"" 1-. •`�r :.f 7 - f� _, C7 - i a .r.��Mo° _ � {�, � Opp # �. � � Opp #37 ��;' r.�. , r r . � �/ #28 ,s�. 'rr�.:��.wrr r / � "� pp; � - 4 Shannom c r R Y; ,-�-�\ �/ vr44� �; Mansfield , �`�r� _ r � m : Q I:� �x / � r . � - - r ', '� � .. • Michielli m ��' ''' ' � o �� :�'�j` Knox ,rr . �i, .. 4 r:,;► �i',�:. �� 4th /�'S(hell'ey-�ake\ � ��ea �� - , °�;. � ��.�► ��'a a •��`ti ,Indiana .k 3 5kh o�� a'I% �. � r.ll<� " W r D m �_ �k "' r�' ,c? ��F�' o O s�o�� Opp.#39 �. u �' �� '��—yIndiana_ - r�OpP#26 -�t� ° � r�'i� c � .i _.��^�e �V I"'�� _ � 6°oti�:v � � . � yj�. �� -Ba�dwm� ,r � ro. � a k r i � d. a� -° - � - � '�� 6kh `ti�� .. { '1� �+# �3•_.$ � °`� r ' �g� .r'�y„�, i' � �. �/ / . � = °� !� " � t �� „ ,�'• •- �' � rr _� r a ( pp.#24 ,,'�F�j��' Opp.#25 �' �Nora "� Nora � • � G�� _ - i,�4��r� � �� '� � n k *�' � ,-�"�, ��j p■�m� �� ( 4,—-- t .� � , eY' .� !7 �i , / 1 � _ �'�k}� :"37�"g� .�g,r.� - W-� -�d. �yQ`i yg�A� � y .l.�;y"y� yLln�' �`+w, ��/:-. ��--"I�IJ�� 1``I \ �_ // y,�, =, g i�/.. '*��°m -.- '�i �t Trr�L v 7-#.4�q;�S�rt �+,� � Miss'�ion s .P�N *1� ``�v�-; `�� . '' 4 5�e� .. _ ,`�r57�'�.rh�'�F�, ''c, �.y�� '-_�E� � ��ef��,�� U��y/y '' _/ I � . " `� .c• �-� �C� : $- '� -� �1l�.^hd D,:. ► ._'7`��'�-h k'` Gt� � �; a�� i:,,,. �.�- y�ty�:�ts ; _ - ' �'� �tm>� �,. ��'R�''7�' 10th " � . �,vt6,• W� `+D� �' !"�'- m.�'�� , � r . �� . �.,�:� �W ��ri a..+��Ah�s��. ;p°�' '�{q��' �io .�� . . � - � � � � � `� f4 �' , +'"'• ,_ -" _,z"a� — �� _ �pp.#40 , ��. Map Features N Figure 2-C:Shoreline Restoration Opportunities SMP Plannin Area Cit Limits w�E Spokane River and Shelley Lake(Inset) L-_� 9 L.J Y Shoreline Restoration O ortunit S City of Spokane Valley pp y Shoreline Restoration Plan Public Shoreline Property �� Shoreline Master Program Update � Private Shoreline Property Feet �uiy 2ot2