Either the Port Townsend Leader misquoted BOCC candidate Tim Thomas regarding the ODT-E or he got it wrong. 

In late September (when I was in Utah) the Leader quoted Mr.  Thomas as saying at a candidates' forum that “we [the County] just got $1 million for the Larry Scott Trail to connect up or whatever, to research it or however they’re going to do it. … they just spent a million bucks and they want another $4 million or $5 million to connect the trail … How important is that into our community when we have nowhere to live.”  (Leader, September 28, 2016, p. A-5.)  

What Mr. Thomas said -- or is quoted as saying -- was incorrect.  

First, the $1 million that the state legislature authorized for planning, acquisition and development of the Olympic Discovery Trail from Four Corners to the head of Discovery Bay has not yet been spent by the County.  Rather, the County is in the process of studying possible route alternatives and their costs to determine whether such a trail connection is reasonably feasible.  The County is expected to spend less than a tenth of the legislatively-authorized funds on the route planning study.  

Second, the cost of the trail connection is not yet known, and will be carefully estimated as part of the County's route planning study.  

Third, Mr. Thomas incorrectly implies that the County is improperly spending money on a trail rather than using it for more important community housing needs.  The funds Mr. Thomas is referring will come from a state legislative appropriation for the Recreation and Conservation Office (the "RCO").  Funds appropriated by the legislature for recreation and conservation are not available to address the County’s housing problems.  In planning and developing the ODT-Eaglemount section, the County is not using -- and will not be using -- scarce County resources that might better be spent on housing.  As the Leader has reported, the "County relies on grants for road, trail projects.”  (Leader, October 4, 2016, p. A-9.)  Grant sources for trails include (but are not limited to) the Nonhighway and Off-Road Vehicle Activities Program, the “Trails" category of the of the Washington Wildlife and Recreation program, the Recreational Trails Program, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program, and the Federal Lands Access program.  None of these grant sources can be used to address Mr. Thomas’ very-legitimate concern about the lack of affordable housing in the County.  

Finally, Mr. Thomas (as quoted) incorrectly suggests that the proposed ODT-Eaglemount trail is relatively unimportant to the community.  I strongly disagree.  In my view, the trail is vitally important to the citizens of the County -- for safety, health and economic reasons:    

• Safety.  As discussed in my earlier blog posts, travel on SR 20 from Four Corners to Discovery Bay is very dangerous -- for both motorized and non-motorized users.  Any motorist who has tried to drive by a cyclist or hiker on the SR 20 Eaglemount hill knows how risky and frustrating it is.  As a Washington State Patrolman has written to the County:

“I know firsthand how dangerous it is.  For the safety of everyone—both motorists and non-motorists—we encourage inclusion of a feasibility study of a recreational trail alternative in the County’s TIP.”

• Health.  Washington law requires planning that promotes physical activity, and requires a County comprehensive plan to “include a pedestrian and bicycle component to … address and encourage enhanced community access and promote healthy lifestyles.”  The legislature has thus recognized what everyone knows: physical activities like cycling, walking, skating, horseback riding, rollerblading, etc, increase good health and reduce healthcare costs.    

• Economics.  The ODT-Eaglemount connection will be of great economic benefit to the County and its citizens.  The Olympic Discovery Trail draws national and world travelers, hikers and cyclists.  It increases the attractiveness of the areas it serves for hotels and motels, restaurants, businesses, employers, and homeowners.  The Eaglemount section will finally connect Port Townsend to Discovery Bay, Sequim, Port Angeles, Forks and the coast.  It will complete the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail which runs from Glacier National Park through Jefferson County to the coast.  The immense economic benefits to communities that are connected by recreational trails have been well documented.  See, for example, When Washington Bikes, It Brings Billions of Bucks: http://www.adventurecycling.org/resources/blog/when-washington-bikes-it-brings-billions-of-bucks-part-1/ and http://www.adventurecycling.org/resources/blog/when-washington-bikes-it-brings-billions-of-bucks-part-2/.  Over $3.1 billion is spent statewide every year on bicycling alone, with trip-related expenditures accounting for 96% of the economic impact of bicycling.   

Today (September 12, 2016), the Jefferson County Commissioners unanimously adopted a 2017-2022 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) which includes, as project #10, the ODT -- Discovery Bay to Larry Scott Trail Connection, to "[c]onduct route feasibility study, right-of-way acquisition and possible construction."  Here's the TIP entry:

The TIP includes a map roughly showing the ODT-Eaglemount trail in blue which, according to the map legend, means "Funding Secured":

The TIP states the costs of the project as $950,000, to be expended over three years -- $300,000 in 2017; $500,000 in 2018; and $150,000 in 2019.

The legislative authorization was for $1,000,000.  Presumably the remaining $50,000 has been allocated by the County for administration of the project.  Within the last month or so, the County has hired John Fleming-- an experienced, enthusiastic and capable engineer, long-time resident of Jefferson County, and strong bike rider, to manage both the ODT-Eaglemount project and the ODT-Discovery Bay project at the head of the Bay.  At today's BOCC meeting Commissioner Sullivan commented favorably about John's hire, complementing him on his skills and geologic knowledge of the area.  John has already spent several hours with Jef Selby and me, on his own time, reconnoitering various possible routes -- and subtly demonstrating the difference between an amateur (me) and a pro.  

John is preparing to proceed with the engagement of a consultant -- hopefully very soon.

Four years, 348 days to go.  We've got to move faster.    

Progress!!  Today (August 29, 2016) the Board of County Commissioners voted to approve the signing of a contract with the Washington State Recreation and Conservation  Office (RCO), to fund completion of an evaluation process to identify a preferred route for the ODT from Discovery Bay at the intersection of SR-20 with US 101 to the trail's intersection with the Larry Scott Trail at Milo-Curry Road.  Here's a copy of the County Administrator's recommendation to the Commissioners, which was adopted by the Commissioners as part of their Consent Agenda:

At the same meeting, the BOCC also agreed to the signing of an amendment to an agreement with the RCO for funding of the restoration and trail construction project for the Discovery Bay shoreline section of the ODT running from Old Gardner Road to Salmon Creek. Together with the ODT-Eaglemount section, this will allow non-motorized trail users to safely travel from Old Gardner Road to Port Townsend

During the public hearing prior to the vote, Jeff Chapman, Jeff Selby and I all spoke in support of these two agenda items.  I also urged the Commissioners to considering asking for financial support from the federal government for maintenance of Eaglemount section of the trail, since this section will be shared with the federal Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail.

After the public hearing, Commissioners Sullivan and Kler both expressed support for the trail and satisfaction  that it was now moving ahead after a period of gestation (my word).  Commissioner Johnson -- who has been a strong supporter for the ODT -- was excused from attendance at this special meeting, but I'm confident he would have joined with the orther Commissioners in expressing support.

Now, the next step is for the County to engage the consultant and get started on the process of identifying the preferred route.

I gave now been working on this project for a little over a year.  If I am going to ride the ODT-Eaglemount section on my 80th birthday, we need to get it built in the next four years and 362 days!

In July we continued to wait for the County and the RCO to sign a contract regarding use of the $1 million authorized by the legislature for planning, acquisition and development of the ODT-Eaglemount trail.  While waiting, among other things I interviewed the candidates for BOCC District 1  about their views on the ODT-Eaglemount trail section.  I also continued to work on trail scouting, mapping and planning to -- hopefully -- jump start the consultant's route-planning process.  (I'll provide some additional mapping information in a later post.)  

Funding

On July 7^th I emailed Eric Kuzma at JeffCo Public Works and Darrell Jennings at the Recreation and Conservation Office, asking if there was anything I could do to help get the planning consultant engaged and moving ahead.  I repeated my concern that if the County did not engage a consultant soon, we would lose the prime summer months for evaluating trail routes, and would lose momentum on the ODT project itself.  On July 12^th, Darrell responded that he and Eric had nearly wrapped things up, and that he would do his best to get a document prepared, routed and approved later that week or the next.  In a subsequent conversation, Eric said he and Darrell had nearly wrapped up the Discovery Bay planning, and that they would turn to the newly-authorized $1 million once they had finalized funding for the Discovery Bay section of the trail.  Eric doubted that the contract and consultant engagement for the ODT-Eaglemount project would be completed soon.  He also questioned the urgency of getting a consultant on the ground during the summer months. 

On July 27^th, Jeff and I followed up by contacting Darrell Jennings by phone.  He told us that he and Eric Kuzma had agreed to a form of contract for the Discovery Bay section of the ODT, subject only to review and approval by (I think) "Fish and Wildlife" attorneys.  As I understood it, once that approval has been secured, the Discovery Bay contract was expected to be signed by the RCO and the County and the RCO funds would be available to the County to proceed with the Discovery Bay project.  I asked specifically whether all of the “match” issues for this funding had been resolved.  Darrell confirmed that the “match” issues had been resolved, and that the resolution did not require use of any of the $1million in legislative funding that Rep. Tharinger had secured for the Eaglemount section.

Jeff asked Darrell whether, to his knowledge, the County’s administration of the contract (the Discovery Bay construction project itself) would be so taxing on County staff that it might interfere with the County’s ability to work on the Eaglemount project.  Darrell said that he didn’t really know and we could talk with Eric about that.          

Regarding the ODT-Eaglemount section, Darrell said that on July 25^th he had sent a form of contract to Eric.  Darrell said that the draft contract was for a four or five year period, and provided for expenditure of up to $100,000 for “planning” of the Eaglemount section.  As I understood Darrell, once the planning has been done the contract could be revised or supplemented in some way to cover land acquisition and development of the trail, in accordance with the legislation and the plan.  

I asked Darrell whether there was any risk that any of the $1million authorized by the legislature might be lost by the passage of time if the full amount was not expended in this biennium — that is, by the end of 2016. Darrell said that perhaps there was some risk that the legislature might not reauthorize the funding, but he thought that was unlikely given the RCO’s past experience.  I don’t understand exactly how the appropriation/authorization/expenditure process works, so I can’t assess the nature of extent of the risk.  

I told Darrell that Jeff Selby, Jeni Little and I were scheduled to discuss the ODT on KPTZ radio on July 29th and asked him whether it was OK to discuss what he had told us.  He said it was fine to discuss what he had told us about the contracts. 

I asked Darrell whether the form of contract was available for our review.  He said he thought it might already be available online at the RCO website, and, if not, he saw no problem in providing it to us.  I couldn’t find it online so I asked Darrell to send me a copy, which he did on July 29^th..  He explained that he had not yet had any feedback from Eric, and that Eric could request modifications, but if not, this would be the agreement between the two agencies.  Here’s a copy of page 1 of the draft contract, which contains the key substantive provisions: 

  

Candidate Interviews

On July 13th, the four candidates for County Commissioner District 1 (from which Phil Johnson is retiring) appeared at  a League of Women Voters Candidate Forum in Port Townsend.  The candidates were Tim Thomas, owner of Bernt Ericsen Excavating Inc.; Kate Dean, manager of the North Olympic Peninsula Resource Conservation and Development Council, a nonprofit council of governments that oversees regional community and economic development projects; Jeff Gallant, owner of Jeff Gallant Construction; and Cynthia Koan, Chair of the Jefferson County Planning Commission.  
  

During the public presentation, no one — including me — asked the candidates for their views about the ODT-Eaglemount trail.  Only Kate Dean mentioned it during the public presentations.  In responding to a question about transit services, she said that  a “huge priority” for her was to "connect the Larry Scott Memorial Trail to the ODT,” because bicycling is “very important.”   

I had submitted a written question about the candidates’ ODT views, but it was not asked.  I was not recognized when I raised my hand, and time ran out.  So after the presentations I approached each candidate individually and asked their views.  Here’s a summary of what they said:

• Tim Thomas said that he thought a trail connection  from the LSMT to the head of the Bay was a great idea, and he would support it.  Based on his response, I felt that he would appreciate additional information about the trail connection and its potential benefits and costs, so I told him I would send him an email about it.  He enthusiastically said he was looking forward to receiving it.

• Kate Dean reiterated that the trail connection was very important to her, and said that she would like more detail about what was being proposed and planned.  I told her that the trail would potentially be quite expensive, but much of that cost could potentially be covered by grant funding.  She said she knew a lot about grant funding, had worked on raising money with multiple governmental agencies, and could be very effective in that regard in getting the trail done.  She also said that she knew the commissioners, and many government employees and officials, which could help with the project. She was enthusiastic about getting an email and materials from me so that she could become even more knowledgeable about the ODT-E connection.

• Jeff Gallant really didn’t know anything about the trail project.  He asked me where it would start and where it would go.  He was unclear about what it would be for and why it was needed.   I told him that it would help get cyclists and walkers off of SR20, which he thought would be a very good thing.  When I told him it would be an expensive project, he expressed the need to be cautious and to make sure this was the best way to spend limited County funds.  He said he would appreciate receiving information from me so that he could be prepared to discuss the proposed project at a future candidate forum  -- if he makes it through the primary.

• Cynthia Koan said that she thought development and construction of the trail was a “no brainier.”  She said that their were many obvious benefits of the trail, that she would try to assure that it was included in the new comprehensive plan that the Planning Commission was working on.  (I had previously discussed this with her at a Planning Commission meeting, and after a Jefferson County Commissioner’s meeting, which she recalled.)  She said that I ought to discuss the project with the Patricia Charmas, the new Jefferson County DCD director.  She approached this as if it was very likely that the trail should eventually be developed.

To make sure they are all fully aware of the importance of the project and the need to vigorously pursue it if elected, I will send the candidates that made it through the primary (Thomas and Dean) a copy of my white paper and executive summary regarding the trail, which I am in the process of updating.   

In June, the ODT-Eaglemount funding process stalled.  Scheduluing challenges burdened both the County and the RCO. 

On June 10^th, the RCO reported that it had a few details to work out on existing grants that the County had in progress – presumably referring to grants for the Discovery Bay section of the ODT - before it could negotiate the scope of work that would go into its new agreement with the County for the Eaglemount section.  On June 13^th I emailed the RCO, pointing out that it had been almost two months since the governor signed the legislation for funding the trail, but a contract still had not been entered into with Jefferson County.  I recognized that Jefferson County Public Works had been very busy on various projects that had priority over the ODT, but expressed my concern that unless a contract was executed soon, the County’s consultant (once selected) would miss the prime summer months for route study and planning.  I attached my draft project agreement and project summary and suggested that it might save some time if the RCO could take a look at them now.  

On June 17^th, I emailed Public Works and inquired regarding their ETA for the consultant.  On June 22^nd, Jeff Selby spoke with Eric Kuzma.  Eric reported that he had spoken to the three candidate consultants we had toured the corridor with (Steve Durrant, Amis Loving, and Dan Ireland).  Eric had let them know that they were being considered for the job, but that the project had not yet been formally defined between the County and the RCO.  He explained that without a contract with the RCO, and no defined project to bill, the County could not contract with any consulting firm.  Eric also confirmed that the RCO and the County had been working on the grants for the Discovery Bay section of the ODT, which were more pressing than the Eaglemount route study.  Eric indicated that the County had to resolve those issues to meet the required grant deadlines and to avoid the expiration of the permitting for the Discovery Bay section of the trail.  Apparently, construction money for the trail could be in jeopardy if the final design for that section of the trail was not resolved as well.

In the meantime, while waiting for the contract to be signed and the planning consultant to be engaged, I continued work on a map showing possible routes for the ODT-Eaglemount trail.  My efforts got a big boost when Casey Finedell, an electronic mapping expert, approached Jeff Selby and offered to help on the trail project.  Jeff put Casey in touch with me.  Casey told me that he could import JeffCo's parcel map and its 10-foot contour map into my arcGIS online map.  We also discussed other ways to upgrade the map to make it more useful to the consultant and – ultimately – the County and the public.  

Here’s a screenshot of a small part of my first upgraded map, showing the very important SR 20/Eaglemount Road intersection, and illustrating possible trail routes within the WSDOT and County rights-of-way:

Arrow 1 points to the trail (highlighted in yellow) on the north side of SR 20 and within the WSDOT right of way.  As illustrated, much of this route would be ten to twenty feet below the SR 20 road grade.

Arrow 2 points to a switchback that would bring the trail up to the SR 20 grade.  Here's a photo of such a switchback next to SR 520 in Seattle near the Montlake Bridge:

Arrow 3 points to a possible trail route outside of the WSDOT right-of-way, on the private property surrounding the intersection.  The private owner (the owner of the Eaglemount Motel) might conceivably consider granting such a right-of-way for the trail, for several reasons:  (1) the owner would be fully compensated for the right-of-way; (2) the trail would bring tourists -- PNT hikers, bicycle tourists, etc -- to the motel property; (3) the trail would be below the crest of the plateau north of the intersection, so it would not interfere with the owner's views or uses of the plateau; (4) the trail would not be on the "south" alternative, on the WSDOT right-of-way next to the motel property itself; and (5) the owner would be performing a public service in helping to avoid the extremely hazardous mix of trucks, cars, bicyclers and hikers on SR 20.

Arrow 4 points to the where the proposed trail on the north side of the highway could cross SR 20 at the Eaglemount intersection.  There has to be a crossing of SR 20 someplace.  A crossing at the head of the Bay would be very dangerous, as drivers are already contending with heavy traffic on US 101.  Between US 101 and Eaglemount there are only two or three crossing locations where sightlines are sufficient to allow a safe crossing.  A bridge over the highway or a tunnel under it would be very expensive.   The Eaglemount intersection, on the flat area at the crest of the hill, seems to me to be the most natural and safe alternative.  

Arrow 5 points to a possible SR 20 crossing west of Eaglemount Road and a trail route south of the highway, approaching the Eaglemount intersection from the west.  A very primitive road already exists in this area, on or close to the WSDOT right-of-way and next to power and phone lines that run along the south side of the highway.  Here's a photo of part of that road:

The existing primitive road turns south from the right-of-way, onto private property, before reaching the Eaglemount Motel property.  But the WSDOT right-of-way (which is 100 feet wide at this point) continues east along the highway next to the motel units.  The motel owner might prefer a trail on the north side of the highway, or perhaps near the west boundary of the motel property, rather than on the southern WSDOT right-of-way next to the motel units.   

In May, we waited for the County and the RCO  to resolve grant funding issues regarding the Discovery Bay section of the ODT, so they could then turn to the planning study for the Eaglemount section. 

Work With the County on Route Planning

In early May, in anticipation of execution a contract between the County and the RCO regarding the $1 million Eaglemount authorization, after thorough discussions with PTC board members, I redrafted my “scope of work” for the ODT-Eaglemount route study and sent it to Eric Kuzma at JeffCo Public Works.  Here’s my draft:

Scope of Work

Route Study for Eaglemount Section of Olympic Discovery Trail

The following is the scope of work for a route study for the Eaglemount section of the Olympic Discovery Trail (ODT), in Jefferson County, Washington, running from the southern end of the Larry Scott Memorial Trail at Discovery Road to the northern end of Section “B” of the Discovery Bay South section of the ODT near the junction of US101 and SR20 (the “trail”), within the corridor (the “corridor”) shown on the attached map.

Objectives

The consultant, working jointly with the Peninsula Trails Coalition (“PTC”) and its volunteers, and Jefferson County Public Works, shall develop a preferred route for the trail within the corridor that is consistent with Jefferson County’s Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 8 of the County’s 2010 Non-Motorized Transportation & Recreational Trails Plan, and the goals stated in that Plan.

The consultant shall analyze the need, probable use, and benefits of the trail.

Evaluation Process

The consultant shall compose an evaluation process for identifying the preferred route for the trail, considering, among other things, topography; grades; natural features; length; infrastructure and utilities; access points; road and highway intersections and crossings; landowner and public agency acceptance (subject to negotiation of the terms of acquisition and use); probable effect on property values; nature of property control (fee simple, easement, etc.); security of infrastructure and facilities; buffer requirements; permitting; safety; emergency vehicle accessibility; aesthetics; user experience; views; convenience; habitat constraints; maintenance costs; maintenance responsibilities, including volunteer services; potential revenue sources associated with the trail; and connectivity to existing facilities and the communities.

The consultant shall evaluate a range of potential routes that can be developed at reasonable cost within the corridor, and following such evaluation shall identify a preferred route for the trail that is generally supported by the citizens of Jefferson County; is generally supported by user groups including the PTC; is acceptable to the landowners of the land over which the route runs (subject to negotiation of the terms of acquisition, development and use); minimizes environmental impacts; generally complies with AASHTO guidelines and other applicable trail design guidelines; is generally consistent with the Peninsula Trails Coalition’s ODT Trail Design standards; and is expected to cost an amount which is proportionate to its need and probable use.

The consultant shall prepare paper and electronic maps of the preferred route showing, among other things, trail locations (with precision sufficient for initial design); grades; required bridges, if any; sections, if any, exceeding grade guidelines that may require mitigation; road or highway crossings; lengths; property ownerships; zoning and land-use restrictions; probable logging dates; streams and wetlands; existing and planned amenities (water, trailheads, signage, toilets, etc.); views; infrastructure and utilities; steep slopes; significant topographical features; existing roads or trails; current and expected future usages; and legends.

Phasing

The consultant shall identify possible phases for design and development of the trail.

Cost Estimates

The consultant shall estimate the costs of acquisition, design, construction, maintenance, and infrastructure security for the preferred trail design and route.

Potential Funding Sources

The consultant shall identify potential sources of funding for the trail, including potential state, county, local, and federal funding sources; foundations; businesses; organizations; and individuals.  The consultant shall set forth the current schedules, if any, for funding applications. 

Public Participation

The consultant shall conduct interviews with community representatives, user groups, partner agencies, neighborhood residents, businesses, and neighboring property owners to identify issues and define desired plan outcomes, organizational goals, and priorities.

The consultant will use electronic means, including social media, to solicit public input.

The consultant shall plan, publicize and organize at least one open house to solicit ideas from citizens, potential users, adjacent property owners and other interested parties.  At the open house, route alternatives, graphics, cross-sections, and design components shall be presented to the public for feedback. The open house shall be a participatory session with the opportunity for community members to provide immediate feedback, and to develop a sense of public preferences about the function, design, alignment, and identity of the trail alternatives.  The consultant shall join with the PTC and its volunteers in making presentations regarding the preferred route at the open house.

Coordination with Other Public Entities

The consultant, together with the PTC and its volunteers, shall determine the support of other public entities (including the City of Port Townsend, Jefferson County PUD#1, WSDOT, Anderson Lake State Park, and the Department of Natural Resources) for the preferred route, and their willingness to coordinate with Jefferson County by developing and maintaining parts of the trail on their properties.

The consultant shall coordinate with the U.S. Forest Service and the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Advisory Council in planning the trail and identifying possible funding sources for the trail.

Site Visits

The planning process shall begin with a site visit and stakeholder meeting attended by the consultant.  Thereafter, the consultant shall visit the site as often as reasonably necessary to completely and accurately develop the preferred route for the trail.

Meetings with County

The consultant, together with the PTC and its volunteers, shall meet with County to obtain direction at key decision points, and shall meet at any other time reasonably requested by the County.  

Design Guidelines

The consultant shall prepare detailed trail design guidelines that incorporate AASHTO guidelines and other applicable trail design guidelines.  The design guidelines shall describe typical trail cross-sections, on-street treatments, trail/street intersections, creek crossings, road crossings, preferred trail surfaces, signing and pavement markings, lighting, drainage, wayfinding signage, photo examples of typical, appropriate designs.  The design guidelines shall incorporate a combination of proven designs, best practices, and trail design information on the ODT website (http://olympicdiscoverytrail.com/about_us/trail_design.html). The design guidelines shall include a glossary of terms, definitions of acronyms, and explanations of local jargon or unfamiliar terminology.

Final Report

The consultant shall provide a written final report that among other things describes the work performed; identifies in detail the need, probable use, and benefits of the trail; describes and maps the design and route for the trail, and explains in detail the reasons for its selection; identifies the property owners (public and private) who will accept the design and route on their properties (subject to negotiation of the terms of acquisition, development and use); identifies the most probable type of acquisition (fee simple, easement, etc); provides estimates of the costs of acquisition, design, construction and maintenance for each phase of construction; reports the results of the public engagement process; and includes detailed trail design guidelines.  The final report shall include an Executive Summary.  Twenty-five paper copies and an electronic copy of the final report shall be provided.

Eric promptly responded with a markup/redraft, which primarily added some technical language and shifted things around a bit:

Scope of Work

Olympic Discovery Trail Route Study

The following scope of work is for the preparation of a route study for a segment of the Olympic Discovery Trail (ODT) to be located in Jefferson County, Washington.  The corridor in which the segment will be located spans from the Milo-Curry Road terminus of the Larry Scott Trail to the SR-20/US 101 intersection.

Objective

The consultant shall develop a preferred route within the above defined corridor for the shared-use, Olympic Discovery Trail.  In conjunction, the consultant shall also analyze the need, probable use, and potential benefits of the trail.

Evaluation Process

The consultant shall compose an evaluation process for identifying the preferred route for the trail, considering, among other things, construction economy, topography and natural features; ADA/AASHTO requirements, etc.; length; infrastructure and utilities (?); access points; road and highway intersections and crossings; connectivity to existing facilities and communities; landowner and public agency acceptance (subject to negotiation of the terms of acquisition and use); probable effect on property values; nature of  right-of-way acquisition (ROW) (fee simple, easement, etc.); security of (existing?) infrastructure and (proposed?) facilities; trail user safety; buffer requirements; ease of permitting; habitat constraints; emergency vehicle accessibility; aesthetics; user experience; views; convenience;  maintenance responsibilities and associated costs; and potential revenue sources associated with trail construction and maintenance.

Deliverables

Utilizing the above evaluation process, the consultant shall identify potential route alternatives developable at a reasonable cost within the corridor and determine a preferred route alternative.  The preferred alternative shall be conceptually supported by the citizens of Jefferson County as well as acceptable to the subject landowners over which the proposed route runs (subject to negotiation of the terms of ROW acquisition, development and use).  

The consultant shall provide both paper and electronic documents detailing the preferred route which include, but are not limited to: trail (plan) location and stationing (with precision sufficient for initial design); cross sections; trail grades and associated features as required; necessary bridges and/or culverts; road crossings; property ownerships; zoning and land-use considerations/restrictions; probable logging dates (?); streams, wetlands, and/or other environmentally sensitive areas; existing and planned trail amenities (water, trailheads, signage, toilet facilities, etc.); views; existing infrastructure and utilities(?); significant topographical features, including steep grades; existing roads, trails and/or easements, etc.; current and expected future usages (?); and graphic scale/legend(s).

The consultant shall prepare a cost estimate including the costs of: required ROW acquisition; 100% PS&E preparation (including permitting); construction (including const. engineering); maintenance; and infrastructure security (?), for the preferred trail route.  The cost estimate shall also include an analysis of the expected cost as proportionate to trail need and probable use.

The consultant shall also prepare detailed trail design guidelines that incorporate AASHTO/ADA guidelines as well as other applicable trail design guidelines.  The design guidelines shall describe typical trail cross-sections, on-street treatments, trail/street intersections, creek crossings, road crossings, preferred trail surfaces, signing and pavement markings, lighting, drainage/stormwater, wayfinding signage, photo examples of typical, appropriate designs.  The design guidelines shall incorporate a combination of proven designs, best practices, and trail design information on the PTC - ODT website.  The design guidelines shall include a glossary of terms, definitions of acronyms, and explanations of local jargon or atypical terminology.

The consultant shall prepare a project schedule which includes necessary meetings with the County at key decision points.

Site Visits

The consultant shall begin the route study with a site visit and stakeholder meeting.  Thereafter, the consultant shall visit the site as reasonably necessary to adequately develop the preferred trail route per the above described criteria.

Phasing

The consultant shall identify possible phases for the design and/or development of the preferred trail route.

Potential Funding Sources

The consultant shall identify potential funding sources, including federal, state, county, and other local sources; foundations; businesses; organizations; and individuals.  The consultant shall set forth a current schedule(s), if any, for applicable funding applications, etc. 

Coordination with other Public Entities

The consultant shall coordinate with other public entities (including the City of Port Townsend, Jefferson County PUD#1, WSDOT, Anderson Lake State Park, and the Department of Natural Resources) to garner support to be utilized in arriving upon the preferred route, including their willingness to coordinate with Jefferson County by developing and/or maintaining (?) parts of the trail on their properties.

The consultant shall coordinate with the U.S. Forest Service and the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Advisory Council in identifying the preferred trail route and possible funding sources for the trail.

Public Participation

The consultant shall provide public outreach including, but not limited to, the following:

Conduct interviews with community representatives, user groups, partner agencies, neighborhood residents, businesses, and neighboring property owners to identify potential issues and define desired goals, priorities and results.

Use electronic means, including social media, to solicit public input.

Plan/organize, legally publicize, and facilitate at least one open house to solicit ideas from citizens, potential users, adjacent property owners, partner agencies and other interested parties.  At the open house, route alternatives, graphics, cross-sections, and design components shall be presented to the public for their feedback. The open house shall be a participatory session with the opportunity for community members to provide immediate feedback, and to develop a sense of public preferences about the function, design, alignment, and identity of the trail alternatives. 

Final Report

The consultant shall provide a written final report that describes the work performed. It will: identify in detail the need, probable use, and benefits of the trail; describe and map the design and route for the trail, and explain in detail the reasons for its selection; identify the subject property owners (public and private) whose property the preferred route will be located on (subject to negotiation of the terms of acquisition, development and use); identify the most probable type of acquisition (fee simple, easement, etc.); provide estimates of the costs of acquisition, design, construction and maintenance for each phase of construction; report the results of the public engagement process; and include the detailed trail design guidelines.  The final report shall include an Executive Summary.  Twenty-five paper copies and an electronic copy of the final report shall be provided.

Eric explained that the draft SOW will likely have to be further altered to fit into the County’s typical contract format.  He suggested that it might be useful to review his proposed changes to make sure we're on the same page.

A few days later Jeff Selby and I met with Eric to discuss the status of the project.  Among other things, Eric described the severe road problems in the west end that were requiring a lot of Public Works time, and the continuing need to address the Discovery Bay section funding before moving on to the Eaglemount project. 

I subsequently talked with Darryl Jennings at the RCO, who indicated that sooner or later its contract with the County would need to cover all three elements of the legislation:  planning, acquisition and development.  In response, I drafted and sent to Eric a form of RCO/County contract plus this “Project Summary and Scope of Work” for all three parts of the $1 million legislative authorization: 

Project Summary and Scope of Work

Planning, Acquisition, and Development -- Olympic Discovery Trail Project

This is a project summary and scope of work for planning, acquisition, and development of the Olympic Discovery Trail from Discovery Bay at the SR-20/US 101 intersection to the trail's intersection with the Larry Scott trail at Milo-Curry Road (the “trail”), in Jefferson County Washington (the “County”), within the corridor shown on the attached map (the “map”), utilizing a maximum of $1,000,000 of unused funds (the “funds”) appropriated for the Recreation and Conservation Office (the “RCO”) by Section 3026 of Washington Engrossed Substitute House Bill No. 2380, signed by the Governor on April 18, 2016.

The project shall be in three parts, as set forth below:  (1) planning;  (2) acquisition; and (3) development.

1.      PLANNING.

Planning for the trail will be carried out in accordance with RCO Manual 2, Planning Policies and Guidelines, dated March 2016 (the “planning manual”). 

Consultant

The County will engage a qualified trail planning consultant to plan a route for the trail.  The consultant will be selected from the Municipal Research Services Center (MRSC) Shared Rosters, utilizing the County’s established consultant selection process. 

Cost

The cost of route planning by the consultant shall not exceed $100,000. 

Objective

The consultant shall determine a preferred route within the above defined corridor for the shared-use, Olympic Discovery Trail.  In conjunction with determining a preferred route, the consultant shall analyze the need, probable use, and potential benefits of the trail.

Evaluation Process

The consultant shall compose an evaluation process for identifying the preferred route for the trail, considering, among other things, construction economy; topography and natural features; ADA/AASHTO guidelines, and any other applicable guidelines; length; existing infrastructure; access points; road and highway intersections and crossings; connectivity to existing facilities and communities; landowner and public agency acceptance (subject to negotiation of the terms of acquisition and use); probable effect on property values; nature of the right-of-way (“ROW”) acquisition (fee simple, easement, etc.); security for existing or planned infrastructure and facilities (such as the City of Port Townsend waterworks); trail user safety; buffer requirements; ease of permitting; habitat constraints; emergency vehicle accessibility; aesthetics; user experience; views; convenience; maintenance responsibilities and associated costs; and potential revenue sources (such as trail sponsor revenues).

Deliverables

Utilizing the above evaluation process, the consultant shall identify potential route alternatives developable at a reasonable cost within the corridor, and shall determine a preferred route alternative.  The preferred route alternative shall be conceptually supported by the citizens of the County as well as acceptable to the subject landowners over whose land the proposed route runs (subject to negotiation of the terms of ROW acquisition, development and use).  

The consultant shall provide both paper and electronic documents detailing the preferred route alternative which include, but are not limited to:  location and stationing (with precision sufficient for initial design); cross sections; trail grades and associated features as required; necessary bridges and/or culverts; road crossings; property ownerships; zoning and land-use considerations/restrictions; streams, wetlands, and/or other environmentally sensitive areas; existing and planned trail amenities (water, trailheads, signage, toilet facilities, etc.); views; significant topographical features, including steep grades; existing roads, trails and/or easements, etc.; and graphic scale/legend(s).

The consultant shall prepare a cost estimate including the costs of: required ROW acquisition; 100% PS&E preparation (including permitting), construction (including const. engineering), and maintenance.  The cost estimate shall also include an analysis of the expected cost as proportionate to trail need and probable use.

The consultant shall also prepare detailed trail design guidelines that incorporate AASHTO/ADA guidelines as well as other applicable trail design guidelines.  The design guidelines shall describe typical trail cross-sections, on-street treatments, trail/street intersections, creek crossings, road crossings, preferred trail surfaces, signing and pavement markings, lighting, drainage/stormwater, wayfinding signage, photo examples of typical, appropriate designs.  The design guidelines shall incorporate a combination of proven designs, best practices, and trail design information on the PTC - ODT website.  The design guidelines shall include a glossary of terms, definitions of acronyms, and explanations of local jargon or atypical terminology.

The consultant shall prepare a project schedule which includes necessary meetings with the County at key decision points.

Site Visits

The consultant shall begin the route study with a site visit and stakeholder meeting.  Thereafter, the consultant shall visit the site as reasonably necessary to adequately develop the preferred trail route per the above described criteria.

Phasing

The consultant shall identify possible phases for the design and/or development of the preferred trail route.

Potential Funding Sources

The consultant shall identify potential funding sources, including federal, state, county, and other local sources; foundations; businesses; organizations; and individuals.  The consultant shall determine whether funds can be used to meet match requirements for other potential funding sources.  The consultant shall set forth a current schedule(s), if any, for applicable funding applications, etc.

Coordination with other Public Entities

The consultant shall coordinate with other public entities (including the City of Port Townsend, Jefferson County PUD#1, WSDOT, Anderson Lake State Park, and the Department of Natural Resources) to garner support or commitments regarding the preferred route.

The consultant shall coordinate with the U.S. Forest Service and the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Advisory Council in identifying the preferred trail route and possible funding sources for the trail.

If the preferred route for the trail will have one or more sponsors in addition to the County (for example, if other local, state or federal agencies team up to provide financial support for the trail or to own specific parcels to be used for parts of the trail), the consultant shall identify the roles and responsibilities of each sponsor

Public Participation

The consultant shall provide public outreach including, but not limited to, the following:

Conduct interviews with community representatives, user groups, partner agencies, neighborhood residents, businesses, and neighboring property owners to identify potential issues and define desired goals, priorities and results.

Use electronic means, including social media, to solicit public input.

Plan/organize, legally publicize, and facilitate at least one open house to solicit ideas from citizens, potential users, adjacent property owners, partner agencies and other interested parties.  At the open house, route alternatives, graphics, cross-sections, and design components shall be presented to the public for their feedback. The open house shall be a participatory session with the opportunity for community members to provide immediate feedback, and to develop a sense of public preferences about the function, design, alignment, and identity of the trail alternatives. 

Final Report

The consultant shall provide a written final report that describes the work performed. It will: identify in detail the need, probable use, and benefits of the trail; describe and map the design and route for the trail, and explain in detail the reasons for its selection; identify the subject property owners (public and private) whose property the preferred route will be located on (subject to negotiation of the terms of acquisition, development and use); identify the most probable type of acquisition (fee simple, easement, etc.); provide estimates of the costs of acquisition, design, construction and maintenance for each phase of construction; report the results of the public engagement process; and include the detailed trail design guidelines.  The final report shall include an Executive Summary.  Twenty-five paper copies and an electronic copy of the final report shall be provided.

2.      ACQUISITION.

After expenditures of funds for planning, and following approval of acquisitions by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (the “BOCC”), remaining funds may be used by the County to acquire real property for the trail. 

County acquisitions for the trail will be carried out in accordance with RCO Manual 3, Acquisition Projects, dated February 4, 2016 (the “acquisitions manual”). 

Real Property Interests that May be Acquired

As set forth in the acquisitions manual, funds may be used be used by the County to buy land in fee or to buy an interest in the land, such as an easement.  Any acquisition of less than fee title must be for a minimum of  50 years. 

Survey

A professional survey is not required for acquisitions.  However, if a survey has been completed with RCO funding and the property is acquired successfully, the survey will be recorded with the county auditor and a copy provided to RCO.

Acquisition Procedures

As required by the acquisitions manual, the County will follow the acquisition procedures in RCW 8.26.180 and Chapter 468-100 WAC.

Acquisition Costs

Eligible acquisition costs are identified in RCO Manual 8, Reimbursements. 

  

Deed of Right

The County will record a Deed of Right on the title of the property acquired, conveying to the people of the State of Washington the rights to preserve, protect, and/or use the property for public purposes consistent with the grant program and the project agreement. A property boundary map for each parcel acquired will be filed with the Deed of Right.

Joint and Cooperative Projects

If the trail as planned and approved by the BOCC has one or more sponsors in addition to the County, the County shall be the primary trail sponsor.  Additional sponsors shall comply with the Washington Interlocal Cooperation Act, RCW 39.34, or shall execute an agreement, policy statement, or resolution in accordance with RCO requirements set forth in the acquisitions manual.

3.       DEVELOPMENT. 

After expenditures of funds for planning and acquisitions, approval of development by the BOCC, and demonstration to the RCO of control and tenure of the trail properties through fee title, leases, use agreements, or easements, any remaining funds may be used by the County for development of the trail. 

Development of the trail will be carried out in accordance with RCO Manual 4, Development Projects, dated March 2016 (the “development manual”). 

The County may develop the trail in phases, in accordance with the development manual.

Utilizing the County’s established selection process, the County will engage engineers and consultants to begin the preparation of site plans, schematic and final drawings, and normal structural, civil, mechanical, and electrical design work.

The “planning” section of this draft uses the statement of work for planning that Eric previously reviewed, which I edited per his comments and suggestions.  

PNNST Advisory Council Meeting

In early May, the 28-member PNNST Advisory Council, together with a dozen or more U.S. Forest Service staff working on the PNNST project, met for two days, plus a field day, at the Port Townsend Maritime Center.  Thus, fifty-Plus individuals (including spouses, etc) stayed in County hotels and motels, ate in County restaurants, shopped in County stores, etc, for three or more days.  The PNNST attendees likely spent up to $50,000 in the area, including the Marine Center rental charges.   This is a perfect  example -- even before the Eaglemount section is developed – of how the trail can contribute to the economies of the City and the County.

This directly relates to one of the key elements of the County’s planning study: the balancing analysis of the benefits of the trail as compared to the costs of the trail.  To move beyond planning, to acquisition and development, the County Commissioners will need to be convinced that the costs of the trail do not outweigh its benefits.

Finally, during the PNNST Advisory Council meeting, I made a brief presentation on the progress of funding for the Eaglemount section.  It seemed to be well received.  As the meeting progressed, however, it became evident that a few of the council members disfavored sharing the PNNDT with bicyclers. But towards the end of the meeting, the Council voted on appropriate uses for the National Scenic trail and overwhelming supported multiple uses, including horses, cyclists and hikers.   

There was no mention in the discussion about what the National Trails System Act states regarding potential PNNST uses (and possible limitations on uses).  The Act allows many kinds of uses on designated components of the trail, and requires that each segment of the trail shall be designed to "harmonize with and complement any established multiple-use plans for the specific area in order to insure continued maximum benefits from the land….”   I believe the Larry Scott Memorial Trail and the Eaglemount section of the ODT, are “established multiple-use plans for the specific area,” within the meaning of the Act.