DOCSLIB.ORG

Spokane County Shoreline Master Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Spokane County Shoreline Master Program Spokane County Shoreline Master Program Effective: January 22, 2013 Table of Contents SECTION 1 TITLE, AUTHORITY, PURPOSE AND INTENT ................................................. 1 1.1 Title ................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Authority .......................................................................................... 1 1.3 Purpose and Intent ......................................................................... 1 1.4 Scope and Application .................................................................... 1 1.5 Program Content ............................................................................ 2 SECTION 2 GOALS AND POLICIES FOR SHORELINE ELEMENTS IN SPOKANE COUNTY ...................................................................................... 3 2.0 Elements – Goals and Policies .................................................... 3 2.1 Element 1 – Economic Development ........................................... 3 2.2 Element 2 – Public Access .......................................................... 3 2.3 Element 3 – Circulation ................................................................ 3 2.4 Element 4 – Recreation ............................................................... 4 2.5 Element 5 – Shoreline Use .......................................................... 4 2.6 Element 6 – Conservation ........................................................... 4 2.7 Element 7 – Historical and Cultural ............................................. 5 2.8 Element 8 – Shoreline Restoration and Protection ...................... 5 2.9 Element 9 – Special Flood Hazards ............................................ 7 2.10 Element 10 – Private Property Rights Element ........................... 8 2.11 Element 11 – Education ............................................................... 8 2.12 Element 12 – Shorelines of Statewide Significance – Goals ....... 9 SECTION 3 SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES ................................................................................ 11 3.1 Designations ................................................................................ 11 3.2 Natural Environment .................................................................... 11 3.2.1 Purpose ......................................................................... 11 3.2.2 Management Policies .................................................... 12 3.3 Rural Conservancy Environment ................................................. 13 3.3.1 Purpose ......................................................................... 13 3.3.2 Management Policies .................................................... 13 3.4 Urban Conservancy Environment ................................................ 14 3.4.1 Purpose ......................................................................... 14 3.4.2 Management Policies .................................................... 14 3.5 Shoreline Residential Environment .............................................. 15 3.5.1 Purpose ......................................................................... 15 3.5.2 Management Policies .................................................... 15 3.5.3 Designation Criteria ....................................................... 16 3.6 Designation Criteria Applicable to all Environments .................... 16 SECTION 4 SHORELINE PROTECTIONS AND RESTORATION ........................................ 17 4.1 Purpose ....................................................................................... 17 4.1.1 Application .................................................................... 17 4.1.2 Mitigation Sequencing ................................................... 18 4.1.3 Compensating and Mitigating Shoreline Ecological Impacts ......................................................................... 18 4.1.4 Authority to Condition .................................................... 20 4.1.5 Monitoring and Compliance .......................................... 21 4.1.6 On-site Inspection Required ......................................... 21 SECTION 5 USE REGULATIONS ......................................................................................... 23 5.1 Authority, Purpose, Application .................................................... 23 5.1.1 Authority ........................................................................ 23 5.1.2 Purpose ......................................................................... 23 5.1.3 Application .................................................................... 23 5.2 General Use Regulations ............................................................. 23 5.2.1 Use Standards .............................................................. 24 5.2.2 Structures and Site Development ................................. 25 5.2.3 Waste Disposal ............................................................. 25 5.2.4 Historic or Archeological Impacts .................................. 25 5.2.5 Protecting Shoreline Ecology and Aesthetics ............... 26 5.2.6 Protecting Channel Migration Zones ............................. 31 5.2.7 Channel Modifications ................................................... 32 5.2.8 Public Access ................................................................ 33 5.3 Use Regulations Specific to Environment Designations .............. 35 5.3.1 Agriculture ..................................................................... 35 5.3.2 Aquaculture ................................................................... 36 5.3.3 Forest Management Practices and Land Clearing Activity ................................................... 36 5.3.4 Commercial Development ............................................. 37 5.3.5 Marinas ......................................................................... 38 5.3.6 Mining ........................................................................... 39 5.3.7 Signs ............................................................................. 39 5.3.8 Residential .................................................................... 40 5.3.9 Utilities .......................................................................... 42 5.3.10 Industry ......................................................................... 44 5.3.11 Solid Waste Disposal .................................................... 44 5.3.12 Roads, Railroads and Bridges ...................................... 45 5.3.13 Archeological Areas and Historic Sites ......................... 46 5.3.14 Recreation ..................................................................... 47 5.3.15 Fill ................................................................................. 47 5.3.16 Dredging ....................................................................... 48 5.3.17 Docks and Buoys .......................................................... 49 5.3.18 Shoreline Modifications ................................................. 52 2 | Page 5.4 Shoreline Use and Development and Buffer, Bulk and Dimensional Matrices ........................................................... 54 Table 5A: Use and Development Matrix ..................................... 55 Table 5B: Buffer, Bulk and Dimensional Matrix .......................... 58 SECTION 6 SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS ..................................................... 61 6.0 Shoreline Substantial Development Review ................................ 61 6.1 Application ................................................................................... 61 6.2 Purpose and Intent ...................................................................... 61 6.3 Shoreline Substantial Development (SDP) Permit ....................... 61 6.3.1 SDP Application ............................................................ 61 6.3.2 SDP Determination ....................................................... 61 6.3.3 Authority to Condition .................................................... 62 6.3.4 Department of Ecology Review ..................................... 63 6.3.5 Appeal of a SDP Action ................................................. 63 6.3.6 Record Title Notice ........................................................ 64 6.3.7 Time Requirements for Shoreline Permits .................... 64 6.3.8 Revision of Permits ....................................................... 64 6.4 Uses and Developments which are Exempt from Some or All Of the Requirements of this SMP and RCW 90.58 ...................... 65 6.4.1 Uses and developments exempted from only the Requirement for a substantial development permit shall comply with the goals, policies and use regulations of the SMP .................................................. 65 6.4.2 Uses and developments exempt from the requirement for a substantial development permit ............................ 66 6.4.3 Review and Approval of Uses and Developments Exempted from the Requirement for a Substantial Development Permit ...................................................... 69 6.4.4 Authority to Condition .................................................... 69 6.4.5 Exempt Activities Which Are Subject to Federal Review .......................................................................... 70 6.5 Nonconforming Use and Development ........................................ 70 6.6 Final Permit Decision ................................................................... 74 6.7 Approval Conditions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appendix H: Preliminary Cultural Resource
    Appendix H Preliminary Cultural Resource Investigations Technical Memorandum TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Latah Bridge Rehabilitation Project, Cultural Resources Preliminary Investigation Technical Memorandum PREPARED FOR: Lisa Malstrom/City of Spokane COPY TO: Mark Brower/CH2M HILL Marlena Guhlke/CH2M HILL PREPARED BY: Lori Durio Price/CH2M HILL and Jim Sharpe/CH2M HILL DATE: November 17, 2011 PROJECT NUMBER: 425825.LB.02 The City of Spokane has initiated the Latah Bridge Rehabilitation Study in an effort to identify and develop preliminary solution alternatives that will support public use of this historic and vital transportation link for future generation of drivers, riders, bicyclists and pedestrians. The bridge was listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1982. As part of this study, information was collected to identify the character-defining features of the bridge, and to determine the archaeological and cultural sensitivity of the Latah Bridge site. The cultural resource information contained within this study was obtained from the NRHP database of the National Park Service, and from the Washington Information System Architectural and Archaeological Database (WISAARD) managed by the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). This preliminary review contains information on the bridge itself, as well as on the cultural setting of the bridge, prior cultural resource technical reports, area historic districts, known archaeological sites, cemeteries, and known Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs), and a summary of the findings for the proposed project area. This information was obtained by conducting a one half mile search radius around the project. Historic Context Due to the extensive history of the area, the historic component of this preliminary study is summarized.
    [Show full text]
  • THE SPOKANE AQUIFER, WASHINGTON: Its Geologic Origin
    THE SPOKANE AQUIFER, WASHINGTON: Its Geologic Origin and Water-Bearing and Water-Quality Characteristics Cover: Aerial view of the Spokane Flood sweep­ ing southwesterly across the study area (outlined in red) and vicinity. THE SPOKANE AQUIFER, WASHINGTON: Its Geologic Origin and Water-Bearing and Water-Quality Characteristics By Dee Molenaar U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 2265 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAULHODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1988 For sale by the Books and Open-File Reports Section, U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Molenaar, Dee. The Spokane aquifer, Washington. (U.S. Geological Survey water-supply paper; 2265) Bibliography: p. Supt.ofDocs.no. : 119.13:2265 1. Aquifers Washington (State) Spokane Region. I. Title. II. Series. GB1199.3.W2M651987 553.7'9'0979737 84-600259 PREFACE: WHY THIS REPORT WAS WRITTEN This report was prepared to provide a non­ The description of the Spokane aquifer technical description and understanding of the includes the geologic story behind its origin Spokane aquifer, one of the world's most pro­ and its part in the Spokane Valley's hydrologic ductive water-bearing formations. Because the setting. Discussed are the relation among pre­ aquifer also has a most fascinating geologic ori­ cipitation over the area (mostly in the head­ gin, a discussion of the geologic story of the waters of the Spokane River basin), the flow of Spokane area is presented. This should enhance the Spokane River, and the movement of the reader's appreciation of the natural proces­ water to, through, and from the aquifer.
    [Show full text]
  • The "Palouse Soil" Problem with an Account of Elephant Remains in Wind-Borne Soil on the Columbia Plateau of Washington
    THE "PALOUSE SOIL" PROBLEM WITH AN ACCOUNT OF ELEPHANT REMAINS IN WIND-BORNE SOIL ON THE COLUMBIA PLATEAU OF WASHINGTON By KIRK BRYAN INTRODUCTION Wheat is the great crop of eastern Washington. Grown on an extensive scale with all the ingenuity of modern labor-saving devices, it forms the basis for the stable prosperity of the " Inland Empire " which has its commercial center at Spokane. Deep, rich soil is the controlling factor in the growth of wheat in this area, for the rain­ fall is light, though advantageously concentrated in the winter sea­ son. The system of summer fallow is necessary to conserve the mois­ ture of one season into the next, but thereby one-half the land lies plowed and idle. The wheat region, therefore, is a checkerboard of bare brown rectangles of plowed land alternating with rectangles of wheat that are green, gold, or buff according to the season. The great Columbia Plateau, underlain except in a few small areas by basalt flows several hundred feet thick, has nearly every­ where a mantle of so-called soil, deep and retentive of moisture, the basis of this great wheat growing industry. This " soil" * is a fine­ grained mass that is intimately dissected into hills and valleys. (PI. 4, A and B.) The little valleys are usually cut to or just below the level of the underlying basalt, so that the height of the hills, from 100 to 150 feet, measures the thickness of this " soil." This material is locally known as " Palouse soil," from the rich wheat-growing area along Palouse Kiver south of Spokane, which is popularly known as the " Palouse country." The Bureau of Soils, as shown in the summary of the history of the subject, on pages 22-26, recognizes in the region a number of soil series, only, one of which bears the name Palouse.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    523 East Second Avenue Spokane, Washington 99202 509.363.3125 March 3, 2010 Spokane County Department of Utilities 1026 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, Washington 99260-0430 Attention: Ben Brattebo Water Resources Specialist Subject: Ranked Data Collection Alternatives Subtask 6.1 of Phase 2 Bi-State Nonpoint Source Phosphorus Study File No. 0188-135-01 INTRODUCTION Subtask 6.1 of Phase 2 of the Bi-State Nonpoint Source Phosphorus Study (NPS Study) consists of a limited field investigation designed to fill one or more high priority data gaps. In our draft Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) dated January 2010, the GeoEngineers/HDR consultant team presented a total of 26 field data collection alternatives for review by Spokane County and the Nonpoint Advisory Committee (NPAC). In Table 3 of the draft QAPP, we presented a preliminary prioritization of those data collection alternatives with respect to utilization of project and future funding. A number of comments were received from the NPAC with respect to these data collection alternatives and associated prioritization. These comments, as well as their interpreted impact to the alternative prioritization, have been compiled in the attached Table 1. Based on the original alternative prioritization, our subsequent field reconnaissance, and NPAC comments, the top-ranked data collection alternatives are identified in the attached Table 2 and described in more detail below. The top-ranked alternative was given a ranking of 1. Note that data collection alternatives within the Hangman Creek subbasin, which previously had been assigned high priorities, now have relatively low priorities based on the data and studies recently provided by the NPAC.
    [Show full text]
  • Pleistocene Megaflood Landscapes of the Channeled Scabland
    The Geological Society of America Field Guide 41 Pleistocene megaflood landscapes of the Channeled Scabland Victor R. Baker* Department of Hydrology and Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721-0011, USA Bruce N. Bjornstad Ice Age Floodscapes, Richland, Washington 99354, USA David R. Gaylord School of the Environment, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99164-2812, USA Gary A. Smith Organization, Information, and Learning Sciences, MSC05 3020, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA Scott E. Meyer Office of Water Programs, California State University Sacramento, Sacramento, California 95819-6025, USA Petteri Alho Department of Geography, Turku University, Turku, Fl-20014, Finland Roy M. Breckenridge Idaho Geological Survey, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83843, USA Mark R. Sweeney Earth Sciences Department, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, South Dakota 57069, USA Marek Zreda Department of Hydrology and Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721-0011, USA ABSTRACT The Channeled Scabland of east-central Washington comprises a complex of anas- tomosing fluvial channels that were eroded by Pleistocene megaflooding into the basalt bedrock and overlying sediments of the Columbia Plateau and Columbia Basin regions of eastern Washington State, U.S.A. The cataclysmic flooding produced huge coulees (dry river courses), cataracts, streamlined loess hills, rock basins, butte-and-basin scab- land, potholes, inner channels, broad gravel deposits,
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrology of the Hangman Creek Watershed (WRIA 56), Washington and Idaho
    Hydrology of the Hangman Creek Watershed (WRIA 56), Washington and Idaho Prepared By: John P. Buchanan, Ph.D., R.HG. Professor of Geology and Kevin Brown Research Assistant Department of Geology Eastern Washington University Prepared For: Spokane County Conservation District - Lead Entity Hangman (Latah) Creek Planning Unit (WRIA 56) and Washington State Department of Ecology 1998 Legislature Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2514 (The Watershed Management Act) RCW 90.82 Grant # G0000101 June 2003 Executive Summary Water resources inventory area (WRIA) 56 encompasses the Hangman (Latah) Creek watershed in Washington, with headwaters in Idaho. The basin covers 431,220 acres and contains approximately 222 miles of perennial streams. The headwaters in Idaho lie at an elevation of about 3,600 feet above mean sea level, and at its confluence with the Spokane River the elevation is 1,720 feet above mean sea level. The geology varies considerably within the basin. The primary geological units include, from oldest to youngest: 1) crystalline basement rocks of meta-sedimentary and igneous plutonic origin that underlie the entire region and occur in the higher peaks, 2) widespread horizontally-bedded volcanic rocks consisting of basalt flows separated by laterally discontinuous sedimentary interbeds, and 3) unconsolidated surficial deposits consisting primarily of flood-deposited sand and gravel and the wind-deposited silts that comprise the rolling hills characteristic of the Palouse. An unconfined aquifer exists in the sand and gravel deposits in the lower portion of WRIA 56, below the confluence of Rock and California Creek. The water table in this aquifer unit is strongly connected to, and is influenced by, the stage of flow in Hangman Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Inland Empire Fly Fishing Club—Spokane, Washington BIG HORN SHOW by Jim Athearn
    Volume 63 No 2 Web Page: http://www.ieffc.org February, 2018 GENERAL MEETING Editors: Lee Funkhouser and Guy Gregory INLAND EMPIRE FLY FISHING CLUB MUKOGAWA FORT WRIGHT INSTITUTE COMMONS FEBRUARY PROGRAM February 13th, 2018 Wet Fly Hour: 5:30 p.m. Ed Engle Dinner: 6:30 p.m. CATCHING DIFFICULT TROUT PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE This program is full of new By Jim Athearn ideas for catching those trout that leave most fly Here we are in the middle of the winter when talk about weather fishers scratching their overshadows that of where the fish are biting. Some of you have heads. These could be the traveled to warmer waters and others have found open water closer to ultra selective, highly edu- home to satisfy your fishing itch. I am among those busy tying flies cated fish found in heavily to stock up for the upcoming spring and summer season. I am also fished public waters or they learning a few large streamer patterns in preparation to follow Leon could be the trout in your Buckles and Bob Burton down to the Amazon next week to catch favorite stream that just peacock bass and anything else that will bite my “masterpieces”. I happen to have an “attitude” on a particular afternoon. The will be experiencing a new place and new fish species - important program explains the importance of your approach and cast- reasons that make fly fishing so enjoyable for me. ing position, slack line casts, the use of small flies, using I am looking forward to returning in time for the February spent spinners as attractors, terrestrials as attractors, how to meeting to which the Board of Directors has invited spouses and sig- match the riseform and the hatch, and fishing the zones nificant others.
    [Show full text]
  • Volcanic Ash Identification at Saltese Flats, Eastern Spokane County, Washington
    Volcanic Ash Identification at Saltese Flats, Eastern Spokane County, Washington Andrew Buddington Alan Belasco Katlin Gamache Jalyn Osgood Science Department, Spokane Community College, Spokane, Washington Corresponding author E-mail address: [email protected] Image courtesy of Spokane County June 2021 PROJECT OVERVIEW Saltese Flats, in eastern Spokane County, is a wetland marsh area underlain by extensive peat deposits. In 1958, a study evaluating peat resources in Washington State reported a significant buried tephra horizon from a series of soil bore holes (Rigg, 1958). The tephra was not described in detail, and a volcanic source was not correlated. In 2019, the Spokane County wetlands restoration project at the site afforded direct examination of the tephra (ash), via excavation. This study presents the results of trench mapping, sampling, and tephra characterization from the Saltese site along with the volcanic source identification and correlation using glass shard geochemistry. INTRODUCTION The Cascade Range consists of nearly twenty active or recently dormant volcanoes along the western portions of California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. The modern Cascade volcanoes, known as the “High Cascades”, are dominated by composite volcanoes and have been erupting for at least the last 1 million years. In the last 4,000 years alone, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) has identified multiple major eruptions from 13 separate Cascade volcanoes (Myers and Driedger, 2008). Volcanic ash from Alaskan volcanoes and the Yellowstone caldera have also been identified. Needless to say, significant amounts of volcanic ash from multiple sources and different dates have been deposited over the western United States and Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Spokane Register of Historic Places Nomination Spokane City/County Historic Preservation Office, City Hall, 3Rd Floor 808 W
    Spokane City/County Register of Historic Places Nomination LOWELL SCHOOL Spokane Register of Historic Places Nomination Spokane City/County Historic Preservation Office, City Hall, 3rd Floor 808 W. Spokane Falls Boulevard, Spokane, WA 99201 1. HISTORIC NAME Historic Name LOWELL SCHOOL Common Name Lowell School 2. LOCATION Street & Number 2225 S. Inland Empire Way City, State, Zip Code Spokane, WA 99224 Parcel Number 25254.0703 3. CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use X building public occupied agricultural museum site X private X work in progress X commercial park structure both educational religious __object Public Acquisition Accessible entertainment residential in process X yes, restricted government scientific being considered yes, unrestricted industrial transportation __no military other 4. OWNER OF PROPERTY Name Kayano Properties LLC c/o Lynda Peterson Street & Number 10 E. Third Avenue City, State, Zip Code Spokane, WA 99202 Telephone Number/E-mail 993-4447, [email protected] 5. LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Courthouse, Registry of Deeds Spokane County Courthouse Street Number 1116 West Broadway City, State, Zip Code Spokane, WA 99201 County Spokane 6. REPRESENTATION OF EXISTING SURVEYS Title City of Spokane Historic Landmarks Survey Date Federal State County Local Location of Survey Records Spokane Historic Preservation Office 1 Spokane City/County Register of Historic Places Nomination LOWELL SCHOOL 7. DESCRIPTION (continuation sheets attached) Architectural Classification Condition Check One X excellent __unaltered good X altered fair deteriorated Check One ruins __original site unexposed moved & date 8. SPOKANE REGISTER CATEGORIES & STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE (continuation sheets attached) Applicable Spokane Register of Historic Places Categories: Mark “x” on one or more for the categories that qualify the property for the Spokane Register listing: X A Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of Spokane history.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Water Quality Report Card
    2015 Water Quality Report Card Jule Schultz, Technical Lead Spokane Riverkeeper 35 West Main, Suite 300 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 464-7632 Executive Summary: The Spokane Riverkeeper is a non-profit organization working in the Spokane River watershed dedicated to maintaining the health of the area’s surface waters. We began a water quality monitoring program in February 2015 dedicated to using the scientific process to advocate for a cleaner watershed. We began by focusing on Hangman Creek and using other rivers and creeks in the areas for comparison. Our research and water quality data shows that Hangman Creek is heavily polluted. We documented high water temperatures, high nutrient levels, high levels of turbidity, and low dissolved oxygen. These pollution problems are human caused and preventable. In our pollution monitoring program, we found and reported 11 pollution violations of the Water Pollution Control Act. We quickly learned that well documented violations often do not get fixed due to politics. In spite of this, several pollution problems were remedied because of our work. Below, I highlight some of our data that we collected. This report is not meant to be an exhaustive summary. If you would like to see the raw data, check out our Little Spokane River River Data page. All of these data were at St. George’s collected by Riverkeeper Technical Lead School Jule Schultz, along with Dillon Wilke, a volunteer who helped develop our water quality program. Methods: These data were collected both Hangman Hangman on monthly water quality trips that were Creek at CaliforniaCalifornia Mouth CreekCreek atat pre-planned (ambient) and from samples Mouth that were taken during run-off events (event).
    [Show full text]
  • Kid's Prank Responsible for Big Sewer Repair Bill
    Kid’s Prank Responsible for Big Sewer Repair Bill SEEMINGLY simple kid’s prank of As the trench continued to erode the Next came the task of designing a A throwing rocks and other material top portion of the slope, a 42-in. sanitary method for rebuilding the slope, which down a storm drain resulted in a major sewer main was exposed. Eventually, the had to be done quickly to prevent further emergency repair job to prevent the col- highly erodible gravel-loam sand soil cut undermining of the temporary support. lapse of a 42-in. sanitary sewer main in away ground support under the sewer Peter Vaughn of Terra Enterprises, Inc., Spokane, Washington. main by 8 to 10 ft. As the trench widened, Genessee, Idaho, was in Spokane for the In a short period of time, a group of the exposed main threatened to collapse 1994 Road Builders Clinic and saw a TV kids completely blocked an 18-in. pipe if its soil support was not replaced news report on the emergency sandbag- leading to the city’s combined sani- promptly. ging work. He contacted Peacock about tary/storm drain system. The drain soon The erosion was discovered within a some ideas for repairing the slope dam- began to overflow, sending water stream- few hours by a jogger, who contacted the age. The two met at the site the next ing down the 800-ft, 33° west facing slope city water department. City officials dis- morning to review the project first hand. of Spokane’s Latah Creek. Within a few patched Waste Water Senior Engineer Together they developed a restoration short hours, the rushing water cut a large Bill Peacock, who immediately assessed plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Basin Project -WITH APPENDWES - 1920 the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project
    Columbia Basin Project -WITH APPENDWES - 1920 The Columbia Basin Irrigation Project A REPORT BY Columbia Basin Survey Commission State of Washington 1920 Copyright Colombia Basin Survey Commission 1920 OLYMPIA FRANK M. LAMBORN PUBLIC PRINTER 1920 wT r- MrdO /\ Ns L. T J \' NAL J LA : -J/ COLUMBIASTATE O BASINWASHINGTON PROJECT R PROJECTWATERSHED AREA 1920A!OVE ALBANY FALLS MAP I. TOPOGRAPHY COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT STATE OF WASHINGTON 1920 CONTOUR INTERVAL 250 rt 0 5 IC $5 SCALE OF MILES MAP II. CONTENTS. Chter Page I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 9 1 Foreword 9 2 General 9 3 Authority 12 4 Organization of Commission 12 5 Personnel of Staff 13 6 Acknowledgments 13 II. LANDS COMMANDED BY SYSTEM 15 1 Geographic Situation 15 2 Transportation Facilties 15 3 Local Development 16 4 Crops and Markets 16 5 Geology 17 6 Climate and Growing Season 18 7 Value of Aridity 22 8 Soil and Classification 23 9 Productivity of Similar Areas 25 10 Preparation of Land for Irrigation 28 11 Arid and Irrigated Values 28 III. LAND SETTLEMENT 30 IV. FINANCIAL AND ORGANIZATION 34 1 General Considerations 34 2 Methods of Payment 34 3 Taxation 36 V. ENGINEERING SYNOPSIS 37 1 General Outline of Studies 37 2 Alternate Routes 41 3 Synopsis of Engineering Data 50 APPENDICES. A. WATER REQUIREMENT OF THE LAND 54 1 Water Duty 54 2 Water Losses 54 3 Seasonal Use of Water 55 4 Gross Water Required 56 B. WATER SUPPLY AVAILABLE 57 1 Runoff Records 57 2 Regulation by Storage 60 C. CONVEYANCE OF WATER FROM SOURCE TO USE 69 Design and Cost of- 1 Dams 70 2 Head and Waste Gates 88 3 Canals 90 4 Tunnels 99 5 Inverted Siphons 104 6 Spokane River Aqueduct 112 7 Railroad Underpasses 113 8 Miscellaneous 115 4 Contents Appendix Page D.
    [Show full text]