December 9, 2010 in Sports, Outdoors

Landers: Valley’s new Barker Bridge erodes soil, high hopes

• Print
• Email
• Share

What do you get nowadays for a $10 million bridge plus the $1 million cost overrun?

In the case of the Barker Road Bridge, the public got a new transportation route across the Spokane River.

We also got erosion that unleashed into the river around 500 cubic yards of soil contaminated with heavy metals.

This may be the project that keeps on giving, since the erosion issue apparently was handled by simply rolling boulders down the slope without a plan or analysis of the stabilization.

What the public did not get from the Barker Bridge project is just as significant.

The City of Spokane Valley apparently has kissed off all the paddling, fishing and river advocacy groups and representatives from State Parks and other agencies that met several times at the bridge before, during and after construction to make sure the project enhanced the existing river access site.

Instead of being enhanced, the formerly rough access to the water has been further degraded into an unpleasant drop-off.

Angler dreams for an access that might accommodate a drift boat were dashed.

A paddler needs courage to launch even a canoe there now.

City officials apparently have a different concept of river access than people who use the river.

River advocates who are trying to develop and promote the Spokane River as a water trail embrace river access in terms of public safety and shoreline restoration.

City officials seem to define access to be whatever is expedient.

“I believe the disconnect was caused by a change in the definition of ‘access,’ ” Spokane Valley engineer Steve Worley said.

“At the beginning of the bridge project, ‘access’ meant to maintain enough space between the new bridge and the east Barker Road right-of-way line so rafters, kayakers and canoeists could continue to access the river at this location for put-in and take-out purposes.

“By the end of the bridge project, the definition of ‘access’ was changing to include vehicle and boat trailer access. The inclusion of vehicle and boat trailer access at this location didn’t come up until the end of the bridge project and was being led by Andy Dunau of the Spokane River Forum.”

Dunau agrees there’s been what he calls a “mega perception problem.”

“I thought we were working toward something you could promote and be proud of,” he said. “…In- stead of an access lane that could be used by a variety of boats and emergency vehicles, they have a marginally useful informal access that could very well degrade over time. That’s not in the pubic interest.”

Spokane Riverkeeper Bart Mihailovich met recently with Spokane Valley city attorney Cary Driskell and sent a letter to Worley listing these and other concerns with the Barker Bridge project. He received discouraging replies from both officials.

“They basically lied to the community if they’re now saying they didn’t intend an access there,” he said.

Equally disturbing, “They said the city is taking a wait-and-see approach to the erosion issue, hoping the problem will fix itself.”

Also concerned is Jeff Lawlor, the Washington Fish and Wildlife department biologist who’s worked to keep Spokane Valley in compliance with provisions of its stream hydraulics permit.

“They pretty much consider the project closed,” he said, noting the city paid $15,000 in mitigation for the erosion but never really fixed the problem as required under the original permit.

“The city said it was the contractor’s fault, but the permit went to the city,” Lawlor said.

The Corps of Engineers and the Washington Department of Ecology are supposed to be overseeing the erosion issues and spread of soils laden with heavy metals from Silver Valley mining.

But those two agencies appear to be doing nothing.

“The bank erosion dramatically altered the site,” Lawlor said, noting the problem stemmed from the platform built for demolition of the old bridge. “I was very upset about it. The city or (engineering firm) CH2M Hill should have figured it out and dealt with the problem beforehand.

Lawlor said state agencies are always under pressure to avoid delaying public projects and increasing costs. “We didn’t delay this project one day,” he said. “We focused on our issues of fish habitat. But a lot has been overlooked.”

This is a pattern with Spokane Valley and its treatment of the Spokane River. Another example was the rush to get permits that eventually allowed illegal boat docks to be built near Plantes Ferry Park.

The river and river users aren’t the only ones who got shortchanged in the sloppy way the Barker Bridge project was managed. City officials have missed an opportunity to help define Spokane Valley as a place that looks forward and serves its people.

Property at the end of the bridge was for sale when the project was initiated. A little forethought along with $11 million worth of heavy equipment operations on site could have groomed something excellent for the future.

Instead, we simply got a bridge.

River health and public access to a spectacular river in our midst are qualities that attract quality residents as well as tourists.

These are values that would indicate a really nice place to live.

Contact Rich Landers at (509) 459-5508 or e-mail richl@spokesman.com

Five comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  D Statler on December 09 at 8:29 a.m.

  I was appalled when I noticed the new boat dock accross the river from our scenic Centennial trail. You can stand directly accross from the dock and watch fish surface and feed in the mornings.We now might get to watch a wealthy landowner scream at passing kayak / rafters. The things we do to keep a few rich developers happy. I am a lifelong resident and use to enjoy boating on the river too.I have grown to enjoy the peaceful and quiet area near PlantesFerry.I believe the county should eliminate all power boats from all stretches of the Spokane river.
  NOT TO LATE TO DEMOLISH THE NEW DOCK BEFORE IT MULTIPLIES!!!
  Probably not to late to sue the county into correcting the Bridge mess.Making a workable park/access there could be cheaper than settling a huge class action lawsuit for erosion and downstream contamination.

• 

  MrNatural on December 09 at 8:51 a.m.

  Thank you for reporting on this Rich. For many years the Spokane River Forum has been working to provide public access to the Spokane River. The Barker Rd. construction was petitioned with plenty of time to incorporate a put in/take out.

  I would dig a bit deeper into this issue and really illustrate the stakeholders and their opinions because there is an underlying resistance from Avista as well which seems to be quite influential in deterring river access.

• 

  Notapatriot on December 09 at 10:09 a.m.

  Funny this country we live in. 2 years to build this bridge that is maybe a block long. They built the Oakland Bay Bridge in 3 years and it’s 8 miles long.

  Pathetic. Completely pathetic.

  Yet another example of America going to hell in a handbag.

• 

  spokanecougar on December 09 at 11:58 a.m.

  The City of the Spokane Valley is to busy trying to keep its downtown area at U-City ugly and disgusting to worry about anything regarding the river.

  Can the Valley be more of a joke? What total idiots you people just elected, only elected to make sure the U-City area stays ugly and undeveloped while the rest of your city gets neglected making the whole area and people suffer for your incompetence.

• 

  deltaelk on June 05 at 4:40 p.m.

  Probably shouldn’t make a comment on something I know nothing about. Weren’t their plans drawn up ahead of time.? Seems like you would have to have an engineered drawing before beginning such a project. If there was a plan, what did the plan show for a boat launch?