News & Updates

Posted on

Marmot Dam Removed

In 1906 the Marmot Dam was built on the Sandy River near Mount Hood. Nearly a century later, PGE decides to remove it. But will the tons of sediment built up behind the dam harm the river downstream once the structure is removed? The National Center For Earth Dynamics at the University of Minnesota and other experts weigh in. See what happens as the Marmot Dam is removed.

First Broadcast: 2008
Producer: Vince Patton
Videographers: Todd Sonflieth, Nick Fisher
Editor: Nick Fisher
Audio: William Ward
Field Producer: Milt Ritter
Video courtesy of: Portland General Electric
Photos Courtesy of : US Geological Survey

Appeared in episode:  Marmot Dam Removed, Fire Tower, Ice Worms

Video Extra: Time Lapse Video: Coffer Dam Face

Source: OPB: Oregon Field Guide

Posted on

Committee: Dredge Mirror Pond

First things first: Mirror Pond needs to be dredged. At least that’s what the people studying the sedimentation problem in the pond say.

Initially, officials wanted to analyze a range of possible fixes to the silt problem in Mirror Pond that included everything from doing nothing to removing two dams and allowing the Deschutes River to flow freely.

After learning that such a study would cost $500,000 and that no one was willing to pay for it, the steering committee created to guide this effort shifted its focus.

“Something has to be done to remove the sediment immediately, regardless of what we do in the long term,” said Matt Shinderman, who sits on the committee and is an Oregon State University-Cascades Campus natural resources instructor. “It’s already starting to get to a point where you’re going to have extensive mudflats and potential wetland vegetation coming in.”

Once that vegetation takes root, he said, it could become a lot more difficult to do any work in the pond, because federal wetland protections create more regulatory hurdles.

Silt has been accumulating at the bottom of Mirror Pond ever since Pacific Power & Light Co. built a hydroelectric dam near the Newport Avenue bridge in 1910. The last time it was dredged was in 1984, at a cost of $312,000.

The latest cost estimates for dealing with the pond’s sediment problem came in between $2 million and $5 million. Those figures were from a 2009 study.

As with the $500,000 alternatives analysis, no one has offered to pay for dredging Mirror Pond. The group looking into the issue includes the city of Bend, the Bend Park & Recreation District, Pacific Power, William Smith Properties Inc. and the nonprofit Bend 2030.

Two funding ideas have been floated recently. One is to form a permanent special taxing district. The other is to include a Mirror Pond fix in a one-time bond measure. In either case, it would be up to voters to decide.

Bend Park & Recreation District Executive Director Don Horton said the district is planning a survey that will ask residents if they would support either option for Mirror Pond. That survey, which is also gauging support for other possible bond measure projects, is expected to be sent out in a couple of weeks.

Horton noted that a bond measure would only provide a one-time source of funds, while a taxing district would supply money long-term. Like Shinderman, he said the immediate need is to dredge Mirror Pond first.

But Horton also highlighted the importance of an in-depth siltation study that would look at dam removal options and others — such as reconfiguring the shape of the pond — that would help cut down on the sedimentation.

“It’s kind of a two-stage process,” he said. “The first is to dredge the pond, and the second is to do a longer-term study of what needs to be done to the pond.”

— Reporter: 541-633-2160, ngrube@bendbulletin.com

Source: The Bulletin

Posted on

Revised Special Events Permit Process and Code Changes Meeting

The City of Bend is holding an open house to present changes related to the revised Special Events Permit. The meeting will be held Wednesday, January 25 from 2:30 to 3:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 710 NW Wall St.

As a result of feedback from the community, City of Bend staff began reviewing the Special Events Code as well as the internal process for scheduling and managing these events. A proposal was presented to the City Council on December 7, 2011 and, with their support, staff is initiating an open house for interested parties to discuss these proposed changes.

At the open house, staff will provide a summary of the permit process. After the presentation, there will be an opportunity for the public to voice questions, comments and concerns in an informal manner. As these changes will impact our residents, the City wants to ensure that potentially affected businesses and residents are aware of the proposed changes and that the public has an opportunity to provide feedback.

More info: http://www.downtownbend.org/events-next-steps/

Posted on

City to hold Transportation G.O. Bond Program Kickoff Meeting

[singlepic id=96 w=320 h=240 float=left]The City of Bend is holding two kickoff meetings for the transportation General Obligation (G.O.) Bond program. Both meetings will be held Tuesday, Jan. 24 in the City Council Chambers at Bend City Hall, 710 NW Wall St. A daytime meeting will take place from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and an identical evening meeting will follow from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. The public is invited to drop in at any time.

The G.O. Bond program is a voter-approved package of street and intersection improvements located throughout the city. The bond measure authorized $30 million for eight separate projects which were selected based on known safety and congestion issues, geographic location, and the opportunity to provide local construction jobs. Currently, the projects are being designed, with construction on some starting as soon as this summer.

At the meetings, staff will provide an overview of the program as well as general information about each construction project. Future public meetings will be held closer to construction, as well as briefings with Neighborhood Associations this spring.

For more information, visit www.bendoregon.gov/GOBond.

Posted on

Mirror Pond frustrations

For years now, the silt has continued to pile up in Bend’s Mirror Pond while officials have struggled to find a solution.

Committees are formed, meetings held, staff briefly hired.

But the silt continues to pile up amid reports that there just isn’t enough money to deal with it.

Two Bulletin readers wrote last week urging the Bend Park & Recreation District to drop its new projects and concentrate on the pond. They reflect the frustration many feel when they read about wonderful plans while the prime jewel of the city deteriorates.

The park district doesn’t have sole responsibility for Mirror Pond, but it is the agency with money to do optional things. A bridge at the First Street Rapids or the purchase of the old Mt. Bachelor Park and Ride property are great, but hardly essential. So why not just focus on Mirror Pond?

One answer, according to the park district’s Executive Director Don Horton, is that the district is constrained by state law to spend its money only on recreation. Although rescuing Mirror Pond may contribute to recreation, he said, many other issues are involved.

The district does plan to include questions about Mirror Pond in an upcoming survey, asking respondents if they think a special district should be formed for Mirror Pond or if they prefer a bond issue for a one-time fix.

Results of the survey will help guide the park district in deciding among its many high-priced possible projects, Horton said.

Meanwhile, City of Bend Community Development Department Director Mel Oberst has agreed to take on a coordinating role on the Mirror Pond issue, working with the park district and other interested parties, as well as researching requirements of state and federal agencies. Oberst said the park district’s survey results will help guide the next steps for the group.

We’re in favor of preserving Mirror Pond, and we hope the group’s work will lead swiftly to a public vote if that’s what’s needed. A bond issue for studying alternatives would be a hard sell, but voters are likely to support one that offers a clear path to preserve the pond.

Source: The Bulletin