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.