Multiple Funding Sources for a DBET Planning Study Have Been Identified.

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.  The County and the project proponents are already in a position to address #’s (1) and (3); it is not clear what #(2) means, if anything, with respect to a trail planning project; the County and the trail proponents will need to further involve the community, through meetings, in-person and internet surveys, etc, to satisfy #(4): it will not be possible to prepare #(5) (a “capital improvement program") until after a feasibility study identifies a preferred route, but for the planning phase the amount needed to pay for a study can be determined; as to #6, the County should be willing to state that it approves of a feasibility study.

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.

---

The Key Property Owners are Willing to Consider Parts of the Trail on Their Properties.

The following have expressed their support for Jefferson County to include in its 2016-2021 Transportation Improvement Plan a planning/feasibility study for a multipurpose recreational trail that will safely link the Larry Scott Memorial Trail to the Olympic Discovery Trail.  (The entities marked with an asterisk (*) are property owners over whose land the trail could pass.)  

 

·      Pope Resources/Olympic Property Group *

·      Washington State Department of Transportation*

·      Jefferson County Public Utility District #1*

·      Washington State Parks Department* (oral support; waiting for letter)

·      City of Port Townsend*

·      Peninsula Trails Coalition

·      Backcountry Horsemen of Washington, Peninsula Chapter

·      Pacific Northwest Trails Association

·      Port Townsend Bicycle Association

·      Port Townsend Paper Company

·      Washington Bikes

·      Washington State Patrol, Port Angeles Detachment

In the past it could have been perceived that complex property ownerships in the area might prevent development of a bypass trail.  That is no longer a problem – if it ever was.

Here is a map showing property owners in the area between Four Corners Road and Highway 101 where a bypass trail might run:

  

An updated electronic copy of this map can be viewed at http://arcg.is/1JsPGUe .  

Most of the identified routes would pass over parts of properties owned by Pope Resources, Jefferson County PUD#1, the City of Port Townsend, Washington State Department of Transportation, and the Washington State Parks Department.  All of these owners have indicated that they are willing to consider parts of the bypass trail being on their property.  (An employee of the State Parks Department has orally indicated a letter to that effect to the County is forthcoming.)  For example, here is a copy of the letter from Pope Resources – the largest property owner in the affected area:

Many others join the property owners in support for including this project on the TIP.  For example, Sergeant John Ryan of the Washington State Patrol wrote the following to the County Engineer:

Dear Mr. Reinders:

I understand that Jefferson County Public Works is considering including in its draft 2016-2021 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) a feasibility study for a recreational trail link between the Larry Scott Memorial Trail, near Four Corners Road, and the new Discovery Bay South Trail near Highway 101 at the head of Discovery Bay.  This trail link would allow hikers, bicyclists and equestrians to bypass the dangerous section of State Route 20 over Eaglemount. 

As a Washington State Patrol sergeant that supervises troopers in Jefferson County, I wholeheartedly support the study and development of such a recreational trail.  My troopers regularly patrol SR 20 often observing cars, logging trucks, loaded chip trucks, motorhomes, trucks with trailers, etc, trying to navigate SR20 over Eaglemount while dealing with bicyclers and hikers and oncoming traffic. I myself was assigned to Jefferson County from 1999 to 2003 and patrolled SR 20 often so 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.

Thank you for considering my input on this.   

Warm regards,

Sergeant John Ryan

Washington State Patrol

Port Angeles Detachment

(360) 417-1738

Barb Chamberlain, the Executive Director of Washington Bikes, wrote:

Equestrians likewise support the request to include a planning study on the County's 2016 TIP:

Considering the broad support for the DBET project, including support from key property owners in the area, the County should include the project on its 2016-2021 Transportation Improvement Plan.

Five years, 328 days to go ....

Many routes for the Discovery Bay East Trail will work.

Here's a map showing a DBET feasibility-study corridor and four possible routes that would bypass that tough stretch of SR20 over Eaglemount: 

You can view an electronic copy of this Map at http://arcg.is/1KsIgpg. 

The kidney-shaped shaded area on the Map is the feasibility-study corridor that Jeff Selby and I have discussed with the City, JPUD, and State Parks, and that I have sent to WSDOT and Pope Resources. This is the area that we will ask the County to use for a feasibility study on its 2016 TIP.

The four route examples on the Map, from left to right, are:  

(1) SR20 / Fairmount -- shown with a dotted line alongside those roads.  (I'm colorblind and Dorothy is not here to help me with colors. I'll amend this post when I know what color the lines are.)  This route would be on the SR20 and Fairmount Road rights-of-way from Four Corners to Snow Creek.  Because of many extreme drop-offs on the west (downhill) side of the SR20 right-of-way over Eaglemount, I think the trail would have to run along the east (uphill) side of the highway.  I'm no engineer, but it looks to me like it would require a massive engineering project to hang a trail on the Discovery Bay side of SR20 between Anderson Lake Road and Eaglemount Road.

(2)  Anderson Lake / Fairmount -- shown with a dash-dot-dash line.  This route would cross the Jefferson Public Utility District property on Four Corners Road; run on the perimeter of Pope Resources' north section; cross Anderson Lake State Park; traverse Pope Resources' property south of Anderson Lake Road, running briefly next to the City waterline maintenance road; and then drop down to the SR20 and Fairmount Road rights-of way. 

(3)  Anderson Lake / Waterline / South Plateau -- shown with a dotdot-dash line. This route would start on JPUD's property; cut diagonally across Pope Resources' northern section; follow the City waterline up Sunset Lake Road and down Grouse Lane; cross Eaglemount Road to Pope Resources' south plateau; and connect via an existing switchback road to the SR20 and  Fairmount Road rights-of-way.  

(4)  Delanty Lake / Moa Hill -- shown with a dashed line that I'm pretty sure is red. This route would skirt Pope Resources' north section; cross Anderson Lake State Park; cross the DNR section south of Anderson Lake; run south on Pope Resources property past Delanty Lake and across Eaglemount Road; then north on Lucille M. Brown Trust property to Moa Hill. I haven't yet been in touch with anyone representing the LMBT.  

I included only these four routes on the Map because five is too many, and four is enough to show there are lots of ways to get there. 

A few more comments regarding the Map:

• I haven't (yet) included a legend on the Map because I can't find a way to create one.  I use a Mac, which isn't "supported" by ArcGIS.  Maybe that's the problem, or maybe there's a tool somewhere on the ArcGIS website which I haven't found, despite my internet research.  Dunno.  If anyone can help me, I'm asking.

• I believe that there are at least 10 routes, and many additional combinations/variations of those routes, within the feasibility-study corridor.  The four routes on the Map are only a few examples of possible routes.

• I included Gibbs Lake State Park in the study corridor because one of the stakeholders thought there was interest in connecting the ODT to Gibbs Lake.  I’ve also included Lind Road to the south because I can imagine ways to use that road to complete the link; and West Uncas Road because the PNT may use a parts of that road to access Olympic National Park. 

• I have not yet been to the City’s waterworks near City Lake, so I’ve drawn possible routes based only on map data, satellite photos, and oral descriptions.  The routes proximate to the City Lake waterworks are only guesses about what might work.  Obviously a professional study will do much better.  

• I have bushwhacked large parts of the hill/bluff/cliff above SR20  -- but not all of it.  In particular I have not walked the right-of-way section just below the City Lake waterworks so, again, at this point I’m just guessing it might work.

Presumably, all of these possible routes together with all of the other feasible routes will be the subject of a feasibility study by the County – assuming that this gets on the County’s TIP.  

We're only five days from September 22nd -- the date by which Public Works wanted information to justify including the DBET on the Public Works draft of the 2016 TIP.  At this point I think we can satisfy Public Works that there are feasible bypass routes. And I hope and expect that by the 22nd we can provide letters from the five major stakeholders (other than the County) -- Pope Resources, Jefferson PUD #1, Anderson Lake State Park, the City of Port Townsend and WSDOT -- expressing support for this link in the Olympic Discovery Trail; support for a feasibility study to be included on the County's TIP; and a willingness to participate in negotiations with the other stakeholders to try to come up with an agreed route, parts of which might cross their properties.  We'll see.

There are still five years, 343 days to go (I counted wrong in my last post), which seems like a lot of time but there's lots to do to get this done on time.  Let me know if you want to help.  

The Discovery Bay East Trail will be good for Jefferson County's economy.

A recreational trail bypass to avoid SR20 over Eaglemount would be very beneficial to the citizens of Jefferson County.  Obviously it would be safer for everyone from the County -- motorists and non-motorists alike -- to have recreational users off that section of the highway.  And a trail connection between the end of the Larry Scott Trail and the rest of the Olympic Discovery Trail would also be of great economic benefit to the County’s citizens.  Here are links an Adventure Cycling Association article – one of many describing the immense economic benefits to communities that are connected by recreational trails – entitled When Washington Bikes, It Brings Billions of Bucks: http://www.adventurecycling.org/resources/blog/when-washington-bikes-it-brings-billions-of-bucks-part-1/ (part 1);

http://www.adventurecycling.org/resources/blog/when-washington-bikes-it-brings-billions-of-bucks-part-2/ (part 2).  As reported in one of the studies cited in the Article:

• Bicycle riding is #3 in recreational activities by total expenditures in Washington state with over $3.1 billion spent statewide.

• Bicycle riding comes in as the fourth biggest recreational activity by measuring the total number of participant days occurring in Washington state.

• As compared to many activities where equipment purchases provide the significant economic impact to their activity, bicycle riders’ trip-related expenditures account for a whopping 96% of the economic impact of bicycling. This means that bicyclists like to contribute to local economies via shopping, lodgings, and eating. It underscores that bicyclists are “wallets on wheels.”

These stats are only for bicyclists.  A new recreational trail would also be used by equestrians, and by hikers, including those hiking the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (PNNST) – the newest trail in the federal scenic trails system.  The PNNST now runs from the ferry dock in Port Townsend, via Highway 20 (!) to West Uncas Road at the head of Discovery Bay. As two PNNST hikers recently explained at the end of the short interview below -- videoed after they took the risky walk over Eaglemount on Highway 20 -- the economic potential for Port Townsend from the PNNST is in jeopardy because the it is not yet safely linked to the Olympic National Park:

I'm working on some maps that I will post in the next few days, showing that there are many possible routes for the PNNST that will avoid SR20 over Eaglemount.  And Jeff Selby (of the PTC) and I have also been communicating with potentially affected property owners, seeking their support for inclusion of the DBET on the County's 2016 TIP.  I'll report on that soon.

Five years, 345 days to go.  

    

Topography is no problem for the DBET.

There are multiple Discovery Bay East Trail routes that avoid Highway 20.  One is a  route that could run from the Larry Scott Trailhead, east along Discovery Road and Four Corners Road, south on Jefferson County PUD property, then southeast across Pope Resources property to Anderson Lake State Park, then south through the Park to Anderson Lake Road, west along Anderson Lake Road, south on PUD, Pope Resources and City properties past Eaglemount, then south using State and County roads and right-of-ways to the head of Discovery Bay.  Here's a Map of this possible route:

You can view an electronic version of the Map at:

http://arcg.is/1isyUiC

The Map includes layers showing the proposed trail, property owners and easements, elevations and grades, topography, satellite imagery, and the USGS topo map.  Click OK when you get the "Error" message, then click "Content" and check the boxes to see the various Map layers.


This route would be excellent for the DBET because among other things it would be:

• Away from SR20 all the way to Eaglemount Road and then again at Fairmount Road
• Mostly quiet and pleasant for pedestrians, equestrians, cyclists and others seeking a tranquil and varied trail experience
• A good arterial to more specialized trails for horsemen, mountain bikers and hikers 
• Only occasionally under powerlines
• A direct connection to Anderson Lake State Park
• Possible to connect to other trails (such as the Rick Tollefsen Trail), parks (such as HJ Carroll Park and Gibbs Lake State Park), and communities (such as the Tri-Area and Port Ludlow) 
• Compliant with County, State and Federal design and grade requirements
• A relatively direct route for non-motorized tour groups, through-hikers on the Pacific Northwest Scenic Trail, and road bikers
• A route with some stunning views of Discovery Bay  

But this is not the only possible DBET route.  I'm working with Jeff Selby of the Peninsula Trails Coalition, and others, to try to get the County, together with the other stakeholders (the PUD, Pope Resources, State Parks, the City of Port Townsend, and the Washington Department of Transportation), to do a feasibility study the DBET.  Jeff and I will soon propose to the County and the other stakeholders a study "corridor" within which several possible routes can be found.  I'll post a map of this corridor soon.  Hopefully the County will include a feasibility study of possible corridor routes in its 2016 TIP, and the stakeholders and others in the community will work together to come up with the best possible route.  

Still five years, 353 days to go, but we've got to move fast to get the DBET done on time.

Watch this video of two cyclists who rode over Eaglemount on SR20 and survived.

Jeff Selby of the Peninsula Trails Coalition and I were out scouting possible DBET routes to bypass SR20 when we ran across -- whoops, wrong words -- we met two cyclists who were returning to Port Townsend via that road.  Check out what they had to say:

You can view the full interview of these two brave riders at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7daqXWQhRBk&feature=youtu.be.  

Here's the ditch they were talking about:

There's a sheer rock face right next to the ditch, with trees overhanging from the top of the cliff above.  Not good.

We need to get the DBET done.   Five years and 353 days to go.