Spokane7
68°
May 28, 2011 in City
State pulls Park grant
Concerns over spawning habitat delayed project, allowing $530,000 award to expire
Water rushes past old railroad bridge abutments near the Sandifur Memorial Bridge just west of downtown Spokane on Friday.
(Full-size photo)
Mayor likes new view of falls
Spokane city leaders who supported the controversial purchase of the former downtown YMCA are more certain that they made the right call.
Spokane Mayor Mary Verner said she’s amazed by the new views of the falls - at their most powerful with the Spokane River above flood stage - without the YMCA sitting along the shore.
“I’m glad the building is down,” Verner said. “Now that it’s gone it’s hard to believe that we ever had a building covering up this beautiful landscape.”
The city Park Board agreed to buy the building and the land under it - next to the middle channel of Spokane Falls - for $5.3 million. Of that, $1 million came from park funds, $1 million will come from a state grant and the rest was covered by Spokane County’s Conservation Futures program.
Much of the final layer of the old Y has been removed in recent days, exposing a stream that used to flow under the building. Plans call for the stream to be a central focus of the land, which must be returned to a natural condition under rules for using Conservation Futures funding.
The future of a proposed white-water park in the Spokane River just downstream from downtown is in danger after state officials decided to pull a grant that was supposed to pay for nearly half the project.
Spokane park leaders have appealed the decision and hope to persuade the state Recreation and Conservation Funding Board to reverse the decision at a hearing on June 23.
“It’s all kind of in jeopardy,” said Tim Sanger, president of the board of Friends of the Falls, the nonprofit group that has led the effort to create the white-water park.
The project won the $530,000 grant in 2007. It was supposed to be used within four years, but plans for the project stalled in 2009 when then-City Planning Director Leroy Eadie ruled that concerns about the park’s effects on native redband trout were serious enough to require a study of the project’s environmental impact before a shoreline permit could be issued.
Eadie, who later was named park director, said those working on the park didn’t agree to pursue an environmental study until late last year. At the time, the city won a six-month extension for using the grant – until June 30. He said the city was about to award an $80,000 contract to begin work on the study when state officials warned this spring that the grant would get no further extensions because of the long delay.
If the state board agrees to a new extension, Eadie said he’ll move forward on the environmental study, which could provide recommendations to avoid harming spawning areas of native trout.
A study on redband trout in the Spokane River, released recently by Avista, indicated that there is a sizable spawning area near the proposed white-water park, said Rick Eichsteadt, the attorney for Spokane Riverkeeper, a nonprofit group that supports clean-up efforts and conservation.
Eichsteadt said the group believes the environmental study is needed but probably wouldn’t have a problem with a white-water park if recommendations to protect habitat are followed.
Sanger said Friends of the Falls is hopeful that the park could be constructed in ways that could improve the fish habitat.
“We’re really not interested in harming existing fish habitat,” Sanger said.
If the funding board’s decision is reversed, Eadie said the project would need a shoreline permit from the state Department of Ecology, hydraulic permit from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and an aquatics land lease from the Department of Natural Resources. The earliest construction could start is next summer.
Susan Zemek, spokeswoman for the Recreation and Conservation Office, said if the decision stands, the grant will be allocated to another project.
Closing Geiger: Wise or worrisome? 
Dazzeetrader11 on May 28 at 1:43 a.m.
Well, one thing is sure, the redband trout won’t move.
So , what I thought would be a very attractive prject goes down the river;)
I do hope the environmentalists rejoice. Verner too.
drywitt99 on May 28 at 6:24 a.m.
I sure don’t want to sound like a teabagger….but…..isn’t there a better way to spend half-a-million dollars??
william1977 on May 28 at 7:16 a.m.
Again…money not well spent.
This all should be paid for - if the need “truly” exists which…i’d really question that fact- by private interests, ideally Avista and Kaiser who have messed up the river flows and polluted the rivers in the first place.
No government money should ever be used for something so foolish.
I’m just amazed…at how people look for government to solve everyone’s problems.
If government has this kind of money to blow on such a project- they clearly are collecting too much in tax revenue and should give it back or reduce the tax burdeon on us all.
DickAdams on May 28 at 9:12 a.m.
Who says were broken? Its further proof of reckless spending habits.
Coffee on May 28 at 10:15 a.m.
Forget the park unless it can be payed for with private donations.
nutz4utwo on May 28 at 11:34 a.m.
Forgive me, but why is a “whitewater park” even needed? A simple 10 foot wide boat launch (costing less than $10,000) and a parking lot is all that is needed. People’s park already has a parking lot. Why is this so complicated and expensive?
Dazzeetrader11 on May 28 at 11:59 a.m.
Nutz…same as a medical school when SPokane is getting 100 newly trained MD’s without the expense of constructing and continuing a med school. Somebody somewhere thinks is a good idea. It’s completely NOT needed. Sorta like “Complete Streets”…just some liberal’s idea…….that someone else pays for. Union jobs!!
The money will still go somewhere…likely Seattle.
All this fluff is expensive. If a cost cutter looked hard, we could cut the expenses by hundreds of millions of dollars. Dems and libs like to spend. They make up reasons to spend…psssssstt…it means votes for them.
It’s garbage.
misjustice on May 28 at 1:11 p.m.
Maybe they can keep a teacher or two! Probably won’t, but it would be nice if they used it for that.
Or maybe even more patrols on the street. With the crime rate in Spokane we could sure use it!!!!!!
addyh on May 28 at 3:34 p.m.
Some of you are asking about the history of this project - here’s a story we published in 2005 when it was first announced:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2005/may/29/making-waves/
Spokane_Citizen on May 28 at 4:54 p.m.
Addy…why bother? None of these people have been outside on the river (or anywhere else) in years….if ever.
Dazzeetrader11 on May 28 at 5:39 p.m.
Citizen …Addy’s gracious enough to provide that link despite jerks like you being so negative. I donated to the project. I liked the whole idea. In hard times, it’s the funding that must be rearranged.
I wonder if private money couldn’t make this work…
Spokane_Citizen on May 28 at 6:12 p.m.
Daisy…you castigating someone for being ‘negative’ is simply hilarious!
misjustice on May 28 at 10:56 p.m.
Hilarious, in a Twilight World kinda way; almost as hilarious as the claim that she “donated” to this project! Especially in light of her above post at 11:59 a.m.; I must cry, “Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire!!!!”