Every question answered.
The ultimate footbridge FAQ.
General
Recreation, trails, and equitable access
Will the bridge complete a Deschutes River Trail from Tumalo State Park to Sunriver? (A: yes)
How would the footbridge impact commute time to outdoor areas? (A: yes)
Location
Authorization and legality
Opposition campaign
Environment
Logistics and dogs
Connect Bend
Give me a short history of this whole issue
The proposed footbridge would connect communities in southern Bend to the Deschutes National Forest.
In 2012 residents of Bend, OR, voted in favor of Bond Measure 9-86, a $29 million bond measure to fund several projects, including completion of a Deschutes River Trail. The measure passed, with 52.11% voting in favor and 47.89% against. To see voters specifically approved, and specific language mentioning the footbridge, see the official voter pamphlet.
According to that pamphlet, completion of the trail included construction of a footbridge in Southern Bend, connecting an existing river trail on the eastern shore to the Good Dog Rimrock Trailhead area and the existing trail continuing south to Sunriver.
In 2017 residents of a private community on Bachelor View Road, adjacent to Good Dog Rimrock Trailhead area, began a Salem campaign to ban the bridge. Opponents backed Rep. Gene Whisnant (R-Sunriver) in a “gut and stuff” effort that was defeated in the State Senate (House Bill 2027).
A BPRD poll of 532 households that same year found 72% of Bend residents were in favor of the project, with 13% opposed.
In 2018 the group Oregon Wild led a second legislative ban effort, which also failed in the Oregon State Senate (House Bill 4029).
Connect Bend is a grassroots organization formed in 2019, with the goal of spreading factual information about the bridge project and advocating for its completion.
In an independent, statistically valid poll completed in late 2023 by RRC Associates 71% of respondents supported the completion of “a footbridge crossing of the Deschutes River, which would connect the Deschutes River Trail on the south end of Bend to the Deschutes National Forest, near the Rimrock Trailhead,” with just 11% opposed. 76% of respondents who live south of US 20 support the project, with 10% opposed.
Is this project entirely paid for?
Bend voters paid for the footbridge as a part of the 2012 Bond Measure 9-86 raising $29 million from taxpayers within the BPRD district. The footbridge is explicitly mentioned in the voters’ pamphlet – notable in that the Bend Whitewater Park, a project also funded by the bond, is not mentioned. The bond also funded the Pavilion Skating Rink.
BPRD has stated that it has diverted 9-86 funds to other projects, but has also publicly stated a willingness to fund the footbridge from other sources, due to explicit voter endorsement in the bond measure.
Is the bridge project legal?
Yes, entirely. But an administrative rule associated with Oregon’s State Scenic Waterways Act would require a landowner to wait a year after proposing a footbridge in the proposed location before beginning construction.
Why hasn’t it happened yet?
Opponents have successfully delayed the project, leading to is deprioritization in 2019. However, BPRD has not formally canceled as of 2024.
Who would benefit?
Approximately 20,000 Bend residents live in areas that would receive vastly improved access to the Deschutes National Forest. We view these areas to be Southwest Bend, Southeast Bend, the southern half of the Old Farm District, and the Deschutes River Woods.
Recreation, Trails, and Equitable Access
Will the bridge complete a Deschutes River Trail from Tumalo State Park to Sunriver?
For all purposes, yes. The trail would begin at Tumalo State Park, pass through Riley Ranch Nature Reserve, cross over to the west shore, return to the east at Pioneer Park, and pass through downtown Bend and the Old Mill district. It would then continue south on the existing Deschutes River Trail on both sides of the river till reaching the existing Conley Brooks Bridge. At that point, currently, the trail continues up the canyon on the east side and connects to Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) property and utilizes shared “ditchrider” roads between the river and irrigation canal. Leaving the COID property, the trail follows public street sidewalks and road right-of-way until it enters the trail system of the River Rim development. The trails in River Rim are under private ownership but have a “public use overlay” and are therefore open to the public. The River Rim trails allow the Deschutes River Trail to extend to the south end of the Bend Urban Growth Boundary and City Limits. The proposed footbridge would link this trail to Rimrock Trailhead and Meadow Camp Picnic Area, after which the existing trail passes Dillon and Benham Falls, continuing to Sunriver.
It is impossible to build a trail entirely next to the river for its entire stretch. But solutions are possible for all other stretches. Therefore the footbridge all but completes the Deschutes River Trail. The 14-mile trail would be a new marquee destination, providing an alternative to heavily trafficked Cascade trails.
See our drone video for more context.
How would the footbridge impact commute time to outdoor areas?
We calculated commute times from three areas in Southern Bend -- a point in River Rim, a point in the Deschutes River Woods, and the intersection of Baker Road and Highway 97.
Average round trip journey is 17.4 miles, with both ways passing through the congested area of Reed Market Road.
All sites are an average of 1 mile from the footbridge site. That commute could easily be completed on bike or by foot, thereby eliminating many auto trips altogether.
The footbridge eliminates auto traffic through Reed Market Road
Does southern Bend have parks? Will the bridge lead to more equitable outdoor access?
Bend neighborhood parks near the proposed bridge site are small, averaging 2.74 acres. Here is a rundown (all values approximate):
Wildflower Park = 3.2 acres
Hollygrape Park = 3 acres
River Canyon Park = 1.2 acres
Renaissance Ridge Park = 2.1 acres (private, not a BPRD park)
Pine Ridge Park = 2.7 acres
River Rim Park (open but undeveloped) = 3.6 acres
An additional significant concern is the nearby Deschutes River Woods neighborhood which has no public areas at all.
Average round-trip commute from southern Bend to the Deschutes National Forest is 17.4 miles (see above). The commute would be almost entirely eliminated.
On these merits the footbridge would provide more equitable access to public lands.
Location
Where will the bridge be located?
The approximate site for the proposed footbridge was approved by the BPRD board in 2017. Complete engineering and environmental studies have not yet been conducted, both of which could impact a final location.
The bridge site is at Deschutes River Mile 171-172. Here is a Google Map link of the approximate landing site on the western shore.
Our drone footage video seeks to help residents understand and contextualize the proposed site location.
Is this area developed?
The bridge site area is developed on three sides -- the only undeveloped area being the Deschutes National Forest itself. The three neighborhoods closest to the bridge site are:
Bachelor View Road, a private community on the west side to the north of the bridge site. 42 parcels covering approximately 170 acres.
River Rim and River Vale, east side to the north of the bridge site. Total 585 parcels.
River Bend Estates (River Bend Drive), closest to the bridge site. Total 84 parcels.
Our drone footage video seeks to help residents understand and contextualize the proposed site location.
How many people live in the affected areas?
According to 2020 census figures, approximately 20,000 people live in the neighborhoods of Southeast Bend, Southwest Bend, and the Deschutes River Woods. Residents in the Old Farm District and other areas would conceivably benefit as well.
Authorization and Legality
Is the footbridge project the democratic will of the people of Bend?
The voters approved of Bond Measure 9-86 in 2012, with 52.11% voting in favor and 47.89% against. The official voter pamphlet is here (scroll to page 5).
In keeping with a common practice, the specific language of 9-86 was phrased broadly.
Shall BPRD protect natural areas, connect trails and improve parks by issuing up to $29 Million in General Obligation Bonds? If the bonds are approved, they will be payable from taxes on property or property ownership that are not subject to the limits of sections 11 and 11b, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution, ORS250.037(1)[1][2].
However, in the voter pamphlet, this broad proposition is immediately followed by a “summary” listing potential projects. Notably the summary does not explicitly name projects such as the Pavilion Skating Rink and the Bend Whitewater Park, both of which the bond measure eventually funded. The completion of the river trail, however, is explicitly named. The pamphlet then defines what is meant by this term:
Complete the Deschutes River Trail. The River Trail would extend from Sunriver to Tumalo State Park with connections to US Forest Service Trails and would provide (a) public access to Gopher Gulch Community Park; (b) additional connectivity through the land adjacent to Gopher Gulch Community Park; (c) a new trail along 3 plus miles of the Deschutes River; (d) pedestrian crossings connecting the east and west sides of the River Trail, and (e) improved trails linking the River Trail to downtown Bend and Pioneer Park. (emphasis added)
In sum, Bend voters clearly approved of this proposition, which was then financed the project via the bond measure.
In an independent, statistically valid poll completed in late 2023 by RRC Associates 71% of respondents supported the completion of “a footbridge crossing of the Deschutes River, which would connect the Deschutes River Trail on the south end of Bend to the Deschutes National Forest, near the Rimrock Trailhead,” with just 11% opposed. 76% of respondents who live south of US 20 support the project, with 10% opposed.
Is the footbridge project legal? (Yes, longer answer)
The proposed southern UGB footbridge lies in an area covered by both federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and Oregon Scenic Waterways Act. Both Acts allow for and encourage recreational uses, with only dams, mining, and hydropower development prohibited in all circumstances.
While the federal Act generally provides stronger protections, all projects in Oregon Scenic Waterways are required to follow the notification process outlined in Section 390.845-3-10 of the Oregon Revised Statutes. According to this process, landowners within scenic protected zones must submit to the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department a Notification of Intent form prior to commencing any improvements or similar activity in such areas.
This form focuses on restricted activities such as logging and road construction, but is mandatory for nearly all activities, even recreational, fish, and wildlife uses, which the Act defines as “the highest and best uses” of designated State Scenic Waterways.
Once a landowner submits the Notification of Intent form, Section 390.845-3-10 outlines the key steps that follow:
On receiving notification OPRD may approve a proposed use, and the landowner may proceed immediately.
If not, OPRD and the landowner may work out a modified plan.
If not, OPRD after nine months may choose to initiate condemnation proceedings and thereby acquire the land.
Or – if OPRD does not initiate condemnation proceedings, and if no modified plan has been agreed upon – the landowner may proceed after 12 months have passed.
This process has been followed by housing developments in the State Scenic Waterway protected zone in southern Bend, many in recent years.
This process has clear legislative authority over particular Administrative Rules, which were not created as a part of the State Scenic Waterway Act as approved by the Oregon State Legislature, but rather developed following the Act’s passage into law. One such rule, which applies solely to portions of the Upper Deschutes and Metolius Rivers, states that there should be no new bridges in the area of the proposed bridge site.
But rules don’t outweigh laws. When the two conflict, the one-year process outlined in Section 390.845-3-10 predominates. Like any project, the bridge would go through the notification process created by the law, and is therefore legal under the State Scenic Waterways Act. These are the legal requirements for such projects under the Act; additionally, the State Scenic Waterways Act specifically encourages this project insofar as it provides critical public outdoor recreational opportunities for our state.
Beyond meeting these legal requirements, however, Connect Bend is committed to advocating for the project only insofar as it not only upholds but exceeds the environmental and recreational protections required by these Acts, for instance supporting only a footbridge built entirely above the Ordinary High Water Mark and otherwise protecting and improving riparian areas near the project site.
If that's not enough detail, reach out to us! We love to talk through these Acts with anyone who's interested.
Under whose jurisdiction does the footbridge fall?
The proposed bridge site encompasses several layers of jurisdiction:
BPRD has raised funds for the trail extension and bridge construction and would execute the project. Under the proposed plan it would maintain and manage the trail and bridge site, although specifics of this responsibility have yet to be finalized.
Note that the proposed bridge site falls just outside of Bend’s Urban Growth Boundary, but this would not prevent BPRD from being involved, as BPRD owns and manages other sites outside of the Bend UGB and is legally allowed to do so.
The National Forest Service owns the land on both sides of the river on which both ends of the bridge would be constructed. The Forest Service would participate in approval of the project, but is less likely to participate in actual construction.
Some surrounding areas near the bridge site fall under the jurisdiction of Deschutes County, although the county government is not expected to play a significant role in bridge construction.
Oregon State Parks & Recreation has oversight authority due to the Oregon Scenic Waterways Act, which covers the proposed bridge site at River Mile 171-172. See our section on the Scenic Waterways Act above.
Neither the State Scenic Waterways Act or Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, both of which encourage recreational use, include any direct or indirect language discouraging (much less prohibiting) recreational bridges.
Opposition campaign
Who is against the bridge?
Connect Bend recognizes the important role of informed debate and respectful disagreement in a democratic society. So diverse Bend residents may approve of -- or oppose -- the footbridge for a wide array of reasons. The only broad survey of public opinion relating to the bridge, interviewing 532 Bend households in 2017, found that an overwhelming majority of 72% of interviewees approved, with only 13% opposed.
This being said, the footbridge would have almost certainly been constructed already were it not for a vocal campaign by residents in the Bachelor View Road private community, near the proposed bridge site. An environmental group, Oregon Wild, has opposed the footbridge as well.
In an independent, statistically valid poll completed in late 2023 by RRC Associates 71% of respondents supported the completion of “a footbridge crossing of the Deschutes River, which would connect the Deschutes River Trail on the south end of Bend to the Deschutes National Forest, near the Rimrock Trailhead,” with just 11% opposed. 76% of respondents who live south of US 20 support the project, with 10% opposed.
Did opponents really try a “gut and stuff” in 2017? Was there a fake environmental group?
In 2017 Bachelor View Road residents recruited then-state representative Gene Whisnant (R - Sunriver) to introduce legislation blocking the footbridge project (HB 2027).
Whisnant attempted what is commonly known as a “gut and stuff” maneuver -- effectively, when one takes a bill that’s under consideration, leaves the title, rips out the language, and “stuffs” in something else. It is generally seen as an anti-democratic attempt to pass legislation without lawmakers noticing its real intent.
Whisnant defended this action by saying an environmental group – the “Upper Deschutes Conservation Council” – had come out against the bridge.
A Bend Bulletin report found that the group — not to be confused with the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council or the Deschutes River Conservancy — was an “informal collection of about 12 people.” The report additionally found that Owyhee Research, a consulting firm that specializes in opposition research, created the group’s website at the direction of a resident on Bachelor View Road. The group was not a recognized 501(c)(3) organization and seems to have had no staff scientists.
The 2017 legislative attempt failed in the Oregon Senate. The fictional group and its website soon vanished.
Give me a short history of the 2018 campaign to ban the footbridge.
After the failed 2017 effort at a bridge ban, a second attempt was led by environmental group Oregon Wild.
In advocating House Bill 4029, Oregon Wild made claims about the potential impact of the footbridge -- arguing that it would adversely impact the Oregon Spotted Frog, as well as elk migration. These claims are challenged below.
Oregon Wild further claimed that the area was an undeveloped “sensitive zone,” which is challenged by Google Earth imagery and a drone video of the proposed bridge site.
The 2018 ban effort failed in the Oregon State Senate.
Environment
Will the footbridge harm the Oregon Spotted Frog?
Currently available evidence suggests the Oregon Spotted Frog does not live in the proposed bridge site area.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states definitively in a letter to BPRD that the proposed bridge site is not habitat for the Oregon Spotted Frog.
Areas located between the Bill Healy Bridge and downstream of the Inn of the Seventh Mountain are not a significant concern for impacts to the spotted frog as this section of the river is lacking some of the key features (PBFs) that I mentioned above.
“PBF” stands for physical and biological features. The Bill Healy Bridge is 2.89 miles to the northeast of the proposed bridge site. Inn of the Seventh Mountain is 1.72 miles to the southwest of the proposed bridge site.
This challenges extensive claims by Oregon Wild that the bridge would harm Spotted Frog habitat. According to the Bend Bulletin, an Oregon Wild representative stated in a Salem hearing regarding House Bill 4029: “This place is home to bald eagles, golden eagles, Oregon spotted frog — big one these days — deer, elk, this is a big wildlife area.”
Experts further agree that the largest threat to the Oregon Spotted Frog lies in fluctuation of water levels due to irrigation and damming, which disrupts development of the frog’s eggs. Even if the area were indeed Spotted Frog habitat, a footbridge would not likely impact water level fluctuation one way or the other.
If Spotted Frog were found in the area, BPRD can take steps to manage both usage and wildlife habitat even in a busy area, as it already does at Old Mill.
Will the footbridge impede elk migration? Or eagles?
According to the Bend Bulletin, an Oregon Wild representative stated in a Salem hearing regarding House Bill 4029: “This place is home to bald eagles, golden eagles, Oregon spotted frog — big one these days — deer, elk, this is a big wildlife area.”
Decades ago Elk once frequented the area and seasonally-crossed the river to the former Elk Meadow area before the River Rim and River Vale subdivisions were developed. Elk no longer frequent the immediate area. Oregon Wild has not provided evidence to support claims of follow-on effects in nearby areas.
Local birding expert and Peterson Guide author Steven Shunk provided this statement with respect to impact on eagles:
Some of the expressed concerns include hypothetical impacts on eagles of the region. It is important to note that two eagle species reside in Central Oregon: the Golden Eagle and the Bald Eagle. Golden Eagles are quite rarely reported along this stretch of the Deschutes River, so impacts on this species would be negligible.
Bald Eagles have thrived under federal and statewide protections, and they are regularly observed along this reach of the river. Despite their fairly common presence, I believe that the project will also have negligible long-term impact on resident Bald Eagle individuals or the regional population.
Will the footbridge bring environmental benefits?
The Rimrock Trailhead river shore has seen heavy use. Riparian areas have been damaged by foot traffic from dogs and humans.
Long-term rehabilitation and management of these damaged riparian areas are a part of the planned footbridge project. Indeed Connect Bend urges all relevant agencies to set a new standard in the execution of the footbridge project, taking proactive steps to demarcate clearly those areas for human use and those riparian areas undergoing restoration. Agencies additionally must budget not merely for current expected levels of use, but in anticipation of potentially elevated use commensurate with expected continued growth in Bend’s population. Such steps must not be an afterthought to the project. They must be among its core features.
The footbridge will also reduce traffic and greenhouse emissions in the center of Bend, as noted above.
As also noted above, the immediate vicinity of the proposed bridge site is not seen to be habitat for the Oregon Spotted Frog.
Have other Deschutes River footbridges caused significant impact?
There are 9 nearby footbridges across the Deschutes. Historically bridge structures themselves haven’t had extensive impact. However, as many local environmental groups have pointed out, increased human usage and foot traffic brought to the area by the bridge may indeed have an averse impact, if not properly anticipated. An example may be the First Street Rapids bridge and surrounding areas.
Connect Bend calls upon relevant agencies to anticipate human as well as structural impact, seeking a new and higher standard of execution for this project. In the event of future project execution, we will call upon all local environmental groups, regardless of any prior position on the bridge, to join the process and provide input.
How many bridges and boat landings are in the area?
9 nearby footbridges near the proposed site, 38 picnic areas, 14 boat ramps, 25 river access points, and 35 trailheads.
Logistics and Dogs
Is there a footbridge design yet? Can I see what it would look like?
The bridge project has not yet gone through requisite engineering and environmental impact studies. A proposed bridge design would be available at that time.
The Forest Service has established consistent guidelines for footbridge design. A good example is the footbridge the Willamette National Forest recently built over the McKenzie River which, like the Upper Deschutes, is both a Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway.
Would off-leash access for dogs be impacted?
There are no plans to restrict off-leash access in the Good Dog / Rimrock Trailhead area after construction of the footbridge. Contrary to some reports, BPRD has never made any public comment to this effect, nor are there any active plans to restrict usage.
Connect Bend advocates for continued off-leash access. We are a pro-dog organization -- one reason we sponsored a successful pro-dog event at the Silver Moon Brewery, Dogoween.
Connect Bend
What is Connect Bend?
Connect Bend is a grass-roots community group seeking to promulgate factual information about the footbridge. We seek to execute the project in an environmentally friendly and dog-friendly manner. Above all, we seek to uphold the democratic will of the people of Bend, as manifestly clear in the approval of Bond Measure 9-86 of 2012.
What does Connect Bend envision?
In this FAQ, we have worked to provide an authoritative resource for factual information about the bridge. We have endeavored to provide information neutrally. We welcome corrections from all members of the community, for and against.
In closing, we will provide our own thoughts about the future of the footbridge project. Our message is simple: This project cannot be put off any longer.
A tide has turned from the bridge-ban efforts of 2017 and 2018. A dramatic majority of Bend has long supported the bridge project. Development continues to the south. And, as it does, Bend residents realize that we must find ways to establish equality of access, reduce traffic and emissions, and develop new recreational areas in ways that benefit the environment. The footbridge project does it all.
Best of all, we need this bridge to complete Deschutes River Trail — a resource for everyone. And it won’t cost an additional dime of taxpayer money.
We're so close. We just have to fight for it and, in the process, defend the democratic will of the people of Bend.
Join our cause. Let’s build a bridge.
How do I get involved?
Sign the petition. Volunteer. Donate. Or buy products from our partners. Check out the many ways you can help.