The dream of a pedestrian bridge crossing the Deschutes River along Bend’s southern boundary may have slipped downstream—at least for the foreseeable future.
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Director Lisa Sumption announced this morning that she will not pursue a rule amendment on the Upper Deschutes State Scenic Waterway. State parks rules currently dictate that no bridge construction is allowed across that portion of the Deschutes. Bend Park and Recreation District asked OPRD to consider a possible rule change last year, which would have allowed BPRD to construct a pedestrian bridge across the river, linking portions of the Deschutes River Trail.
Sumption’s decision came after studying a Community Solutions report, commissioned by OPRD, that collected public input and assessed current regulations. Based on those findings, Sumption discovered a need for more “coordination with public, private, and other governmental organizations could improve rule effectiveness,” but that wasn’t enough reason to pursue an amendment to State Scenic Waterway rules, she said.
“I would reconsider amending rules in the future if that would clearly strengthen protection of the waterway,” Sumption said in a Wednesday release. “As important as recreation is to our mission, it has to be balanced with our need to protect resources that make recreation possible. Changing rules, especially in a way that might encourage more visible riverside development, is contrary to the purpose of the scenic waterway system.
“While we’ve finished looking at this one small portion of the Upper Deschutes and plan no further action there, the review has highlighted an important statewide need for better management of the system,” Sumption said.
As reported in this week’s issue of the Source Weekly, Rep. Gene Whisnant of Sunriver also introduced legislation barring bridge crossings across scenic waterways—legislation that was passed in the state House last month. The state Senate was scheduled to take up the bill in committee today.
Related Stories
Differing Surveys; Differing Results
This article appears in May 3-10, 2017.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
What I do not understand, and I’ve been following this story, is why Bend Parks & Rec Dist. (whose mission is “to strengthen community vitality and foster healthy, enriched lifestyles by providing exceptional park and recreation services.”) wishes to build a bridge in a protected scenic corridor. Building in a scenic corridor neither fosters healthy enriched lifestyles nor provides exceptional park services. Building in scenic waterways is outside the scope of the BPRD agency’s mission. So, why build a bridge? Why there? Why now? There’s a lot of new land development right there, right now, (and the City is going to build civil infrastructure in that region so more population growth is going to be feasible there). So, is there leaders at BPRD who perhaps has/have strong ties to land developers’ financial interests in the Wildflowers development or other land dev going on now (or later), there? The whole project seems odd for BPRD to wish to do or propose to do. But if a land developer developing neighborhoods right there wished to build the bridge (in a protected scenic waterway) – they have financial interests in building recreation amenities in the area that sets the neighborhood apart (for marketability) – that would make more sense; and why I ask.
The Deschutes Trail was a pipe dream from the earliest days of the Bend Parks Dept. Since then, the river was protected from development. Apparently, they didn’t get the memo 30 years ago.
Now, the motivation is to plan a trail through the soon to be developed wildlife refuge. It’s simply the dollars generated by system development charges that are dedicated to the Parks Dept.. BPRD is drawn into this unholy alliance with the developers by the smell of money. There’s no need to create a mystery on the east side of the river.
Now the west side. That is a mystery. That’s all Forest service land. They can sell it at any time without any state interference. We should be very interested if they have any plans or requests to sell. But we won’t find out until its plopped on our doorstep.
.