State Leader Says No to Lifting River Bridge Ban

Decision Favors Natural Resources Protection for Bend Deschutes Stretch

 

A state parks and recreation leader has weighed in on the contentious question of whether to allow a footbridge over a designated scenic stretch of the Upper Deschutes bordering Bend’s southern boundary – a subject which has created waves in the community on both sides of the issue – and declined to consider a rule change which could have lifted a ban on such crossings.

Meanwhile, legislatures in Salem are discussing a bill proposed by Sunriver Representative Gene Whisnant which has provoked heated debate and seeks to close what some concerned waterway neighbors describe as a loophole that could still hold open the prospect of achieving the bridge proponents’ goal after a one-year wait period.

Following a newly-released report on the hot-button issue, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Director Lisa Sumption decided not to pursue rule amendments on the Upper Deschutes State Scenic Waterway. Such changes had been requested following overtures from Bend Parks and Recreation District to bolster a stated long-term aim of linking river trail connectivity in the region.

State Scenic Waterways are designated by public referendum, the state legislature, and the governor to “protect the recreational and fish and wildlife qualities” of a designated river or lake. Afterward, the public together with local, state and federal government agencies work in concert to create specific rules, under the umbrella of Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR’s) that protect the waterway.

A portion of the Deschutes River between Wickiup Reservoir and Bend was designated at the state scenic level through two actions in 1987 and 1988, including the last, most-downstream mile inside Bend’s growth boundary, known as the “South UGB Segment”.

A joint management plan created in 1996, likely anticipating growth coming down the track, classified this area as a “River Community” and added some restrictions on development such as an outright prohibition on new bridges or any other kind of crossing.

But, citing a desire to extend the river trail system through the southwest corner of Bend to a footbridge offering access across the bank to the Deschutes National Forest and trail routes extending to Sunriver, BPRD petitioned the Oregon State Parks and Recreation Commission to amend the scenic waterway rules and loosen the restriction on new bridges.

As part of its 2012 bond measure, BPRD had already allocated some $1.2 million toward plugging the perceived gap on the east side of the river that would generally connect the River Rim neighborhood and surrounding areas across the Deschutes to national forest and existing trails.

While proponents, particularly on the east side of the river, advocated for such greater access for recreational purposes, some sectors of the community including local neighbors expressed fears the move was excessive and would create an adverse ecological impact from heavy pedestrian use within a perceived prime natural habitat.

And Director Sumption sided with keeping current protections in place, including the prohibition on bridges, after studying a report summarizing input from an advisory group that reviewed existing regulations and comments collected through a series of public meetings and web surveys.

Community Solutions of Central Oregon
Aided by local nonprofit facilitator, Community Solutions of Central Oregon, department staff convened an advisory group and gathered input from the general public to complete a limited review of all rules affecting the one-mile South UGB Scenic Waterway section.

The review focused on the perceived effectiveness of current rules intended to protect fish, wildlife, cultural resources, recreation, and other river values. Scenic Waterway rules cover not just bridges and crossings, but vegetation management, the visibility of structures and recreation facilities, the placement of commercial services, as well as other protections intended to preserve river values.

Community Solutions of Central Oregon summarized comments from the advisory group, three open house public meetings, and more than 300 online comments to produce the May report and emphasized several main issues, including:

• Demand for recreational opportunities is increasing, putting pressure on natural resources and raising concerns among property owners adjacent to major recreation corridors;
• Fish, wildlife, recreation, scenic, and other waterway values may receive variable levels of protection by current scenic waterway rules;
• Continued development pressure means more coordination and cooperation are needed between public agencies, residents, and recreation enthusiasts;
• The balance between recreation, resource protection, and property rights is strained.

Based on the report, Director Sumption concluded that, 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.

“I would reconsider amending rules in the future if that would clearly strengthen protection of the waterway,” Sumption said. “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.”

Instead, Sumption directed department staff to work with other statewide agencies on ideas to strengthen criteria and standards for protecting resources, especially fish and wildlife, on current and future waterways as part of a broader effort to fulfill the intent of the original 1970 State Scenic Waterway law.

“There is no clear way to gauge how successfully the State Scenic Waterway Program protects our most scenic rivers and lakes,” added Director Sumption, “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.”

Landowners along State Scenic Waterways
Landowners along State Scenic Waterways are asked to follow basic rules intended to preserve riparian habitat and mitigate the intrusion of new development on the public’s recreational experience of the river.

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department staff review projects and work with landowners to help them develop and care for their property in ways that comply with State Scenic Waterway rules. In rare cases where a compromise can’t be found and the property owner receives a denial from the department, the law allows the property owner to set aside the scenic waterway rule after a one-year waiting period.

Amid concerns that such a set-aside provision could still pave the way for a crossing, including potentially affecting privately-owned land, Rep. Whisnant (R-Sunriver) recently introduced a bill amendment referenced as HB 2027A which would prohibit any new bridges between Sunriver and Bend, plus the one mile inside the Bend UGB to the Central Oregon Irrigation District canal intake.

The bill was passed unanimously by the House last month but heard passionate debate from both sides of the issue during a May 10 public hearing before the Oregon Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources.

Whisnant said the bill’s aim was not anti-recreation but rather to reinforce current scenic waterway protections and eliminate any loophole that could allow a bridge to proceed despite the state-level denial, after a one-year period, if local government jurisdictions agree.

The question of private property potentially being affected in that scenario rather than federal lands being utilized for any crossing primarily came about following the Forest Service’s requirement that other options be analyzed before they would consider such an option on its property.

The senate committee’s next step is to air the issue in a work session and conduct a vote on the bill and any potential amendments, such as one being contemplated by Sen. Tim Knopp, R-Bend, who has floated the possibility that a bridge could be allowed on Forest Service property under certain conditions including no private property being taken and requiring an environmental analysis to preclude any negative impacts. If it is to make further progress the bill would need to make it out of committee by June 2.

Following OPRD’s announcement declining to pursue rule changes, BPRD Planning Manager Steve Jorgensen said: “Technically, OPRD was looking at just the Community River segment of the Upper Deschutes State Scenic Waterway, which is only inside the UGB.

“The preferred bridge option location is outside the UGB so it is in the State Scenic Waterway, Scenic River segment that has the bridge prohibition as well.  Not opening rulemaking leaves everything as is, with a State bridge prohibition both inside and outside the UGB.

“If there is some amendment to HB2027A such as that suggested by Senator Knopp, specifying a bridge location, then OAR Upper Deschutes State Scenic Waterway rules would no longer apply to this specific bridge and BPRD could go through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process with the federal agency if they agreed to go forward with this project on federal land.

“Passing the Bill as is would pretty much eliminate any bridge option, while killing the Bill with no amendment would put us back to where we started, however we know now that OPRD is not opening Rulemaking to possibly allow footbridges.

“If we are back to square one, the one year waiting period could still come into play although the feds may not agree to the use of their land if a bridge violates the State OAR.

“It’s in the hands of the Senate Committee for now.”

Former Sunrise Village Homeowners Association President Kevin Keillor, who has been a vocal opponent of the bridge crossing move, said: “Bend Park and Rec has been trying to change the rule against new bridges in the Upper Deschutes River Scenic Waterway for almost two years.

“I don’t’ know if they weren’t aware of the prohibition when they included a bridge in the bond measure or assumed they could get around it.

“In 2016, the Oregon State Parks and Recreation Commission denied Bend Park’s request to change the rule.  That denial was reinforced by the Director of Oregon State Parks this week after receiving the results of a study conducted by the Upper Deschutes Advisory Committee comprised of representatives of government agencies, neighborhood associations, recreation advocates and a few private citizens.

“Human recreation is Bend Parks’ primary mission but the State Parks Commission and the Director of State Parks took into consideration the impact new bridges and associated trails would have on wildlife, fish, vegetation, and other values protected by the Oregon Scenic Waterway Act and determined that relaxing existing rules that protect this section of the Upper Deschutes is not appropriate.

“Bend Parks has spent a lot of time and money trying to change a rule that they claim is unenforceable, and I think HB 2027 is at least in part a response to Bend Park’s plan to proceed with the bridge despite Oregon State Parks’ decision not to change the rule.”

More information about the state scenic waterway system is available online at http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/NATRES/scenicwaterways/Pages/index.aspx. The report to Director Sumption and other documents related to the review are online at http://bit.ly/upperdeschutesreview.