JimC

Sadly, "thoughtfullbendite", not his real name, misses the point. The area in question does have significant wildlife value which is why ODFW opposes a bridge. But the issues of spotted frogs, elk and deer, are not what's stopping a relatively few residents of River Rim from getting their Convenience Bridge. The Wild and Scenic River designation just closes off the bridge idea. No amount of local discussion or debate will change that. I guess one could get Congress and the Oregon Legislature (plus Governor) to change the laws. Good luck with that.

Yes, Geoff is correct. The rules governing the federally designated Deschutes Wild and Scenic River specifically prohibit new bridges. State rules also prohibit new bridges.

Local residents and the BPRD can do all the surveys and polls they wish, but new bridges will still be prohibited. This prohibition is not arbitrary, It was considered necessary to protect the values provided by the river corridor. A long and arduous process to change the rules is imaginable, but extremely unlikely to succeed. People all around the country would see such a change as antithetical to the entire Wild and Scenic River system.

I did not refer to a bill. The prohibitions on new bridges are in the Oregon Administrative Rules that implement the relevant legislation. The Management plan that applies to the Federal Wild and Scenic section have the same wording.

The other uses you list are not outright prohibited. Owners of land adjacent to the river do need to comply with the rules when they apply to build something in the river corridor. If they get into a major disagreement with Oregon Parks, which administers all this, then after a year, such landowners generally get to go ahead with their project, unless the Parks Commission decides to buy their land. Since new bridges are outright prohibited, this one-year thing doesn't apply. This provision applies to landowners who want to build a house, for example. Also, there is no prohibition in the rules regarding old bridges.

You and I may think the rule against new bridges is bogus because of all the other stuff that's built along the river. The exhaustive process that produced the rules was deemed to be consistent with the underlying Federal and State Legislation and the primary protections were placed on the river itself, rather than on the adjacent lands. When Oregon Parks looked into the bridge issue a couple years ago, they announced that if anything, they would try to strengthen the river-protective rules, not weaken them.

Here are the details: There are two defined river segments in this area. The segment upstream from the UGB is designated as an Oregon Scenic River Area (OAR 736-0073). Under Section (1)(B)(e), “New bridges will not be permitted.” The segment downstream from the UGB (to the COID diversion) is designated as a River Community Area. Under Section (2)(D)(f), “New bridges will not be permitted.”

OAR 736-0 40-0073
Upper Deschutes River Scenic Waterway
(1) Scenic River Areas:
(B) The segment of the scenic waterway extending from the Deschutes National Forest boundary in Section 20, Township 19 South, Range 11 East, of the Willamette Meridian, (Section 20, T 19S, R 11E, W.M.) to the Bend Urban Growth Boundary at River Mile 172 is classified as a Scenic River Area.
(e) New bridges will not be permitted. Maintenance, repair and replacement of existing bridges shall be consistent with OAR 736-040-0035(6) and (7), Deschutes County land use and development regulations, and Oregon Department of State Lands regulations;
(2) River Community Areas:
(D) Those related adjacent lands within the City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary beginning at about river mile 172 and extending downstream approximately one mile to the Central Oregon Irrigation diversion at about river mile 171 is classified as the South Bend River Community Area.
(f) New bridges will not be permitted. Maintenance, repair and replacement of existing bridges shall be consistent with OAR 736-040-0035(6) and (7), Deschutes County and City of Bend land use and development regulations, and Oregon Department of State Lands regulations;

Note to DRW Hiker: DRW is not within the BPRD District. It may be a bit difficult to advance your interest in having BPRD build a bridge when out-of-district residents are not paying anything on the bond issue that included improvements to the Deschutes River Trail. The last proposed bridge location is particularly problematic because it is on Forest Service land right at the BPRD boundary and the Forest Service is opposed to such a bridge.

New bridges are prohibited in both sections of the river by state and federal rules. There is no location upstream of the COID diversion where new bridges are allowed. Sorry, that's just the way it is. Recreation is an important component of the Wild and Scenic River designation, but the goal was to protect recreation for people on the river in boats. There was no intention of increasing convenience for people who want to cross the river. That's why new bridges are prohibited. Maybe some bridge opponents are motivated by a desire to enjoy their own properties, but the biggest push to protect the river corridor is from those who think the wildlife and scenic values are of paramount importance.

Sadly, the Source is emulating the Bulletin in its personal attacks on legislators and joins the Bulletin by publishing half-truthy editorials and being on the wrong side of this issue. You should acknowledge that Whisnant had good intentions when he introduced his bill in last session, hoping for a rate environmental win. His bill passed the House unanimously, but died in a Senate Committee. As in the current session, everything is totally transparent. The only "intrigue and hypocrisy" is due to BPRD and the Bulletin's disingenuous campaigns against the legislation.
Had you done your homework, you would know that this section of the river is protected by State and Federal legislation (1987-88), Oregon Administrative Rules, and a Management Plan signed by 16 local (including BPRD!), state and federal agencies.
Even if BPRD and a group of locals want a bridge, they can't overturn all these laws and rules--they just can't. The Deschutes belongs to all Oregonians
and all citizens of the US. Lots of other options for completing trails to Sunriver don't have a bridge. Let's get to it.

It should be noted that the Mayor (me) has consistently supported full and open public involvement, voting that way on the height limit question as well as numerous times on the water project. --Jim Clinton