To: Members, Upper River Road Solutions Team
From: Pat Foley, RVCOG
Re: Draft Summary of August 3, 2010 meeting, Jefferson Conference Room, RVCOG,
155 North First Street, Central Point, OR
Members/Alternates in Attendance : Mike Kuntz, Andre Briggs, Greg Applen, Gail Frank, Jon
Raby, Talmadge Thoms, Tom Collett, Mike Smith, Eric Ronemus, Paige Prewett, Dale Marshall,
Sue Ann Wardle, Ogden Kellogg, Steve Kiesling, Trish Lindaman, Mike Newmann and Gary
Frost (telephone)
Members/Alternates Absent: Calib Baldwin, John Vial, Kathy Schutt, and Paul Korbulic
Staff: John Morrison, Facilitator; Craig Harper and Pat Foley, RVCOG; Jeff Bernardo, OBEC
Others in Attendance: John Lutz, Chris Frost, Kaitlin Anderson, Bill Bridges and Josephine
Jones
1. Welcome, Review Agenda
John Morrison, Facilitator
John Morrison convened the Upper River Road Solutions Team meeting. He welcomed the members and guests. It was noted that Calib Baldwin has only attended one meeting.
Then he reviewed the agenda.
2. Approval June 24 th meeting summary
John Morrison, Facilitator
Meeting Summary approved with correction: Page 3 – change - The manual and on uniform traffic control.
Gary Frost joined the meeting via telephone.
3. Presentation by Chris Frost
Chris Frost
Greg Applen, as a representative of the business community, had requested that time be set aside for representatives of the Star Valley Ranch to give a presentation regarding their concerns. He read a brief statement outlining their concerns and introduced the presenters. Kaitlin Anderson and Dr. Bill Bridges who gave a presentation on aggressive canine horse interactions and historical data.
1

Kaitlin Anderson (Star Valley Ranch): Kaitlin presented documentation regarding dog attacks nationally and in Jackson County.
Handouts

DogsBite.org (National Report) o Dog Attacks on Livestock and Horses: January – May 2008

The reports show that dog attacks in rural areas are on the rise.

Jackson County Animal Control o Animal Care and Control Yearly Reports: 2002/3 through 2008/9

During this time there have been over 500 reported cases of dog attacks on livestock.

Local dog attack documentation: Letters, articles and photos o Caryn Gumaer, Selma, OR (her horse Sugar Plum was and killed by five dogs)

Associated Press Article

Letter from Caryn Gumaer

Photos

Marcy Morris, Morris Ranch o Letter from Marcy Morris o Owner of Morris Ranch in Central Point
Kaitlin said the placement of the Greenway in front of Star Valley Ranch with a significant number of unleashed dogs with no enforcement will place their high-risk horses in danger.
There are only two animal control officers in Jackson County. She hopes the team will provide the necessary mitigation in the form of a berm and a fence to protect their livestock from the threat that unleashed dogs will bring to their business.
Dr. Bill Bridges, equine veterinarian, Southern Oregon Equine:
He spoke on the potential of dog attacks on horses at the Star Valley Ranch. Points made:

Dogs naturally have a fight response. Horses naturally have a flight response.

Dog attacks will happen. It is instinctual.

Even small dogs can cause a problem by barking. The most common occurrence seen is when a horse is run through fences. o Dr. Bridges was the veterinarian for Marcy Morris. o The horse was attacked and needed to be euthanized.

He had a recent case in Phoenix where a dog went after a horse and chasing it around the pasture. The horse received a significant sprain.

If there is a visual barrier and fence installed at Star Valley Ranch, in his opinion, this will solve the problem and seems like an easy fix.
Questions/Comments;
Mike Kuntz: To hear that a vegetative berm and a fence is something that will perceivably solve the problem is wonderful news. As I looked at the various examples discussed, my perception that the attacks were caused by neighborhood animals packing. Response: True but in this situation the number of dogs going by presents more of a risk for the horses out in the field than just neighbor dogs. If there is a leash law that would help but even barking dogs on leashes can cause problems.
2

Mike Smith: Dr. Bridges you work for a variety of people who own horses throughout the
County and you feel that dogs are a threat. Response: Yes and this is true for all livestock.
Mike also asked if Dr. Bridges if has seen where horse owners choose to protect themselves and their horses against dogs with fences and berms or do they just leave themselves open?
Response: If they continuously have dogs harassing their horses or livestock, generally they try to call animal control to get them involved. It is difficult to expect people to put up a wall or berm around their property. The fact that Star Valley Ranch has been there for years and been a thriving and successful business the suggestions seems like an easy thing to do when you put in the Greenway.
Steve Kiesling: He feels that this presentation is helpful. In the last two years we have lost three dogs in the area. There is a lot of pain on the road with animals. Whose pain is worse or significant? What is the way to mediate the problems and where should the money be spent?
Traffic is increasing on our road. With the Greenway, dogs will come with the people. The problem is unattended dogs which can happen now.
Sue Ann Wardle: You have to train dogs to respect horses. She related a recent dog/horse experience.
Eric Ronemus: Last meeting we talked about berms and I feel that we all agreed that berm/fence is a good idea.
Greg Applen: It sounds like the berm/fence is a good idea has been agreed upon by the group.
Gary Frost has said that he would be willing to maintain the berm landscaping.
Mike Kuntz: He has a concern that the berm may go on the railroad right-of-way.
Tom Collette: Tom made a motion: He moved that the Solutions Team acknowledge and accept that loose dogs are a potential threat and danger to people, livestock, pets and wildlife. The motion was seconded by Greg Applen.
Discussion:
Steve Kiesling: Some of us moved to the country to get away from leash laws.
Mike Smith: We have this listed on our Issues and Concerns- Item 15 and 18. He suggested that the motion be tabled.
Opposed 7 Abstain 1 A vote was taken: In favor 4
The motion failed.
Mike Kuntz made a motion: Should this committee select an option that passes the Star Valley
Ranch that the project should pursue installing some sort of visual and/or physical barrier working with appropriate professionals to hide Starr Valley Ranch to the extent possible. This should be included in the report. Tom Collett seconded the motion.
3

Discussion:
Mike Smith asked what happens if that creates a problem with railroad right-of-way. Mike
Kuntz replied that is why he said ‘to the extent possible’. If this happens we can look at other options.
Gail Frank: She is interested in seeing other options presented. She feels we are making a decision prematurely.
Eric Ronemus: He agrees with Gail. We need to see what the engineer comes up with first.
Mike Kuntz: The intent of the motion is to allow specific engineering details to happen. If we don’t make some sort of decision it is going to continue to come up and cause us problems.
Eric Ronemus: Are there other properties in the area that have livestock?
Tom Collett pointed out that in this economic climate where you see properties abandoned, this is a viable and prosperous business and we do not want to do anything to lose another prosperous business.
The motion passed unanimously.
4. Solution Team Comments
John Morrison, Facilitator
Sue Ann Wardle had concern regarding equestrian issues that were answered by Craig Harper. If there are special needs that come up they will be discussed when appropriate.
5. Follow-up on State and Federal Property Issues
Continued Discussion of Potential Routes and Associated Costs
Jeff Bernardo, OBEC
Jeff Bernardo outlined his presentation:
Expand on topics from last meeting
 Historic significance of “Military Road” o Information provided by George Kramer (Kramer and Company)

Military roads were built in the Rogue Valley between Fort Land and Fort Klamath.

He is not personally aware of a military road in the area that would be considered a historic resource, but thinks that it is possible.

It is recommended that a full historic and archaeological investigation be conducted during final project design.

Jeff LaLande (Retired USFS) has done extensive research on military roads in the area and would be a source of additional information.
Jeff recommends that this information be documented in the report. Greg Applen agrees that this would be a wise thing to be put into the proposal.
4

It was asked if this could be a hindrance to the project. It could be a benefit to the project and could be tied into Fort Lane. Andre Briggs said that OPR is doing archeological work at Fort
Lane.

ODOT feedback on at-grade crossings of Hwy 234 o PER ODOT District 8 Manager

ODOT does not recommend or support installation of at-grade bike/ped/horse crossing(s) on Hwy 234.

At-grade crossings create a significant, concentrated conflict point between fast moving vehicles and path users which result in a significant safety hazard.

Existing at-grade crosswalks on highways in the Rogue Valley currently experience several accidents per year.

ODOT does not have any specific improvement plans for Hwy 234 or additional R/W around Gold Nugget Wayside.

Administrative difficulties of trail on BLM land (Gold Route – crossing river at
Gold Nugget Wayside) o Would likely require the need for a Recreation and Public Purposes lease from BLM which may;

Be time consuming (1-2 years?)

Require approval from Washington DC

Require public review and comment

Require an Environmental Assessment which would be time consuming and expensive

Require a lease fee for the land?
John Raby said he has not seen this process done quickly. It would be a three to five year process. This process can run concurrently with funding exploration.
Further review/discussion of Routes
Mike Smith does not feel that the Gold Route is viable.
If a route is selected and railroad r-o-w personnel say no, will all that we have done be for naught. Craig said that people are working with railroad.
Regarding the Gold Route:
Steve Kiesling made a motion that we abandon the Gold Route option because of grade issues.
The motion was seconded by Gail Frank.
The motion passed. There was one no vote.
Jeff reviewed trail options focusing on where to generally cross the river:
Sheet 1:

Blue Option travels off-road

Dotted Red-line Equestrian Trail
Sheet 2:
5


Blue Option travels off-road

Dotted Red-line Equestrian Trail with two multi-use trail heads
Sheet 3:

Blue Option travels off-road with improvements to existing dirt road
Sheet 4:

Blue Option same as last meeting

Gold Option – decision made earlier to drop this option

Yellow Option – start a existing public on-grade crossing
Sheet 5:

Shows potential bridge crossing – Hardie Property (Option A)

Shows potential bridge crossing – Kiesling Property (Option B)
Sheet 6:

Shows two potential bridge crossings – Below Gold Hill Water Intake (Options C
& D)
Sheet 7

Potential bridge crossing – Previously evaluated bridge location (Option E)

Potential bridge crossing – Rail Road trestle (Option F)
Review estimated project cost table

Bridge construction costs o Signature Bridge o 14 foot width o Includes Engineering, permitting and construction o Assumes all State/Federal guidelines are met o Costs do not include right-of-way costs

Estimated at $10.000 per lineal foot

Road Upgrade costs o New sidewalk o New curb o Widen existing road o Shared lane markings o 2007 ADT – 500 V.P.D. o Includes engineering, permitting and construction o Assumes all State/Federal guidelines are met o Costs do not include right-of-way costs

Estimated at $175 per lineal foot

New Trail construction costs o 10 foot wide o AC pavement surfacing (blacktop) o Includes engineering, permitting and construction o Assumes all State/Federal guidelines are met o Costs do not include right-of-way costs
 Estimated at $200 per lineal foot
6

C
D
E
F
Bridge Options Statistics
Bridge Option Bridge Length (ft) On-Road Trail Length (ft) New Trail Length (ft)
A 375 0 2,795
B 450 1,185 1,000
750
425
350
250
2,800
3,540
4,580
8,275
375
425
450
0
B
C
D
Bridge Option Costs
Bridge Location
A
E
F
Bridge Cost Road Cost New Trail Cost
$3,750,000 $---------- $559,000
$4,500,000 $207,375
$7,500,000 $490,000
$4,250,000 $619,500
$200,000
$ 75,000
$ 85,000
$3,500,000 $801,000 $ 90,000
$2,500,000 $1,448,125 $ ---------
Total Cost
$4.3M
$4.9M
$8.1M
$5.0M
$4.4M
$4.0M
6.
7.
Comfort Check
Group agreed that they were optimistic about the project.
Public Comment
Ogden Kellogg: Even though the crossing at the falls maybe more expensive might have the most value because it would have a lot of magic in it and could be a major tourist draw.
8. Next Steps
Next meeting: September 7, 2010
7