A recent Community Needs Assessment by the Bend Park and Recreation District, measuring the need for parks and recreation services every five years, found significant support for the construction of a footbridge crossing the Deschutes River near the Bend’s southern urban growth boundary.
The results of the survey, discussed at a Jan. 2 BPRD board meeting, found that out of 900 households that participated, 71% of respondents supported the bridge. Another 15% of respondents were neutral and 11% were opposed.
The bridge would connect the Deschutes River Trail on the south end of Bend to the Deschutes National Forest near the Rimrock Trailhead. Proponents of the bridge are using this survey support to, once again, strengthen their campaign for the project.
In 2012, Bend voters approved Bond Measure 9-86, funding three BPRD projects in Bend, including the pedestrian bridge. Over the years, groups have attempted to prevent construction of the bridge.
In 2017, some residents in the Bachelor View Road community attempted to ban the bridge with legislation. In 2018, residents partnered with environmental group, Oregon Wild, to attempt to ban the bridge for a second time, citing foot traffic near homes and environmental concerns.
The bill, which would have barred any person, public body or local service district from building a bridge on the Deschutes River within certain areas of the Deschutes River Scenic Waterway, ultimately fell through. In 2019, BPRD deprioritized the project, but did not cancel it. Now, supporters hope to get it back on people’s radar.
“Bend residents have affirmed the footbridge at every opportunity,” echoed Royce Kallerud, executive director of Connect Bend, a community group formed to advocate for the project. “We voted for it in 2012. BPRD’s 2017 survey showed similarly overwhelming support, and today we learned that that support hasn’t changed one iota. Everywhere we go residents support this project passionately.”
BPRD Vice Chair Nathan Hovekamp also shared his support at the Jan. 2 meeting, calling for action on the project.
“I personally intend to work towards elevating that (the footbridge) in terms of priority on the Capital Improvement Plan,” said Hovekamp. “We have not gotten, in my memory on this board, more input on any particular issue. The community has spoken, folks, the jury is in. We need to move forward on that project.”
According to Brent Stinski with Connect Bend, the U.S. Forest Service, which currently owns the land where the proposed bridge would go, would have to take the first step in making this project happen.
This article appears in Source Weekly January 18, 2024.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Bend residents can “affirm” all the footbriges they want as long as they are inside the city limits/UGB, inside the BPRD service area, outside the designated wild and scenic river and outside the wildlife reserve. Otherwise support will be considerably less than “overwhelming” (just like last time).
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.
Did the Community Needs Assessment poll inform folks that the suggested new bridge location was in the Wild and Scenic stretch of the Upper Deschutes and also in critical winter range for elk and deer? I suspect not.
The history of the very vocal but definitely minority opposition to this bridge is an interesting study in moneyed interests throwing all sorts of spaghetti against the wall in the hopes that something will stick.
Donning the guise of environmental conservatism, they hoped to gain allies to join their cause. What about the Spotted Frog they said! It’ll interfere with the elk migrations! Eagles, Ospreys, Herons, oh my! The fact is that the area where this bridge is proposed is bounded on one side by the long-established homes of DRW and SW Bend and by a well-used off-leash dog park on the other, and the introduction of a pedestrian bridge from one side to the other will have exactly zero impact on the natural resources concerned.
Taken one at a time, all the spotted frog requires is management of the river’s water level, which this bridge will not impact. Neither is it a spotted frog habitat. As for the elk, anyone who’s lived in this area for the last couple of decades will tell you, there have been no elk there (or even in nearby Elk Meadow) for some time after the current neighborhoods that border the river went in. And our winged friends? They could care less who walks along the banks of the river below them, as anyone who frequents Good Dog or the Widgi Creek golf course will tell you.
As for the “legality” of the effort, it’s worth taking a look at the analysis conducted by Connect Bend, specifically wrt the difference between a law and a rule.
I appreciate that the owners of a few multi-million dollar homes built on the banks of this beautiful river don’t want their view “spoiled” (yes, the NIMBYs), but rather than disingenuously invoking hot-button and misleading issues, how about debating the project on its merits.
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.
What the residents “want” is really irrelevant when we are talking about using Forest Service land to build a bridge across a federally protected body of water. All the wishing in the world will not change that fact. Personally, I would wish for a 4 lane highway all the way to Mt Bachelor, a major highway around the outskirts of Bend, a 4 lane highway from the Columbia to California on 97, and a huge dome placed over Bachelor to protect it from high winds along with a constant snowmaking machine inside. As long as we are wishing for fantasy projects, why not dream big.