As I will explain in more detail in my next post, under Washington's Growth Management Act and its TIP statute, Jefferson County is required to consider bicycle paths,
lanes, routes, and roadways in its annual revision and extension of
comprehensive road programs. The County cannot avoid this duty by
asserting that it does not wish to pay for a planning study by a third
party. If it cannot, or will not,
pay for a third-party study, the County must conduct the study itself.
If, however, the
County nevertheless declines to pay a third party in full to conduct a study,
and declines to do the study itself, other funding alternatives exist.
(Note that funding for such a study does not have to be secured
before a planning project can be included on the County's TIP. As stated by the County Engineer in his letter of
introduction at page one of Jefferson County’s 2015-2020 TIP (and on all of the
Jefferson County TIPs in the last four years):
The TIP is strongly influenced by the
availability of funding, and many of the projects listed do not, as yet, have
secured funding.
Furthermore,
as the County Engineer pointed out in his letter of introduction, a project must
be included on the TIP to be eligible for funding:
As a result, some of the projects in the TIP
may not be completed within six years; however, they must be included on the
TIP to be eligible for funding.
In other words, simply to enable the funding process the County needs to include the project on its TIP. Once it does so, multiple sources of funding can be pursued.)
We estimate that a planning study would cost in the range of $75,000, although it could be less given the nature and extent of the work done to date by the trail proponents.
1. State
Funding
There are at least two
sources for state funds for trail planning:
a.
Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO)
/ NOVA
State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) funding, which was
recently obtained for planning of the Discovery Bay Estuary Trail Connection,
should provide a grant for DBET planning. The most likely
source of an RCO grant is the Non-highway and Off-Road Vehicle Activities
(NOVA) program.
The NOVA statute, RCW 46.09.510
-.530, amended effective July 1, 2015, created the “nonhighway and off-road
vehicle activities program account” and identified the recreation and
conservation funding board (the Board) as the administrator of the funds in the
account. The statute identifies
the source of the funds in the account as an at least annual refund of one
percent of motor vehicle fuel tax revenues. Distribution of the funds in the account is 36% to the
department of natural resources (DNR); 3.5% to the department of fish and
wildlife (DFW); 2% to the parks and recreation commission (PRC), and 58.5% to
the Board itself.
The uses to be made of the funds by the four agencies differ slightly:
· The DNR’s funds
are to be used “… solely for acquisition, planning, development, maintenance,
and management of ORV, nonmotorized, and nonhighway road recreation facilities,
and information programs and maintenance of nonhighway roads.”
· The DFW’s funds
are to be used “… solely for the acquisition, planning, development,
maintenance, and management of ORV, nonmotorized, and nonhighway road
recreation facilities and the maintenance of nonhighway roads.”
· The PRC’s funds
are to be used “solely for the acquisition, planning, development, maintenance,
and management of ORV, nonmotorized, and nonhighway road recreation facilities.”
· The Board’s funds
are to be used “… for planning, acquisition, development, maintenance, and
management of ORV, nonmotorized, and nonhighway road recreation facilities and
for education, information, and law enforcement programs.”
The use-of-funds provisions all have the following language in common,
however: the allocated funds are to be used for, among other things, “planning
… of … nonmotorized … recreation facilities ….” The words “nonmotorized recreational facilities” are defined
by RCW 46.09.310(11):
“Nonmotorized recreational facilities” means recreational trails and
facilities that are adjacent to, or accessed by, a nonhighway road and intended
primarily for nonmotorized recreational users.
The words “nonhighway road” are defined by RCW 46.09.310(7):
"Nonhighway road" means any road owned or managed by a public
agency, a primitive road, or any private road for which the owner has granted
an easement for public use for which appropriations from the motor vehicle fund
were not used for (a) original construction or reconstruction in the last
twenty-five years; or (b) maintenance in the last four years.
The words “nonmotorized recreational user” are defined by RCW
46.09.310(12):
(12) "Nonmotorized recreational user" means a person whose
purpose for consuming fuel on a nonhighway road or off-road is primarily for
nonmotorized recreational purposes including, but not limited to, walking,
hiking, backpacking, climbing, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, mountain
biking, horseback riding, and pack animal activities.
The net result of these provisions and definitions is that the DNR, DFW,
PRC, and Board are required to use their distributed recreation and
conservation funds for, among other things:
… planning …
recreational trails and facilities
that are … accessed by… any road owned or managed by a public agency … for
which appropriations from the motor vehicle fund were not used (a) for original
construction or reconstruction in the last twenty-five years; or (b)
maintenance in the last four years; … and intended primarily for … a person whose purpose for consuming fuel on a
nonhighway road or off-road is primarily for nonmotorized recreational purposes
including, but not limited to, walking, hiking, backpacking, climbing,
cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, mountain biking, horseback riding, and pack
animal activities.
In (perhaps) plainer language: The four agencies must use their funds
for, among other things, planning recreational trails that are (1) accessed by
any road owned by a public agency for which appropriations from the motor
vehicle fund were not used for original construction or reconstruction in the
last twenty-five years or
maintenance in the last four years; and (2) intended primarily for
persons whose purpose for consuming fuel on the access road is primarily for
nonmotorized recreational purposes such as walking, hiking, backpacking,
climbing, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, mountain biking, horseback riding,
and pack animal activities.
Under the NOVA statute, there are two key questions:
· 1. Will the proposed trail be accessed by any
road owned by a public agency for which appropriations from the motor
vehicle fund were not used for original construction or reconstruction in the
last twenty-five years, or maintenance in the last four years?
· 2. Is the proposed recreational
trail intended primarily for persons whose purpose for consuming fuel on
the access road is primarily for non motorized recreational purposes such as
walking, hiking, backpacking, climbing, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing,
mountain biking, horseback riding, and pack animal activities?
If the answers to
both questions are “yes,” trail planning (and, later, trail development) should
qualify for NOVA funding.
As to the first
question, the answer depends, (a) on exactly how trail access will be
accomplished; and (b) whether or not that access is via any road owned by
a public agency for which appropriations from the motor vehicle fund were not
used for original construction or reconstruction in the last twenty-five years,
or maintenance in the last four years.
The DBET trail
proponents anticipate that trail access will be from three points: the
Maynard/ODT from the south; the LSMT/ODT (or a short road with
parking on the JPUD property) from the north; and Anderson Lake State Park
in the center. For NOVA grant purposes, all three should qualify.
On the north and south there are short roads (no matter how short), owned by the County, which access
the parking areas and/or the trail itself. If appropriations from
the motor vehicle fund were not used for original construction or
reconstruction of those roads in the last twenty-five years, or maintenance in
the last four years, they should serve as permitted access under the NOVA
statute. On the north, what appears to be a very short road from Milo Curry Road to the
trail parking area may not have been constructed with appropriations from
the motor vehicle fund. On the south, there is apparently a “stub"
road to the ODT that has already qualified the Maynard section of the ODT trail for
NOVA funding. And, in any event, in the center, the Anderson
Lake State Park access road has existed for more than 25 years, and presumably it
is not maintained with appropriations from the motor vehicle fund.
If that is the case, ALSP alone should support NOVA funding, since
the statute permits funding if the trail is "accessed by any road
owned by a public agency ….” [Emphasis added.]
As to
the second question, the answer is obviously yes; the proposed
recreational trail is intended primarily for persons whose purpose for
consuming fuel on the access road is primarily for nonmotorized recreational
purposes such as walking, hiking, backpacking, climbing, cross-country skiing,
snowshoeing, mountain biking, horseback riding, and pack animal activities.
Perhaps someone could argue that the trail is also
for “transportation” purposes, but certainly that is not its primary
purpose.
Conclusion:
there are good reasons to expect that NOVA funding will be available for
planning the Discovery Bay East Trail -- certainly good enough to satisfy the County’s need for a
funding source for its TIP.
Administration and distribution of NOVA funds is governed by RCW
46.09.530(1). That subsection
requires the Board to distribute the funds at least once a year to “state agencies,
counties, municipalities, federal agencies, nonprofit off-road vehicle organizations,
and Indian tribes.” The Board must
determine the amount of money distributed to each applicant.
The Board has
adopted rules governing applications for funds administered by the recreation and
conservation office under the statute. According to those rules, to be eligible for grant consideration
under this chapter, applicants must complete a plan which at a minimum must
include (1) a statement of the applicant's long-range goals and
objectives; (2) an inventory; (3) an analysis of demand and need, that is, why
actions are required; (4) a description of how the planning process gave the
public ample opportunity to be involved in development of the plan; (5) a current
capital improvement program of at least six years; and (6) evidence that this plan has been
approved by the applicant's governing entity most appropriate to the plan's
scope.
b. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program
A second source of state funding is
through the WSDOT’s Active Transportation
Programs, which provide technical services and funding assistance to public
agencies in support of active transportation for health,
safety and economic development. One of
these programs is the “Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program.” The objective of this program is to
improve the transportation system to enhance safety and mobility for people who
chose to walk or bike. (The
Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe has applied for $290,000 under this program for the
ODT Diamond Point shared use path.)
The Active Transportation Programs Manager has indicated that grants
from the Pedestrian
and Bicycle Safety Program can be used to for recreational trail planning,
including planning and pre-design studies such as the one proposed here. The program will be open for grant
applications in early 2016.
2. Federal
Funding and Support
There are at least three
sources of federal funds for trail planning:
a. Surface Transportation Program
The federal Surface Transportation Program
(STP) is the most flexible of all the (federal) highway programs and the one that provides the most financial support to local
agencies. Projects eligible for
STP funding include bicycle, pedestrian, and recreational trails. The Director of Local Programs for the
STP has indicated that the DBET planning project, as described, sounds like it
would qualify for STP funding.
Jefferson County received approximately $403,000 in STP funds in 2015.
b. Transportation Alternatives Program
The Transportation
Alternatives Program (TAP) also appears
to be a source of funds for planning and development of the Discovery Bay East
Trail. The WSDOT Director of Local Programs indicated that the DBET planning
and scoping project should qualify for funding under this program.
c. Recreational Trails Program (RTP)
The Recreational Trails
Program
(RTP) provides for trail-related facilities for both non-motorized and
motorized trail uses. Under limited circumstances, new “linking” trail development projects for recreational
trails are eligible for funding. In
Washington State, these grants support a backcountry experience, which means
that the trail’s physical setting, not its distance from a city or road, should
be predominately natural. For example, a backcountry trail can provide views of
cities or towns. Backcountry also means that the user will experience nature as
opposed to seeing or hearing evidence of human development and activity. Large sections of the proposed DBET
will provide exactly this kind of experience.
d. National Park Service Rivers,
Trails and Conservation Assistance Program
Considering the fact that the trail would be part of
federal Scenic National Trails system, the National Park Service Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance
Program, may assist with the study, as it did for the North Kitsap “String of Pearls”
Trails Plan. Although the National
Park Service is not itself a source of funds, it can help identify and analyze
issues and opportunities; engage partners and stakeholders; define partner
roles and responsibilities; inventory and map community resources; identify
funding sources; and plan the trails.
3. City of
Port Townsend
Parts of the DBET may run
across property owned by the City of Port Townsend. The City, which supports study of the trail and would
benefit from it, might share in the cost of a planning study.
The bottom line is that multiple sources of funding exist for a DBET planning study.
We have now satisfied all three of the County's requirements for including this project on its 2016-2021 TIP. (Topography; Owners; Funding.) The County should list the project, so we can move ahead with getting the trail built in the next five years, 328 days.
No comments:
Post a Comment