Tricia Sears - Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Jan 6, 2026
Government / Technical
[PDF page 1 of 5]
Hi Emma,
I reviewed the document you attached to the email, Notice of Availability_Draft EIS.pdf. The document states, "Comment Period. The City of Spokane is requesting comments from the public, agencies, Tribes, and all interested parties on the Draft EIS from December 18, 2025 to February 18, 2026.
Comments are due by 5:00 PM, February 18, 2026." It also states, "Spokane is preparing a periodic update to the City's Comprehensive Plan for 20 years, from 2026 to 2046." It provides a link to the Draft EIS, Draft Environmental Impact Statement - City of Spokane, Washington, in full and summary form.
[PDF page 2 of 5]
On page 3 of the summary, under objectives, it's great to see "Protect Critical Areas by updating critical area regulations to reflect best available science." This summary document is excellent, the information is easy to understand and it is aesthetically pleasing. Having the maps is great! It would be interesting to have numbers like the anticipated amount of critical areas impacted for the three alternatives.
Overall, well done on the summary. I did not do a detailed review of the 614-page full EIS. I did do a quick word search for the word geologic, and it was found eleven times in the survey. If you haven't checked out the Washington Geologic Information Portal, please do so for best available science, Geologic Information Portal Department of Natural Resources.
On the link you sent for the Spokane Comprehensive Plan, I found this document. Chapter 9 - Natural Environment - Oct 22, 2025 Draft
Overall, Chapter 9 is well written but is brief in terms of describing more than the goals and policies. Based on the notes in the blue side bar, it appears more information is forthcoming. It's good to see the comments about cross referencing information as that is helpful to the reader. Additional information such as stating what the critical areas are for Spokane, specifically, and noting map references and or including maps, is useful.
Page 1 includes a nice description of the update, along with the "Natural Environment Score Card," and a description of the useful icons.
Page 3 has Policy NE 1.5 Mining Activities. It's good to see a policy included for mining.
Page 5 has Goal NE-6 Natural Landforms. Good.
Page 6 has Goal NE-7 Areas of Geologic Concern. Good. It's great to see the policies with the goal, especially with the identification and mapping aspects.
Page 7 has Goal NE-9 Sustainable Economies and Employment. Great.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. I will look forward to seeing the future editions of the Spokane Comprehensive Plan, and other related information.
[PDF pages 3-5 of 5 contain a forwarded copy of the City's public Notice of Availability email. It is identified here, but its administrative boilerplate and incidental third-party contact details are not reproduced because they are not part of the commenter's statement.]
Tricia Sears - Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Jan 6, 2026
Government / Technical
[PDF page 1 of 5]
Hi Emma,
I reviewed the document you attached to the email, Notice of Availability_Draft EIS.pdf. The document states, "Comment Period. The City of Spokane is requesting comments from the public, agencies, Tribes, and all interested parties on the Draft EIS from December 18, 2025 to February 18, 2026.
Comments are due by 5:00 PM, February 18, 2026." It also states, "Spokane is preparing a periodic update to the City's Comprehensive Plan for 20 years, from 2026 to 2046." It provides a link to the Draft EIS, Draft Environmental Impact Statement - City of Spokane, Washington, in full and summary form.
[PDF page 2 of 5]
On page 3 of the summary, under objectives, it's great to see "Protect Critical Areas by updating critical area regulations to reflect best available science." This summary document is excellent, the information is easy to understand and it is aesthetically pleasing. Having the maps is great! It would be interesting to have numbers like the anticipated amount of critical areas impacted for the three alternatives.
Overall, well done on the summary. I did not do a detailed review of the 614-page full EIS. I did do a quick word search for the word geologic, and it was found eleven times in the survey. If you haven't checked out the Washington Geologic Information Portal, please do so for best available science, Geologic Information Portal Department of Natural Resources.
On the link you sent for the Spokane Comprehensive Plan, I found this document. Chapter 9 - Natural Environment - Oct 22, 2025 Draft
Overall, Chapter 9 is well written but is brief in terms of describing more than the goals and policies. Based on the notes in the blue side bar, it appears more information is forthcoming. It's good to see the comments about cross referencing information as that is helpful to the reader. Additional information such as stating what the critical areas are for Spokane, specifically, and noting map references and or including maps, is useful.
Page 1 includes a nice description of the update, along with the "Natural Environment Score Card," and a description of the useful icons.
Page 3 has Policy NE 1.5 Mining Activities. It's good to see a policy included for mining.
Page 5 has Goal NE-6 Natural Landforms. Good.
Page 6 has Goal NE-7 Areas of Geologic Concern. Good. It's great to see the policies with the goal, especially with the identification and mapping aspects.
Page 7 has Goal NE-9 Sustainable Economies and Employment. Great.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. I will look forward to seeing the future editions of the Spokane Comprehensive Plan, and other related information.
Cheerio, Tricia
----------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT / ADDITIONAL PAGES
----------------------------------------
[PDF pages 3-5 of 5 contain a forwarded copy of the City's public Notice of Availability email. It is identified here, but its administrative boilerplate and incidental third-party contact details are not reproduced because they are not part of the commenter's statement.]