Let’s imagine for a second that you’re not one of the people who lives—or is soon to live—in the vicinity of the Deschutes River Trail. Last week, the head of the Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department decided not to consider a rule change that would allow for a pedestrian bridge across the Deschutes just north of Bend’s urban growth boundary.
If you don’t live in the area, we’ll imagine you’re not taking on NIMBY tendencies and can be less emotional about the debate around whether to allow a bridge there. As it stands now, a state scenic waterways rule doesn’t allow bridges across portions of the river considered “wild and scenic,” as is the case for that portion of the Deschutes.
In a statement released May 10, OPRD Director Lisa Sumption concluded that “demand for recreational opportunities is increasing, putting pressure on natural resources and raising concerns among property owners adjacent to major recreation corridors,” and “while increased coordination with public, private, and other governmental organizations could improve rule effectiveness, she found no reason to pursue a rule amendment specific to the Upper Deschutes.”
But were the adjacent property owners truly concerned about natural resources and the environment? Here’s why we’re asking. Just north of the proposed bridge site, there’s a current proposal to build 78 more homes close to the Deschutes River. Opponents of the pedestrian bridge argued that the bridge would damage wildlife habitat and degrade the quality of the river. In short, they relied on an environmental argument to further their cause—even getting state legislators to act in their favor.
Meanwhile, some of those same people are living in large homes along the river, where a pedestrian bridge would also mean more visitors to their backyards. It begs the question: do those same people oppose the construction of 78 more homes in their neighborhood? And if the argument was framed around environmental impacts, wouldn’t driving to that site south of town every day mean more of an impact than the option to safely bicycle the same distance via the Deschutes River Trail?
According to a study released by the European Cyclists’ Foundation in 2011, a bicycle emits roughly .075 pounds of carbon per mile. (That figure also factors in the food a cyclist eats to fuel for the ride.) If a cyclist biked the length of the Deschutes River Trail (rounded up to an even 20 miles), that would equate to 1.5 pounds of carbon dioxide emitted per day, or 547.5 pounds a year. By comparison, a vehicle that gets 20 miles to the gallon, driven 20 miles a day, seven days a week, produces 7,232 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, according to an Environmental Protection Agency calculator.
Were those cyclists able to use the trail as a form of transportation to and from downtown Bend and forego driving, you can see how that would benefit one facet of the environment. And that’s not even mentioning the impact of the homes and the carbon footprint they possess, as well as the homes’ impacts on wildlife habitat. (In case you’re wondering, the average American home emits 25,536 pounds of carbon dioxide into the air each year, according to the EPA.)
We understand that these comparisons are not apples to apples, and that a multitude of other factors play into the suitability and viability of building a bridge or a home or a new park. Still, we take exception to the contingent arguing against the bridge purely from an environmental standpoint, all while living in a large home in a location without an easy bike route.
We commend the Bend Park and Recreation District for being forward-thinking enough to vision out this trail, even before the developments and the residents moved in. With that in mind, we would love our leaders and our neighbors to take a more holistic look at what constitutes an environmental threat. OPRD seems to agree, adding to the May 10 statement, “Continued development pressure means more coordination and cooperation are needed between public agencies, residents, and recreation enthusiasts.”
Shutting down a bridge for “environmental reasons” may seem like the right thing to do, but when the proposal for even more homes near sensitive habitat doesn’t receive the same deal of scrutiny, the environmental argument seems quite disingenuous, indeed.
This article appears in May 17-24, 2017.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
This editorial completely misrepresents what the State Parks director concluded. Rather than finding no reason to open rulemaking, she concluded, Changing rules, especially in a way that might encourage more visible riverside development, is contrary to the purpose of the scenic waterway system.
Its also misleading to characterize it as a rule change for only a bridge.. The established process means that all rules would be up for change. This includes the current ban on outfitters and limits on the size of events. There is pressure to allow commercial activities such as marathons and bike races along the river as well as guided fishing tours. All of these proposals are contrary to the purpose of the scenic waterway system.
Your assertion that opposition comes from riverside homeowners who dont want trail users in their backyard is either misleading or uninformed. There is no proposal to route the trail near the river. The trail is routed through the neighborhoods near the river until it approaches the bridge site.
Your assertion that commuters will use this bridge for commuting by bicycle is equally amusing. You obviously havent been on the part of the trail that switchbacks 200 feet straight up the side of the canyon near Elk meadow school.
The only residential source of commuters would be the retired golfers in Widgi Creek. Not the kind of people likely to be found going to a job or even on a bike. No this bridge is to enable industial strength tourism to invade a protected river.
We commend the Bend Park and Recreation District for being forward-thinking enough to vision out this trail, even before the developments and the residents moved in. Now they should recognize that times have changed and a unanimous vote of the legislature on the matter should make it clear that protection is the goal, not development.
With that in mind, we would love our leaders and our neighbors to take a more holistic look at what constitutes an environmental threat. Its clear that the proposed development of houses constitutes a threat to wildlife.
The suggestion that not fighting the new development is disingenuous is equally misleading. The Source editorial board is well aware of the battles fought over the original development. The Source covered it. That battle was fought and lost. Hundreds attended meetings in opposition. We got minor changes. The remaining wildlife refuge will be legally developed, opposition or not..
The bridge is a different story. Bend Parks had quietly been trying to break the law to build the bridge. Concerned citizens intervened and pressured BPRD into actually following the law. Oregon Parks got involved and has now decided against opening rulemaking.
The proposed bridge location is a critical ford for Elk and deer migrations. Its the only place the elk can get their young safely across the river. Fording is a nervous and dangerous time for the pairs. Adding humans and a parking lot to the stress is what you reduce to ,environmental issues.
Also, the proposed bridge it is not just a location. It will complete the link to Sunriver and opens ten river miles to marathons and bike races in a protected wild riparian community.
Its not NIMBY. Its NITFY. You are right in Their Front Yard, the critical habitat, of the protected wildlife on the river. There is nothing like large numbers of fast moving, brightly dressed humans to panic animals into leaving permanently.
How would you like spandex elephants, racing through your neighborhood? You would move. But they cant. They have to make it on that thin ribbon of riparian habitat where they can make a living. They cant get in their Subaru and drive to another river. We need to give them their space. We are adaptable. We dont need it. We can go elsewhere and thrive.
Shutting down a bridge for “environmental reasons” may seem like the right thing to do, And it is.
Surprisingly poorly written arguments in this editorial. All of the comparisons and connections are beyond apples to oranges different. To say because you haven’t opposed some nearby development for environmental reasons you don’t get to be concerned about the impacts of increased intensive recreation? Really?
Looks like BPRD wrote this article. I expect more thoughtfulness from the Source than this editorial has.
This editorial strikes the heart of the NIMBY’s case(of environmental concerns) to oppose the crossing and I applaud the author. The irony of the entire situation is that the few people who have impacted this area the most(the riverfront homeowners and developer of Bachelor View Estates) are the loudest opponents. Think about that for a second. The people who now after erecting their riverfront mansions and development suddenly care deeply about the fragile habitat of the area want to stop this big bad tiny walk bridge. If that isn’t the definition of NIMBYism I don’t know what is.
Another fact worth noting is that this wild and scenic overlay for the middle Deschutes section just North of town does NOT have the bridge prohibition. As we’ve seen with the questionable political favors pulled by Whisnant with the Gut and Stuff passing of HB2027 that just because a law was passed, doesn’t mean it is a good one that truly is the will of the people or even remotely accurate. It seems that some of these laws are more like the will of the insiders and politically connected. The rest of us outsiders are to remain silent and not question even how such a prohibition came to be? I think not, and I applaud BPRD for taking on this arduous process of delivering a project that will improve the lives of many people (not just riverfront homeowners) and truly have a positive environmental impact with thousands of reduced automobile trips.
If the area was truly Wild and Scenic I would be all for protecting it. The fact is, the section of river in question and being toted as wild and scenic is hardly that. From the Arnold irrigation inlet pipe to the South UGB there are roughly 100 riverfront homes, a large irrigation flume, a golf course and another 78 home proposed development all visible from the river. Can someone please tell me how this could be considered wild and scenic?
Nothing has been mentioned about the fact that the bridge was the crown jewel of a $20M bond measure voted on by residents of Bend. We are still paying property taxes on something that’s not going to happen. Are we going to get a refund? Will the bond be paid off sooner? Where is that money going?