A land-use watchdog group Sunday appealed a U.S. Forest Service decision to issue a permit for the city of Bend water project, which would replace the pipeline and other infrastructure the city uses to take water from Bridge and Tumalo creeks.

A lawyer for Central Oregon LandWatch wrote that the Forest Service failed to adequately research whether the city water project would preclude the reintroduction of bull trout into Tumalo Creek, and that impacts on wetlands were treated as temporary when they will actually be permanent. The Forest Service should have considered alternatives to the city plan, such as a shorter pipeline that would leave water in Tumalo Creek until it is closer to Bend, according to LandWatch.

“Tumalo Falls would have twice the amount of water it does during the low-flow period during the summer if the city would just leave the water in the creek and divert it closer to town,” said Paul Dewey, executive director of Central Oregon LandWatch, on Monday.

LandWatch raised several other concerns, including the effect on water temperature in the creek.

The city of Bend hopes to begin work in October on a new water intake facility at Bridge Creek and a new pipeline to the city treatment facility, which together will likely cost more than $26.9 million.

That time line includes a city projection that the Forest Service will need a month to review and dismiss the LandWatch appeal. It does not address the possibility that the Forest Service could undertake a more in-depth review, or that LandWatch might appeal in federal court and seek an injunction. Any of those actions would delay the project.

The city estimates the total price tag for the water project at $68.2 million, although some parts might be delayed or scrapped to soften the impact on ratepayers.

City Councilor Tom Greene was disappointed to hear of the appeal Monday, but said he was not surprised.

“We knew this was coming,” Greene said. “I guess I’m disappointed that it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen this fall.”

Tom Hickmann, city engineer and assistant public works director, said he expects the Forest Service administrative review will wrap up by the end of September and the city will be able to begin construction the first week in October.

“Obviously, if our findings or the Forest Service findings had found that … we had significant environmental impacts, we wouldn’t be charging forward,” Hickmann said. “Obviously we’d have to address those. But that’s not what they found.”

Among the other concerns cited by LandWatch is that the Forest Service did not adequately research the combined impact of climate change and water diversion on temperatures in the creeks, where cool water is important for fish. LandWatch, in its appeal, wrote that the city is likely taking much less water that it claims from Tumalo and Bridge creeks, so the impact will be larger when the city increases withdrawals to the amount specified in the Forest Service permit.

LandWatch also complained that the city submitted 1,500 pages of information to the Forest Service after the public comment period ended, and that a contractor that prepared environmental information for the city had a conflict of interest because the contractor is also designing the project.

If the city were to divert more water from Tumalo and Bridge creeks in the future, that could harm redband trout in the stream, LandWatch wrote. Bull trout, which historically swam in Tumalo Creek, are now absent from the stream and are listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. And while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service described a plan to reintroduce bull trout into Tumalo Creek in its 2002 draft Deschutes Bull Trout Recovery Plan, LandWatch wrote that removing more water from the creeks could “substantially decrease if not foreclose the chance of this happening.”

LandWatch asked the regional forester of the Pacific Northwest Region to review the decision by the Deschutes National Forest to issue a permit for the Bend project and send the decision back with instructions to correct errors and conduct a full environmental impact statement.

LandWatch also filed three separate appeals of the water project with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. Last week, the board dismissed two of the appeals because neither addressed a final decision by the city to proceed with the water project. Therefore, they did not qualify as land-use decisions and the board had no jurisdiction over them, according to the board opinion.

City Attorney Mary Winters said Monday she did not plan to file a motion to dismiss the third appeal, which is still before the state board.