Misleading information on proposed trail

To date, not much has been said about the inaccurate data used to further the hotly debated multi-use paved path from Sisters to Black Butte Ranch, or the issues of access, safety and tranquility at Black Butte Ranch.

Details from two Black Butte Ranch (BBR) surveys conducted in the spring of 2012 and fall of 2013 were inaccurately reported in multiple public meetings by BBR staff, and official responses by the Forest Service in their environmental assessment relied on inaccurate data and misrepresented BBR board decisions.

At the April 5, 2012 meeting with the Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) at Sisters City Hall a BBR staff member indicated "... In a survey of property owners regarding a paved trail to the Ranch from Sisters, with over 700 responses over 95 percent favor the trail. The property owners recognize the many benefits, including additional revenue for the ranch."

The survey asked one question: "The Sisters Trails Alliance is exploring the possibility of building a paved bike path from Sisters to Black Butte Ranch and on to Camp Sherman. Provided that it doesn't compromise access security, should the Ranch support this endeavor?"

That survey generated 588 responses out of 1250-plus homeowners: 305 homeowners were absolutely for Ranch support, while 283 were not sure, needed more information, were not in favor or did not respond.

The second meeting where flawed data was presented, took place on April 23, 2012, in Tollgate. The Tollgate Homeowner Association members were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed trail project while BBR residents and Crossroads community members were not invited. The minutes of that meeting reflect someone known to be a BBR staff member said that, 700 people were surveyed, with 90 percent in favor of the trail. BBR would open its trails to the public as a tourist asset.

The third occurrence took place at a BPAC meeting on April 4, 2013, at Sisters City Hall. At this meeting it was stated that BBR also supports STA's proposal for a multi-use path between Sisters and BBR. In fact, a motion to craft a letter of philosophical support for the trail was not made until the November 23, 2013, BBR board meeting.

No ballot was issued to the residents of BBR in November 2013 but a survey asked two questions: "If a paved multi-use path is built would you or your family use it?" "If the Ranch implemented stricter security measures to ensure Ranch pools and facilities are used only by homeowners and guests, should the Ranch give non-financial support to the path project?" Out of 463 responses 264 said "yes" and 199 were "not sure," answered "no" or did not respond to the first question. Only 433 homeowners responded to the second question; 227 said "yes", 136 chose "maybe" and 72 checked "no" and, these numbers do not even add up.

It was also misleading to say that the BBR board voted to officially support the trail, because the board merely voted to write a philosophical letter of support.

While many of us residing in Sisters Country enjoy cycling and other recreational opportunities, some of us live in private communities that value limited commercial activities, tranquility, and safety.

Over the past few years, unauthorized motor vehicle access to BBR has increased dramatically and recent, public homeowner input led to a review of access policy and police intervention. Groups of unauthorized cyclists regularly enter the Ranch and use roads and bike trails clearly designated private property.

If this proposed trail is built, page 17 of the EA states that an estimated 6-20 parties per day along the trail are anticipated. A party could be multiple persons.

Homeowners can attest that bike traffic on BBR's paths is crowded now. Adding more bike traffic will compromise the safety of BBR's homeowners and guests on the paths and roadways.

Until the results from a new survey show the will of the majority of BBR homeowners, and correct data is presented to the BBR board of directors and the Forest Service for action, this project should not proceed.