Understanding what access at Barker Road is, what it isn’t, and what it may or may not look like in the future is either much to do about nothing, a classic case of lost in translation, or a sneak peak at a larger problem. It just depends on who you talk to.
There has been no shortage of ink spilled, phone calls exchanged or meetings held over Spokane River access at Barker Road bridge the last few months. While Barker Road represents just one of several access points along the Spokane River, therefore one of several points of contention, it is the one that possesses the most qualities necessary for the perfect storm. But at the end of the day, all of the qualities can be defined simply by poor communication.
Here’s a history of the Barker Road Bridge access point, an access point that many users say is one of the principle access points along the scenic Spokane River. And as a disclaimer, this is only the history according to me, and the Spokane Riverkeeper’s involvement, so gaps in the story aren’t careless or intentional, they just are what they are.
Never anything fancy or dedicated, the informal put-in and take-out spot on the Spokane River known by it’s road relation Barker Road is on the upriver side of Barker Road Bridge (exit 293 off of I-90), on the north bank of the river. For reference, on the south bank of the river, upriver from the bridge, is a parking lot and trailhead for the Centennial Trail. The south side of the river at this location also happens to be a Washington State Department of Ecology toxic cleanup site, one of nine areas along the river identified for improvement as a result of contaminants from historic mining practices in Idaho’s Coeur d’Alene Basin. These contaminants, known as heavy metals, include lead, arsenic, zinc, and cadmium. They washed downstream and settled in soil and sediments along certain beaches and the bed of the Spokane River.
When the City of Spokane Valley incorporated in 2003, replacing the aging Barker Road Bridge “rank[ed] near the top of capital facilities projects within the city”, this according to a news story from the Spokane Valley Online in August of 2008. “In December 2007, the city of Spokane issued weight restrictions for the Barker Road Bridge following an inspection that determined the limits were necessary to prevent further deterioration of the bridge before construction began. Replacement of the bridge was included as part of Spokane Valley’s six-year Transportation Improvement Plan.”
User groups, conservation groups and the public were included in the planning and permitting process. As a result of this, organized user groups, consisting primarily of local kayakers found out that maintaining put in and take out at Barker Road Bridge wasn’t included in the original plan. Through diligent work, those concerned users were able to convince the City of Spokane Valley engineers to site the bridge in a manner that access would be preserved. This resiting, some 30 feet upriver, wasn’t just a moving of a line on a blueprint, but additional studying and planning that cost the Valley money. But it was done, and the new plan called for an “access lane” to go to the low water mark of the river. This effort and compromise was praised by users of the Spokane River. The $11.3 million dollar project was a go.
Construction of the new Barker Road Bridge began in July of 2008, with work being done by Morgen and Oswood Construction Co. Inc. out of Great Falls, Montana. Construction was mostly completed in mid June of 2010, or at least to the point that traffic could use it. A work bridge that blocked river access remained in place in to July. But construction didn’t go off without a hitch. As noted in a recent Spokane River Forum update, “during construction, a platform to support bridge construction was placed over [the original Barker Road take out / put in]. Unfortunately, construction activities resulted in the natural river bank slope to the river being washed away, leaving a steep embankment. The extent of damage could not be noted until the platform was removed last summer. When the platform was removed the contractor simply put gravel down to the embankment, making no effort to provide the access lane shown in the bridge design documents.”
First hand accounts of problems at Barker Road began arriving to us around August, when re-construction on the access was finishing up. Stories of the contractor putting contaminated sediment into the river, erosion, and riprap washing away drew our interest. I paid the site a visit in early September.
Barker Road Bridge access taken November, 2010
Having not seen original plans or having any involvement in the issue up to that point, I only had my preconceived notion of river access, and Barker Road wasn’t close. It was very steep and had an aggressive drop off of about one to one and a half feet from gravel to water. This was a result of the aforementioned bank erosion and wash out that occurred, leading me to more strongly believe this to be a potential stability and erosion disaster. I’m not an engineer, but it looked to me that at higher water, the unstable bank would have a hard time holding back the natural path would take . And aesthetically pleasing it wasn’t. I was there in early September with the river flowing about 3,600 cfs. From a river user standpoint, it wasn’t ideal, but from what it was before the bridge construction, it wasn’t radically different. To see what Barker looked like before redoing the bridge, check out this photo from The Spokesman-Review. As an anecdote, I carried a raft down the ramp in early October and it was a chore where I was thankful I was young and fit.
Around the same time I visited the site, I was involved in separate discussions with local agencies and conservation groups on ways to utilize available funds for shoreline projects, access projects and other river-related restoration and beautification ideas. The issue of Barker Road came up in brainstorming, and as a result, a field trip to the site with previously mentioned agencies was planned as a way to see if Barker Road could benefit from some of the funds. On October 22nd, representatives from the City of Spokane Valley planning and engineering, Washington State Fish Wildlife and Parks, Spokane County Conservation District, Washington State Parks, Washington State Department of Ecology, Spokane River Forum, the Spokane Riverkeeper and third-party engineers and consultants not associated with the Barker Road Bridge construction met at the site to discuss if and how to fix what was collectively agreed upon as shoddy construction and development. Throughout the gathering at the site, the City of Spokane Valley officials made it clear that in no way did they want to be involved financially or on the hook financially, but they never once objected to what came out of the brainstorming session. Much of what was discussed was the potential for future erosion of contaminated soil, the unsafe and almost unusable steepness of the grade, and then the possibility of redesigning and redeveloping the site. Again, it’s important to note that there was never any objection raised, aside from concerns of where money was going to come from. We all left that meeting with what I felt was a collective sense of hope that we could turn Barker Road access in to something everyone could be happy with.
After the group disseminated, a few folks who stayed behind chatting noticed some orange spray paint in the middle of the access lane, near the top of the hill. It was determined that this was an Avista marking, noting a spot for a future power pole. An obvious threat to any potential access modifications at that area.
What followed was a furious week-long stretch of telephone calls with Avista, meetings with City of Spokane Valley council representatives, and fact finding to learn more about Avista’s intent and the history of that location. Learning about the power pole to me was the straw that broke the camel’s back. As a result, I decided to write a letter to the City of Spokane Valley expressing my dissatisfaction with access at Barker Road – primarily focused on ecological concerns. While I was drafting the letter I found out that Avista and the City of Spokane Valley reached an agreement to move the pole further north as to not be in the middle of the access lane, but more out of the way near the drainage ditch. A victory.
Image and illustration provided by Avista
So I changed my letter to remove any language about the power pole, and sent it to the Valley on November 5. You can see the letter in PDF form HERE. Sending this letter was my way of letting the Valley and all other agencies and groups included as CC recipients know that the Spokane Riverkeeper was looking after ecological threats to the Spokane River at Barker Road, looking after ecologically responsible recreation, and holding parties responsible for their actions.
As expected the letter began to circulate and drew new interest to access at Barker Road for many people who were involved in the resiting of the bridge. And of course interest and concern from the City of Spokane Valley. They submitted a response letter that I received on November 17th. As a result of back and forth letters and widespread circulation, I spoke with Rich Landers of The Spokesman-Review around that same time period. What I expressed to Rich was my frustration that I felt the City of Spokane Valley wasn’t properly communicating their intentions or expectations of what they had at Barker Road, and what they wanted Barker Road to be. More on this later.
I then began hearing from other user groups, most notably raft and drift boat folks, about how they could get involved in the re-visioning of Barker Road. All I could do at that point was explain what was going on and encourage said groups to contact the City of Spokane Valley for a better explanation of their opinion.
I then had a meeting with an official from the City of Spokane Valley that assured me if there was any future erosion or ecological issues at Barker Road that the Valley would take those issues seriously and take steps to identify and fix them. A follow-up meeting was scheduled between the Spokane Riverkeeper and City of Spokane Valley. Initiated by the Valley.
Leading up to the meeting I advocated for increasing the attendees to include the Spokane River Forum for all the work they were involved with in a creating of a Spokane River Water Trail, and for their historical perspective of Barker Road. After some consideration, the Valley agreed upon this and asked if they could also invite their Parks person. An invite then went out to a Valley planning consultant who also happened to represent user groups. He could not make it. It’s important to note that this meeting wasn’t organized by the Spokane Riverkeeper as a way to get all of the “key players” in the room or anything of that nature. We just simply accepted an invitation to further discuss our views.
Throughout the course of the meeting on December 1, much was made about poor communication and ways to avoid such problems in the future. Throughout the meeting, I insisted that the Valley communicate with the boating community about the status of the project. One issue that popped up that stuck with me during the meeting until I had a chance to say something was the fact that the Valley felt upset that they weren’t involved enough in the re-visioning discussions of Barker Road. When in fact the planners in the room as well as the Parks representative were at the site visit meeting we had at Barker Road on October 22nd. Then something was disclosed that hit like an atomic bomb. In a seven-year City of Spokane Valley transportation vision, there are plans (albeit currently unfunded) to widen Barker Road, which City of Spokane Valley planners commented in the meeting would result in lost access at Barker Road Bridge. I raised my concern during the meeting and expressed serious frustration that this fact wasn’t disclosed earlier in the process. In my opinion, a good time for this would have been when we all visited the site on October 22nd and spent an hour brainstorming on how and if we could fix Barker Road. Despite the frustration and concerns, I left the meeting feeling optimistic that future issues, concerns and eventual collaboration would be communicated better. I was also encouraged that we were able to persuade the City of Spokane Valley to send a letter to boating/kayaking groups, conservation groups and the general public explaining their expectations of what Barker Road access is and what they intend to do there in terms of future growth and development. We felt this a win for transparency, and also a release of the burden we felt of having to answer questions and concerns that we would get about what was going on at Barker. In summation, we learned that Valley felt Barker was an “informal access” – no more, no less. And that definition and explanation was to be in the letter. At the time of writing this, that letter has not been seen.
Talk of meetings, discussions and letters began to make it’s way to the larger public at this time – especially many groups and people who had been previously involved with Barker that felt surprised they didn’t know the issue had been resurrected. I want to stress that this wasn’t done intentionally, it was simply the product of too many cooks in the kitchen. Things got missed. However, I made sure to keep an open line of communication with everyone I heard from who felt they were left out of the conversation. It’s important to note that I began this job as the Spokane Riverkeeper in August of this year, so right at the end of the first chapter of Barker Road.
Up next in the saga was the comments I made to Rich Landers about my frustration with Valley officials,that finally ended up running in the Spokesman-Review on December 9th – after the December 1 meeting, which was a meeting I felt put to rest many of my concerns. Great timing it wasn’t, but the issue was now fully in the pubic view. The news article was also accompanied by a blog.
Following the December 9th piece by Landers was another piece on the same issue that ran on December 16th. That piece featured views from the user community, and shed more light on the fact that the saga at Barker Road is far from over. Which takes us to the present.
I know much of the last 2,400 words might lead you to say, “so, what now”, and that’s pretty much the point. So where do we go now? Well if you’re a user of the Spokane River and concerned about the past, present and future of access at Barker Road, you are most likely already plugged in to the ongoing discussions that were just explained in this post. And if you’re concerned about access, good, responsible access that is safe for users and safe for the health of the river and shoreline, then you ought to pay attention to what develops at Barker as a blueprint to how these discussion should or shouldn’t go in the future. The Spokane River is our region’s crown jewel – celebrated and marketed by municipalities, businesses and citizens alike. So inherently there are many interests and opinions on how best to use it, care for it, and showcase it. And as this saga proves, that can lead to many problems.
But it can also lead to opportunities, and that’s what I hope happens with Barker. My hope is that this brings groups and individuals concerned with access issues together to discuss how to protect and expand river recreation opportunities. This “history of Barker Road according to Bart” isn’t meant to be the be-all, end-all finale or earth-shattering conclusion to this issue, just simply a clearing of the air and hope for better communication and transparency going forward.
If you’re interested in this issue and would like to further discuss it, feel free to get a hold of me.
