I am writing to provide comments to the Draft EIS, I have included these comments in the email below and attached a pdf with the same comments as I was unsure of the best format.
[Email copy of the attached statement]
I am a senior at Gonzaga University, and I have had the opportunity to explore Spokane for the last 4 years. I am originally from Los Angeles, and the opportunities for outdoor recreation are not as accessible as they are here in Spokane. Here in Spokane, outdoor recreation is easily accessible, whether that be through public transportation or its presence in the downtown area. This city is unique in its proximity to various outdoor spaces that are available for recreation and provide critical habitat for wildlife. Living in Spokane, there is a dominant mindset present that is centered on environmental care and protection, the residents of Spokane enjoy being outdoors and appreciate efforts that contribute to environmental protection.
In reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, I was especially interested in Chapter 3, Section 3 Plants and Animals. As Spokane continues to grow, development is inevitable, however this should be done in a manner that prioritizes the protection of crucial habitat for wildlife, while growing in a sustainable and environmentally conscious manner.
Chapter 3.3 states that all 3 alternatives assessed would result in a less than significant impact to both plants and animals (3-71, 3-72). However, in section 3.3.2, the draft statement states that all the alternatives would "provide opportunities for development within currently vegetated areas; thereby all have the potential to impact wildlife and fish habitats" (3-70).
[PDF page 2 of 5 begins within the preceding quotation before "wildlife and fish habitats."]
The impacts caused by development would not be insignificant, even if the projects were to comply with regulations, the loss of habitat and environmental impacts that will result from developmental projects will cause negative long-term effects.
Loss of biodiversity and possible contamination of waterways, groundwater, and increased pollution could detrimentally impact the wildlife, aquatic life, and citizens of Spokane. These consequences should not be written off as less than significant in relation to the possible plans for future development.
Alternative 2 appears to be the most expansive in the area it would plan to develop, this growth would put additional pressure on priority habitat areas with its planned course of development. While it is stated to have less than significant impacts, it will encroach on priority habitat, putting the functions of the existing ecosystem at risk, and while the outcome has the possibility of being negligible, the risk should not be taken when other alternatives are presented.
In future development, there should be a focus on maintaining the undeveloped areas, not only for the sake of wildlife but for the recreational opportunities it provides in a growing city. Alternatives 1 and 3, allow for less undeveloped land to be utilized for increasing housing and job intensity. The development plans also do not account for environmental justice concerns that are tied to plans and animals.
Tree cover is one issue that could be addressed with development, especially because many of the sites for development have little to no tree cover. An increase in tree cover could be helpful for the residents of these neighborhoods, and it will positively impact wildlife.
Overall, the proposed plans for development do not adequately assess the environmental impacts that will occur because of the increase in development being planned. Spokane's undeveloped outdoor spaces should not be taken for granted, they should be protected and cared for.
[PDF page 3 of 5 begins within the preceding paragraph before "should be protected and cared for."]
In a world where our environment is being threatened by climate change and widespread urbanization, Spokane should aim to protect its undeveloped natural spaces and the wildlife that relies on these areas for habitat.
I am a senior at Gonzaga University, and I have had the opportunity to explore Spokane for the last 4 years. I am originally from Los Angeles, and the opportunities for outdoor recreation are not as accessible as they are here in Spokane. Here in Spokane, outdoor recreation is easily accessible, whether that be through public transportation or its presence in the downtown area. This city is unique in its proximity to various outdoor spaces that are available for recreation and provide critical habitat for wildlife. Living in Spokane, there is a dominant mindset present that is centered on environmental care and protection, the residents of Spokane enjoy being outdoors and appreciate efforts that contribute to environmental protection.
In reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, I was especially interested in Chapter 3, Section 3 Plants and Animals. As Spokane continues to grow, development is inevitable, however this should be done in a manner that prioritizes the protection of crucial habitat for wildlife, while growing in a sustainable and environmentally conscious manner.
Chapter 3.3 states that all 3 alternatives assessed would result in a less than significant impact to both plants and animals (3-71, 3-72). However, in section 3.3.2, the draft statement states that all the alternatives would "provide opportunities for development within currently vegetated areas; thereby all have the potential to impact wildlife and fish habitats" (3-70).
The impacts caused by development would not be insignificant, even if the projects were to comply with regulations, the loss of habitat and environmental impacts that will result from developmental projects will cause negative long-term effects.
Loss of biodiversity and possible contamination of waterways, groundwater, and increased pollution could detrimentally impact the wildlife, aquatic life, and citizens of Spokane. These consequences should not be written off as less than significant in relation to the possible plans for future development.
Alternative 2 appears to be the most expansive in the area it would plan to develop, this growth would put additional pressure on priority habitat areas with its planned course of development. While it is stated to have less than significant impacts, it will encroach on priority habitat, putting the functions of the existing ecosystem at risk, and while the outcome has the possibility of being negligible, the risk should not be taken when other alternatives are presented.
[PDF page 5 of 5 begins within the preceding paragraph before "priority habitat areas."]
In future development, there should be a focus on maintaining the undeveloped areas, not only for the sake of wildlife but for the recreational opportunities it provides in a growing city. Alternatives 1 and 3, allow for less undeveloped land to be utilized for increasing housing and job intensity. The development plans also do not account for environmental justice concerns that are tied to plans and animals.
Tree cover is one issue that could be addressed with development, especially because many of the sites for development have little to no tree cover. An increase in tree cover could be helpful for the residents of these neighborhoods, and it will positively impact wildlife.
Overall, the proposed plans for development do not adequately assess the environmental impacts that will occur because of the increase in development being planned. Spokane's undeveloped outdoor spaces should not be taken for granted, they should be protected and cared for.
In a world where our environment is being threatened by climate change and widespread urbanization, Spokane should aim to protect its undeveloped natural spaces and the wildlife that relies on these areas for habitat.
Hannah Jurado
Feb 17, 2026
Local Resident
[PDF page 1 of 5]
Dear Tirrell Black,
I am writing to provide comments to the Draft EIS, I have included these comments in the email below and attached a pdf with the same comments as I was unsure of the best format.
[Email copy of the attached statement]
I am a senior at Gonzaga University, and I have had the opportunity to explore Spokane for the last 4 years. I am originally from Los Angeles, and the opportunities for outdoor recreation are not as accessible as they are here in Spokane. Here in Spokane, outdoor recreation is easily accessible, whether that be through public transportation or its presence in the downtown area. This city is unique in its proximity to various outdoor spaces that are available for recreation and provide critical habitat for wildlife. Living in Spokane, there is a dominant mindset present that is centered on environmental care and protection, the residents of Spokane enjoy being outdoors and appreciate efforts that contribute to environmental protection.
In reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, I was especially interested in Chapter 3, Section 3 Plants and Animals. As Spokane continues to grow, development is inevitable, however this should be done in a manner that prioritizes the protection of crucial habitat for wildlife, while growing in a sustainable and environmentally conscious manner.
Chapter 3.3 states that all 3 alternatives assessed would result in a less than significant impact to both plants and animals (3-71, 3-72). However, in section 3.3.2, the draft statement states that all the alternatives would "provide opportunities for development within currently vegetated areas; thereby all have the potential to impact wildlife and fish habitats" (3-70).
[PDF page 2 of 5 begins within the preceding quotation before "wildlife and fish habitats."]
The impacts caused by development would not be insignificant, even if the projects were to comply with regulations, the loss of habitat and environmental impacts that will result from developmental projects will cause negative long-term effects.
Loss of biodiversity and possible contamination of waterways, groundwater, and increased pollution could detrimentally impact the wildlife, aquatic life, and citizens of Spokane. These consequences should not be written off as less than significant in relation to the possible plans for future development.
Alternative 2 appears to be the most expansive in the area it would plan to develop, this growth would put additional pressure on priority habitat areas with its planned course of development. While it is stated to have less than significant impacts, it will encroach on priority habitat, putting the functions of the existing ecosystem at risk, and while the outcome has the possibility of being negligible, the risk should not be taken when other alternatives are presented.
In future development, there should be a focus on maintaining the undeveloped areas, not only for the sake of wildlife but for the recreational opportunities it provides in a growing city. Alternatives 1 and 3, allow for less undeveloped land to be utilized for increasing housing and job intensity. The development plans also do not account for environmental justice concerns that are tied to plans and animals.
Tree cover is one issue that could be addressed with development, especially because many of the sites for development have little to no tree cover. An increase in tree cover could be helpful for the residents of these neighborhoods, and it will positively impact wildlife.
Overall, the proposed plans for development do not adequately assess the environmental impacts that will occur because of the increase in development being planned. Spokane's undeveloped outdoor spaces should not be taken for granted, they should be protected and cared for.
[PDF page 3 of 5 begins within the preceding paragraph before "should be protected and cared for."]
In a world where our environment is being threatened by climate change and widespread urbanization, Spokane should aim to protect its undeveloped natural spaces and the wildlife that relies on these areas for habitat.
----------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT / ADDITIONAL PAGES
----------------------------------------
[PDF page 4 of 5]
I am a senior at Gonzaga University, and I have had the opportunity to explore Spokane for the last 4 years. I am originally from Los Angeles, and the opportunities for outdoor recreation are not as accessible as they are here in Spokane. Here in Spokane, outdoor recreation is easily accessible, whether that be through public transportation or its presence in the downtown area. This city is unique in its proximity to various outdoor spaces that are available for recreation and provide critical habitat for wildlife. Living in Spokane, there is a dominant mindset present that is centered on environmental care and protection, the residents of Spokane enjoy being outdoors and appreciate efforts that contribute to environmental protection.
In reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, I was especially interested in Chapter 3, Section 3 Plants and Animals. As Spokane continues to grow, development is inevitable, however this should be done in a manner that prioritizes the protection of crucial habitat for wildlife, while growing in a sustainable and environmentally conscious manner.
Chapter 3.3 states that all 3 alternatives assessed would result in a less than significant impact to both plants and animals (3-71, 3-72). However, in section 3.3.2, the draft statement states that all the alternatives would "provide opportunities for development within currently vegetated areas; thereby all have the potential to impact wildlife and fish habitats" (3-70).
The impacts caused by development would not be insignificant, even if the projects were to comply with regulations, the loss of habitat and environmental impacts that will result from developmental projects will cause negative long-term effects.
Loss of biodiversity and possible contamination of waterways, groundwater, and increased pollution could detrimentally impact the wildlife, aquatic life, and citizens of Spokane. These consequences should not be written off as less than significant in relation to the possible plans for future development.
Alternative 2 appears to be the most expansive in the area it would plan to develop, this growth would put additional pressure on priority habitat areas with its planned course of development. While it is stated to have less than significant impacts, it will encroach on priority habitat, putting the functions of the existing ecosystem at risk, and while the outcome has the possibility of being negligible, the risk should not be taken when other alternatives are presented.
[PDF page 5 of 5 begins within the preceding paragraph before "priority habitat areas."]
In future development, there should be a focus on maintaining the undeveloped areas, not only for the sake of wildlife but for the recreational opportunities it provides in a growing city. Alternatives 1 and 3, allow for less undeveloped land to be utilized for increasing housing and job intensity. The development plans also do not account for environmental justice concerns that are tied to plans and animals.
Tree cover is one issue that could be addressed with development, especially because many of the sites for development have little to no tree cover. An increase in tree cover could be helpful for the residents of these neighborhoods, and it will positively impact wildlife.
Overall, the proposed plans for development do not adequately assess the environmental impacts that will occur because of the increase in development being planned. Spokane's undeveloped outdoor spaces should not be taken for granted, they should be protected and cared for.
In a world where our environment is being threatened by climate change and widespread urbanization, Spokane should aim to protect its undeveloped natural spaces and the wildlife that relies on these areas for habitat.