The fight over the proposed Deschutes River pedestrian bridge south of Bend may suffer a knockout blow if a new bill passes in the upcoming short legislative session.
The draft of the bill, currently titled Legislative Concept 49, differs from Rep. Gene Whisnant’s failed bill from last session in that it doesn’t provide another option for the bridge. According to the bill’s language, it “prohibits a person, public body or local service district from constructing a bridge on the Deschutes River within certain segments of the Deschutes River Scenic Waterway.” What this means: no more bridges from the Central Oregon Irrigation District’s diversion structure located on the east side of the river, opposite Sunshine Way, to the south end of Bend’s urban growth boundary.
House Bill 2027, which passed unanimously in the Oregon House last year, banned the building over a bridge over the Deschutes in the Scenic area outright. The Senate amended the bill, which would have allowed the Bend Park and Recreation District, or another federal governmental agency, to build a pedestrian bridge just outside the UGB, starting at river mile 172 and extending upstream approximately 520 feet. The bill ultimately died in the Senate. If the Senate’s version of the bill had passed, the span could have connected trail users from a small area of federal land on the east side of the river to the “Good Dog” off-leash park on the west side. The bridge would have connected the thousands of residents in southeast Bend with the miles and miles of national forest land for biking, hiking and many other forms or recreation—all without having to burn gas to get there.
In 1970, Oregon voters overwhelmingly established the Oregon Scenic Waterways Program, designating 496 river miles of the Deschutes, Illinois, John Day, Owhyee, Rogue and Minam rivers. This legislation required the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department to be notified in writing of certain activities within one-quarter mile of the bank on designated scenic waterways. One of these activities is a bridge. Another is the building of houses or other structures. While the bridge idea has drawn ire from people in certain housing developments, there are already many large homes and roads within the boundaries of the scenic waterway.
Don Horton, BPRD’s executive director is one of the bridge’s biggest proponents. He sees some of the opposition as an us-versus-them.
“It’s a social equity issue,” Horton said.
Bob Brell, who served as the former chair of the Century West Neighborhood Association, feels the legislation is necessary to protect the “Scenic” designation of the river.
“How can any entity (public or private) know more or be better informed or represent the public interests better than the public entity entrusted with managing our Oregon Scenic Waterways?” Brell said in an email.
Erik Fernandez, wilderness program manager for the environmental group, Oregon Wild, is also in favor of legislation, and is concerned about the possibility of lengthy legal battles if the Scenic designation isn’t bolstered.
“We want to have certainty that our environmental protections will be strong instead of letting it play out in the courts,” Fernandez said.
“To walk to the forest land without having to drive to it would be a huge benefit to the people living in southeast Bend.” —Don Horton
In 2015, when the BPRD had more than one prospective site for the span, the OPRD set a time for public comments. Most of the opponents live in the gated communities on the west side of the river. The majority of the stated opposition was due to fear of vandalism and increased foot traffic near homes. Another big reason for opposition was environmental concern. Horton said the spot of the proposed bridge is a historical crossing point for elk, who in the winter, would ford the river and live in the meadows by what is now the Elk Meadow Elementary School. However, according to Horton, the elk quit crossing years ago when the subdivisions near the school were built. Horton said, the 73 houses being built by Pahlisch Homes along the east side of the river, in a subdivision being called “River Vale,” mean basically the end of elk crossing the river in the area.
“The only herds you see out there anymore are John Deeres,” BPRD’s Park Planner Laura Underhill quips.
Horton said if the bridge were to be constructed, his staff would be able to help with the environmental concerns, especially on the west side of the river. Horton also says the vegetation is completely trampled down within the dog park near the river.
“We can help with riparian restoration—help manage the area that the forest service isn’t able to,” he said.
Horton points to the work BPRD did with the whitewater park in Bend, saying they made the park while taking into account fish and the Oregon Spotted Frog, listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
Fernandez said although BRPD’s intentions may be good, it still isn’t enough for wildlife, and recreation is a secondary concern to his group.
“This is a site-specific problem,” he said. “The Deschutes faces a lot of pressure, from logging, housing developments, irrigation… some we can control and some we can’t. Can this river handle that much more disturbance?”
Bend’s state representative, Knute Buehler, has weighed in, saying he’s not in support of the bridge. According to Buehler’s chief of staff, Jordan Conger, Buehler isn’t working on the proposed bill, but supports finding an alternative solution, such as a trail on the east side of the river that balances the need to protect the scenic waterway and wildlife crossing, with the recreation interests of local residents.
Brell also applauds the idea of another solution, saying the current Bill Healy Bridge could connect people to Century Drive, to the Haul Trial Road and to the U.S. Forest Service lands.
Horton says two scenarios that could pave the way for a span. One, the USFS has to apply for the bridge, or OPRD has to allow for a non-land owner to apply. In May 2017, ORPD Director, Lisa Sumption, said she would not pursue a rule amendment on the Upper Deschutes Scenic Waterway.
Horton said that even if BPRD was able to convince the state to allow the possibility of a bridge, it’s still a very long process, with other hurdles to jump over—including the National Environmental Policy Act process, which Horton said takes a few years to get through, in addition to the year at the state level, allowing input from many stakeholders.
“I don’t know if we’ll ever get to do the bridge or not,” Horton said. “To walk to the forest land without having to drive to it would be a huge benefit to the people living in southeast Bend.”
According to Horton, there are currently nine bridges over the Deschutes River in areas with a scenic waterway designation. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife says there are 200 boat docks. If the new bill passes, it would take away the option of building any future bridges on the Deschutes Scenic Waterway. If, for instance, the UGB moved south and traffic congestion necessitated a new span for cars—too bad.
Horton laments, “This [the proposed bill] stops everything.”
Editor’s note: The third paragraph of this article, starting with “House Bill 2027,” differs from the print version. It was changed it to reflect more detailed information about HB 2027.
This article appears in Jan 24-31, 2018.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Perhaps the most important argument against the new bridge is that allowing it in a designated scenic area would set a precedent that could weaken such protections across the entire state of Oregon. That’s a slippery slope and a bad idea.
Bachelor View Rd. is a private patrolled road in a residential zoned area of the city that has large lots and expensive homes. Many residents on this road are opposed to the pedestrian bridge crossing. Their opposition to the proposed bridge is based solely on environmental impact factors. What other reasons are there to support an opposition agenda?
Might the real issue be more social than environmental protection?
This city residential zoned area was once relatively remote. In exchange for a promise to the county assessor to grow trees on their property for commercial market sale when the trees are mature, 13 property owners holding more than 30 acres of land on this road were granted and continue to enjoy a low property tax assessment advantage of $77.07 per acre. One property owner paid $22.60 in property taxes in the current year on 3.23 acres of bare land with an assessor Real Market Value of $796,430. (https://dial.deschutes.org/Real/Index/241568). Other owners enjoy the same 77.07 per acre assessment on the portion of their land in excess of 1 acre for their residence.
This is no longer a remote private city zoned residential area even if the owners of property there are growing trees for commercial sale with an unbelievable property tax advantage in a town that no longer has a mill!
Bend is growing. Bob Brell lives on Bachelor View Rd. and has recently seen the impact of growth on his own 5 acre property. The 9.6 acre lot next to his property sold in 2016 for $8,085,000 and there are plans for a 65 home subdivision.
Growth is a social issue with environmental impact. Growth in backyards of the Mt. Bachelor View Rd. area is a fact that the residents probably don’t like but can only oppose on an environmental basis. They have the financial and political resources to do that.
In a longer range view of growth there is a likely east/west traffic bridge at the point of the contended pedestrian bridge. Perhaps that is the road block reason for the wording that there be no bridge crossing. When? It is a function of growth and how long the line of cars gets waiting to cross the river. Perhaps the unstated agenda of opposition by a few to the pedestrian crossing is to inhibit a future crossing of a much greater number of river crossers?
The “Slippery Slope Argument” (SSA). Wikipedia describes it. Synonymous wit the “Continuum Fallacy”. Weak reasoning in this case. There is a substantial amount of good judgment required to choose the best course of action in this case. Unfortunate if and when the decision is influenced by money and politics and special interest over the general public benefit. The environment is certainly to be considered and weighted.
As long as there’s money to be made, BPRD will keep lying. Gene Whisnants bill to prevent the bridge was passed unanimously by the legislature. The Senate version that would have allowed a bridge was not Gene’s and it failed miserably. Your fact checking should be done before printing.
Don Horton lies when he claims the elk wintered on the East bank. If the author had asked someone who is not a developer, like Oregon Fish and Wildlife, they will tell you it is critical habitat and the ford provides access to the East bank where they move South to their calving grounds near the lave flows below Lava Butte. But the truth has no place in this article. According to the developers, they only see bulldozers.
Claiming transportation access is a joke as well. There won’t be any access the foot bridge from the East for almost a mile from the nearest parking lot and twice that to the nearest neighborhood. It certainly won’t be a river trail as it winds through manicured subdivisions. But hey that’s where all that sweet SDC money pours into the BPRD coffers. Without the bridge, there no trail and no SDC money.
When Dozer Don threatens that the USFS could put in a bridge, he’s right. I shudder to think what the Forest Service may do on the West side of the river. You see, the feds aren’t bound by any state laws when it comes to selling land. That’s how Widgi Creek came to exist. The feds just plopped out a development without zoning hearings or environmental concerns that it was in an elk migration corridor.
The same could happen on the west side of the Deschutes. Overnight, all that public land could become private and heavily developed without any local oversight. Horton’s hint that USFS might build a bridge deepens my suspicions he’s holding cards he won’t show the public.
An owner of property on Buck Canyon Rd has offered a western portion of their property that adjoins BPRD property for potential parking. It is 2,500 ft from the proposed bridge crossing.
Lying is a serious accusation! Oregon Fish and Wildlife should be consulted for expert opinion based on recent studies of Elk migration. Elk would have to migrate through several miles of streets with homes as well as cross 97 to get to calving areas. When was the last migration pattern study done? I
Interesting that the Federal govt. sold land to a developer that became Widgi Creek development. Something Id like to investigate and learn how it was done.
A future traffic bridge at the crossing would either go across Federal land or up Bachelor View Rd. I suggest it go up Bachelor View Rd. Many properties there are on acerage large enough to get a property tax assessment of $77.07 per acre, 3 acre minimum, because the owners have signed a statement stating that growing trees for commercial sale at maturity is their intent.
The Federal land authority comes from the Congressional Act that created Oregon. There are a few other surprises in there.
The trail plan winds around from the proposed parking area to make it longer than necessary. It is in an extremely unsecure area and if you have to drive to the parking area, you’ve defeated the purpose of alternative transportation route. It will only be a play toy for the idle rich. An absolutely unnecessary intrusion in a protected space.
The scenic river designation was originally passed in the 1980s in response to a plan to bridge the Deschutes between Meadow Camp picnic area to Baker road on the other side. That’s why it has the unique bridge prohibition. It was perceived as a commercial threat that would drain off ski traffic away from the ski shops on Century Drive. It was a viable route that would have expanded transportation interconnections from the Inn and Widgi Creek across Bend. If we’re going to have a conversation about a traffic bridge, that location would serve better than Mt Bachelor View. The political-commercial dynamic still remains, however. Traffic bridges are not gonna happen.
I’m sorry I have to pick on Dozer Don. He’s saddled with a legacy policy to extend the trail to Sunriver. It was a misguided plan from the 1960s that has become an environmental blunder. The leglislature just made that very clear. His response to state direction is to ignore them and stick to an unrealistic and illegal plan for his department. Credibility be damned, SDCs full speed ahead!
Designated Forestland Special Assessment $79.38 per acre.
All the facts on public records.