This week, a new committee, the Mirror Pond Fish Passage Advisory Committee, was scheduled to have its first meeting. The purpose of the committee is to “advise and make a recommendation on a fish passage solution” for the portion of the Deschutes River that flows through downtown Bend.
Those who have been around a while know that this is yet another plodding step in an ongoing saga that seems beyond the resolve of local government. Like a couple of kids lost in the forest with only some breadcrumbs to follow, the general public continues to be asked to hold out hope that there is a resolution at the end of this red-tape tunnel.
The most recent movement in the saga of whether to dredge or not to dredge the river to remove the silt that accumulates behind Newport Dam happened in 2019, when the City of Bend and Bend Park and Recreation District each resolved to explore the option of adding fish passage around the dam, as a condition of using public funds to move forward on dredging. With PacifiCorp resolved not to sell its dam, and the private landowners who own the dirt under the pond adamant about dredging, the issue seemed to get only more complicated when some of the more environmentally minded members of the City Council and parks board brought this additional consideration forward. While endeavoring to add a fish passage that would begin to mitigate some of the environmental damage to aquatic species is a good thing, forgive us for being cynical.
Related
Inching Closer to a Mirror Pond Resolution
After years of public surveys, public meetings and photo ops, it is no mystery what should be done for the river. Mirror Pond may have historical significance as a “pond” for some, but let’s not forget what it really is: a stagnant part of the river that neither looks nor acts like a river anymore. The public has already spent a great deal of public money and collective energy on this, and while it’s encouraging to see the health of fish and aquatic species being considered, at the same time it feels like this brings the issue no closer to closure.
Related
Murky Waters
It’s been two years since the last bread crumb—the advent of resolutions resolving to explore fish passage—were tossed out. Now, in 2021, comes the next crumb. The committee will, over a series of six meetings from now through October, explore and ultimately make a recommendation to the City and BPRD about the best fish-passage option. In other words, the work of the committee is purely exploratory. “The committee is purely advisory in nature, and will not be making a decision,” as the description on the committee’s web page reads.
With committee members including a member of the BPRD board, a city councilor and an employee of PacifiCorp, it would stand to reason that the solution they come up with will be embraced by the various entities involved—but there’s no guarantee. With the current makeup of the park board and the City Council, it’s likely, but not ensured—and with that comes our reservations around getting too excited. We’re cautiously optimistic, but then again, it could be just another bread crumb to follow in this long, seemingly never-ending saga.
Related Stories
Mirror, Mirror on the City Wall
This article appears in May 26 – Jun 2, 2021.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Spend money on fish or spend more money on homelessness or maybe equity and equality. Hells Bells, P&R can’t figure out how to have a pet parade let alone solve this issue. This is way above their ability to lead. Hopefully they can put together a fantastic Indigenous Peoples Day parade.
Not sure how to react to “big mike’s” comment. On the whole it sounds spot on in a curmudgeonly way, so I gave it a “like.”
Anyhoo, I noticed that this new committee maintains a death grip on two misconceptions that for the better part of a decade have supported the official narrative.:
(1.) There exists a community “vision” or “consensus” that supports a hybrid solution to preserve the pond while enhancing habitat. No actual survey was ever carried out to support this claim. In truth, only ONE statistically accurate survey was ever conducted (published Nov. 9, 2015, by the City of Bend) and it showed significantly more public support for “improved water quality, river banks, and wildlife habitat” than for “historic aesthetic and iconic views.”
(2.) This committee seems intent on maintaining the fiction that stormwater from the City of Bend adds significantly to the sediment load in Mirror Pond. This assertion was put to rest by the 2016 county-funded Apex sampling project. Soil particle size analysis from various locations in Mirror Pond showed no difference in sediment composition–whether measured in the center of the pond or at the outfall sites. This evidence should have put to rest the accusations against the City of Bend and spotlighted, instead, the true culprit: PacifiCorp and its century-old decrepit dam, which chokes the river with upstream sediment, churns up native fish in its turbines, and recreates the effects of climate change in the Mirror Pond impoundment.
As for the need for dredging the pond, the proposed 6 million dollar-plus project (being pushed as a taxpayer-funded public works project to benefit powerful local interests) would remove only 17% of the sediment load–just enough to scrape away emerging wetland habitat and prevent migration of the endangered Oregon spotted frog into the pond–an eventuality that, arguably, could thwart future commercial development along the river.
(Through a public document request I obtained e-mails from the Park District that back up the foregoing claim.”
Sedimentation of the “pond” is exacerbated by the annual flushing of the river by irrigation releases from Wickiup. These releases erode the banks, widen the river and deposit silt in Mirror Pond.
Speaking of the spotted frog, this annual scouring “has created a wide gulf of land between riparian vegetation and the river’s edge, both of which the frogs need to survive” (OPB). Perhaps introducing the spotted frogs to the pond, where the water level is more constant, would be beneficial.
Apologies for endorsing “big mike.” Deeper reading shows racism at work in his comment. Can I plead the 73 year-old white guy “OK Boomer” defense? Sorry.