HomeMy WebLinkAboutTumalo Trail Documents
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner
Date: March 26, 2013
Re: Tumalo Trail cultural historical resources issue and possible next steps
Background
Deschutes County adopted the Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update in 2012 after
extensive public outreach. The TSP Update has Policy Bike/Ped Policy 15.3(o) to pursue
grants to build a trail between the unincorporated community of Tumalo and the Tumalo State
Park. The County also adopted Tumalo Community Plan into the County’s Comprehensive
Plan in 2010 following a long public outreach program. The Tumalo Community Plan includes
Open Space and Recreation Policy No. 11 to establish a multi-use trail system from Tumalo
State Park to Tumalo. This trail is consistent with Bend Metro Park and Recreation (BMPRD)
and City of Bend vision of a Deschutes River Trail (DRT) between Sunriver and Tumalo. To
implement this policy and vision, the County’s Community Development and Road Departments
applied for a grant in 2012 to plan and build this multi-use trail.
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) awarded Deschutes County and the local
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department office a $184,000 Regional Trails Program (RTP)
grant to build the trail. The County and OPRD will provide a match of roughly $100,000 of
combined in-kind services and $32,000 in cash from OPRD.
The proposed $285,000 Tumalo Trail would be located on the west bank of the Deschutes
River, linking the south end of Riverview Avenue in Tumalo and the north end of the Day Use
Area in Tumalo State Park. The roughly 1-mile trail would be entirely on public land.
Included in the Tumalo Trail is a paved section 8 feet wide and about 2,500 feet long (slightly
less than a half-mile), extending from Riverview Avenue then passing underneath the US 20
bridge with a connection to O.B. Riley Road. The remainder of the trail would be an improved
aggregate surface trail varying in width from 2 to 4 feet and continuing for 0.64 miles to the day
use area.
US 20 in Tumalo has relatively high speeds and daily traffic volumes approaching 12,000
vehicles. The paved segment linking OB Riley to Riverview would afford cyclists and
pedestrians a grade-separated path. Tumalo residents support the trail for its economic
2
development potential by improving non-motorized access to Tumalo State Park. Yet, the
paved path and its routing have proved problematic.
Critical issues
Staff can expand on these issues at the work session, but basically the issues boil down to two
related topics that revolve around archaeological resources.
Can the paved portion of the Tumalo Trail avoid identified archaeological and/or cultural-
historical sites?
Can the County and OPRD afford to build the paved portions of the trail in the manner
the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has required?
Avoiding cultural historical sites
SHPO oversees lands to ensure historic and archeological sites are protected as required by
state and federal laws. A review by Salem SHPO staff revealed there are two archaeological
sites in the SHPO database, 35DS947, which is along US 20 to the west of the river, and
35DS321, which is upstream of the bridge and south of private residences that abut Knife
River’s complex. (See enclosed map.)
In a June 14, 2012, letter SHPO wrote that the trail’s route needed to be surveyed for
archaeological sites. Neither the County nor regional OPRD had budgeted for a field survey
based on our earlier understanding the probability maps did not depict any fatal flaws. OPRD
only has one archaeologist on-staff for the entire state, but she was able to fit this unanticipated
task into her workload. The OPRD archaeologist walked the site in late July/early August and
prepared a report by October 2012, which was appreciated.
The OPRD field survey led to an Oct. 30, 2012, letter from SHPO describing the sites found and
proposed construction materials and techniques; further testing would be required for Site
35DS321. The letter said no ground disturbance could occur at either site. Another option
presented in this letter was to re-route the trail north of Site 35DS321 on an existing gravel road.
Unfortunately, the right of way for the gravel road has been vacated, which would place the trail
on private land.
County staff on Oct. 30, 2012, raised concerns about whether the paved trail was now feasible
given the SHPO response. County Planning and Road Department staff along with regional
OPRD staff met with SHPO and OPRD Salem staff on Nov. 19 to discuss the issue.
Road Department staff surveyed an alignment of the Tumalo Trail and prepared draft plans
which were sent to SHPO on Feb. 20, 2013. The County’s understanding after the Nov. 19
meeting was to present more precise alignment of the trail instead of the broad concept shown
in the grant application. The Regional OPRD office would fund testing of the area around Site
35DS321 up to $5,000 to see if the alignment could be environmentally cleared by SHPO.
In a March 5, 2013, e-mail, SHPO again objected to the alignment and proposed an unsurveyed
alternative south of Site 35DS321, but north of a third site, 35DS1925.
County staff is doubtful the paved portion of the trail can be routed to miss all the archeological
sites. County staff would also point out this second alternate route has not been field surveyed
for cultural resources and could very well have lithic scatters identified by the summer 2013
fieldwork, essentially putting the County in the same bind again.
3
Can the County/OPRD afford to build the paved portion of the Tumalo Trail in the manner
prescribed by SHPO?
In both Oct. 30 and Oct. 31, 2012, letters SHPO requires ground not be disturbed, that
geotextile cloth be used, and then the resource capped by rock. The budget for Tumalo Trail
did not include such extensive work. County staff shared those concerns with SHPO at the
Nov. 19, 2012, meeting in Salem involving SHPO, OPRD, and the County.
Road Department staff discussed the costs for staging and constructing the paved portion of the
trail with local contractors to get a sense of whether the project was physically possible. In
general, while physically possible the costs of paving the trail would rise dramatically.
There would also be cut and fill operations on the north side of US 20 as the trail passes from
underneath the highway to Riverview Avenue in Tumalo. The trail would go on some ground
that was disturbed with the construction of the US 20 bridge, but would also go across land that
has not been disturbed.
SHPO would also require a monitor to be on-site during construction in case any significant
archaeological or historical artifacts appeared, the operation could be shut down before the
artifacts were destroyed or damaged. Again, the grant did not anticipate this expense.
Options
Planning and Road Department staff has met internally and with regional staff from OPRD.
Presented below, in no order of preference, are potential next steps. Staff has summarized the
major plus and minus of each approach. Staff recommends the fourth bullet (make all of trail
soft surfaced) be the County’s course of action.
Terminate paved trail just south of US 20 bridge to avoid disturbing identified cultural
resources site.
o Plus: Site 35DS321lies undisturbed.
o Minus: Creates a paved path to nowhere as connection to O.B. Riley is lost,
which was the County’s main goal to provide.
Route paved portion of Tumalo Trail to an existing gravel road that connects to OB Riley
Road.
o Plus: Site 35DS321 lies undisturbed.
o Minus: Gravel road is on private property as the County vacated the right of way.
SHPO proposed alternate routes to OB Riley.
o Plus: Misses known cultural resources.
o Minus: Routes still need to be surveyed and there is no guarantee the proposed
alternate routes would not also have cultural resource issues. In other words, the
routes proposed by SHPO do not have environmental clearance.
Abandon the paved trail aspect and connection to OB Riley, making the entire trail soft-
surfaced.
o Plus: The connection to Tumalo would be made and the trail would become an
Oregon State Parks project completely.
o Minus: Road bikes would still have to cross US 20 or walk their bikes on the soft
path.
4
State Parks builds the section from the gravel road south to the day use area, leaving
the connection to Tumalo unimproved.
o Plus: The bulk of the trail would be constructed.
o Minus: Still results in a trail to nowhere.
Request SHPO come up with funds necessary to test site immediately and clear it prior
to construction.
o Plus: No cost to County.
o Minus: Doubtful SHPO will have the necessary fiscal resources.
Contact Regional Trails Program (RTP) grant administrator to see if funds can be carried
over into another cycle and have OPRD work to get lands cleared by SHPO.
o Plus: No cost to County.
o Minus: No guarantee funds would be carried over plus loss of another
construction season.
Continue pursing paved trail on proposed alignment.
o Plus: No need to resurvey or redesign costs.
o Minus: No guarantee trail is feasible from a SHPO standpoint.
General timeline for Tumalo Trail grant application process
Please find below a summarized version of major milestones in the development of the Tumalo
Trail and the wending through the RTP grant process.
Oct. 27, 2011 - County sent a letter of intent to OPRD that the County and regional OPRD
would apply for a RTP grant.
Jan. 13, 2012 – Formal grant application submitted, which includes review by various state
agencies, including SHPO.
April 24, 2012 – County Engineer George Kolb and Senior Transportation Planner Peter Russell
travel to Salem to give oral presentation to the grant review committee.
June 14, 2012 – Letter from SHPO to RTP identifying two archaeological sites, 35DS947 and
35DS1925, and the need for a cultural resources survey.
July 31-Aug 1?, 2012 – SHPO performs cultural resources survey
Oct. 30, 2012 – Letter from SHPO indicating no ground-disturbing activities can occur at either
site and geotextile cloth and capping the resource must occur at both sites
Oct. 30, 21012 – E-mail to SHPO regarding work restrictions beneath US 20 bridge
Oct. 31, 2012 – Second letter from SHPO relaxes requirements for work done underneath US
20 bridge, but not elsewhere along the terrace abutting US 20 or the site south of the bridge.
Nov. 19, 2012 – Meeting in Salem with OPRD Salem and Regional staff, SHPO, and County
staff regarding generalized trail alignment, potential further testing, and alternate routes
5
December 2012-February 2013 – Road Department surveys Tumalo Trail for precise alignment
and prepares design
Feb. 20, 2013 – Road Dept. design sent to SHPO.
March 5, 2013 – SHPO responds unfavorably to surveyed alignment
March 14, 2013 – County staff meets with OPRD regional staff to discuss next steps
Enclosure: SHPO air photo of proposed Tumalo Trail, affected sites, and alternate route
June 14, 2012 letter from SHPO to OPRD
Oct. 30, 2012 letter from SHPO to OPRD
Oct. 30, 2012 e-mail from Peter Russell to OPRD
Oct. 31, 2012 letter from SHPO to OPRD
CIApproximate Park Boundary
~Site-poly (previously Documented)
• Site-point; Isolated Occurrence (p reviously Documented)
Alternative Route for Subsurface Testing
Subsurface Testing Area
OREGON STATE mSTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES
TlIIs product Is for Informational purposes and may not have been
prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying 01530 60 90 120
purposes. Users 01 this information ~review or c:onsuIt the •• MetersprimaIy data and information IOIItCH to aaC«tain the usability of
lila information.
Parks and Recreation Department -Oregon State Historic Preservation Office
7~St.mQ:Pet St~Sre CJohn A. lGtzhaber, MO, Governor
Salem, OR 97301-1266
(503) 986-0671
October 30,2012 Fax (503) 986-0793
www.oregonheritage.org
Mr. Mark Cowan
OPRO
725 Summer St NE STB C
Salem, OR 97301
RE: SHPO Case No. 12·0806
RTP Grant· Tumalo Section Proj
FOFlconstruction of paved trail
Deschutes Counly/OPRD
16S 12E 6117S 12E 7, Bend, Deschutes County
Dear Mr. Cowan:
Our office has received a preliminary summary of a survey that was conducted for the proposed trail section
noted above. My earlier letter commented on the presence of two known archaeological sites within the
proposed trail route. The recent survey confirmed the presence of both sites within the project area while
finding no additional sites. In order for the proposed project to go forward steps need to be taken to address
both known sites. A summary of options is included below.
I. Site 35DS947 is a prehistoric lithic scatter that extends along the entire stretch of Highway 20. Our office
believes that the project can proceed through this site if the entire area along Hwy 20 where the trail is to be
built is covered by a geotextile cloth and than capped by rock with the trail being built on top ofthe rock
base. No ground disturbing activities can take place along the highway in this portion of the proposed trail.
The proposed trail clearing and grubbing can not take place as outlined in the grant proposal nor can
informational kiosks be constructed within the site if any excavations are necessary.
2. Site 3SDS32 I is located near the southern end of the proposed trail. No work can be conducted in this
portion of the proposed trail without subsurface testing first occurring in order to determine the integrity of
the site and the potential adverse effect that will occur from the proposed activity. For the trail to be
constructed in the south either of two options need to be completed. These include: 1) subsurface testing will
be needed in the portion ohite 3SDS321 that can not be avoided by the proposed trail. Only after examining
the results of such investigations can we discover if the site is eligible for the National Register andlor if
capping of the site is possible; or 2) the trail can be rerouted north ofthe site, as recommended by the State
Parks' archaeologist Nancy Nelson, through private Jand. However, this portion of land has not been
surveyed for cultural resources and site 3SDS321 may extend within it. A cultural resource survey will be
needed for any alternative routes prior to approval of the proposed project.
If the project proponent decides that capping ofsite 3SDS947 and rerouting of the southern portion of the
trail, after the completion and approval ofa cultural resource survey, is the preferred option, a professional
a:rchaeologist needs to be on site to monitor all ground disturbing activities. Due to the importance of lands
along the Deschutes River to past area inhabitants and the location ofthe known sites, the presence of tho
monitor is required in order to insure that if any a:rchaeologieal material is discovered during project
construction activities all work can stop and the discovery can be assessed for significance.
State statutes (ORS 358.905 and ORS 97.740) protect archaeological sites, objects, and human remains on
both state public and private lands in Oregon. I hope that by providing the above recommendations, damage
to any a:rchaeologicaJ sites in the area of the proposed project can be avoidl'd. If you have any questions
reprdina·the applicant's need to complete the additionalproposcd ·work (e•••jadditionaJsurvey ortestina) .
and hire an archacololist to monitor all around diaturbinl activities, or wish any additional information
about the above comments, feel free to contact the SHPO of'fKle at your convenience. In order to help us
track your project accurately, please be sure to reference the SHPO cue number above in all com::spondcncc.
Sincerely,
! .~fJL
Dennis Griffin, Ph.D., RJ(j7 -..
State Arehacololiat
(503) 986-0674
dennis.piffm@statc.or.us
I -Oregon
John A. Kit;/'J1,aber, MO, Governor
October 31, 2012
Mr. Mark Cowan
Parks and Recreation Department
State Historic PresenTation Office
725 Summer St NE, Ste C
Salem, OR 97301-1266
(503) 986-0671
Fax (503) 986-0793
www.oregonheritage.org
OPRO
725 Summer St NE STE C
Salem, OR 97301
RE: SHPO Case No. 12-0806
RTP Grant -Tumalo Section Proj
FOE/construction of paved trail
Deschutes County/OPRD
16S 12E 6117S 12E 7, Bend, Deschutes County
Dear Mr. Cowan:
Many thanks for the additional infonnation regarding the above project. In talking with you I understand that
a portion of the proposed project is to excavate soils along a lower terrace adjacent to the Deschutes River.
This area is below the terrace where site 350S947 is located and has already been severely impacted from
both bridge construction and river erosion. Our office sees no problem with trail development activities
occurring in this area without any need to have the area covered by a geotextile c10th or gravel base, Those
restrictions were directed only along the terrace that follows Highway 20. Work beneath the bridge will not
affect any archaeological resources as long as al excavation activities will stay away from the bank itself,
beneath the bridge, where an archaeological site component may exist. I understand the terrace edge is
located north of the area to be impacted so there should be no problem with trail development under the
bridge.
As noted in my letter yesterday, the other provisions that I outlined for the project remain in place. These
included: 1) capping of site 350S947 along Highway 20, and 2) either testing of site 35DS321 to determine
its eligibility and level of effect from the proposed project or rerouting the project away from the site area
and having a cultural resource survey completed for this new route.
State statutes (ORS 358.905 and ORS 97.740) protect archaeological sites, objects, and human remains on
both state public and private lands in Oregon. I hope that by providing the above recommendations, damage
to any archaeological sites in the area of the proposed project can be avoided. Ifyou have any questions
about the above comments, feel free to contact the SHPO office at your convenience. In order to help us
track your project accurately, please be sure to reference the SHPO case number above in all correspondence.
Sincerely,
D~iSGri=:I~
State Archaeologist
(503) 986-0674
dennis.griffin@state.or.us
,
Parks and Recreation Department f-Oregon State Historic Preservation Office
JDhn A. Kitzhabl!r, ~D, Governor 725 Sununer St NE, Ste C
Salem, OR 97301-1266
(503) 986-0671
June 14,2012 Fax (503) 986-0793
'WWW.oregonheritage.org
Mr. Mark Cowan
Nop-;reOPRD HfiSTORY
DUcC'Very725 Summer St NE STE C
Salem, OR 9730 I
RE: SHPO Case No. 12-0806
RTP Grant -Tumalo Section Proj
FOE/construction of paved trail
Deschutes County/OPRD
16S 12E 611 7S 12E 7, Bend, Deschutes County
Dear Mr. Cowan:
A search through the SHPO archaeological database has revealed that there two reported sites (350S947 and
350S 1925) in the area of the project referenced above. It is important that a cultural resource survey be
conducted to identify the location, boundaries and significance of any cultural remains within the project
area prior to any land disturbing activities. We recommend that the area be examined by a professional
archaeologist, prior to development, to determine if cultural materials are present. A list of possible
archaeological consultants can be found at our website (www.oregonheritage.org) . on the Archaeological
Services web page under the Publications section.
State statutes (ORS 358.905 and ORS 97.740) protect archaeological sites,objects, and human remains on
both state pubHc and private lands in Oregon. I hope that by providing the above recommendations, damage
to any archaeological sites in the area of the proposed project can be avoided. If you have any questions
regarding the applicant's need to hire an archaeologist, or wish any additional information about the above
comments, feel free to contact the SHPO office at your convenience. In order to help us track your project
accurately, please be sure to reference the SHPO case number above in an correspondence.
Sincerely,
State Archaeologist
(503) 986-0674
dennis.griffin@state.or.us
Bonnie Baker
From: Peter Russell
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:27 AM
To: Bonnie Baker
Subject: FW: Tumalo Section Proj -SHPO Review
Here's the vaulted e-mail
Peter Russell
Senior Transponation Planner
Deschutes (})unty (})mmunity Development Dept.
117 NW Lafayette Ave.
Bend, OR 97701
ph: (541) 383-6718
FAX (541) 385-1764
From: Peter Russell
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:03 PM
To: 'Mark Cowan'; Ross Kihs
ee: George Kolb; Peter Russell
Subject: RE: Tumalo Section Proj -SHPO Review
Hi, Mark,
Thanks for the repon; many of the conclusions make sense and! or could be easy to comply with, but not all. The SI-ll?O repon raises a couple of
questions as to whether the project can even proceed. To get the required clearance under the highway could require ground disturbance and minor cut
and fill operations and! or a retaining wall. The sensitivity of Site 35DS947 appears to make those activities problematic based on the supplied map,
although perhaps it's just a question of scale. Maybe we can squeeze or work in on the downstream side as the worst of the clearance deficiency is on
upstream or south side of the bridge. It does seem odd that ODOT can build a highway bridge with columns and abutments through here with no
difficulty and we're challenged to get a bike/ ped trail built in the same general area. Ahem, I digress.
1
14$."0 J f...,~n'~~~""'~II!.t)1""ild, ,""""",f4II',eo-,'JI:II'!'.~",<+!'''''M ,j~"l'f~1II 4111 I\ua"",,~) ;\W¥4iW9",*,,4$4$i'(~~'lnI'lN~jlJII"'~ 1!fl1'1"1!!N~ ;041*,"', »biW¥t¥.;;~.... ",a(8'W~ • iii IIIW o;~"'_1Ii ,,+ .~ 9Al~~~' ttl.,;] LA' 44A49f. 4t4"
But let's assume we can find a way to clear the hurdles identified by SHPO. The obvious question is do we have a spitball estimate of what either of
these options might cost? A traffic study I could give you a an idea of the top of my head and George can give you general paving costs off the top of
his.
Cultural resource surveys and going rate for an archaeologist on-site, not so much; that's outside our experience. ;-) Do either you or Ross have an idea?
My own two cents would be is doesn't make much sense to go into the realm of acquiring private lands as that intent of the project was to avoid ROW
purchases or easements by staying on State land. Thanks.
Peter Russell
Senior Transponation Planner
Deschutes County Community Development Dept.
117 NW Lafayette Ave.
Bend, OR 97701
ph: (541) 383-6718
FAX (541) 385-1764
From: Mark Cowan [mailto:mark.cowan@state.or.us]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 2:20 PM
To: Peter Russell; Ross Kihs
Cc: George Kolb
SUbject: Fwd: Tumalo section Proj -SHPO Review
Hi Ross & Peter
RT12-014 Tumalo Section
SHPO Case# 12-0806
Attached you will find a Preliminary Summary, including a map, of the archaeological survey recently conducted on the Tumalo section project site.
The summary offers a directive for one site and options for the second site.
After review, please let me know if you have any follow-up questions.
2
Thanks.
Nark Cowan
Grant Program Coordinator
Oregon Parks and Recreation Dept.
725 Summer st. NE Suite C
Salem, OR 97301-1266
mark.cowan@state.or.us
503-986-0591
www.oregon.gov/OPRD/GRANTS/index.shtml
3