HomeMy WebLinkAbout052019_ra02 Department of Public Works
O Regular Agenda
Page 1 of 1
Jefferson County
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Request
To: Board of Commissioners
Philip Morley, County Administrator
From: Monte Reinders, Public Works Director / County Engineer
Agenda Date: May 20, 2019
Subject: Olympic Discovery Trail (ODT) - Discovery Bay to Larry Scott Trail
Connection, Route Report Briefing
Statement of Issue: Jefferson County has been awarded funds through the WA State
Recreation Et Conservation Office (RCO) for the planning, acquisition, and development of the
shared-use Olympic Discovery Trail (ODT). Phase 1 of the RCO grant funded a preferred route
report for new trail location between the end of the recently constructed segment of the ODT
along South Discovery Bay, and the Larry Scott Trail at Milo-Curry Road. We wish to brief the
board on the completed report.
Analysis/Strategic Goals/Pro's Et Con's: The goal of this report was to look for the most
appropriate route between the south end of the Larry Scott Trail and the ODT constructed in
Discovery Bay. A new multi-use trail for non-motorized travelers would solve the safety issues
posed by combining the use of State Route 20 with motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and
equestrians. Filling in this section of the ODT would complete the 30 year old vision of
connecting the communities of the North Olympic Peninsula from Port Townsend to La Push
with a 130 (+/-) mile long trail. This trail section would be incorporated into the 1,200 mile
long Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (running from Glacier National Park in Montana to
Qzette), and the 3,700 mile coast to coast Great American Rail-Trail.
Fiscal Impact/Cost Benefit Analysis: Funding for this planning project is through RCO. The
source is from unused funds appropriated for the RCO by Section 3026 of Washington
Engrossed Substitute House Bill No. 2380, signed by Governor Inslee on April 18, 2016. Local
match funds are not needed from Jefferson County.
Recommendation: No action required. This is a briefing which will include a discussion of
the recommended next steps.
Department Contact: John Fleming, P.E., Engineer, 385-9217
Reviewe•.:y: /
(41, ( / ems6_
• ilip Morley, o ty Administrator ) Date
End: ODT-E Route Report
Jefferson County, WA
OLYMPIC
DISCOVERY
TRAIL -
EAGLEMOUNT
ROUTES RECOMMENDATION
Image source: Alta Planning + Design
APRIL 26, 2019 JEFFER S O N CO
UNTYWASHIN G T ON
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
2
Replace this image, its not in
the trail area...
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to all the state and local agencies who have contributed to this
project, including Jefferson County, City of Port Townsend, Jefferson
County Public Utility District #1, Jefferson Transit Authority, Washington
State Parks, Washington State Department of Transportation, Washington
State Department of Natural Resources, Olympic National Park, the United
States Forest Service, and the Recreation and Conservation Office. We
also thank private landowners, in particular Pope Resources, who support
a multi-use trail which would safely bypass SR 20. Lastly we would like to
thank the Peninsula Trails Coalition and Eaglemount Trails Association for
their continuing commitment to this project. Thank you all for your insight,
comments and enthusiasm for this exciting project.
Image source: Alta Planning + Design
CONSULTANT TEAM
Alta Planning + Design
Steve Durrant, FASLA
Katie O’Lone, AICP, Senior Designer
Erin David, AICP, GIS Analyst
Raylee McKinley, Designer
Loving Engineering
Ahmis Loving, P.E.
Northwest Environmental
Consulting, LLC
Brad Theile
Emily Drew
JEFFER S O N CO
UNTYWASHIN G T ON
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
3
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................................... 2
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................... 3
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Ch 1 Project Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 11
1.1 Context .................................................................................................................................................. 12
1.2 Vision Statement ............................................................................................................................... 12
1.3 Goals & Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 13
1.4 Benefits of Developing the Connection .................................................................................... 14
1.5 Public Outreach ................................................................................................................................. 19
Ch 2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 25
2.1 Review of Background Documents ............................................................................................ 26
2.2 Site Character ................................................................................................................................... 30
2.3 Opportunities and Constraints .................................................................................................. 33
Ch 3 Alignment Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 35
3.1 Alignment Options .......................................................................................................................... 37
3.2 Alignment Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 37
Ch 4 Recommended Alignments .................................................................................................................. 45
4.1 Recommended Trail Alignments ............................................................................................... 47
4.2 Conceptual Design ......................................................................................................................... 54
4.3 Right-Of-Way Summary ................................................................................................................ 59
Ch 5 Permitting Overview .............................................................................................................................. 63
5.1 Regulatory Requirements ............................................................................................................. 64
5.2 Recommended Alignment Permitting Strategy ................................................................... 70
Ch 6 Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 81
6.1 Cost and Ease of Implementation .............................................................................................. 82
6.2 Phasing Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 83
6.3 Financial Strategy ........................................................................................................................... 84
Appendix A – Design Guidelines
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
4
Figure I Study Area ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Figure II Recommended Alignments ........................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2.1.1 Proposed Trails and Trail Connections .............................................................................. 27
Figure 2.1.2 Zoning ............................................................................................................................................ 28
Figure 2.3.1 Opportunities and Constraints ............................................................................................. 32
Figure 3.1.1 Alignment Options .................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 4.1.1 Recommended Trail Alignments .......................................................................................... 46
Figure 4.1.2 Recommended Trail Alignments – North Segment ...................................................... 48
Figure 4.1.3 Recommended Trail Alignments – Central Segment ................................................... 50
Figure 4.1.4 Recommended Trail Alignments – South Segment ...................................................... 52
Figure 4.2.1 Typical Trail Section ................................................................................................................. 55
Figure 4.2.2 Typical Trail Section – Constrained Conditions ............................................................ 55
Figure 4.2.3 Typical Trail Section - Sidepath ........................................................................................... 56
Figure 4.2.4 Typical Trail Section – Shared Lane ................................................................................... 57
Figure 4.2.5 Typical Trail Section - Shared Lane .................................................................................... 57
Table 3.2.1 Alignment Options Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................... 40
Table 3.2.2 Alignment Options Evaluation ............................................................................................... 42
Table 4.3.1 Right-Of-Way Summary ............................................................................................................ 60
Table 5.1.1 Permits Potentially Required ................................................................................................... 64
Table 5.2.1 Mitigation Ratio Requirements ............................................................................................... 78
Table 5.2.2 Permit Timeline ............................................................................................................................ 79
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
Discovery Bay
from the flanks of
Eaglemount
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Image source: Alta Planning + Design
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
6 Lorem ipsum Lo
rem LDISCOVERY BAY
PORTTOWNSENDBAY
DISC
O
V
E
R
Y
RHODYFOUR CORNERS
E
A
G
L
EMO
U
N
T
LARSON LAKE
IRONDALE
ANDERSON LAKE OAKBAYN E S S E S C O R N E R
FLAGLERBEAVERVALLEYCHIMACUMAIRPORT
CUTOFFCENTER WEST VALLEY ROAD ROAD0 1.0 2.0
MILES
Gibbs Lake
County Park
Anderson
Lake
State
Park
To Port Townsend
Ferry: 6.5 mi
Milo Curry Trailhead
Larry Scott Trail
Olympic Discovery Trail
To Kingston
Ferry: 25 mi
To Port Angeles
Ferry: 30 mi
To Kingston
Ferry: 20 mi
Chimacum
Four
Corners
Port
Hadlock
7.5 miles
19 miles
Discovery
Bay 20
101
101
104
19
20
101
Legend
Natural Features
Roads and Trails
Body of Water
Existing Olympic
Discovery Trail
Major Roads
Minor Roads
Existing Trailhead
On-Road ODT Alternatives
Parks and Preserves
FIGURE I STUDY AREA
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
7
SUMMARY
Location & History
In concept, the Olympic Discovery Trail
(ODT) runs for 130 miles across the
northern end of the Olympic Peninsula in
far northwest Washington. Advocacy for the
ODT began more than 30 years ago with the
goal of connecting Port Townsend to Forks,
and eventually LaPush on the Pacific Ocean
with an off-road multi-use trail. By 2018 the
ODT consisted of approximately 70 miles of
paved and unpaved trail, and 60 miles of on-
road connections.
In 2016 the Peninsula Trails Coalition and
a collection of advocates and stakeholders
sought funding for the subject of this
report - the Eaglemount segment of the
ODT. In 2016 the state legislature passed an
Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2380 which
authorized the use of funds to be managed
by the Washington State Recreation and
Conservation Office (RCO) to provide for trail
planning, acquisition, and development.
This report
outlines the design
and planning
process used
to select the
recommended
routes for the
Olympic Discovery
Trail - Eaglemount
between the
end of the Larry
Scott Trail and
Discovery Bay.
Background
research, field work
and a site analysis
were completed
to help develop
alignment options.
Each option was
evaluated leading
to the selection of
the recommended
routes.
Purpose
The purpose of the Olympic Discovery Trail
- Eaglemount Route Recommendation Study
is two-fold:
• To find potential off-road multi-use trail
alignments connecting the Larry Scott
Trail at the Milo Curry Road trailhead
to the recently completed ODT segment
at the southern tip of Discovery Bay
(Figure I).
• To recommend design guidelines and
priorities for implementation.
This report includes a description of the
recommended alignments and the rationale
for selecting them. References are made to
a companion document that details design
guidance found in Appendix A. The report
is a snapshot in time of a dynamic situation.
As more information is gathered, route
alternatives other than those recommended
in this report may be pursued.
Sweeping views of Discovery
Bay from the study area.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
8
Background
Jefferson County developed the 7.3 mile long
Larry Scott Trail from Port Townsend to the
Milo Curry Road Trailhead over 24 years
from 1989 to 2012. The Larry Scott Trail is
largely within an abandoned rail corridor,
has a gravel surface and is intended for use
by people walking, riding bicycles and riding
horses. More recently, Jefferson County
completed a 3,800-foot paved segment of the
ODT on the west shore of Discovery Bay. The
county’s 1998 Comprehensive Plan and other
long-range plans have called for completion
of the ODT, including references to closing
the gap addressed in this study.
The current route of the Olympic Discovery
Trail and the Pacific Northwest National
Scenic Trail for this segment takes users
on State Route 20 for more than 6 miles
from Four Corners Road to Highway 101 at
Discovery Bay. State Route 20 is characterized
as a narrow, curving, two-lane highway,
with guardrails, stretches with little to no
shoulders, abrupt drops from the edge of
pavement into steep drainage ditches, and
grades up to 6%. Traffic volumes are between
5,000 and 6,000 annual average daily trips
(AADT), increasing at more than 5% per year,
including a large proportion (more than 8%) of
commercial trucks. The posted speed limit is
50 miles per hour.
Cross-country cyclists, some of whom have
ridden thousands of miles on highways
across the US, have characterized this
segment of their long-distance journey as the
most terrifying.
Approach
This study defines the overall goals, design
guidelines and approach to developing a
premiere regional multi-use trail.
The study assessed existing conditions,
including identification of existing trails
that could connect or link the corridor, land
uses and ownership patterns in the study
area, existing rights-of-way, environmentally
sensitive areas, steep and unstable slopes,
and safety hazards.
Larger regional connections and potential
destinations were identified. Community
input was gathered on existing conditions in
an open house.
Alignment options were evaluated based on
criteria such as length of segment, aesthetic
appeal, proximity to desirable destinations,
physical constraints of the terrain, natural
and cultural resource values, development
cost, available right-of-way, land use and
property ownership.
The Larry Scott Trail runs
from the Port Townsend
waterfront to a trailhead near
Four Corners.
right: Northbound State Route
20 near Fairmount, 0.4 miles
from US-101, 50 MPH, as little
as 4 inches from fog line to
pavement edge
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
9
Recommendation
As a result of this study the ODT-E was
divided into three segments (North, Central,
and South) with three feasible alternative
alignments identified within each segment.
With further study and negotiation with
property owners, it is anticipated that a final
alignment will link the most appropriate
alternative from each segment to complete
an approximately 10-12 mile long trail
connection.
Several dramatic challenges are met with
the alternative alignments, including steep
slopes, streams and wetlands, crossing the
highway and accommodating commercial
forest uses. The benefits that will be realized
include a safe passage through the region’s
premier landscape with panoramic views
over icons of the Pacific Northwest, providing
a transportation and recreation resource
for locals and visitors, health and economic
benefits for the community and the nation.
At this early planning stage, with the exact
locations of the trail yet to be determined,
the costs of construction are very difficult to
estimate.
Further study can help refine the alignment
to reduce acquisition and development costs.
FIGURE II RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENTS
S
u
ns
et
CreekMoon Creek
Pope
Pope
Pope
Somerville
Pope
PopePope
Pope
Pope
Pope
Pope
Pope
Port Authority
Port
Anderson Lake State Park
Fire District
Jeff Co Transit
Port
Pope
40ac 1000’1/2mi 1mi
Exis�ng Trail
Alignment A
Alignment B
Alignment C Discovery BayKey North SegmentCentral SegmentSou t h S e g m e n t
Bentley Place
E Uncas Road NMoa Hill RoadOl
ympic Highway SR101SR 20Fairmount RoadF a ir m o u nt Road
Eagl
emount
RoadS R 2 0
City Lake
Sunset Lake
Moon Lake
A nde rso n L ake Road
Anderson Lake
DNR
Anderson Lake
State Park
Gibbs Lake Beausite Lake
Gibbs
Lake
County
Park
Delanty Lake Sunset Lake Road (private)City of Port
Townsend
Four Corne
r
s
Road
S Discovery Road
Adelma Reach RoadCity of Port
Townsend
Jefferson
Co PUD
Uncas
Discovery Junction
Woodmans
Adelma Beach
Four Corners
Port Townsend Water LineL
a
rr
y
S
c
o
tt Trail
Grouse LaneMine GulchFairmount
Fairm
o
u
n
t Hi
ll RdWoodman-Fairmount Road
Snow CreekSalmon CreekOlympic Discovery Trail
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
10
Exploring the
study area near
Anderson Lake
State Park
11
NOT USED
DRAFT 11/12/2018
PROJECT
OVERVIEW
Image source: Alta Planning + Design
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
12
1.1 CONTEXT
Setting
The northern Olympic Peninsula is an iconic
landscape bounded by the Strait of Juan de
Fuca at the foot of the Olympic Mountain
Range. Port Townsend at the northeast corner
of the peninsula is the seat of Jefferson
County, and for many visitors the beginning
of their adventure, whether arriving by ferry,
bicycle or by private vehicle. To the west
in neighboring Clallam County, the cities
of Sequim, Port Angeles and Forks, and
nearby small towns provide waypoints and
important destinations including Olympic
National Park, the ferry to Victoria, BC, Lake
Crescent and LaPush at the Pacific Ocean.
The Olympic Discovery Trail, envisioned
decades ago, will eventually make the 130-
mile connection from Port Townsend to
LaPush. The Eaglemount section of the trail
will also be part of the Pacific Northwest
National Scenic Trail, connecting Olympic
National Park to Glacier National Park.
Population Growth and Development
The 2017 population of Jefferson County was
31,200, growing modestly since the 2010 census.
Port Townsend accounts for approximately one
third of the county’s population.
Tunnel under
South Discovery
Road on the Larry
Scott Trail
Demographics
In addition to the economic, transportation
and recreation benefits of the proposed
Olympic Discovery Trail - Eaglemount
(ODT-E), groups without access to a vehicle
will benefit from nearby access to a new
recreation and transportation resource that
does not require driving to enjoy.1 Children,
the elderly and those without vehicles account
for a significant proportion of the county’s
population: 34% are over age 652 and more
than 11% of the households in the county
include an individual over the age of 65, living
alone. Over 40% of people aged 65-74 have
obesity.3 23% of the population are children
under 18 years of age, and 80% have health
risk behaviors related to insufficient physical
activity. 10% of youth have obesity.
ENDNOTES
1 Burghard, M & Knitel, Karlijn & van Oost, Iris & S.
Tremblay, Mark & Takken, T. (2016). Results From the
Netherlands’ 2016 Report Card on Physical Activity for
Children and Youth. Journal of Physical Activity and
Health. 13. S218-S224. 10.1123/jpah.2016-0299. [https://
bit.ly/2Z8vKqA]
2 Washington State Department of Public Health
(2017). Jefferson County Chronic Disease Profile, DOH
345-344, . https://bit.ly/2DaFV4u
3 McKee MD, Alexis & Morley, MB, BCh., John E,
Obesity in the Elderly (2018). https://bit.ly/2UhdffK
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
13
1.2 VISION STATEMENT
The vision of this study is to determine, in
coordination with the community and trail
advocates, the most advantageous routes
to provide an off-highway multi-modal trail
connection between the Larry Scott trailhead
at Milo Curry Road and the Olympic
Discovery Trail at Discovery Bay.
1.3 GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Goal: Safety - Provide an alternative
to state and local highways for active
transportation
• Move recreational users off Highway 20,
making the highway safer for motorists
and providing a safe route for trail users
between Four Corners Road and the head
of Discovery Bay.
• Develop a continuous multi-use trail,
meeting best-practice design guidelines,
including roadway crossings.
• Accommodate maintenance, security and
emergency vehicle access.
Goal: Mobility - Provide active
transportation options
• Improve multi-modal access for people
of all ages and abilities to the Olympic
Discovery Trail.
• Promote physical activity and
environmentally sustainable
transportation networks.
• Connect the ODT to local recreational
opportunities.
Goal: Accessibility - Provide
opportunities to experience the trail for many
user groups
• Develop a continuous multi-use trail
accessible to people walking, hiking,
riding bicycles, equestrians, and
wheelchair users.
Goal: Provide an exceptional user
experience
• Improve the transportation and recreation
trips on the Olympic Discovery Trail by
providing new opportunities and direct
access to the possibilities offered by the
Olympic Peninsula, Port Townsend, and
Discovery Bay areas.
• Incorporate natural and cultural resource
stories of the area in the design of the
trail (scenic views, interpret natural and
cultural assets) to provide an enjoyable
and enriching experience.
Goal: Economic - Provide opportunities for
economic benefits
• Contribute to the development of a
regional amenity that will attract people to
the Olympic Peninsula.
• Use the trail to promote local activities,
events, and businesses in Port Townsend
and Jefferson County.
• Identify cost-saving design options and
construction strategies.
• Provide opportunities for residents to
increase their personal active lifestyles
and decrease vehicle trips.
Goal: Land Use - Develop a public amenity
that is compatible with adjacent land uses
• Work with local partners and the
community to identify an accessible
alignment for the trail.
• Accommodate the needs of the property
owners adjacent to the trail.
Goal: Public Support - Respond to the
general local, regional and statewide call for a
continuous ODT
• Develop a recommended alignment that
is supported by the community as well as
state and local agencies.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
14
1.4 BENEFITS OF
DEVELOPING THE
CONNECTION
Introduction
Will the Olympic Discovery Trail -
Eaglemount (ODT-E) connection provide
safety for both motorists and non-motorists,
new and enhanced access to outdoor
recreation opportunities, offer more
opportunities for physical activity and
associated community health benefits,
support local economies through tourism
spending, provide low-stress utilitarian/
transportation mobility, and reduce
impacts on the natural environment?
Trails can improve the quality of life for
the communities they connect, and foster a
sense of appreciation and stewardship for the
natural environment, and for the history and
cultures they are tied to. More residents using
trails and pathways results in fewer crashes
between pedestrians/bicyclists and motor
vehicles, improving safety for trail users and
decreasing costs to local governments.1
The following section provides an overview
of how trails can provide these benefits.
Economic Benefits
Trails provide a host of outdoor recreational
opportunities for exercise and enjoyment
including casual strolls, hiking, biking,
skating, fishing, bird-watching, horseback-
riding, and sightseeing. These recreational
benefits translate into real dollars in terms of
tourism/visitor spending and job creation.
Outdoor recreation contributes more than
$26.2 billion in consumer spending to
Washington’s economy every year. Across
Washington, outdoor recreation supports
201,000 jobs, generates $2.3 billion annually
in state and local tax revenue, and produces
$7.6 billion in wages and salaries. 72% of
Washington residents participate in outdoor
recreation each year.2 On the Olympic
Peninsula, outdoor recreation contributes
$1.6 billion in annual expenditures and
growing, accounting for more than 12% of all
employment.3
Bicycling generates approximately $133
billion per year nationwide. In the Pacific
Region (WA, OR, HI, AK, CA) recreational
bicycling contributes $15 billion to the
regional economy, supports 135,000 jobs,
generates $1.9 billion annually in state and
federal tax revenues, produces $10.4 billion
in retail sales and services, $1.4 billion in
bicycling gear sales and services, and $9.0
billion in bicycling trip-related expenditures
Field evaluation of possible
trail alignments.
More residents
using trails
and pathways
results in fewer
crashes between
pedestrians/
bicyclists and
motor vehicles,
improving safety
for trail users and
decreasing costs to
local governments.1
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
15
every year. Nearly 30% of the adult population
in the Pacific Region participates in the
bicycling economy.4 Trails create 23% more
jobs than road construction-only projects per
$1 million spent.5
Creating complete, connected trail systems
is key to unlocking these benefits in local
communities. A study conducted in Atlanta
found that filling 72 miles of priority gaps
in the regional trail network would generate
up to $135,000 in benefits annually, for
every mile of trail constructed.6 The ODT-E
will close a key gap in the overall trail
system, attracting a wider array of users
who will spend more time and make greater
expenditures in the region.7
Tourism benefits for small local
businesses
Studies of key regional trails in rural areas
around the country have consistently found
strong positive economic impacts for small
towns along trails. In Oregon, a statewide
study concluded that bicycle tourism has
a particularly large effect in small towns,
especially when associated with major
events.8 A study of a 31-mile trail running
through small towns in rural Louisiana found
estimated annual economic benefits of $3.4
million for direct spending and $3.9 million
for indirect spending related to the trail.9 The
60-mile Schuykill River Trail in Pennsylvania,
part of the Circuit Trails system, has a direct
economic impact of $7.3 million.10
A study of the Virginia Creeper Trail, a
34-mile rail-trail in rural southwest Virginia
found that the promotion of trail-related
recreation and tourism is a viable strategy
for local economic growth. Connecting to
an extensive, destination trail system can be
especially beneficial for small towns, as the
study found that tourists who visit for the
primary purpose of using the trail and stay
overnight account for almost five times as
much stimulated economic output as those
who do not stay overnight.11 Bicycle tourists
may stay longer than the average tourist; a
Montana study found that bicyclists spend $76
per day and stay an average of eight nights
in the state. The study noted that building
facilities separated from vehicle traffic helps
to attract bicycle tourists, as safety was the top
priority of this type of tourist.12
Businesses consistently attribute part of their
economic success to the presence of trails.
The Great Allegheny Passage trail runs 150
miles from Pittsburgh, PA to Cumberland
MD. 45 businesses in the small towns along
the trail were surveyed. Of the 18 businesses
planning to expand, 67% cited the trail as a
factor in their decision-making. On average,
businesses attributed 41% of their business
to the trail.13 In Clallam County, the North
Olympic Discovery Marathon alone brings
between $500,000 and $1 million each year.
Benefits to local residents
Trails provide a financial benefit to local trail
users. The Virginia Creeper Trail study found
that user net economic value for recreation
access to the trail was approximately $24-38
per person per trip.
In many small towns, trailheads served
as community focal points and gathering
places in each city, further benefiting local
residents.14
Property values
Trails typically have a positive impact on
local property values.15 Homes located
near trails often have 5%-10% higher values.
Houses in higher walkable areas are worth
up to $34,000 more than similar houses in
areas with moderate walkability/bikeability.16
In rural Methow Valley, Washington, homes
within one-quarter mile of trails experienced
a 10 percent price bump.17
...investments in
maintenance and
expansion of regional
trails [on the Olympic
Peninsula] will
translate into benefits
in health and property
value for residents
and increase the
attractiveness for
new residents and the
additional economic
development that they
bring.
Peninsula RTPO Economic
Impacts of Regional Trails,
ECONorthwest (2018)
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
16
Physical Activity and Community
Health Benefits
19% of adults in Washington are physically
inactive, and 26.4% of adults are obese.18
Trails provide excellent opportunities to
increase physical activity and improve
community health decreasing the risk of
cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes,
hypertension, depression, and other illnesses.
This results in a significant reduction in
direct healthcare costs, and bears increased
significance for aging communities. In fact,
every $1 spent on bike trails and walking
paths saves an estimated $3 in health costs.19
Enhancing access (for example, by building
a bike path to encourage physical activity),
is correlated with some of the highest
life expectancy gains, and demonstrates
high cost-effectiveness when compared to
infrastructure costs and other community-
based physical activity interventions.20
Creating accessible opportunities for people
to exercise is essential for improving health.
When residents have access to safe places
to walk within 10 minutes of home, they are
one and a half times more likely to meet
recommended activity levels than those who
don’t have access to safe places to walk.21 In
rural, southeastern Missouri, trails increased
exercise particularly among people most at
risk of inactivity, those who are not regular
walkers, have a high school education or less,
or who earn under $15,000 per year. Trails
that are at least a half mile long, paved, or
located in the smallest towns were associated
with the largest increases in exercise.22
Comprehensive trail systems can give
people new access to outdoor recreation
opportunities in ways that improve health
and reduce the costs and burdens of health
care. For example, in Southeast Wisconsin,
the Route of the Badger offers new access
to outdoor recreation, with the potential for
improved physical activity and a savings
in direct health-care costs of over $22.4
million.23
Transportation Benefits and
Opportunities
When trails connect local and regional
destinations, they can provide incredible
transportation utility for everyday trips taken
by foot or bike. If more trails were available
for everyday transportation this would result
in reduced congestion, fuel consumption,
vehicle emissions, and household
expenditures for vehicle ownership and
The Larry Scott
Trail provides
access from Port
Townsend to the
northeastern end
of the ODT-E study
area.
When residents
have access to
safe places to
walk within 10
minutes of home,
they are one and
a half times more
likely to meet
recommended
activity levels than
those who don’t
have access to safe
places to walk.21
The Larry Scott Trail
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
17
operation and maintenance.
Many everyday travel needs could be met
by biking and walking, if safe facilities were
available:
• 11.9% percent of all trips taken in the
U.S. are made by walking and biking
(6.9 percent to 9.6 percent in rural
communities)
• 50% of all trips in the U.S. are under 20
minutes by biking (3 miles)
• 28% of all trips in the U.S. are under 20
minutes by walking (1 mile)
• In urban areas, 53% of trips are under 3
miles or less (20% of trips are 1 mile or
less)
• In non-urban areas, roughly 37% of all trips
are 3 miles or less (20% of trips are under
one mile)24,25
Environmental Goals and Benefits
Trails are tied to a host of environmental
benefits, including reduced emissions
and improved air quality, enhanced water
quality, energy independence, preservation
of ecologically-sensitive areas, flood
mitigation, wildlife habitat preservation, and
environmental stewardship.
The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy estimates
that by 2030, short trips by walking or
biking could amount to $7.3-$14.8 billion in
fuel savings, and $126-$218 million in CO2
emissions reductions nationally.26
A local equestrian
group estimates
most horse traffic
use on the ODT-E
would be in winter
when mountain
trails are covered
in snow, and roads
are inaccessible
to trailers. Up to
50 group members
may make horse
trips per winter
month, in addition
to non-member
equestrian use.
Port Gamble Forest Trail,
Kitsap County.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
18
ENDNOTES
1 Grabow, M., M. Hahn, and M. Whited. 2010. Valuing
Bicycling’s Economic and Health Impacts in Wisconsin.
The Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies Center
for Sustainability and the Global Environment at
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
2 Outdoor Industry Foundation. Outdoor Recreation
Economy Report. 2017. https://outdoorindustry.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/07/OIA_RecEcoState_WA.pdf
3 ECONorthwest, Peninsula RTPO Economic Impacts
of Regional Trails (2018).
4 Outdoor Industry Foundation. 2006
Active Outdoor Recreation Economy Report.
2006. www.outdoorfoundation.org/pdf/
ResearchRecreationEconomyBicycling.pdf.
5 Garrett-Peltier, Heidi. Pedestrian and Bicycle
Infrastructure: A National Study of Employment
Impacts. Political Economic Research Institute.
University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 2011.
6 Atlanta Regional Commission. Envisioning A
Regional Trail Network. https://cdn.atlantaregional.
org/wp-content/uploads/arc-trailsreport-webview.pdf.
7 ECONorthwest, Peninsula RTPO Economic Impacts
of Regional Trails (2018).
8 Dean Runyan Associates. 2013. The Economic
Significance of Bicycle-Related Travel in Oregon:
Detailed State and Travel Region Estimates, 2012.
Prepared for Travel Oregon.
9 Hagen Thames Hammons. 2015. Assessing the
Economic and Livability Value of Multi-Use Trails: A
Case Study into the Tammany Trace Rail Trail in St.
Tammany Parish, Louisiana. https://www.railstotrails.
org/resource-library/resources/assessing-the-
economic-and-livability-value-of-multi-use-trails-a-case-
study-into-the-tammany-trace-rail-trail-in-st-tammany-
parish-louisiana/?q=benefit&a=All&t=All&s=All&g=All
10 Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. 2016. 2016 State
of the Trails Report. https://www.railstotrails.org/
resourcehandler.ashx?name=2016-state-of-the-trails
report&id=10558&fileName=2016%20State%20of%20
the%20Trails%20Report
11 Bowker, J. Michael; Bergstrom, John C.; Gill, Joshua
2007. Estimating the economic value and impacts of
recreational trails: a case study of the Virginia creeper
rail trail. Tourism Economics, Vol. 13(2): 241-260 https://
www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/27561
12 Nickerson, N., J. Jorgenson, M. Berry, J. Kwenye,
D. Kozel, J. Schutz. 2013. Analysis of Touring Cyclists:
Impacts, Needs and Opportunities for Montana.
University of Montana College of Forestry and
Conservation’s Institute for Tourism and Recreation
Research, Research Report 2013-17.
13 Trail Town Program. Trail User Survey and Business
Survey Report: Great Alleghany Passage. 2015 https://
www.railstotrails.org/resourcehandler.ashx?name=trail-
user-survey-and-business-survey-report-great-
allegheny-passage&id=7313&fileName=2015-GAP-
Report.pdf
14 Hagen Thames Hammons. 2015. Assessing the
Economic and Livability Value of Multi-Use Trails: A
Case Study into the Tammany Trace Rail Trail in St.
Tammany Parish, Louisiana. https://www.railstotrails.
org/resource-library/resources/assessing-the-
economic-and-livability-value-of-multi-use-trails-a-case-
study-into-the-tammany-trace-rail-trail-in-st-tammany-
parish-louisiana/?q=benefit&a=All&t=All&s=All&g=All
15 Headwater Economics. Measuring Trails
Benefits: Property Value. 2016. Measuring Trail
headwaterseconomics.org/wp-content/.../trails-library-
property-value-overview.pdf
16 Cortright, J. Walking the Walk: How walkability
raises home values in U.S. Cities. CEOs for Cities. 2009.
17 Resource Dimensions. 2005. Economic Impacts
of MVSTA Trails and Land Resources in the Methow
Valley. Methow Valley Sport Trails Association.
18 America’s Health Rankings. https://www.
americashealthrankings.org/explore/2016-annual-
report/measure/Obesity/state/WA
19 American Heart Association. 2011. Value of
primordial and primary prevention for cardiovascular
disease. http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/124/8/967
20 Roux, Larissa, et al. Cost Effectiveness of
Community-Based Physical Activity Interventions.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Volume 35,
Issue 6, Page 578-588. 2008. http://www.ajpmonline.org/
article/S0749-3797(08)00770-8/fulltext#tbla1)
21 Places to Walk: Convenience and Regular Physical
Activity, American Journal of Public Health, 2003
22 Brownson, R., R. Housemann, D. Brown, J.
Jackson-Thompson, A. King, B. Malone, and J.
Sallis. 2000. Promoting Physical Activity in Rural
Communities:Walking Trail Access, Use, and Effects.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 18(3): 235-
242.
23 2016 State of the Trails Report. Rails-to-Trails
Conservancy. https://www.railstotrails.org/
resourcehandler.ashx?name=2016-state-of-the-trails
report&id=10558&fileName=2016%20State%20of%20
the%20Trails%20Report
24 League of American Bicyclists. Highlights from
the National Household Travel Survey. 2009. www.
bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/2009_NHTS_Short_
Trips_Analysis.pdf
25 Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. Active Transportation
Beyond Urban Centers: Walking and Bicycling in Small
Towns and Rural America. 2011. www.railstotrails.
org/resource-library/resources/active-transportation-
beyond-urban-centers-report/
26 Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. Quantifying the
Benefits of Active Transportation. 2009. https://www.
railstotrails.org/policy/active-transportation-for.../
quantifying-benefits/
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
19
Engineering consultant,
Ahmis Loving answered
questions at the open house in
April 2018.
1.5 PUBLIC OUTREACH
Open House #1
An open house was held on April 12th, 2018
to discuss the development of an off-road
bypass of State Route 20 for the Olympic
Discovery Trail from Discovery Bay to the
Larry Scott Trail in Port Townsend. An
overflow crowd of more than 120 people
attended the meeting held at the Jefferson
County Transit building. Attendees were able
to provide feedback through comment cards,
leaving notes on the maps and conversations
with staff. 66 comment cards were completed
by participants. In addition, for those that
could not attend, comments were collected
via email throughout the month. Below is
a summary of the survey responses and
comments received via email and in person
at the open house.
Open house participants
learning about the trail.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
20
Are there places you visit or bring
friends and family?
The most popular destinations among survey
respondents include Anderson Lake State
Park and nearby trails, Discovery Bay and
Gibbs Lake, with more than 25 responses
noting at least one of these locations. Other
locations mentioned include Tamanowas
Rock Sanctuary, Chimacum, the DNR trails
south of Anderson Lake State Park and at
least one response mentioned that they prefer
any corridor off of Highway 20.
Are there stories, historic sites or
significant features to explore?
Several responses noted Tamanowas Rock
Sanctuary and Anderson Lake State Park as
being significant to the area. Most responses
to this question listed more than one location
or feature, including those listed below.
• Tamanowas Rock
• Anderson Lake State Park
• Discovery Bay
• Wildlife viewing (eagle and osprey nests,
elk) and fishing
• Sites of geologic interest
• Gibbs Lake
• Eaglemount
• Jamestown Cliff sites
• Wooded trails
Walking, biking, horseback riding and other
were all marked as current uses for the Larry
Scott Trail, with walking and biking making
up the majority of responses. Horseback
riding is a popular activity in the area and
riders expressed concern about the inclusion
of this use in survey responses. Responses for
“other” primarily noted running as another
use of the trail.
How do you use Larry Scott Trail now?
Do you have guests visit the trail?
More than half of those who completed the
open house survey noted that they bring
guests to the trail or direct them to the trail
when visiting.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
21
Other locations
mentioned include
Tamanowas Rock,
Chimacum, the
DNR trails south
of Anderson Lake
State Park and at
least one response
mentioned that
they prefer any
corridor off of
Highway 20.
Have you ridden or walked on
Highway 20 between Discovery Bay
and Four Corners?
The overwhelming majority do not ride or
walk on Highway 20 citing it as a dangerous,
narrow and heavily trafficked road with no
shoulder or way for vehicles to safely pass
bicycles or pedestrians. The majority of
respondents expressed fear of the highway
whether from experience bicycling or
walking along it or based on driving the
highway.
What would make this journey fun and
convenient for you?
Several people listed additional amenities
as something that would make their journey
more fun, while others listed safety and
access to the trail as important. Below is a list
of all responses:
• Picnic tables, benches, and hitch rails for
equestrians
• Well maintained trails to draw local and
out of town users
• Safety
• A less stressful route such as Center Road
to Highway 101 or 104
• Changing scenic views, open spaces and
forests
• Combination of valley scenery and bay
scenery
• A separate trail, not sharing the road with
vehicles
• A gentle grade
• The majority of respondents prefer an
unpaved trail, suitable for horseback
riding, although a few responses
suggested a paved trail
• Complete connection between Discovery
Bay and Larry Scott Trail
• Bathrooms
• Wide trail
• Concessions available at Anderson Lake
State Park
• Use transmission line right of way
• One respondent wanted to ‘keep people
away from my property’
• Supporting independent businesses
• A path that follows the ridge through
Anderson Lake and DNR logging land
• Access for surrounding communities
• Opportunities to exercise
Steve Durrant, ODT-E
project director at Alta
Planning + Design, discusses
trail alignment with the
overflow open house crowd.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
22
Additional comments?
• “Moved to be near the trail!”
• Concerns about future meeting [room]
capacity and [meeting] direction
• Concern about trail being too close to
private property
• How can the community get involved/
help?
• “What about access from Cape George to
Larry Scott?”
• “Let’s make it happen!”
• Use power line access, Pope properties to
connect Anderson Lake and Gibbs Lake
• Concern about the trail grade being too
steep
• Vital to local economy!
• Consider Center Road
• Trails at Anderson Lake don’t cover
enough distance for most riders
(horseback)
• A safer way to get around
• Potential concerns about hunting season
and proximity to the trail
• “Please don’t spend money on over-
planning when we need to acquire
property for the trail”
Many participants arrived
at the open house by bike.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
23
General Comments (Email
Responses):
Overall, email responses were in support of
the trail and expressed concerns about the
safety of Highway 20. Below are key themes
from email responses.
• Unleashed dogs on the current trail are a
problem for some users
• Many private landowners are concerned
about the trail potentially crossing their
property and suggest that the land should
stay on government owned land.
• Suggestion made that the trail should
utilize the City Lake Reservoir area.
• One response requested special
consideration for motorcycle riders and
suggest that they utilized some existing
trails.
• An email response noted that they often
travel out of the area to find safer places to
ride their bikes and expressed a general
frustration with the area’s trail options.
• Concern about paving the Larry Scott
Trail
• Interest in making trail safe for families
• Steep hills may be challenging for some
• Consider how nearby home-owners might
access the trail without having to travel on
the highway
• Shuttle service suggested to create a
temporary connection for users.
Open house, where
many expressed
excitement about
the future trail.
One attendee said
they even “moved
to be near the
trail!”
Additional Meetings
As of the publication of this report, no
additional public meetings had been
scheduled.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
24
Extensive field evaluation was
made by the team and trail
advocates.
25
NOT USED
DRAFT 11/12/2018
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
Image source: Alta Planning + Design
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
26
2.1 REVIEW OF BACKGROUND
DOCUMENTS
Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan
Consistent with the requirements of the
Growth Management Act, Jefferson County’s
former 2004 Comprehensive Plan included
the following language:
The vision for the Larry Scott Memorial
Trail is to provide future generations
with a safe, non-motorized recreation and
transportation corridor connecting Port
Townsend with rural Jefferson County. As
proposed, the route extends approximately
seven miles from the Port of Port
Townsend Boat Haven to Four Corners
Road. The long-term vision is to extend the
trail to Discovery Bay and eventually to
points further west.1
In accordance with this stated vision, the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
formerly included specific trail plans
that bypassed SR 20. The current 2018
Comprehensive Plan, consistent with the
Growth Management Act, refers to Goals
and Policies for trails and refers to the Parks
& Recreation Open Space Plan, updates
adopted in 2015.
Jefferson County Non-Motorized
Transportation & Recreational Trails
Plan
In 2010, the County Non-Motorized
Transportation & Recreational Plan was
updated, and included the following
language under the heading 8.1 Multipurpose
trails:
c. Develop multipurpose trail systems
that connect to major destinations across
county and state jurisdictional lines, such
as the Olympic Discovery Trail and the
Pacific Northwest Trail.
h. Develop multipurpose trails as separate
improvements within a shared road or
former railroad right-of-way alignment,
such as the Olympic Discovery Trail (ODT)
within the former right-of-way of the Seattle
& North Coast Railroad (S&NCRR), to the
extent amenable to adjoining property
owners and as necessary to complete
access.
i. Locate multipurpose trails as separate
improvements within easements across
public and private lands, such as extending
the Olympic Discovery Trail across
Department of Natural Resources and Pope
Resources timberlands and Department
of Fish and Wildlife shoreline properties,
where private property owners are in
agreement and environmental affects are
addressed.2
The County Non-Motorized Transportation &
Recreational Plan, also included the following
description of multipurpose trails:
Multipurpose trails may be developed
to link major environmental assets, park
and recreational facilities, community
centers, and historical features throughout
Jefferson County and with adjacent
jurisdictions. Generally, multipurpose trails
may be developed to provide for one or
more modes of recreational and commuter
travel including hiking, biking, equestrian,
and other non-motorized trail uses where
appropriate.
To the extent possible, multipurpose
trails may be developed within corridors
separate from vehicular or other
motorized forms of transportation. For
example, multipurpose trails may be
located on former railroad alignments,
utility easements or in separate property
alignments. In some instances, the trail
may be developed as an improvement
within the right-of-way of established
vehicular or other transportation corridors.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
27
south end of Discovery Bay, and US-101.
Optional routes include utility easements
and old railroad grade.
• 1e ODT – Forest and Lakes Route: Four
Corners - Anderson Lake State Park
– Multipurpose trail from Four Corners
south on utility easements and across
forestland to Anderson Lake State Park.
• 1f ODT – Forest and Lakes Route:
Anderson Lake – Discovery Bay –
Multipurpose trail from Anderson Lake
State Park south on utility easements,
forestlands, and county roads to US-101 at
the south end of Discovery Bay. 4
LEGEND
Existing
1a ODT - Larry Scott Memorial Trail
Proposed
1b ODT - Larry Scott Memorial Trail -
Extension
1c ODT - Utility Route to Anderson Lake
Road
1d ODT - Utility Route to Discovery Bay
1e Forest and Lakes Route to Anderson
Lake State Park
1f ODT - Forest and Lakes Route to
Discovery Bay
1g ODT - Discovery Bay to Clallam
County.
FIGURE 2.1.1 PROPOSED TRAILS AND TRAIL CONNECTIONS
Typically, multipurpose trails may be
developed in accordance with Washington
State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) and American Association of
State Highway & Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) guidelines. Multipurpose trails
may provide 2-way travel on asphalt, very
fine crushed rock, compact dirt, or other
base of varying widths. The trails may
be usable by all age and skill groups, and
handicap accessible. 3
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
The County Non-Motorized Transportation
& Recreational Plan specifically described
four route alternatives for a multipurpose trail
from Four Corners Road to Discovery Bay
(Figure 2.1.1):
• 1c ODT – Utility Route: Four Corners
to Anderson Lake Road – Multipurpose
trail from Four Corners south on utility
easements parallel to SR-20 to Anderson
Lake Road.
• 1d ODT – Utility Route: Anderson Lake
Road to Discovery Bay– Multipurpose
trail from Anderson Lake Road on
optional routes to Fairmount Road, the
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
28
Jefferson County 2019-2024
Transportation Improvement Plan
Jefferson County’s 2019-2024 Transportation
Improvement Plan (TIP), adopted on
November 5, 2018 includes the South
Discovery Bay to Larry Scott Trail Olympic
Discovery Trail (ODT) - Connection,
described as::
“Complete a preferred route report, begin
PS&E development, SEPA, and right-of-way
appraisal and acquisition.”5
Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan
In 2002, the Jefferson County
Commissioners adopted the Parks,
Recreation & Open Space Plan. The plan
included the following provisions in regards
to trail systems:
• a: Create a comprehensive system
of multipurpose off-road trails using
alignments through former MSP&P
Railroad, Pope Resources, WSDOT,
DNR, and USFS landholdings as well
as cooperating private properties where
appropriate.
• b: Create a comprehensive system of
on-road bicycle routes for commuter,
recreational, and touring enthusiasts
using scenic, collector, and local road
rights-of-way and alignments throughout
Port Townsend and Jefferson County, and
between Jefferson, Clallam, and Kitsap
Counties.6
The 2015 Update of the Parks, Recreation &
Open Space Plan states:
The Olympic Discovery Trail will extend
from the end of the Larry Scott Trail at Four
Corners on SR 20 around the southern end
of Discovery Bay to Clallam County. 7
Jefferson County Zoning
Zoning in the ODT-E study (Figure 2.1.2)
area includes Neighborhood Commercial,
Rural Residential, Parks/Preserves/
Recreation, Rural and Industrial Forest, and
Airport classifications. Multi-use trails are a
permitted use in all of these classifications.
FIGURE 2.1.2 ZONING
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
29
Other City, County, State and Federal
Trails
Jefferson County’s Parks, Recreation & Open
Space Plan Update 2015 describes its plans
for the Rick Tollefsen Trail between Hadlock
and H.J. Carroll Park. 8 The Rick Tollefsen
Trail is now complete and once the ODT-E is
completed, the Rick Tollefsen Trail could link
to the Olympic Discovery Trail at Anderson
Lake State Park.
The ODT-Eaglemount connection could also
connect to trails, now in the conceptual stage,
from the Hood Canal Bridge which in turn
could connect to Kitsap County’s “String
of Pearls” trail system and on to other state
trails to the east and south. 9
This section of SR 20 has been designated
as link in the Pacific Northwest National
Scenic Trail (PNNST)10 which connects east
to Whidbey Island via the Port Townsend
ferry and south to the Olympic National Park.
The same section has been identified as the
Olympic Discovery Trail’s (ODT) connection
from the head of Discovery Bay to the Larry
Scott Memorial Trail from Port Townsend. 11
ENDNOTES
1 Jefferson County. Open Space, Parks and Recreation,
and Historic Preservation Element. 2004. https://
www.co.jefferson.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/664/
Chapter-6---Open-Space-Parks-and-Recreation-and-
Historic-Preservation-Element-PDF
2 Jefferson County. Non-Motorized Transportation
& Recreational Trails. 2010. https://www.co.jefferson.
wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/960/Chapter-8---Goals-
and-Objectives-PDF
3 Jefferson County. Non-Motorized Transportation
& Recreational Trails. 2010. https://www.co.jefferson.
wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/961/Chapter-91---Multi-
Purpose-Trails-PDF
4 Jefferson County. Non-Motorized Transportation
& Recreational Trails. 2010. https://www.co.jefferson.
wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/961/Chapter-91---Multi-
Purpose-Trails-PDF
5 Jefferson County. 2019-2024 6-Year TIP. 2018.
https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/DocumentCenter/
View/6752/2019-2024-TIP-Project-List-Only-
ADOPTED?bidId=
6 Jefferson County. Parks, Recreation & Open
Space Plan. 2002.https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/
DocumentCenter/View/684/Parks-Recreation-and-
Open-Space-Plan-PDF
7 Jefferson County. Jefferson County Parks, Recreation
& Open Space Plan Update 2015. 2015. countyrec.com/
forms/6081_final_draft_jefferson_co_pros_062915_
final.pdf
8 Jefferson County. Jefferson County Parks, Recreation
& Open Space Plan Update 2015. 2015. countyrec.com/
forms/6081_final_draft_jefferson_co_pros_062915_
final.pdf
9 Bozeman, Cary and Springgate, Lee. Port Gamble’s
Kitsap Forest and Bay Project. 2015.wshg.net/
featured/2015-05-14/port-gambles-kitsap-forest-and-
bay-project/
10 Pacific Northwest Trail Association. Pacific
Northwest Trail Maps. https://www.pnt.org/pnta/maps/
11 Peninsula Trails Coalition. Olympic Discovery Trail
Route. 2018. https://olympicdiscoverytrail.org/explore/
interactive-map/
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
30
Views from the ridges.
Thick brush in project area.
2.2 SITE CHARACTER
Quimper Peninsula
The Quimper Peninsula is a narrow
peninsula forming the most northeastern
extent of the Olympic Peninsula of
Washington state. The peninsula is
named after the Spanish explorer Manuel
Quimper. The Quimper Peninsula is the
most economically developed and densely
populated part of Jefferson county with
Port Townsend as the only incorporated
city. The communities of Cape George, Port
Hadlock, Irondale, and Chimacum are on the
peninsula south of Port Townsend.1
Chimacum, just south of Port Hadlock and
three miles east of Discovery Bay, was the
location of the Chem-a-kum tribe.2 The
S’Klallam people living in the Discovery
Bay area are represented by the Jamestown
S’Klallam Tribe.3
Geology
The Olympic Peninsula is a relatively newer
piece of the west cost with the oldest rocks
approximately 50 million years ago. The
intersection of piece’s of the earth’s crust,
erosion of water, and advancing and retreating
of ice sheets formed the peninsula.4
Glaciation
Within the ODT-E study area, evidence of
glaciation can be found in large glacial erratics
(granite boulders), scoured bedrock outcrops,
glacial outwash soils, and the long north/
south ridges so visible in the LiDAR landform
mapping used as a base for many maps in this
report. The resulting landforms are long steep
ridges reaching over 900 feet in elevation at
Eaglemount summit overlooking City Lake
(elev. ~610ft) and often varies by hundreds of
feet vertically within very short distances. In
fact, the topography of the region has defined
travel patterns throughout human habitation
and recorded history.
From clearings on the ridges and highpoints
dramatic panoramic views can be found
of the Straits of Juan de Fuca, the Olympic
Mountains, the Cascade Range and the
surrounding landscape.
The vegetation of the region includes
commercially valuable second and third
growth coniferous and deciduous forests,
occasional old growth trees, modest meadows
and prairies, and wetlands typical of the
northeastern edge of the Olympic Peninsula.
In some places, thick underbrush and dense
commercial tree plantations can result in
entirely enclosed forests with no views.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
31
As a factor in multi-use trail planning, the
terrain, geology, soils and vegetation of
the study area provide great opportunities
for scenic enjoyment, interpretation, and
resource enhancement. The existing
conditions also present challenges in steep
slopes, slope stability, and blocked views.
“That was the
most terrifying
piece of highway
I can honestly
say I’ve ever
ridden, and I’ve
ridden in New
Zealand, Mexico,
U.S., Europe …
You’ve got a bad
ditch and you’ve
got the road …
I’m surprised
there aren’t more
accidents and
fatalities on this
road. … I thought
I was going to
die. I’m not over-
exaggerating, I
thought this is, this
is, my moment.”
Two Port Townsend
residents
State Route 20 has a posted
speed limit of 50 mph but
many vehicles may travel
faster.
State Route 20
Washington State Route 20 is a two-lane
highway with approximately 6,000 average
annual daily traffic and a posted speed limit
of 50 miles per hour. The curving roadway
has minimal to no shoulders, guardrails and
advisory speeds in some sections of 35 miles
per hour. SR20 is centered in a right-of-way
that varies from 60’ to 100’ wide. Much of the
road right-of-way in the study area includes
very steep side hills with cliffs or extreme
slopes adjacent above and/or below the
roadway. The right-of way for SR 20 is too
narrow to allow for a sufficiently separated
path or trail facility. Even if a trail could in
some way be constructed next to the highway
with a series of very-expensive walls and
bridges, it would not provide an experience
comparable to that provided throughout the
rest of the Olympic Discovery Trail in terms
of user experience, safety and immersion
in the natural environment. On-road
designation is not a suitable alternative in
the SR 20 right-of-way. In addition, feedback
received from the public indicated a general
negative desire for the Olympic Discovery
Trail - Eaglemount (ODT-E) to be included
within the SR 20 right-of-way due to safety
and overall user experience.
ENDNOTES
1 Wikipedia. Quimper Peninsula. https://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Quimper_Peninsula
2 McClay, Daryl C. Jefferson county. 2005. http://www.
historylink.org/File/7472
3 Hartmann, Glenn and Montgomery, Marcia, Cultural
Resource Consultants, Inc. Technical Memo 1120F-1a.
2011.
4 Clark, Welden and Clark, Virginia, The Dungeness
River Audubon Center. Geology of the Olympic
Peninsula. 2015. http://dungenessrivercenter.org/park/
climate/geology-of-the-olympic-peninsula
20
20
20
101
101
104
0 0.5 1.0MILES
ANDERSONLAKE STATEPARK
GIBBSLAKECOUNTY PARK
L
ARRY
S
COTT
T
RAI
L
Olympic Discovery Tra i l
DISCOVERY BAY
AL
D
R
I
C
H
104-101NORTHBOUND10THOLALLACOHOWESTVALLEYB
AYCLIFF
CHERRYHILTON
P R O S P E C T
8TH9THHOLLANDKINKAIDPARKRIDGE
LIND
BL
A
Z
E BEATTIEPINECREST
WOODLAND
LILLIANMILOCURRYENGELLEWISSWANEY
KALA
POINT
UNC
A
S
LLAMABLACKBEAR ST JAMES
KEYSTONECAST
I
L
L
O
CUB
AERIE
G ENEAIRPORT
HONEYMOONEGG AND I CREEKVIEWRI
DGEVIEWBERRYHILLMA
R
TIN
GIBBSLAKEBENTLEY SHIKAOLDEAGLEMOUNTWYCOFFADELMA BEACHMCNEILPETERSONGROUSEMA
L
A
MUTEKENNEDY
SN
AG
S
T
EAD
SOMMERVILLE
F A I R M OUNT OLDGARDINERWINDRIDGE
BEAU S I T E LAKEWOODSTOVENAYLOR CREEKSUNSETLAKEVANTROJENDISCOV
E
R
Y
RHODYE
A
G
L
EM
O
U
N
T
CENTERA
I
R
PO
R
T
CU
TO
F
F
ANDERSON LAKE RD.
FOUR CORNE
R
S
R
D
.CAPEGEORGEDiscoveryBay
Four Corners
Legend
Natural Features
Roads and Trails
Parks and Preserves
Body of water
Erosion Hazard
Unstable Slope
Landslide Hazard
High Landslide Hazard
Wetlands
Exis�ng ODT
Major Roads
Minor Roads
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
32
FIGURE 2.3.1 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
Wetland buffering and
mitigation required.
Existing utilities may
require structural and
security improvements.
Forest management
areas.
Municipal drinking water
protection concerns.
State Route 20 is a curving,
high-speed roadway without
adequate accommodations for
trail users.
Old RR alignment
has passed out of
public ownership
and is prone to
landslides and
erosion.
Anderson Lake
is a destination.High points provide
sweeping views.
Existing trail
below powerline
maintains open
view
County owned
park.
Wetland buffering and
mitigation required.
Forest management
areas.
Curving & steep
highway.
Homes and
shellfish farm
on old RR grade
along shore.
Forest management
areas.
New Jefferson County
Transit Regional
Facility w/ park-and-
ride and bike barn.
Steep
slopes.
Steep
slopes.
Steep slopes (and
cliffs), unstable soils,
erosion hazards and
landslide hazards are
typical.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
33
2.3 OPPORTUNITIES AND
CONSTRAINTS
The team used Jefferson County Geospatial
Information Systems (GIS) data for land use,
ownership, natural and cultural resources
and hazards to map opportunities and
constraints to trail construction in the study
area (Figure 2.3.1). Opportunities to link
the trail to other natural resources such as
parks were indicated on this mapping as
well. Roadways are included to show possible
connections. Wetland areas are included for
consideration of both the opportunities for
views and other recreational opportunities
as well as the possible limitations they may
require to trail development. Additional field
work was conducted to provide more fine-
grained evaluation in limited areas.
The study area includes
large tracts of private and
public commercial forest.
Coordinating trail alignment
with forest management
practices is a key
consideration in selecting a
recommended alignment.
The current link in the
Olympic Discovery Trail
across the study area
follows over 7 miles of
State Route 20.
State Route 20 has very
narrow shoulders not
suitable for equestrian and
pedestrian use, and unsafe
for people riding bicycles.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
34
opposite: Fairmount
Road, at the
southwestern end of
the study area is a low-
volume local road.
35
NOT USED
DRAFT 11/12/2018
ALIGNMENT
ALTERNATIVES
Image source: Alta Planning + Design
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
36
FIGURE 3.1.1 ALIGNMENT OPTIONS
S
u
n
s
et
CreekMoon Creek
Pope
Pope
Pope
Somerville
Pope
PopePope
Pope
Pope
Pope
Pope
Pope
Port Authority
Port
Anderson Lake State Park
Fire District
Jeff Co
Transit
Port
Pope
40ac
1000’1/2mi 1mi
Exis�ng Trail
Alignment A
Alignment B
Alignment C Discovery BayKey North SegmentCentral SegmentSou t h S e g m e n t
Bentley Place
E Uncas Road NMoa Hill RoadOl
ympic Highway SR101S R 20Fairmount RoadF a ir m o u nt Road
Eagl
emount
RoadS R 2 0
City Lake
Sunset Lake
Moon Lake
A n d ers o n La ke R o a d
Anderson Lake
DNR
Anderson Lake
State Park
Gibbs Lake Beausite Lake
Gibbs
Lake
County
Park
Delanty Lake Sunset Lake Road (private)City of Port
Townsend
Four Corners Road
S D iscovery Road
Adelma Reach RoadCity of Port
Townsend
Jefferson
Co PUD
Uncas
Discovery Junction
Woodmans
Adelma Beach
Four Corners
Port Townsend Water LineL
a
r
r
y
S
c
o
tt Trail
Grouse LaneMine GulchFairmount
Fairm
o
u
n
t Hill RdWoodman-Fairmount Road
Snow CreekSalmon CreekOlympic Discovery Trail
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
37
3.1 ALIGNMENT OPTIONS
More than 100 miles of potential alignments
were explored by the project team, client,
or advocates, in search of the optimum
connections.
The alternatives mapped and evaluated in
this study represent a shortlist of contiguous
segments that connect the main destinations,
providing a way to compare and ultimately
select a recommended alignment for further
study, acquisition and design.
The potential alignments were divided into
segments, which traverse between four
destinations: The Larry Scott Trail, Anderson
Lake State Park, Eaglemount Road and the
ODT at Salmon Creek. These alignment
options are illustrated in Figure 3.1.1.
North Segment: Options A through C
This group of alignments are alternatives
that provide access between the Larry Scott
Trail at its terminus at Milo Curry Road
Trailhead through Anderson Lake State Park
to Anderson Lake Road. Trails would be
improved within Anderson Lake State Park
in a separate design exercise conforming
to Washington State Parks practices. The
options use state and county road ROW,
Jefferson Transit Authority and Jefferson
County Public Utility District properties,
Washington State Parks, and residential and
commercial forest parcels.
Central Segment: Options A through C
This group of alternatives provide access
between Anderson Lake State Park and
Eaglemount Road traversing commercial and
private forest land, City of Port Townsend
property, county road ROW, Washington
State Parks, WA State Department of Natural
Resources parcels, and rural residential
parcels.
South Segment: Options A through C
This group of alternatives provide access
between Eaglemount Road and the end of
the previously designed extension of the
Olympic Discovery Trail on the southwest
side of Discovery Bay. The options use
county and state road ROW, commercial
forest, and rural residential parcels.
3.2 ALIGNMENT EVALUATION
Alignment selection criteria were
developed in response to the grant funding
requirements, county policies, and trail
design guidelines. The selection criteria were
based on the following considerations:
• Space to build a multi-use trail, generally
separated from traffic, suitable for people
riding bicycles, equestrians and people
walking.
• Favor public agency lands, and roadway
and utility rights-of-way
• To minimize impacts and the need
for mitigation for impacts to protected
resources
• Observe wetland and stream permitting,
and mitigation policies
• Minimize construction on unstable slopes
and soils
• Avoid shoreline and in-water impacts
• Avoid the need for the county to exercise
the right of eminent domain for right-of-
way acquisition
• Work closely with commercial forest
operators to identify alignments with the
least impact on forest operations
• Minimize potential for visual intrusion or
access inconvenience to neighboring land
uses
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
38
Areas Eliminated from Consideration
Areas eliminated from consideration exhibit
some level of encroachment on these criteria
that the project team does not believe can be
effectively mitigated, or a resulting alignment
alternative would be clearly inferior in one
or more ways to other alternatives under
consideration.
As described in section 2.1, State Route 20
and its shoulders are not suitable for the trail.
The curving, narrow, uphill stretch of SR 20
at Eaglemount is not possible for horsemen,
strollers, mobility impaired persons using
walkers or wheelchairs, rollerbladers, etc.
A matrix was developed based on the goals
and objectives, and the priorities defined
in the project scope to identify the critical
elements of the alignment options for each
segment. Table 3.2.2 displays how each of the
alignments rated for each of these criteria.
Criteria:
• Safety (roadway crossings, length on or
adjacent to roadways, off-highway)
• Right-of-Way Acquisition (existing
public land, private ownerships that have
expressed interest in cooperation, private
ownerships that have express lack of
support, private ownership with unknown
interest in development of the trail)
• Environmental Impacts (conflict with
noted environmental constraints landslide
hazard, steep slope, wetland, streams or
open water, etc.)
• Accessibility for people with mobility
challenges (slope of the trail and
suitability of use by mobility devices)
• Cost (need for bridges, tunnels, retaining
walls, constructibility)
right: Fog line painted
near edge of pavement
on SR 20.
• Length (relative length of segment)
• Land Use (conflicts with existing uses –
residential, commercial, agriculture, forest
management, permitted hunting, etc.)
• User Experience (scenic views,
access/connections to destinations,
environmental conditions of trail (sun/
shade/wind direction/noise)
• Vertical Change (relative elevation
change)
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
39
Old railbed alignment along Discovery Bay
water’s edge: This area was eliminated for
multiple reasons. Much of the old rail bed
between Anderson Lake Road and Fairmount
Road has been degraded and eroded and is
prone to further erosion and other hazards,
including flooding. Tidal scouring affects
this shoreline, requiring significant fill and
armoring to restore and reinforce the grade.
Work and fill would be required in Discovery
Bay necessitating complex permitting and
mitigation. Following abandonment of the
railroad in the 1980’s the entire right-of-
way reverted to abutting land owners or
other right-of-way title holders who have
incorporated the property into residential
development. Several of the parcels have
residences or other structures constructed on
them. Acquisition, permitting, construction
and maintenance complications are
prohibitive.
“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, hikers,
and oncoming
traffic. I myself was
assigned to patrol
SR 20 often so I
know firsthand how
dangerous it is…”
Sergeant John Ryan,
Washington State Patrol, Port
Angeles Detachment
The “long way around” (via Four Corners/
Rhody/West Valley/Center Roads and
Routes 104/101): This alignment has been
eliminated from further consideration for
two primary reasons: the overall route
distance is excessively long (19 miles)
without significant interim destinations
to justify the length of the route. It would
increase the time commitment by trail users
without a significant increase of experiential
opportunities. Secondly, trail in this
alignment would be placed on or adjacent
to high-speed, high-volume roadways and
shoulders. This alignment would significantly
increase safety risk, including more than 120
driveways and road crossings, and diminish
user experience throughout the journey.
left: Eroded shoreline at
former rail alignment.
right: SR 104 south of the
study area. (image: Google
Streetview)
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
40
TABLE 3.2.1 ALIGNMENT OPTIONS EVALUATION CRITERIA
Title Description Less suitable Suitable Desirable Excellent
Safety
Roadway crossings, length
of exposure to driveways &
roadways
Most
crossings &/
or roadway
sections
Many
crossings &/
or roadway
sections
Some
crossings &/
or roadway
sections
Least
crossings &/
or roadway
sections
ROW &
Acquisition
Existing public land or private
land (Length through private
ownership)
Most private,
unknown or
uninterested
Private,
interested
Public &
private,
interested
Most public
land / ROW,
fewest private
Environmental
Impact
Conflict with noted
environmental constraints
(landslide hazard, steep slope,
wetlands, etc.)
Many
constraints
requiring
mitigation
Some
constraints
that can be
mitigation
Limited
constraints
Fewest
constraints
Accessibility
for People
with Mobility
Challenges
Access & suitability for people
using mobility devices
Extreme
measures to
achieve ADA
(rock cutting)
Moderate
measures
required
(switchbacks)
Long climbs Flat or short
climbs
Cost
Need for bridges,
tunnels, retaining walls -
constructibility
Very difficult
conditions
More than
one difficult
situation
Some
additional
construction
required
Clear sailing
Length Relative length of segment Longest
segment
Moderately
long segment
Moderately
short segment
Shortest
segment
Land Use
Conflict with existing uses
(residential, commercial,
utilities, forest management,
hunting, ORV, etc.)
Conflicts
with land use
that can't be
mitigated
Conflicts with
many land
uses that can
be mitigated
Conflicts with
some land
uses that can
be mitigated
Fewest
conflicts with
other uses
User Experience
Scenic Views, Access/
connections to destinations,
environmental conditions
of trail (shade, sun, wind
direction, noise)
Least pleasant No drama Handsome
passage
Great route &
destinations
Vertical Change Relative elevation change.
Feet of climbing
Most elevation
change
Moderate
elevation
change
Some
elevation
change
Least
elevation
change
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
41
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
42
TABLE 3.2.2 ALIGNMENTS
EVALUATION North Segment
Title Description A B C A B C A B C
Safety
Roadway crossings, length
of exposure to driveways &
roadways
2 crossings (SR-20 & 4 Corners Rd), 0.5 miles along Discovery & 4 Corners RdW
2 crossings (Discovery Rd & SR-20), 0.6 miles on Adelma Bch Rd & along SR-20
2 crossings (SR-20 & 4 Corners Rd), 1.3 miles along Discovery & 4 Corners Rd
1 crossing (Anderson Lake Rd), 0.5 miles along Grouse Ln
1 crossing (Anderson Lake Rd), 0.2 miles along Eaglemount Rd
2 crossings (Anderson Lake & Eaglemount Rd), 6.6 miles along Gibbs Lake, W. Valley, W. Egg & I, Eaglemount, Old Eaglemount Rd
3 crossings (Eaglemount, SR-20, Fairmount Rd), 2.7 miles along Eaglemount, Woodman-Fairmount, Fairmount Hill, Fairmount Rd, SR-20, US-101
3 crossings (Eaglemount, SR-20, Fairmount), 1.5 miles along Eaglemount, Fairmount Hill, Fairmount Rd, SR-20, US-101
1 crossing (Eaglemount Rd), 1.1 miles along Eaglemount, E. Uncas Rd, US-101
ROW &
Acquisition
Existing public land or private
land (Length through private
ownership)
County, WSDOT, JTA, JPUD, State Park, 2.45 miles within 2 private owners
County, WSDOT, State Park, 1.85 miles within 2 private owners
County, WSDOT, JTA, State Park, 1.55 miles within 3 private owners
County, City of Port Townsend, State Park, DNR, 1.2 miles within 1 private owner
County, City of Port Townsend, State Park, DNR, 2.6 miles 2 within private owners
County, State Park, DNR, 2.9 miles within 1 to 7 private owners of unknown interest
County, WSDOT, WDFW
County, WSDOT, WDFW, 1.65 miles within 2 private owners, 1 of unknown interest
County, WSDOT, WDFW, 2.1 miles within 6 private owners, 5 of unknown interest
Environmen-
tal Impact
Conflict with noted
environmental constraints
(landslide hazard, steep slope,
wetlands, etc.)
Some: steep slope, wetland, stream Fewest constraints Some: steep slope, wetland, stream
Many: landslide hazard, steep slope, wetland, stream
Many: steep slope, wetland, stream Many: steep slope, wetland, stream
Many: steep slope, wetland, fish bearing stream
Many: landslide hazard, steep slope, wetland, stream
Many: landslide hazard, steep slope, wetland, stream
Accessibility
for People
with Mobility
Challenges
Access & suitability for people
using mobility devices
Moderate measures required (switchback)Fewest constraints Moderate measures required (switchback)Long Climbs Extreme measures to achieve ADA (cut rock)
Does not achieve ADA (follows existing roads)Long climbs Does not achieve ADA (follows existing roads)
Moderate measures required (switchback)
Cost
Need for bridges,
tunnels, retaining walls -
constructibility
More difficult: cross highway & road, retaining wall, cross stream, cross wetland
Very difficult: cross road, retaining wall, tunnel under highway
More difficult: cross highway & road, retaining wall, cross stream, cross wetland
Very difficult: cross road, bridge, retaining wall, security fence, cross fish bearing stream, wetland cross
Very difficult: cross road, retaining wall, cut cliff, cross fish bearing stream, wetland cross
Very difficult: cross road, retaining wall, cross fish bearing stream, wetland cross
More difficult: cross highway & road, retaining wall, cross fish bearing stream, cross wetland
Very difficult: cross highway & road, bridge, retaining wall, cross fish bearing stream, cross wetland
Very difficult: cross highway & road, retaining wall, cross stream, cross wetland
Length Relative length of segment Moderately short, 3.9 miles Moderately short, 3.7 miles Moderately short, 4.0 miles Shortest 3.4 miles Moderately long, 5.3 miles Longest, 11.1 miles Shortest, 2.7 miles Moderately short, 3.3 miles Moderately short, 3.4 miles
Land Use
Conflict with existing uses
(residential, commercial,
utilities, forest management,
hunting, ORV, etc.)
residential, commercial, forest, utilities, hunting, ORV
residential, forest, utilities, hunting, ORV
residential, commercial, forest, hunting, ORV
residential, forest, greater # of utilities residential, forest, fewer # of utilities residential, forest, hunting residential residential, forest, utilities, hunting residential, forest, utilities, hunting
User
Experience
Scenic Views, Access/
connections to destinations,
environmental conditions
of trail (shade, sun, wind
direction, noise)
Handsome route & great destination: Anderson Lake State Park, Discovery & 4 Corners Rd, 1.1 miles view preserved under powerline, woodland
Handsome route & great destination: Anderson Lake State Park, Adelma Beach Rd, SR-20, 0.4 miles view preserved under powerline, woodland
No drama & great destination: Anderson Lake State Park, Discovery & 4 Corners Rd, woodland
Great: Discovery Bay & Olympic Mountain views, Grouse Ln, woodland
Great: Eaglemount summit, Discovery Bay & Olympic Mountain views, Eaglemount Rd, 0.9 miles view preserved under powerline, woodland
Least pleasant but great destination: Gibbs Lake Park, Roads: Gibbs Lake, W. Valley, W. Egg & I, Eaglemount, Old Eaglemount, woodland
Handsome: Discovery Bay views, Roads: Eaglemount, historic Woodman-Fairmount, Fairmount Hill, Fairmount, SR-20, US-101
No drama: Discovery Bay views, Roads: Eaglemount, Fairmount Hill, Fairmount, SR-20, US-101, woodland
Handsome & great views: Snow Creek Valley, Olympic Mountain & Discovery Bay views, Eaglemount & E. Uncas Rd, US-101, 0.6 miles view preserved under powerline, woodland
Vertical
Change
Relative elevation change. Feet
of climbing
Some elevation change (280 feet)Some elevation change (300 feet)Least elevation change (210 feet)Least elevation change (400 feet)Most elevation change (570 feet)Moderate elevation change (520 feet)Least elevation change (490 feet)Some elevation change (590 feet)Most elevation change (740 feet)
Key Less suitable Suitable Desirable Excellent
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
43
Central Segment South Segment
TitleDescriptionABC A B C A B C
Safety
Roadway crossings, length
of exposure to driveways &
roadways
2 crossings (SR-20 & 4 Corners Rd), 0.5 miles along Discovery & 4 Corners RdW
2 crossings (Discovery Rd & SR-20), 0.6 miles on Adelma Bch Rd & along SR-20
2 crossings (SR-20 & 4 Corners Rd), 1.3 miles along Discovery & 4 Corners Rd
1 crossing (Anderson Lake Rd), 0.5 miles along Grouse Ln
1 crossing (Anderson Lake Rd), 0.2 miles along Eaglemount Rd
2 crossings (Anderson Lake & Eaglemount Rd), 6.6 miles along Gibbs Lake, W. Valley, W. Egg & I, Eaglemount, Old Eaglemount Rd
3 crossings (Eaglemount, SR-20, Fairmount Rd), 2.7 miles along Eaglemount, Woodman-Fairmount, Fairmount Hill, Fairmount Rd, SR-20, US-101
3 crossings (Eaglemount, SR-20, Fairmount), 1.5 miles along Eaglemount, Fairmount Hill, Fairmount Rd, SR-20, US-101
1 crossing (Eaglemount Rd), 1.1 miles along Eaglemount, E. Uncas Rd, US-101
ROW &
Acquisition
Existing public land or private
land (Length through private
ownership)
County, WSDOT, JTA, JPUD, State Park, 2.45 miles within 2 private owners
County, WSDOT, State Park, 1.85 miles within 2 private owners
County, WSDOT, JTA, State Park, 1.55 miles within 3 private owners
County, City of Port Townsend, State Park, DNR, 1.2 miles within 1 private owner
County, City of Port Townsend, State Park, DNR, 2.6 miles 2 within private owners
County, State Park, DNR, 2.9 miles within 1 to 7 private owners of unknown interest
County, WSDOT, WDFW
County, WSDOT, WDFW, 1.65 miles within 2 private owners, 1 of unknown interest
County, WSDOT, WDFW, 2.1 miles within 6 private owners, 5 of unknown interest
Environmen-
tal Impact
Conflict with noted
environmental constraints
(landslide hazard, steep slope,
wetlands, etc.)
Some: steep slope, wetland, streamFewest constraintsSome: steep slope, wetland, stream
Many: landslide hazard, steep slope, wetland, stream
Many: steep slope, wetland, stream Many: steep slope, wetland, stream
Many: steep slope, wetland, fish bearing stream
Many: landslide hazard, steep slope, wetland, stream
Many: landslide hazard, steep slope, wetland, stream
Accessibility
for People
with Mobility
Challenges
Access & suitability for people
using mobility devices
Moderate measures required (switchback)Fewest constraintsModerate measures required (switchback)Long Climbs Extreme measures to achieve ADA (cut rock)
Does not achieve ADA (follows existing roads)Long climbs Does not achieve ADA (follows existing roads)
Moderate measures required (switchback)
Cost
Need for bridges,
tunnels, retaining walls -
constructibility
More difficult: cross highway & road, retaining wall, cross stream, cross wetland
Very difficult: cross road, retaining wall, tunnel under highway
More difficult: cross highway & road, retaining wall, cross stream, cross wetland
Very difficult: cross road, bridge, retaining wall, security fence, cross fish bearing stream, wetland cross
Very difficult: cross road, retaining wall, cut cliff, cross fish bearing stream, wetland cross
Very difficult: cross road, retaining wall, cross fish bearing stream, wetland cross
More difficult: cross highway & road, retaining wall, cross fish bearing stream, cross wetland
Very difficult: cross highway & road, bridge, retaining wall, cross fish bearing stream, cross wetland
Very difficult: cross highway & road, retaining wall, cross stream, cross wetland
LengthRelative length of segmentModerately short, 3.9 milesModerately short, 3.7 milesModerately short, 4.0 miles Shortest 3.4 miles Moderately long, 5.3 miles Longest, 11.1 miles Shortest, 2.7 miles Moderately short, 3.3 miles Moderately short, 3.4 miles
Land Use
Conflict with existing uses
(residential, commercial,
utilities, forest management,
hunting, ORV, etc.)
residential, commercial, forest, utilities, hunting, ORV
residential, forest, utilities, hunting, ORV
residential, commercial, forest, hunting, ORV
residential, forest, greater # of utilities residential, forest, fewer # of utilities residential, forest, hunting residential residential, forest, utilities, hunting residential, forest, utilities, hunting
User
Experience
Scenic Views, Access/
connections to destinations,
environmental conditions
of trail (shade, sun, wind
direction, noise)
Handsome route & great destination: Anderson Lake State Park, Discovery & 4 Corners Rd, 1.1 miles view preserved under powerline, woodland
Handsome route & great destination: Anderson Lake State Park, Adelma Beach Rd, SR-20, 0.4 miles view preserved under powerline, woodland
No drama & great destination: Anderson Lake State Park, Discovery & 4 Corners Rd, woodland
Great: Discovery Bay & Olympic Mountain views, Grouse Ln, woodland
Great: Eaglemount summit, Discovery Bay & Olympic Mountain views, Eaglemount Rd, 0.9 miles view preserved under powerline, woodland
Least pleasant but great destination: Gibbs Lake Park, Roads: Gibbs Lake, W. Valley, W. Egg & I, Eaglemount, Old Eaglemount, woodland
Handsome: Discovery Bay views, Roads: Eaglemount, historic Woodman-Fairmount, Fairmount Hill, Fairmount, SR-20, US-101
No drama: Discovery Bay views, Roads: Eaglemount, Fairmount Hill, Fairmount, SR-20, US-101, woodland
Handsome & great views: Snow Creek Valley, Olympic Mountain & Discovery Bay views, Eaglemount & E. Uncas Rd, US-101, 0.6 miles view preserved under powerline, woodland
Vertical
Change
Relative elevation change. Feet
of climbing
Some elevation change (280 feet)Some elevation change (300 feet)Least elevation change (210 feet)Least elevation change (400 feet)Most elevation change (570 feet)Moderate elevation change (520 feet)Least elevation change (490 feet)Some elevation change (590 feet)Most elevation change (740 feet)
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
44
opposite: Commercial
forest in the heart of
the study area.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
45
RECOMMENDED
ALIGNMENTS
Image source: Alta Planning + Design
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
46
FIGURE 4.1.1 RECOMMENDED TRAIL ALIGNMENTS
S
u
n
s
et
CreekMoon Creek
Pope
Pope
Pope
Somerville
Pope
PopePope
Pope
Pope
Pope
Pope
Pope
Port Authority
Port
Anderson Lake State Park
Fire District
Jeff Co
Transit
Port
Pope
40ac
1000’1/2mi 1mi
Exis�ng Trail
Alignment A
Alignment B
Alignment C Discovery BayKey North SegmentCentral SegmentSou t h S e g m e n t
Bentley Place
E Uncas Road NMoa Hill RoadOl
ympic Highway SR101S R 20Fairmount RoadF a ir m o u nt Road
Eagl
emount
RoadS R 2 0
City Lake
Sunset Lake
Moon Lake
A n d ers o n La ke R o a d
Anderson Lake
DNR
Anderson Lake
State Park
Gibbs Lake Beausite Lake
Gibbs
Lake
County
Park
Delanty Lake Sunset Lake Road (private)City of Port
Townsend
Four Corners Road
S D iscovery Road
Adelma Reach RoadCity of Port
Townsend
Jefferson
Co PUD
Uncas
Discovery Junction
Woodmans
Adelma Beach
Four Corners
Port Townsend Water LineL
a
r
r
y
S
c
o
tt Trail
Grouse LaneMine GulchFairmount
Fairm
o
u
n
t Hill RdWoodman-Fairmount Road
Snow CreekSalmon CreekOlympic Discovery Trail
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
47
4.1 RECOMMENDED TRAIL
ALIGNMENTS
The recommended alignments for the
Olympic Discovery Trail - Eaglemount
(ODT-E) will carry visitors between 10 and
18 miles from the end of the Larry Scott Trail
at Milo Curry Road to the existing ODT
at Discovery Bay. These routes avoid most
of the winding high-speed State Route 20,
carrying people walking, riding bicycles,
and riding horses through wooded areas, to
stunning scenic vistas, through a quiet state
park, and along some of the region’s iconic
waterfront resources.
This study identifies three routes that
demonstrate the feasibility of the ODT-E
connection, pending right-of-way acquisition.
The Washington State Recreation and
Conservation Office (RCO) provided funding
for this study and acquisition. Acquiring trail
right-of-way will conform to RCO guidelines,
including acquisition from willing sellers
only.1 Location of available right-of-way may
be the primary determination of the final trail
alignment.
Challenges along this alignment include
deep ravines and fish bearing streams
requiring bridges, boardwalks and
mitigation at wetlands, and retaining walls
and switchbacks on steep hills. Utility
improvements may be necessary that
are not currently in agency work plans,
and coordination and acquisition will be
necessary to harmonize with public and
private forest management practices.
The route will not be flat, but it could be
accessible to people using wheelchairs and
other mobility assistance. It will be a pleasant
passage for all including people walking
the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail
to Olympic National Park, or bicyclists
traversing cross county and equestrians
patching together a route across the region.
The experiences, panoramic views, beautiful
woodlands, and a safe and pleasant passage
make the challenges worth facing. The
solutions are not common nor without
significant cost. This section summarizes
the recommended alignments and presents
a realistic and comprehensive opinion of the
range of property acquisition.
left: Potential views
from the ODT-E trail
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
48
FIGURE 4.1.2 RECOMMENDED TRAIL ALIGNMENTS:
NORTH SEGMENT
S
u
ns
et CreekMoon Creek
Pope
Pope
Pope
Somerville
Pope
Pope
Port Authority
Port
Anderson Lake State Park
Fire District
Jeff Co
Transit
Port
PopeDiscovery Bay40ac
1000’1/2mi 1mi
Existing Trail
Alignment A
Alignment B
Alignment C
Key
B
A
C
Sunset Lake
Moon Lake
A n d e r s o n L a k e R o a d
Anderson Lake
DNR
Anderson Lake
State Park
Sunset Lake Road (private)City of Port
Townsend
Four Corners Road
S D i s covery Road
Adelma Reach RoadCity of Port
Townsend
Jefferson
Co PUD
Woodmans
Adelma Beach
Four Corners
L
a
r
r
y
S
c
o
T
r
ail
Grouse Lane
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
49
North Segment
In partnership with WA State Parks, this
segment will be built first as a natural
extension of the Larry Scott Trail.
Options A & C for the northern segment of
the ODT-E begin at the Milo Curry Road
trailhead for the Larry Scott Trail. A sidepath
on the north side of Discovery Road in
county road right-of-way connects to State
Route 20 at Four Corners. A pedestrian
improvement should be built to cross SR 20.
After crossing SR 20, Options A & C connects
a trail to the existing Jefferson Transit
regional facility with a bike barn and park &
ride, then onto a side path running east on
the north side of 4 Corners Road.
Option A turns south across 4 Corners Road
at a pedestrian improvement, then continues
onto Jefferson PUD parcels and generally
follows the powerlines south, turns east at
the Quarter Section line across commercial
forest land to Anderson Lake State Park.
Continuing east on a side path on the north
side of 4 Corners Road, Option C turns
south at a pedestrian improvement to cross
4 Corners Road roughly at the Section line,
and continues south reaching commercial
forest land, with switchbacks for slope,
and diversions to avoid wetlands, and onto
Anderson Lake State Park
Option B leaves Milo Curry Trailhead,
crossing South Discovery Road with a
pedestrian improvement, proceeds south
on Adelma Beach Road, traverses east
over private parcels, crosses SR20 with a
pedestrian improvement, follows SR20 south
to commercial forest land and powerlines,
continuing east across commercial forest
land to Anderson Lake State Park.
Trails within Anderson Lake State Park
should be improved to meet ODT multi-use
Existing trails in Anderson
Lake State Park can be
improved to multi-use trail
standards.
Forest management access
roads could be used in
some areas to reduce new
construction costs and
impacts.
A short sidepath adjacent
to Four Corners Road could
make a connection between
multi-use trails.
FIGURE 4.1.2 RECOMMENDED TRAIL ALIGNMENTS:
NORTH SEGMENT
trail guidelines. A trailhead would be located
within Anderson Lake State Park, with a
crossing improvement at Anderson Lake
Road.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
50
FIGURE 4.1.3 RECOMMENDED TRAIL ALIGNMENTS:
CENTRAL SEGMENT
S
u
ns
et CreekMoon Creek
Pope
PopePope
Pope
Pope
PopeDiscovery Bay40ac 1000’1/2mi 1mi
Exis�ng Trail
Alignment A
Alignment B
Alignment C
Key
B
A
C
Eagl
emount
RoadS R 2 0
City Lake
Sunset Lake
Moon Lake
A n d e r s o n L a k e R o a d
Anderson Lake
DNR
Anderson Lake
State Park
Gibbs Lake Beausite Lake
Gibbs
Lake
County
Park
Delanty Lake Sunset Lake Road (private)City of Port
Townsend
Woodmans
Port Townsend Water LineGrouse Lane
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
51
FIGURE 4.1.3 RECOMMENDED TRAIL ALIGNMENTS:
CENTRAL SEGMENT
Central Segment
From the trailhead at Anderson Lake
State Park, the multi-use trail options
proceed south and west across Washington
Department of Natural Resources forest
land to commercial forest parcels. Option A
follows the edge of the DNR parcel, climbs
across commercial forest land and parallels
an underground utility to a City of Port
Townsend property accessed by Grouse
Lane. Grouse Lane can be improved as a
shared roadway or advisory shoulders.
Option B follows a route through the heart of
the DNR parcel, crosses commercial forest
land then makes a steep climb to the summit
of Eaglemount before making a steep decent
back to Eaglemount Road.
Option C crosses the heart of the DNR parcel
before entering commercial forest land and
heading south and east to Gibbs Lake County
Park and Gibbs Lake Road. Option C follows
a series of county roads west and north to
Grouse Lane. This option adds access to
Gibbs Lake County Park and significant on-
road mileage.
Challenges on the Central Segment include
wetlands, steep slopes, a deep ravine
requiring a bridge, fish bearing streams to
be crossed, switchbacks and retaining walls
and coordination with forest management
practices.
Perhaps most challenging are the aging
underground utility and providing security
for the municipal water system in Option
A that cuts a convenient path across the
face of Eaglemount Hill. Structural and
security improvements are necessary to
accommodate the construction of a multi-
use trail and the introduction of additional
users in this corridor. There is a possibility of
mutual benefits to the Water System and Trail
relating to the possible future replacement
of the old steel waterline. A bench for a new
trail adjacent to the old waterline might
Grouse Lane provides access
to Eaglemount Road at the
south end of the central
Option A and B.
Typical woodland in the
central segment.
Views from Sunset Ridge
overlooking Discovery Bay.
allow a new waterline to be installed at less
cost. The trail might then run along the old
pipeline maintenance road where width and
grade allow. Cost sharing alternatives should
be explored with the Water System. Close
coordination with the City of Port Townsend
is required throughout the further planning,
design, funding, implementation and
operation of a multi-use trail in this vicinity.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
52
FIGURE 4.1.4 RECOMMENDED TRAIL ALIGNMENTS:
SOUTH SEGMENT
S
u
ns
et CreekPope
PopePope
Pope
Pope
Pope
PopeDiscovery Bay40ac
1000’1/2mi 1mi
Exis�ng Trail
Alignment A
Alignment B
Alignment C
Key
B
A
C
Bentley Place
E Uncas Road NMoa Hill RoadOl
ympic Highway SR101S R 20Fairmount RoadF a ir m o u n t Road
Eagl
emount
RoadS R 2 0
City Lake
Sunset Lake
A n d e r s o n L a k e R o a d
Delanty Lake Sunset Lake Road (private)City of Port
Townsend
Uncas
Discovery Junction
Woodmans
Port Townsend Water LineGrouse LaneMine GulchFairmount
Fairm
o
u
n
t
Hi
ll RdWoodman-Fairmount Road
Snow CreekSalmon CreekOlympic Discovery Trail
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
53
South Segment
From Grouse Lane at Eaglemount Road South
Segment Option A runs north as a sidepath
on the west side of Eaglemount Road to a
crossing of State Route 20.
Option A follows a sidepath on the northside
of SR 20 requiring a deep fill and/or retaining
walls to widen the highway fill. A bridge at
Mine Creek may be required.
The sidepath continues to a short segment
of unvacated county road connecting to
Woodman-Fairmout County Road and
Fairmount Hill Road.
Shared Lane Markings on Fairmount Hill
Road and advisory shoulders on Fairmount
Road, make the connection to the previously
designed ODT on the west and south shores
of Discovery Bay.
The Washington State Department of
Transportation is the key partner in
Option A. Facilitation of the sidepath
improvement, Mine Gulch crossing and
SR 20 improvements are keys to the success,
and the safety, of the whole ODT-E.
Options B and C cross Eaglemount Road and
proceed west across commercial forest land.
Option B Crosses SR 20 at Fairmount Hill
Road and joins Option A.
Option C crosses commercial forest land to
a powerline, descends to segments of Uncas
Road and crosses SR20 near its junction with
US 101 at Uncas.
Eaglemount Road.
Fairmount Road is a low
key backroad with very little
traffic.
A sidepath on the left side
of this image will require
grading.
FIGURE 4.1.4 RECOMMENDED TRAIL ALIGNMENTS:
SOUTH SEGMENT
ENDNOTES
1 WA State Recreation and Conservation Funding
Board, Manual 3: Acquisition Projects, 2018 https://
www.rco.wa.gov/documents/manuals&forms/
manual_3_acq.pdf
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
54
4.2 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
Multi-Use Trail Sections
The Olympic Discovery Trail - Eaglemount
Design Guidelines (see Appendix A) describe
the typical trail design recommendations.
These guidelines were developed in
compliance with the Peninsula Trails
Coalitions trail design guidelines as well as
other applicable federal, state and local trail
guidelines. The recommended typical trail
section (figure 4.2.1) includes a paved surface
multi-use trail 12’ wide (10’ minimum in
constrained locations). Where space permits
2’ gravel shoulders are shown on both sides
and a separate but parallel natural surface
equestrian trail with a width between 4’ and
6’, depending on site conditions.
Where site constraints prevent a separate
equestrian trail, 4’-wide natural surface
equestrian shoulder will be provided on one
side of the trail. The opposite shoulder will be
1’ wide (figure 4.2.2).
A typical multi-use trail with
adjacent equestrian tread.
Banks Vernonia State Trail,
Washington County, OR.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
55SoftSurface/EquestrianShoulderShoulder12’ (10’ min.) 2’2’6’ (4’ min.)Multi-useTrailFIGURE 4.2.1 TYPICAL TRAIL SECTION
Soft Surface/Equestrian1’Shoulder12’ (10’ min.)4’Multi-useTrailFIGURE 4.2.2 TYPICAL TRAIL SECTION - CONSTRAINED CONDITIONS
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
56 Shoulder12’ (10’ min.)VegetatedbuerVehicular roadway5’ min.4’Paved side pathFIGURE 4.2.3 TYPICAL TRAIL SECTION - SIDEPATH
Side Path
A side path is a paved separate multi-use trail
that is provided alongside a roadway (figure
4.2.3). The path should be located a preferred
minimum of 6.5’ and an absolute minimum
of 5’ from the edge of the travel lane, with
distances varying based on available right-of
way.
Where offsets less than 5’ are provided
between the sidepath and the road,
crashworthy barriers may be required.
Landscaping in the median between path
and road is encouraged to provide a buffer.
Shared Lanes and Advisory Shoulders
In a few cases, segments of separated
multi-use trail will be connected by on-road
segments. These segments will be located
on very low volume backroads and will
be improved as shared lanes or advisory
shoulders.
Shared lanes are regular roadways marked
with the shared lane symbol (Figure 4.2.4)
indicating people on bicycles may occupy
a whole vehicular lane. Pedestrians and
equestrians are expected to use the shoulder
or edge of the travel lane. This treatment
is appropriate when motor vehicle speeds
are below 25 mph and volume below 3,000
AADT (FHWA Small Town and Rural
Multimodal Networks Guide).
Advisory shoulders are marked shoulders on
a narrow road (Figure 4.2.5), where people
on bicycles, pedestrians, and equestrians
can occupy a section of the road and people
in cars are able to pass them in a single
vehicular lane. Where two vehicles must pass
each other, they are allowed to cross into the
advisory shoulder temporarily to do so. This
treatment is appropriate when motor vehicle
speeds are below 35 mph and volume below
6,000 AADT (STAR Guide).
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
57Center two-way travel lane10’ - 18’Advisory shoulder6’Advisory shoulder6’Two-laneshared roadway12’ - 22’
FIGURE 4.2.5 TYPICAL TRAIL SECTION - ADVISORY SHOULDER
FIGURE 4.2.4 TYPICAL TRAIL SECTION - SHARED LANE
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
58
Road Crossings
Multi-use trail design should minimize new
at-grade crossings wherever possible. In
most cases, at-grade trail crossings can be
designed to provide a reasonable degree
of safety and can meet existing traffic and
safety standards.
Consideration must be given to adequate
warning distance based on vehicle speeds
and line of sight, with the visibility of signs
absolutely critical. Directing the attention
of motorists to roadway signs may require
additional alerting devices such as a flashing
beacon, rectangular rapid flashing beacons,
pedestrian refuge islands, roadway striping
or changes in pavement texture. Signing for
trail users may include a standard “STOP”
or “YIELD” sign, and pavement markings,
combined with other features such as a bend
in the trail to slow bicyclists.
Care must be taken not to place too many
signs at crossings lest they begin to lose their
visual impact.
Refer to Appendix A: Design Guidelines for
additional detail and guidance for typical
road crossings.
Trail crossings of busy
roadways may justify
signalization. This crossing
includes a median in the
roadway allowing trail users
to cross only one direction
of traffic at a time. Note the
equestrian push button on
the right.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
59
4.3 RIGHT-OF-WAY SUMMARY
Typical of many rural areas, the study area
is composed of many large parcels, natural
resources, (largely forest management),
large public lands and residential land
uses, connected by public road and utility
ROW. The Alignment Options Evaluation
(Table 3.2.2) summarizes the miles of trail in
private ownership for each alternative.
At more than 10 miles in length, the
recommended alignments touch remarkably
few parcels and even fewer land owners. The
evaluation process favored parcels in public
ownership, but was neutral toward state
highway right-of-way. Table 4.3.1 summarizes
the parcels, zoning, ownership and trail type
for the recommended alignments.
A range of specific square feet of right-of-way
necessary can be estimated subject to more
detailed design of the alignment, further site
analysis and coordination with the various
owners (see Implementation).
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
60
TABLE 4.3.1 RIGHT OF WAY SUMMARY
Segment Option Zoning Parcel #Parcel Owner Trail Cross
Section
Average Daily
Traffic Posted MPH
ROW (S. Discovery Rd) Jefferson County SP 2,973 35
ROW SR-20 WSDOT Crossing 5,800 50 (35 advisory)
RR 001332009
Jefferson Transit
Authority MUT --
ROW (4 Corners Rd) Jefferson County SP 2,869 40
RR 001333014 JPUD MUT --
RR 001333037 JPUD MUT --
RR 001333038 JPUD MUT --
RR undetermined private MUT --
RF undetermined private MUT --
CF 901042001 Pope Resources MUT --
CF 901041001 Pope Resources MUT --
RR 996200004 Pope Resources MUT --
Parks 901092002 WA State Parks MUT --
Parks 901094001 WA State Parks MUT --
ROW (S. Discovery Rd) Jefferson County Crossing 2,973 35
ROW (Adelma Beach Rd) Jefferson County SL 350 25
RR undetermined private MUT --
RR undetermined private MUT --
ROW SR-20 WSDOT Crossing 5,800 50
ROW SR-20 WSDOT SP 5,800 50
CF 901042001 Pope Resources MUT --
CF 901092001 Pope Resources MUT --
Parks 901094001 WA State Parks MUT --
ROW (S. Discovery Rd) Jefferson County SP 2,973 35
ROW SR-20 WSDOT Crossing 5,800 50 (35 advisory)
RR 001332009
Jefferson Transit
Authority MUT --
ROW (4 Corners Rd) Jefferson County SP 2,869 40
RR undetermined private MUT --
RR undetermined private MUT --
CF 901041001 Pope Resources MUT --
CF 901041004 Pope Resources MUT --
RR 996200004 Pope Resources MUT --
Parks 901094001 WA State Parks MUT --
ROW (Anderson Lk Rd) Jefferson County Crossing 1,845 50
Parks 901094001 WA State Parks MUT --
CF 901161005 WA State DNR MUT --
CF 901162001 WA State DNR MUT --
RR undetermined private MUT --
CF 901173002 Pope Resources MUT --
CF 901201001 Pope Resources MUT --
RR 901191006 City of Port Townsend MUT --
RR 901194001 City of Port Townsend MUT --
ROW (Grouse Ln) Jefferson County SL 20 20
North
A
B
C
Central A
Ownership: public
private residential
private forest
Zoning: ROW Right-of-Way
Park State Park
AL Agriculture Local
CF Commercial Forest
RF Rural Forest
RR Rural Residential
Trail Cross
Section:MUT Multi-Use Trail
SP Side Path
SL Shared Lane (25 MPH, 3,000 AADT)
AS Advisory Shoulder (35 MPH, 6,000 AADT)
Ownership: public
private residential
private forest
Zoning: ROW Right-of-Way
Park State Park
AL Agriculture Local
CF Commercial Forest
RF Rural Forest
RR Rural Residential
Trail Cross
Section:MUT Multi-Use Trail
SP Side Path
SL Shared Lane (25 MPH, 3,000 AADT)
AS Advisory Shoulder (35 MPH, 6,000 AADT)
Key
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
61
Segment Option Zoning Parcel #Parcel Owner Trail Cross
Section
Average Daily
Traffic Posted MPH
ROW (Anderson Lk Rd) Jefferson County Crossing 1,845 50
Parks 901094001 WA State Parks MUT --
CF 901161005 WA State DNR MUT --
CF 901162001 WA State DNR MUT --
CF 901163001 WA State DNR MUT --
CF 901173002 Pope Resources MUT --
CF 901201001 Pope Resources MUT --
RR 901194001 City of Port Townsend MUT --
RR 901194005 Pope Resources MUT --
RR 901301001 Pope Resources MUT --
RR undetermined private MUT --
CF 901302001 Pope Resources MUT --
ROW (Eaglemount Rd) Jefferson County SP 606 50
ROW (Anderson Lk Rd) Jefferson County Crossing 1,845 50
Parks 901094001 WA State Parks MUT --
CF 901161005 WA State DNR MUT --
CF 901162001 WA State DNR MUT --
CF 901163001 WA State DNR MUT --
undetermined private
ROW (Gibbs Lake Rd) Jefferson County SL 195 25 / 20
ROW (W. Valley Rd) Jefferson County AS 272 35
ROW (W. Egg & I Rd) Jefferson County SL 220 25
CF undetermined private MUT --
CF undetermined private MUT --
ROW (Old Eaglemount
Rd)Jefferson County SL 170 25
ROW (Eaglemount Rd) Jefferson County SP 606 50
ROW (Eaglemount Rd) Jefferson County SP 606 50
ROW SR-20 WSDOT Crossing 5,800 50
ROW SR-20 WSDOT SP 5,800 50
ROW (Woodman-
Fairmount Rd)Jefferson County SL <90 20
ROW (Fairmount Hill Rd) Jefferson County SL 90 25
ROW (Fairmount Rd) Jefferson County AS 140 35
ROW (Eaglemount Rd) Jefferson County SP 606 50
CF undetermined private MUT --
undetermined private
ROW SR-20 WSDOT Crossing 5,800 50
ROW (Fairmount Hill Rd) Jefferson County SL 90 25
ROW (Fairmount Rd) Jefferson County AS 140 35
ROW (Eaglemount Rd) Jefferson County SP 606 50
CF undetermined private MUT --
undetermined private
ROW (E. Uncas Rd S) Jefferson County SL 20 20
RR 902252020 WSDOT MUT --
ROW (US-101)WSDOT MUT 13,000 45
ROW (E. Uncas Rd N) Jefferson County SL 90 20
Previous -RR 902243020 Jefferson Land Trust MUT --
Previous -RR 902243033 Jefferson Land Trust MUT --
Previous -RR 902243044 Jefferson Land Trust MUT --
Previous -ROW SR-20 WSDOT SP 5,800 50
Previous -ROW (US-101)WSDOT SP 13,000 45
Previous -RR 902231004 WDFW MUT --
Previous -undetermined private MUT --
Previous -RR 902231018 WDFW MUT --
Central
South
A
B
C
C
B
TABLE 4.3.1 RIGHT OF WAY SUMMARY (CON’T)
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
62
63
NOT USED
DRAFT 11/12/2018
PERMITTING
OVERVIEW
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
64
TABLE 5.1.1 PERMITS
POTENTIALLY REQUIRED
Page 2 of 8
PERMITS POTENTIALLY REQUIRED
Trail
Construction Overlooks
Public
Amenities
Federal Approvals
NEPA P P P
Bridge Permit -- -- --
Section 10 Rivers and Harbors -- P --
Section 106 - Historic Preservation P P P
Section 401 - Water Quality Cert. P P P
Section 404 - Discharge of Fill
Nationwide Permit
P P P
Coastal Zone Management
Approval
P -- --
State Approvals
Hydraulic Project Approval X P P
State Historical Preservation Office X X X
Construction Stormwater General
Permit - NPDES
X X X
Local Approvals
State Environmental Policy Act X X X
Clearing, Grading, and Building
Permits
-- X X
Critical Areas X X X
Shoreline Permits P X X
X=Probably Required
P=Possibly Required
--=Not Likely Required
5.1 REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS
Activities that may occur for the Olympic
Discovery Trail - Eaglemount (ODT-E)
connection include paved trail construction
and other associated amenities along the
trail. The alignments have a high probability
of work within critical areas and shorelines.
Table 5.1.1 provides a list of permits that
may be required as a planning tool to help
with identifying the permit process once an
alignment has been selected to move forward.
Permit summaries are taken from the
Department of Ecology Regulatory
Handbook found at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/
permit.htlm.
FEDERAL APPROVALS
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Issuing Agency: Lead Federal Agency
(varies)
Activities Requiring this Permit: NEPA
applies to all major federal actions: federal
projects or any project requiring a federal
permit, receiving federal funding, or located
on federal land. The list of NEPA categorical
exclusions is determined in rules specific to
each federal agency.
Review Purpose: The National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was
adopted by Congress in 1969 to ensure
evaluation of the probable environmental
consequences of a proposal before decisions
are made by federal agencies.
NEPA requires federal agencies to consider a
broad range of environmental consequences
and available mitigation options prior to
making a decision on a project, plan or
program.
Bridge Permit
Issuing Agency: United States Coast Guard
Activities Requiring this Permit:
Construction or modification of bridges over
navigable waters. “Navigable” waters is a
legal determination that is not contingent on
the waterway such as Snow Creek or Salmon
Creek actually being navigated. Contact the
Coast Guard Bridge Program to determine
if a waterway is “navigable” and if the project
will require a bridge permit. No other agency
has the authority or expertise to make this
determination.
Permit Purpose: Federal law prohibits the
construction of any bridge across navigable
waters of the United States unless first
authorized by the Coast Guard. The Coast
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
65
Guard approves the location and clearances
of bridges through the issuance of bridge
permits or permit amendments, under the
authority of the General Bridge Act of 1946,
Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
of 1899, and other statutes. This permit is
required for new construction, reconstruction
or modification of a bridge or causeway over
waters of the United States.
Section 10 Rivers and Harbors
Approval
Issuing Agency: US Army Corps of
Engineers
Activities Requiring this Permit: Work in,
over, or under navigable waters of the United
States you must apply for authorization from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
The Corps authorizes activities by issuing
individual and general permits. Individual
permits include Standard Individual Permits
and Letters of Permission, and general
permits include Nationwide Permits and
Regional General Permits. The Corps
determines which type of permit is needed.
A Department of the Army permit can
include authorization under Section 10 and/
or Section 404.
Permit Purpose: The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers regulates activities that could
obstruct or alter navigable waters of the
United States under Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899.
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966
Issuing Agency: Washington State
Department of Archaeology & Historic
Preservation
Activities Requiring this Permit: The
application for federal funding, including
funding passed through a state or local
agency, a federal permit, license of use of
federal lands.
Permit Purpose: The Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation
(DAHP) and affected tribes must be
consulted when projects are subject to review
under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). This act
requires that all federal agencies take into
account the affect of its actions on historic
properties. Requirements of Section 106
review apply to any federal undertaking,
funding, license, or permit.
DAHP and affected tribes are consulted to
help determine if the site has been surveyed,
if there are identified historical resources
on-site, and if the property is listed or eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places.
If projects will adversely affect property
that meets National Register criteria, DAHP
will participate in finding acceptable ways
to avoid or mitigate that adverse effect. The
federal agency involved is responsible for
initiating and completing Section 106 review.
Section 401 - Water Quality
Certification
Issuing Agency: Washington State
Department of Ecology
Activities Requiring this Permit: Applying
for a federal permit or license to conduct any
activity that might result in a discharge of
dredge or fill material into water or non-
isolated wetlands or excavation in water or
non-isolated wetlands.
Permit Purpose: Issuance of a Section
401 Certification means that Ecology has
reasonable assurance that the applicant’s
project will comply with state water quality
standards and other aquatic resources
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
66
protection requirements under Ecology’s
authority. The Section 401 Certification can
cover both the construction and operation of
a proposed project. Conditions of the Section
401 Certification become conditions of the
federal permit or license. For 404 permits the
Corps has developed Nationwide Permits to
streamline the process for specific activities.
The Corps reviews a proposed project to
determine if an individual 404 permit is
required, or if the project can be authorized
under a Nationwide Permit. The Nationwide
Permits also need Section 401 Certification
from Ecology. Ecology has already certified
subject to conditions, or denied specific
Nationwide Permits. If certified, no further
Section 401 Certification review by Ecology
is required. If certified subject to conditions,
an individual certification or Letter of
Verification from Ecology is required. If
denied, an individual certification is required
for all activities under that Nationwide
Permit.
Section 404 –Discharge of Fill
Issuing Agency: US Army Corps of
Engineers
Activities Requiring this Permit:
Conducting ground-disturbing activities
in waters of the United States, including
wetlands, may require authorization from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
A variety of activities typically require
Department of the Army authorization
when they occur in waters of the United
States. They include, but are not limited
to, placement of fill material, grading,
mechanized land clearing, and redeposit of
excavated/dredged material.
The Corps authorizes activities by issuing
individual and general permits. Under
Section 404, individual permits include
Standard Individual Permits, and general
permits include Nationwide Permits and
Regional General Permits. The Corps
determines which type of permit is needed.
A Department of the Army permit can
include authorization under Section 10 and/
or Section 404.
The Corps strongly recommends a pre-
application meeting for major projects.
Permit Purpose: The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers helps protect the nation’s waters
by regulating the discharge of dredged or
fill material into waters of the United States,
including wetlands and other special aquatic
sites, under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
67
Coastal Zone Management Approval
Issuing Agency: Washington State
Department of Ecology
Activities Requiring this Permit: Federal
activity, projects requiring a federal license
or permit and Federal Assistance Programs
proposed within any of Washington’s 15
coastal counties.
• National Environmental Protection
Agency (Conducted by federal agencies
as part of the 404 process)
• Biological Assessment
• Section 106 Archaeological and Historic
Preservation Review
Permit Purpose: Activities and development
affecting coastal resources which involve
federal activities, federal licenses or permits,
and federal assistance programs (funding)
require written Coastal Zone Management
(CZM) federal consistency determinations
by the Department of Ecology (Ecology).
Activities and developments performed
by or for federal agencies require a CZM
determination be submitted stating that
the project is consistent with Washington’s
Coastal Zone Management Program
(WCZMP) to the “maximum extent
practicable.” Projects obtaining federal
permitted/licensed or federal funded projects
require a certification that they are consistent
with WCZMP. CZM Determinations/
Certifications are submitted to Ecology for
concurrence with conditions, or objection.
STATE APPROVALS
Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)
Issuing Agency: Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife
Activities Requiring this Permit: Work
that uses, diverts, obstructs, or changes
the natural flow or bed of any of the salt
or fresh waters of state. This includes bed
reconfiguration, all construction or other
work waterward, under and over the ordinary
high water line, including dry channels,
and may include projects landward of the
ordinary high water line (e.g., activities
outside the ordinary high water line that
will directly impact fish life and habitat,
falling trees into streams or lakes, bridge
maintenance, dike construction, etc.)
Permit Purpose: Any form of work that uses,
diverts, obstructs, or changes the natural
flow or bed of any fresh water or saltwater
of the state, requires a Hydraulic Project
Approval (HPA) from the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
Permit processing can take up to 45 days
following receipt of a complete application
package. WDFW offers an efficient online
permit application system, called the Aquatic
Protection Permitting System (APPS). A
complete application package for an HPA
must include a completed application,
general plans for the overall project, complete
plans and specifications of the proposed work
within the mean higher high water line in salt
waters or within the ordinary high water line
in fresh waters of the state, complete plans
and specifications for the proper protection
of fish life, and the $150 application fee or
proof of a qualifying fee exemption. You
must also provide notice of compliance with
any applicable requirements of the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
68
Construction Stormwater General
Permit - NPDES
Issuing Agency: Washington State
Department of Ecology
Activities Requiring this Permit:
Construction site operators are required to
be covered by a Construction Stormwater
General Permit if they are engaged in
clearing, grading, and excavating activities
that disturb one or more acres and discharge
stormwater to surface waters of the state.
The permit is also required if clearing,
grading or excavating activities disturb
an area smaller than 1 acre if it is part of a
“larger common plan of development or sale”
that will disturb 1 acre or more and discharge
stormwater to surface waters of the state or
a conveyance system that drains to surface
waters of the state.
“Surface waters of the state” are broadly
defined by state law and includes storm
drains, ditches, wetlands, creeks, rivers,
ponds, lakes and marine waters to obtain
permit coverage.
In addition to these permit triggers, Ecology
reserves the right to require permit coverage
at a construction site of any size, if Ecology
believes that the site may be a significant
contributor of pollutants to waters of the
State of Washington or reasonably expects
the site to cause a violation of water quality
standards.
Permit Purpose: This permit ensures that
construction site operators follow measures
as to prevent stormwater from washing soil,
nutrients, chemicals and other harmful
pollutants into local water bodies and
degrading water quality.
LOCAL APPROVALS
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
Issuing Agency: State or local agency
Activities Requiring this Process: Any
proposal that requires a public agency action
(decision) to license, fund, or undertake a
project, or the proposed adoption of a policy,
plan, or program can trigger environmental
review under SEPA. However, there are
numerous categories of projects that
are exempt from SEPA. The lead agency
determines if an exemption applies.
Purpose: The Washington State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is a process
(not a permit decision) intended to ensure
that environmental values are considered
during decision-making by state and local
agencies. These decisions may be related
to issuing permits for private projects,
constructing public facilities, or adopting
regulations, policies or plans. Information
provided by project applicants during
the SEPA review process helps agency
decision-makers, applicants, and the public
understand how a proposal will affect the
environment. This information can be used to
change a proposal to reduce likely impacts, or
to condition or deny a proposal when adverse
environmental impacts are identified.
In most cases, one state or local agency will
be designated as the “SEPA lead agency.” The
lead agency is responsible for evaluating the
proposal and determining if the proposal is
likely to impact the environment. For most
private projects, the SEPA lead agency will be
the city or county responsible for permitting
the project. For most public projects, the
proponent agency is the lead agency.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
69
Clearing, Grading, and Building Permit
Issuing Agency: Local Government - City or
County
Activities Requiring this Permit:
Construction of permanent buildings or
additions to existing facilities. Clearing and
grading of land and other earth disturbing
activities.
Permit Purpose: Permits to construct
permanent buildings or additions to existing
facilities are required by counties and cities,
except under certain circumstances. The
application requires detailed final plans
for structures including electrical plan,
plumbing plan, floor layout, sewage facilities,
location of wells (if applicable), drainage
plan, size and shape of lot and buildings,
setback of buildings from property lines and
drainfield (if applicable), access, size and
shape of foundation walls, beams, air vents,
window accesses, and heating or cooling
plants, if included in the design. Permits are
issued upon approval of the plans. Permit
processing time varies depending on the
project, but averages from six to eight weeks.
Public hearings requirements also vary
depending on activity proposed.
The Growth Management Act, which became
law in 1990, amended the State Building
Code to require that building permit
applicants provide proof of an adequate
supply of potable water for the purposes
of the building. The three means of proof
specified in the law are: 1) a permit from the
Department of Ecology, 2) a letter from an
approved purveyor stating the ability and
willingness to provide water, and 3) another
form (consult with the appropriate local
government) sufficient to verify the existence
of an adequate water supply. The departments
of Ecology and Health developed guidelines
to help local governments verify the
adequacy of water supplies for individual
buildings.
Clearing, grading and other land disturbing
activities requires approval from local
jurisdictions. Plan sets must be submitted
that show BMPs, stormwater controls, and
grade changes applicable to land disturbing
activities.
Critical Areas Approval
Issuing Agency: Local Jurisdiction
Activities Requiring this Permit: Work within
or adjacent to Environmentally Critical Areas
Permit Purpose: Critical Areas Ordinances
(CAO) provide regulation of activities
within critical areas which may include flood
prone areas, wetlands, streams, geologic
hazard areas, and fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas. The goal of CAO
regulations is to effectively protect these
areas and to protect public safety, while
allowing reasonable development.
Shoreline Development Permit
Issuing Agency: Local Jurisdiction
Activities Requiring this Permit: These
are determined by local government and
specified in their Shoreline Master Program.
Generally, any project involving in-water
work or work within 200 feet of the shoreline
requires either a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit or a Shoreline
Exemption. If the project involves a change
in function from the existing permitted use,
a Conditional Use Permit or Variance may be
needed.
Permit Purpose: To regulate developments
and uses of water bodies and associated
upland areas to protect human health and the
natural environment.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
70
5.2 RECOMMENDED
ALIGNMENT PERMITTING
STRATEGY
Development of the trail corridor has
the potential to impact a variety of
environmentally sensitive areas present
along the alignment, including wetlands,
priority habitats and species, floodplain,
streams, geologic hazard areas, and rare
plants. In addition, future project actions
have the potential to involve several local,
state, and federal regulatory agencies. The
permitting process may take several paths
depending on funding sources. A summary
of permitting requirements is discussed in
the Permitting section following the Natural
Resources section.
Permitting and Regulatory Authorities
Trail construction will require various state
permits, and may require some local and
federal permits (Table 5.2.2). The entire
alignments takes place within Jefferson
County. Agencies that could have permitting
authority depending on the type and
location of the action include: Washington
Department of Natural Resources;
Washington State Parks; Washington
State Department of Fish and Wildlife;
Washington State Department of Ecology;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; National
Marine Fisheries Service; and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, the
Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe has interests in
the area.
Activities associated with development of
the trail corridor that may trigger a permit
include, but are not limited to, filling,
grading, construction of retaining walls, work
below the ordinary high water mark of any
waterbody, work within wetlands/streams or
their buffers, installation of septic systems, or
utility construction.
Environmental permits will be required if
project actions impact any Critical Areas
discussed in following sections.
NATURAL RESOURCES
This sections provides an overview of the
resources found along the alignment and
summarizes the permits that are likely to be
required to implement the proposed Olympic
Discovery Trail - Eaglemount connection.
Wetlands
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI), the
Jefferson County Wetland Inventory, and the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species
databases all identify several wetlands near
the alignments. These wetlands range in
quality from small roadside wetlands to
large, high quality wetlands, all of which are
regulated. Many of the wetlands are clustered
around Anderson Lake and forestlands
between the lake and Moon Creek’s
tributaries. During field reconnaissance,
biologists noted additional potential wetland
areas not shown on the NWI or Jefferson
County maps, as well as areas where the
known wetland boundaries may extend
farther than shown on NWI or County maps.
More precise wetland boundary delineations
will be required during the permitting
process.
Streams
The alignments cross or are within the
immediate vicinity of a number of streams
and their tributaries, including Snow Creek,
Mine Gulch, Sunset Creek, Moon Creek,
and many unnamed streams and draws with
intermittent flow. It also crosses the Port
Townsend water line connected to City Lake.
According to the Jefferson County Shoreline
Master Plan (SMP; 2013), the alignments
run near three shorelines of the state: Snow
Creek, Discovery Bay, and Anderson Lake.
Shorelines of the State have a minimum
buffer of 100 feet for lakes, and 150 feet for
Sources: Washington
State Department of
Ecology, GIS Data, 303d;
Jefferson County GIS
Data, Washington State
Department of Natural
Resources Stream
Classification Information;
WDFW SalmonScape
database; WDFW PHS
database; FEMA Flood Map
Service Center maps.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
71
marine shorelines or streams/rivers. The
alignments cross at Snow Creek would
be within this buffer. The unnamed creek
at Fairmont Road is crossed close to the
shoreline, and may be within the 150 foot
buffer of Discovery Bay. The crossing at
Anderson Lake would be farther than 150 feet
from the lake, but may fall within the natural
shoreline area indicated by the Jefferson
County SMP.
PHS Habitats and Species
The Washington State Department of Fish &
Wildlife (WDFW) provides information on
important fish, wildlife and habitat resources.
WDFW publishes a list of priority habitats
and species considered to be priorities for
conservation and management. WDFW also
maintains databases that contain identified
fish, wildlife, and habitat areas. The priority
habitats and species (PHS) identified by
the WDFW GIS data along the proposed
alignment are discussed below.
Riparian Zones and Instream Habitat
Riparian habitat conservation areas are
those areas adjacent to aquatic systems
with flowing water containing elements of
both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems that
mutually influence each other. Riparian
habitat begins at the ordinary high water
mark and extends to that portion of the
terrestrial landscape influenced by, or directly
influences, the aquatic ecosystem. Instream
habitat refers to the aquatic habitat below the
ordinary high water mark.
Riparian habitat includes the entire extent of
the floodplain and riparian areas of wetlands
directly connected to stream courses. The
alignment passes through a number of
riparian habitats (with instream portions)
associated with the following water bodies:
Snow Creek, Mine Gulch, Sunset Creek,
Moon Creek, and several unnamed streams,
as well as the stream connection between
Anderson Lake and wetlands to the west.
When possible the project will use previously
constructed road crossings with existing
culverts when crossing these areas.
Puget Sound Nearshore
Portions of the South Segment pass alongside
Discovery Bay, a relatively undisturbed
nearshore marine habitat connected to the
Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound.
WDFW divides this habitat into three zones:
shore, intertidal, and marine tidal. Segment
S follows Fairmont Road, which runs along
Discovery Bay within 200 feet of the bay’s
shore. This shoreline contains native
vegetation and beaches influenced by the
aquatic ecosystem.
Freshwater and Estuarine Marine
Wetlands
WDFW lists freshwater wetlands and
estuarine wetlands among the priority
aquatic habitats. Wetlands are discussed
further under the “wetlands” section of this
document. The PHS database lists both
forested/shrub and freshwater emergent
wetlands along or near the alignment, and
estuarine/marine wetland in Discovery Bay
where the South Segment will run near the
shoreline.
Waterfowl and Seabird
Concentrations
WDFW lists waterfowl and their habitat
among priority species and habitats.
Waterfowl habitat is primarily associated
with wetlands and wetland fringe areas.
Areas commonly or traditionally used on a
seasonal or year-round basis are defined as
Regular Concentrations. The only waterfowl
concentration habitat area along the
alignment is associated with Anderson Lake.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
72
The PHS database also lists cavity-nesting
ducks (such as wood duck, common
goldeneye, and hooded merganser), and
concentrations of trumpeter swan along
the alignment. The PHS database that the
wetland connected to the lake’s southwest
side provides winter forage for adult and
juvenile trumpeter swans. Cavity-nesting
ducks are listed as using the forested wetland
directly west of the lake. The proposed
alignment does not intersect the waterfowl or
swan areas, but may cross along the southern
border of the wetlands with cavity-nesting
ducks.
Finally, the PHS database lists seabird
concentrations on Anderson Lake. This could
include seabirds that regularly breed on
or forage on freshwater habitats, including
Western grebe or cormorants. Seabird
concentrations also occur in Discovery Bay.
Western Toad
WDFW lists breeding areas for the western
toad along the western shoreline of Anderson
Lake.
Spotted Owl
WDFW lists breeding records for Spotted
Owl in the township near the southern
terminus of the South Segment of the
alignment. These mappings are not specific
to the area directly adjacent to the alignment.
Rare Plants
The Washington Natural Heritage Program
(WNHP) maintains a database of historical
and current occurrences of rare plant species
in the state. WNHP lists 28 species known or
suspected to occur within Jefferson County,
four of which have state and/or federal listing
as threatened or endangered.
The WNHP’s database does not list any
occurrences of these 28 species within
several miles of the proposed trail route.
Two species on the list (both state Sensitive)
have the potential to occur in the Discovery
Bay region, as they have occurred in
the eastern third of the County and are
associated with riparian, wetland, or forested
habitats. Bristly sedge (Carex comosa) has
been found alongside streams, lakes or
marshes at disjunct locations throughout
the Puget Sound basin. The giant chain fern
(Woodwardia fimbriata) has occurred along
the edges of streams, bogs, or wet roadbanks
near saltwater in the Hood Canal area. Four
additional species on the list are known to
occur in moist, lowland forest or riparian
areas, but have not been recorded in eastern
Jefferson County. None of these species or
their habitats are likely to occur in the logged
areas, secondary forest, or existing routes of
travel along the proposed route.
The other 24 species WNHP lists in Jefferson
County are restricted to alpine habitats, outer-
coast rainforests, bogs, native prairie, rocky
outcrops, sandy habitats, or open waters
within lakes. These habitats do not occur
along the proposed route, with the exception
of Anderson Lake’s waters (which will not be
directly affected by the route).
Flood Hazards
Areas of special flood hazards are those
areas identified by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) in the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps for Jefferson County.
These areas include the floodway, floodplain,
and flood fringe. The majority of the
proposed alignment would not impact any
special flood hazard areas, with the exception
of the Snow Creek crossing area.
Geohazards
Geologic hazards include areas with steep
slopes, historic or active landslides, areas of
potential instability, and areas with a severe
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
73
erosion potential. In addition, geologic
hazards can also include seismic and
volcanic hazards.
Jefferson County GIS data identifies geologic
hazard areas at multiple areas along the
alignment.
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Portions of the proposed alignment are
located within Critical Aquifer Recharge
Areas (CARA). This includes most of the
South portion of the alignment (in an area
listed as Susceptible based on geology),
and all of the North portion (which passes
through Special Aquifer Recharge Protection
Areas).
Cultural Resources
Archaeological resources include physical
evidence and/or material remains of human
life or activities capable of providing
scientific or humanistic understandings
of past human behavior, cultural
adaptation, and related topics. Examples
of archaeological resources include the
remains of houses, villages, camp and
fishing sites; cave shelters; artifacts such as
arrowheads, utensils, tools; and graves or
human remains. Cultural resources include
historic, prehistoric, or archaeological sites
and standing structures, cemeteries, burial
grounds and other distributions of cultural
remains and artifacts.
The Washington Information System for
Architectural and Archaeological Records
(WISAARD database) lists identified historic
sites and the Predictive Model Probability
Levels for the presence of archaeological
resources throughout the county. The
alignment passes through areas with no
historic sites identified within ¼ mile. Some
buildings or sites with no determinations
are clustered in the Fairmount area near
the intersection between Hwy 101 and
Hwy 20 and on Moa Hill Road. Although
the WISAARD database does not list any
historic sites identified within 1/4 mile,
a Cultural Resources Survey will likely
be required for the project. The National
Register of Historic Places does not list
any historic locations within ¼ mile of the
recommended alignment.
The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe has not
indicated the presence of sites of concern in
the study area. However, there are a large
number of “culturally modified trees” south
of Anderson Lake (these are also listed in the
WISAARD database). These trees include
western red cedars with bark-stripping
scars and notches, and “spiral trees” which
have been twisted around each other. These
modified trees appear to be oriented along
an old trail system crossing the Quimper
Peninsula from east to west. Most of the
planned route for the Olympic Discovery
Trail - Eaglemount would use already-cleared
recreation trails or logged areas. Where the
route would cross Moon Creek and other
timbered areas, the Tribes request surveying
for modified trees prior to any tree removal.
Other tribes that may be interested in
sites within the study area and should be
contacted are the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
and Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe.
LOCAL PERMITTING
Site Plan Review
Construction of trail segments and support
facilities will require development permits
from Jefferson County. Jefferson County
will require supporting documentation
and additional permits dependent on the
type and location of the proposed activity,
including, but not limited to, environmental,
land use, transportation, water, and sewer
review.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
74
Jefferson County will require a Site Plan
Review process for each new segment of trail
or new support facilities within the county.
The specific requirements will be obtained
through the Pre-application process. The
proposed improvement plans necessary
for application may include environmental,
land use and transportation, landscaping,
sign and outdoor lighting plan. In addition
to the required plans, supporting documents
will be necessary for the Jefferson County
submittal and may include the following: soil
analysis and geotechnical report, preliminary
stormwater design report, proposed storm
plan, traffic study, SEPA, sewer district
utility review letter, water utility review
letter, health department project evaluation
letter, covenants or restrictions, and other
associated environmental applications
The proposed trail alignment passes through
a number of Land Use designations within
Jefferson County. The proposed trail is an
allowed use in all Land Use designations.
Critical Areas
The Washington State Growth Management
Act (GMA) identifies the protection of five
critical areas as necessary for protection of
the natural environment and the public’s
health and safety. Each city and county in
Washington State has the responsibility to
identify, designate, and protect those critical
areas found in their local environment. The
trail alignment passes through Jefferson
County. The identified critical areas include
fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
(FWHCA), wetlands, frequently flooded areas
(FFA), critical aquifer recharge areas (CARA),
and geologic hazard areas (Geohazards).
Jefferson County has local ordinances
protecting these resources.
Construction of the trail may require all or
a combination of the local environmental
permits depending on the location and type
of the action.
Jefferson County requires supporting
documentation for many of the permits.
Necessary information could include any of
the following: no rise certification; wetland
delineation; habitat impact assessment and
mitigation; wetland mitigation plan (see
discussion below); rare plant survey; geologic
hazard area study; buffer impact mitigation;
historical and cultural resources survey; and/
or a biological assessment.
Jefferson County specifically requires a
Critical Areas Report for any required critical
area permits. At a minimum the report
requires the identification and scientific
characterization of all critical areas and
buffers and an assessment of impacts to
those areas. Additional report requirements
specific to the area of impact are also
required.
Archaeological and Cultural
Resources Review
Jefferson County does not codify
archaeological and cultural resources
review but addresses this issue through the
SEPA process. Federal permits required by
the project will not be issued until Section
106 – Historical Preservation requirements
are satisfied. The Jamestown S’Klallam
Tribe will be provided the opportunity to
review and provide input on the project so
that potential adverse impacts to cultural
resources are avoided.
STATE REGULATORY AUTHORITIES
Washington State Department of Fish
& Wildlife
Any activity that will use, divert, obstruct,
or change the bed or flow of state waters
requires a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)
from the Washington State Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Essentially,
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
75
this covers any work near or over streams,
or below the ordinary high water mark. For
instance, a bridge spanning a stream would
require an HPA even if the abutments for
the bridge are above the ordinary high water
mark or outside of the 100-year floodplain.
In addition, WDFW provides management
recommendations, which are guidelines not
regulations, for identified priority species
and habitats. Typically, local jurisdictions
implement these guidelines through a habitat
conservation plan.
Washington State Department of
Ecology
Shorelines: Under the Washington State
Shoreline Management Act (SMA), cities
and counties with “shorelines of the state”
administer a Shoreline Master Program
(SMP). A shoreline of the state is defined
as all of the water areas of the state and
their associated shorelands, together with
the lands underlying them, not including
lakes less than 20 acres in size and wetlands
associated with those small lakes or stream
segments where the mean annual flow is
20 cubic feet per second or less and their
associated wetlands. The SMP is essentially
a shoreline comprehensive plan and zoning
ordinance specific to shoreline areas and
customized to local circumstances. Activities
within shoreline areas must comply with the
applicable SMP.
This state regulation is delegated to Jefferson
County to administer through site plan
review.
State Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Checklist: The Washington
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
requires the submittal of an environmental
checklist, which provides agencies with a
framework to consider the environmental
consequences to the natural and built
environment of a proposal.
The SEPA checklist evaluates the
environmental consequences of a proposal
and determines if it will have any “significant
adverse environmental impact.” The agency
reviewing the checklist (lead agency) will
issue a determination of nonsignificance
(DNS), a mitigated DNS, or a determination
of significance (DS). A mitigated DNS will
include measures to mitigate all significant
impacts to a nonsignificant level through
the requirements of local, state, or federal
regulations. If the lead agency issues a DS,
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
will be required. The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) also provides an
environmental review process for project
proposals with a federal nexus (e.g. permit,
funding). If federal funding is secured, the
funding source will be the lead entity for
NEPA. Compliance with NEPA may require
that an Environmental Assessment or EIS be
completed for the project.
SEPA is delegated to Jefferson County to
administer through site plan review. An
alignment passing through Washington State
Parks or Washington Department of Natural
Resources will require SEPA compliance by
each state agency and land use consistency
determinations and use approvals by each of
these agencies consistent with their policies
and procedures.
Section 401 Water Quality Certification:
The federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
allows states to approve, condition, or deny
projects proposed to be built in wetlands or
other waters of the U.S. Projects requiring
a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) also require a
Section 401 water quality certification from
the Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology). Section 401 of the CWA requires
applicants to receive a certification from the
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
76
state that the proposed project will meet state
water quality standards and other aquatic
protection regulations. The conditions of the
state certification will become conditions of
the federal permit.
This federal regulation is administered by the
Washington State Department of Ecology.
NPDES Construction Stormwater General
Permit: The CWA identifies the discharge of
stormwater as a point source of pollution. As
such, certain stormwater discharges require
a National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit. The goal of the
construction general stormwater permit is
to reduce or eliminate stormwater pollution
and other impacts to surface waters from
construction sites.
An applicant is required to apply for coverage
under the state’s construction stormwater
general permit if the proposed project
involves soil disturbing activities where
one or more acres will be disturbed, and if
stormwater will be discharged to receiving
water directly or to storm drains that
discharge to a receiving water.
This federal regulation is administered by the
Washington State Department of Ecology.
Washington State Department of
Natural Resources
The Washington State Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) houses the Washington
Natural Heritage Program (NHP), which
provides information related to the presence
of rare plant species and natural ecosystems.
Although there is no state law protecting rare
plant species/communities in Washington,
local jurisdictions may provide protection
through their ordinances, regulations and
permitting requirements (e.g., Habitat
Permit).
Department of Archeology and
Historic Preservation
The Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation (DAHP) and affected tribes
must be consulted when projects are subject
to review under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA).
This act requires that all federal agencies
take into account the affect of its actions on
historic properties. Requirements of Section
106 review apply to any federal undertaking,
funding, license, or permit.
DAHP and affected tribes are consulted to
help determine if the site has been surveyed,
if there are identified historical resources
on-site, and if the property is listed or eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places.
If projects will adversely affect property
that meets National Register criteria, DAHP
will participate in finding acceptable ways
to avoid or mitigate that adverse effect. The
federal agency involved is responsible for
initiating and completing Section 106 review.
FEDERAL REGULATORY
AUTHORITIES
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
issues permits for certain activities in, over,
under or near waters of the U.S. or special
aquatic sites, including wetlands. A Section
10 permit is required for any work in, over,
or under navigable waters. A Clean Water
Act Section 404 permit is required for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into
waters of the U.S., including special aquatic
sites such as wetlands.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
77
The Sec on 404/10 permit application, Joint
Aquatic Resources Permit Application
(JARPA), also requires the applicant provide
an alternatives analysis discussing how
alternative sites and designs were evaluated
in an effort to avoid or minimize anticipated
project impacts. Any impacts to wetlands will
require the submittal of a wetland delineation
report and a compensatory mitigation plan
for any unavoidable impacts to wetlands or
waterways.
The Corps issues different types of permits
under Section 404/10. Nationwide permits
(NWP) are general permits authorizing a
category of activities throughout the nation.
These permits have specific conditions that
must be met for the permit to be valid and
are issued for projects with small impacts.
Regional permits are issued if the proposed
activity falls within a general category of
activities that are similar in nature and cause
minimal environmental impact (individually
and cumulatively). Individual permits are for
projects with larger impacts or that cannot
meet the specific conditions required of a
NWP. Individual permits go through a full
public interest review.
National Marine Fisheries Service &
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species
Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to
consult with the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and/or the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) on any activities
that may affect a listed species. The
consultation requirement assists federal
agencies in fulfilling their duty to ensure
their actions do not jeopardize the continued
existence of a species or destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat. A Biological Opinion
documents NMFS/USFWS opinion and
recommends reasonable and prudent
measures that will minimize any impacts
from the federal action (e.g., typically
issuance of a Section 404 permit) and the
terms and conditions that apply to the
proposed project.
The applicant is often requested to submit a
Biological Assessment (BA) with their permit
application. The BA documents the proposed
action, existing environmental conditions
at the project site, any listed species and
critical habitat present, potential impacts to
the species and critical habitat, and an effects
determination.
MITIGATION
The Corps and local jurisdictions both
regulate impacts to wetlands; whereas, only
the local jurisdiction regulates impacts
to wetland buffers. Both the Corps and
local jurisdictions require mitigation to
compensate for impacts to the functions
and values of the impacted wetland(s) and
buffer(s) so that no overall net loss in wetland
acreage and functions occur. Jefferson
County prefers mitigation to occur on-site
or within the same local watershed as the
impacted wetland when possible. Buffer
averaging and reduction is permitted and
may be used when complete avoidance of the
resource buffer is not possible.
Impacts to riparian areas, fish and wildlife
habitat areas, and all associated buffers also
require mitigation.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
78
TABLE 5.2.1 MITIGATION RATIO REQUIREMENTS
1. These ratios are based on the assumption that the rehabilitation or enhancement actions implemented represent the average degree of improvement
possible for the site. Proposals to implement more effective rehabilitation or enhancement actions may result in a lower ratio, while less effective actions
may result in higher ratio. The distinction between rehabilitation and enhancement is not clear-cut. Instead, rehabilitation and enhancement actions
span a continuum. Proposals that fall within the gray area between rehabilitation and enhancement will result in a ratio that lies between the ratios for
rehabilitation and the ratios for enhancement.
2. Due to the dynamic nature of interdunal systems, enhancement is not considered an ecologically appropriate action.
3. Natural heritage sites, coastal lagoons, and bogs are considered irreplaceable wetlands because they perform some functions that cannot be replaced
through compensatory mitigation. Impacts to such wetlands would therefore result in a net loss of some functions no matter what kind of compensation is
proposed.
Category
and Type
of Wetland
Impacts
Re-
establishment
or Creation
Rehabilitation
Only 1
Re-establishment
or Creation (R/C)
and Rehabilitation
(RH)1
Re-establishment
or Creation (R/C)
and Enhancement
(E)1
Enhancement
Only 1
All Category IV 1.5:1 3:1 1:1 R/C and 1:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 2:1 E 6:1
All Category III 2:1 4:1 1:1 R/C and 2:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 4:1 E 8:1
Category II Estuarine Case-by-case 4:1
Rehabilitation
of an estuarine
wetland
Case-by-case Case-by-case Case-by-case
Category II Interdunal 2:1
Compensation
has to be
interdunal
wetland
4:1
Compensation
has to be
interdunal
wetland
1:1 R/C and 2:1 RH
Compensation has
to be interdunal
wetland
Not considered an
option2
Not considered an
option2
All Other Category II 3:1 6:1 1:1 R/C and 4:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 8:1 E 12:1
Category I Forested 6:1 12:1 1:1 R/C and 10:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 20:1 E 24:1
Category I Based on Score for Functions
4:1 8:1 1:1 R/C and 6:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 12:1 E 16:1
Category I
Natural
Heritage Site
Not considered
possible3
6:1
Rehabilitation
of a Natural
Heritage site
R/C not considered
possible3
R/C not considered
possible3
Case-by-case
Category I
Coastal Lagoon
Not considered
possible3
6:1
Rehabilitation
of a coastal
lagoon
R/C not considered
possible3
R/C not considered
possible3
Case-by-case
Category I
Bog
Not considered
possible3
6:1
Rehabilitation
of a bog
R/C not considered
possible3
R/C not considered
possible3
Case-by-case
Category I
Estuarine
Case-by-case 6:1
Rehabilitation
of an estuarine
wetland
Case-by-case Case-by-case Case-by-case
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
79
PERMITTING TIMELINES
The proposed project requires public and
agency review which takes prescriptive
time to complete. Table 5.2.2 below shows
TABLE 5.2.2 PERMIT TIMELINE
Federal Approvals Required Review
Time
Notes
NEPA Possible up to 1.5
years
Requires Federal Action to trigger
Bridge Permit No --
Section 10 Rivers and Harbors No --
Section 106 - Historic
Preservation
Possible 6 months
Section 401 - Water Quality
Certification
Possible 6 months Starts after Section 404 permit issuance
Section 404 - Discharge of Fill
Nationwide Permit
Possible 6 months
Coastal Zone Management
Approval
Possible 1 month
State Approvals
Hydraulic Project Approval Yes 1.5
months
Washington State Department
of Archeology and Historic
Preservation (DAHP)
Yes --
Construction Stormwater
General Permit - NPDES
Yes 1.5
months
Local Approvals
State Environmental Policy Act Yes 3 to 6
months
Clearing, Grading, and Building
Permits
Possible 1 month
Critical Areas Yes 3 to 6
months
Shoreline Permits Possible 6 months May be required for work along
Discovery Bay
potential permits and approvals that may be
required for this project and possible timelines
to complete.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
80
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
81
IMPLEMENTATION
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
82
6.1 COST AND EASE OF
IMPLEMENTATION
At this early, route-planning stage, without
a precise trail alignment -- let alone
landowner commitments regarding exact
trail locations, wetlands delineations, right-
of-way surveys, soils and geologic studies,
grade and slope analysis, and so on -- it is
only possible to give preliminary estimates
of construction costs. We have considered
the latest available unit costs experienced by
City, County, and State agencies. We have
looked at the range of construction costs of
other rural trails in Western Washington,
including rural trails and roads constructed
by Jefferson and Clallam counties. We
have considered published information
about trail construction costs. Rural multi-
use trail construction costs on the Olympic
Peninsula range from a low (in 2018 dollars)
of about $900,000 a mile to a high of
about $3,000,000 a mile – depending on
project complexities, land acquisition costs,
difficulties of construction, and many other
variables. Published information shows
similar cost ranges. Contingency multipliers
can substantially increase those ranges.
Exactly where within those ranges a detailed
cost estimate will fall depends on much
more information regarding the exact trail
alignment, and conditions on that alignment,
than we have identified at this preliminary
stage.
We can be more confident at this point
regarding trail maintenance costs. Based
on Jefferson County’s experience with the
Larry Scott Trail, we estimate the annual
maintenance cost of the trail at $4,500 per
mile per year. These costs do not include
future heavy maintenance costs such as
full asphalt overlay. These costs include
mowing, brush cutting, sign maintenance,
pothole patching, tree trimming and removal,
fence repair, litter cleanup, storm cleanup,
culvert cleaning, landscaping, and restroom
cleaning and rental. Maintenance costs
will vary depending on the location and
nature of the trail. Maintenance costs may
be shared by the agencies that control the
particular segments of the trail, so that State
Parks might manage maintenance on the
Anderson Lake State Park parcel, the City
might manage maintenance on the City Lake
parcel, and the WA State Department of
Transportation might manage maintenance
on the WSDOT rights-of-way. In addition,
volunteer organizations – the Peninsula Trails
Coalition, the Back Country Horsemen of
Washington, Buckhorn Range Chapter, and
the Pacific Northwest Trail Association, have
already made maintenance commitments to
Washington State Parks for maintenance in
Anderson Lake State Park, and we anticipate
that they may make similar commitments to
the County.
Regarding ease of implementation, the
ODT-E project is very challenging. It
involves 10 miles of trail over some
difficult terrain, requiring cooperation and
coordination between multiple municipal,
state and federal agencies including
Jefferson County, the City of Port Townsend,
Washington State Parks, the Department
of Natural Resources, Washington State
Department of Transportation, the US Forest
Service, and the Recreation and Conservation
Office. It will require potentially-difficult
land exchange transactions with Pope
Resources, plus easement acquisitions with
a number of other private landowners. It
will require multiple grant applications,
supported by matching contributions so that
the cost burdens are not entirely borne by the
County. It will require project management
over a several years as the trail is designed
and built, segment by segment. And it will
require the ongoing active support, with time
and money, of many community volunteers
including the Peninsula Trails Coalition,
the Eaglemount Trail Association, the Back
County Horsemen of Washington, Buckhorn
Range Chapter, the Pacific Northwest Trail
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
83
Association, and many individual volunteers.
Balanced against these costs and
implementation challenges are the potential
benefits that the County’s citizens may
receive from the trail. We have already
discussed the potential economic benefits
that such trails provide. The benefits are
more than economic. Trails make citizens
healthier. Trails make the environment
greener. This trail may save lives. In Alta’s
opinion, the need for the trail, the probable
use, and the benefits of the trail outweigh its
costs, whether they are on the high or low end
of the scale.
6.2 PHASING PLAN
A safe, pleasant, complete and connected
Olympic Discovery Trail is the goal of this
effort. Ideally the ODT-E would be funded
and built in one phase, perhaps divided into
discrete construction packages reflecting the
geography, construction methods required
and ownership patterns.
There are logical interim endpoints that
create the three segments outlined in the
study, and each could stand on its own as
an improvement over the current status,
but would not serve to connect the Olympic
Discovery Trail as a continuous off-road
experience. As noted in this report the logical
segments are:
• North - from the Milo Curry trailhead to
Anderson Lake Road at Anderson Lake
State Park
• Central - from Anderson Lake Road to
Grouse Lane and Eaglemount Road.
• South - from Eaglemount Road to the end
of the ODT at Discovery Bay.
The order of phasing will be influenced
by many factors including right-of-way
acquisition, coordination with utility funding
and improvement, and capital improvement
budgeting.
The South Segment addresses the most
urgent safety and experience needs and is
entirely within public right-of-way.
In the North Segment North A, North B, and
North C may be easier to implement with the
cooperation between Jefferson County and
WA State Parks.
The North Segment is a logical place to start
since it would continue the Larry Scott Trail
and connect to Anderson Lake State Park.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
84
6.3 FINANCIAL STRATEGY
Many potential sources of funding for the
ODT-Eaglemount exist under both state and
federal programs.
Local
Jefferson County stated in its 2010 Update
to the transportation element of its
Comprehensive Plan that it “will consider
a partnership with the Forest Service and
trail advocate[s] to develop this route.” The
Forest Service has expressed, in its October
30, 2015 memorandum to the Jefferson
County Commissioners, that it encourages
a study and potential development of a
non-motorized trail from the Larry Scott
Memorial Trail, and that it will seek the
“advice and assistance of states, local
governments, private organizations,
landowners and land users,” in connection
with the development and possible relocation
of the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail
off SR 20.
The City of Port Townsend’s plans include
connectivity among the city and county trail
systems.
State
Washington’s Recreation and Conservation
Office (RCO)
• Nonhighway and Off-Road Vehicle
Activities Program (NOVA)
• Washington Wildlife and Recreation
Program, Trails Category (WWRP)
• Recreational Trails Program (RTP)
provides for trail-related facilities for both
non-motorized and motorized trail uses,
including new “linking” trail development
projects for recreational trails.
Washington State Parks has expressed its
support for the concept of routing part of the
trail through Anderson Lakes State Park.
WSDOT’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
Program (PBSP) provided funded more
than $10 million in projects in the 2015-2017
biennium.
Federal
• Surface Transportation Program (STP),
provides financial support to local
agencies developing bicycle, pedestrian,
and recreational trails.
• Transportation Alternatives Program
(TAP) is a potential source of funds for
planning and development.
• The Federal Lands Access Program
(FLAP) provides funds for access to
federal lands and may be available to
support the ODT connection to Olympic
National Forest, Olympic National Park
and the Pacific Northwest National Scenic
Trail.
• BUILD (formerly TIGER ) discretionary
grants program, provided nearly $500
million for 39 projects in 34 states in 2015.
• Additional federal infrastructure funding
may become available late in this decade.
Private and Philanthropic
Individual donors, companies and
philanthropic organizations across the
country recognize the many civic, social,
employment, health, environmental, and
economic benefits of multi-use trails and
often step forward with funds to match or
challenge other sources. Advocates for the
ODT-E may look to local, regional and special
interest foundations for funding, in addition
to local economic interests.
Examples can be found in Northwest
Arkansas where the Walmart Family
Foundation provided a $15million match for
a $15 million TIGER grant for the 36-mile
Razorback Greenway.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
85
Back cover: ODT-E trail
reconnaissance in Anderson
Lake State Park.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT FINAL REPORT | 2019
86
Jefferson County, WA
OLYMPIC
DISCOVERY
TRAIL -
EAGLEMOUNT
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Image source: Alta Planning + Design JEFFER S O N CO
UNTYWASHIN G T ON
APRIL 26, 2019
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
2
A UNIFIED SYSTEM
Jefferson County’s Olympic Discovery Trail -
Eaglemount Design Guidelines support the goals
and recommendations described in the 2010
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan’s section on
Transportation. In particular, the Design Guidelines
support and are consistent with Jefferson County’s
trail vision (Goal TR-G-3) to “promote coordinated
and safe bicycle, equestrian, and pedestrian way
improvements in accordance with the Non-motorized
Transportation and Recreational Trails Plan, and
in coordination with Federal, State, and regional
agencies, utilities, and citizen groups, emphasizing
access to schools, parks, employment, major activity
service centers, and transit facilities (ferry, bus, etc.),
and links between existing trails during land use and
transportation system development planning.”
Image source: Alta Planning + Design
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
3
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1: Project Description.................................................................................................................................. 7
1.2: Document Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 7
1.3: Design Guidance .................................................................................................................................... 8
User Guidelines ................................................................................................................................................... 12
2.1: User-based Design ................................................................................................................................ 13
2.2: Accessibility ........................................................................................................................................... 19
Trail Design .......................................................................................................................................................... 20
3.1: Trail Design with Equestrians ........................................................................................................... 21
3.2: Trail Edge & Separation .................................................................................................................... 24
3.3: Cross Sections with Steep Slopes .................................................................................................... 25
3.4: Vegetative Screening ..........................................................................................................................27
3.5: Access Control .......................................................................................................................................29
3.6: Spur Trails ...............................................................................................................................................31
3.7: Crime Prevention through Environmental Design .......................................................................31
Roadways and Structures ................................................................................................................................ 33
4.1: Trail - Roadway Crossings ................................................................................................................. 34
4.2: Active Warning Beacons .................................................................................................................. 38
4.3: Median Refuge Islands...................................................................................................................... 39
4.4: Advisory Bike Lanes .............................................................................................................................41
4.5: Bridges, Overcrossings, & Boardwalks ...........................................................................................42
4.6: Tunnels & Undercrossings .................................................................................................................44
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
4
Trail Amenities ................................................................................................................................................... 45
5.1: Parking Area ......................................................................................................................................... 46
5.2: Bicycle Parking..................................................................................................................................... 47
5.3: Equestrian Parking ..............................................................................................................................48
5.4: Equestrian Amenities .........................................................................................................................49
5.5: Bicycle Repair Stations .......................................................................................................................50
5.6: Trailheads .............................................................................................................................................. 51
5.7: Water ........................................................................................................................................................52
5.8: Seated Rest Areas & Viewpoints ......................................................................................................53
5.9: Public Art & Sculpture ....................................................................................................................... 55
Signage .................................................................................................................................................................. 56
6.1 Regulatory & Directional .................................................................................................................... 57
6.2 Etiquette.................................................................................................................................................. 58
6.3 Wayfinding ............................................................................................................................................. 59
6.4 Emergency Locators ............................................................................................................................ 59
Figure 1 Typical distribution of bicyclist types....................................................................................…13
Figure 2 Typical bicycle operating widths….............................................................................................14
Figure 3 Typical dimensions for common bicycle types…...................................................................15
Figure 4 Pedestrian recommended trail widths…..................................................................................16
Figure 5 Assistive device use operating widths…..................................................................................17
Figure 6 Equestrian recommended trail widths…..................................................................................18
Figure 7 Typical multi-use trail with equestrian section…...................................................................21
Figure 8 Typical multi-use trail in conditions with reduced space….................................................22
Figure 9 Example of trail separation using vegetation......................................................................…24
Figure 10 Trail section with cut and fill profile for stabilized slope…...............................................26
Figure 11 Trail section with gabion retaining wall, showing cut and fill profile….........................26
Figure 12 Vegetative screening with attention to transparency......................................................…27
Figure 13 Vegetative screening with attention to site lines..............................................................…28
LIST OF FIGURES
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
5
Table 1 Upright adult bicyclist – typical…..................................................................................................15
Table 2 Bicycle design speed expectations…............................................................................................15
Table 3 Pedestrian characteristics by age…..............................................................................................16
Table 4 Wheelchair use typical speed…......................................................................................................17
Table 5 Wheelchair user design considerations…....................................................................................17
Figure 14 Vertical curb cut….........................................................................................................................29
Figure 15 Typical trail intersection with spur trail..............................................................................…35
Figure 16 Typical multi-use trail crossing road at non-signalized intersection….........................36
Figure 17 Typical mid-block crossing..............................................................….........................................37
Figure 18 Examples of active warning beacons…...................................................................................38
Figure 19 Example section with median refuge islands…....................................................................40
Figure 20 Two-way low volume road with advisory bicycle lanes..................................................…41
Figure 21 Bridge design considerations and dimensions…..................................................................43
Figure 22 Trial undercrossing…...................................................................................................................44
Figure 23 Example of multi-use trail parking lot configuration…......................................................46
Figure 24 Example of bicycle parking and dimensions….....................................................................47
Figure 25 Example of bicycle parking along a multi-use trail….........................................................48
Figure 26 Example of a bicycle repair station with tire pump.........................................................…50
Figure 27 Example of a trailhead…..............................................................................................................51
Figure 28 Section diagram of seating dimensions along a multi-use trail......................................53
Figure 29 Examples of rest area and benches….......................................................................................54
Figure 30 Examples of regulatory signs….................................................................................................57
Figure 31 Examples of etiquette signs…....................................................................................................58
Figure 32: Example emergency locater sign............................................................................................58
LIST OF TABLES
Image source: Alta Planning + Design
6
INTRODUCTION
“The Olympic Discovery Trail is a vital and important
element of our area’s economy, especially as it relates to
tourism and bicycle tourists.”
-Local Resident
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
7
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Olympic Discovery Trail is a regional
multi-use trail system that traverses
the Olympic Peninsula in an East-West
alignment; it begins in Jefferson County in
Port Townsend and travels across the part of
the northern coast of the Olympic Peninsula
then turning inland and cuts through Clallam
County, ending at La Push, on the Peninsula’s
Pacific Coast. The existing trail consists
of a combination of on-road segments and
separated trails, some of which are paved
some of which are not. The total length of
the trail covers 130 miles, over half of which
is on multi-use trails, the remainder are on a
combination of state and local roadways of
varying levels of traffic intensity.
For more than 30 years the Peninsula
Trails Coalition (PTC) has advocated
for the Olympic Discovery Trail through
its stakeholder, membership and public
engagement, political activity, its leadership
in route-finding and problem-solving and its
volunteer activities related to maintenance.
The PTC’s multi-use trail design criteria are
consistent with best practices for similar
trails.
The eastern portal of the Olympic Discovery
Trail begins at the Port of Port Townsend and
extends 7.3 miles on an unpaved separated
pathway called the Larry Scott Trail, to a
trailhead at Four Corners. The remaining
20 miles of the eastern section are currently
on a short segment of multi-use trail on the
west shore of Discovery Bay and paved roads
including State Routes 20 and 101.
The Olympic Discovery Trail - Eaglemount
(ODT-E) would provide an alternative to
7 miles of state highway, providing an
accessible, paved, non-motorized, multi-use
trail connecting the Larry Scott Trail, at its
current terminus in Four Corners to Old
Gardiner Road East Discovery Bay.
The ODT-E will be a multi-use trail, meaning
that it will be serving pedestrians, bicyclists
and equestrians as well as those using
mobility assistive devices. It will not be open
to use by motorized vehicles.
The trail is recommended to pass through
Anderson Lake State Park, along county
roads, and along State Route- 101 near the
southern end of Discovery Bay. There are cut
and fill slopes throughout the corridor. Trail
construction is anticipated to be completed
in phases and should follow the design
guidelines provided in this document.
1.2 DOCUMENT PURPOSE
The Olympic Discovery Trail - Eaglemount
Design Guidelines is intended to assist
Jefferson County in the design of a multi-use
trail. This document will serve as a guide
to help planners, designers, and engineers
select appropriate facilities or treatments
given the project context for the proposed
multi-use trail. The guidelines build upon
national, state and local best practices for
bicycle, pedestrian, equestrian, and multi-use
trails, and apply them to the local context.
The Olympic Discovery Trail - Eaglemount
Design Guidelines support the goals and
recommendations described in the Jefferson
County Non-Motorized Transportation and
Recreation Plan. In particular, the Design
Guidelines support and are consistent with
Jefferson County’s trail vision: “Promote
coordinated and safe bicycle, equestrian, and
pedestrian way improvements...emphasizing
access to schools, parks, employment, major
activity service centers, and mass transit
facilities opportunities to provide links
between existing trails during land use
and transportation system development
planning.”
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
8
1.3 DESIGN GUIDANCE
National Guidance
Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA)
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD)
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
The MUTCD defines the standards used
by road managers nationwide to install and
maintain traffic control devices on public
streets, highways, bikeways, and private
roads open to public traffic. The MUTCD
is the primary source for guidance on lane
striping requirements, signal warrants,
and recommended signage and pavement
markings.
To further clarify the MUTCD standards,
the FHWA created a table of contemporary
bicycle facilities that lists various bicycle
related signs, markings, signals, and other
treatments and identifies their official
status (e.g., can be implemented, currently
experimental). See Bicycle Facilities and the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Bikeway treatments not explicitly covered by
the MUTCD are often subject to experiments,
interpretations and official rulings by the
FHWA. The MUTCD Official Rulings is a
resource that allows website visitors to obtain
information about these supplementary
materials. Copies of various documents (such
as incoming request letters, response letters
from the FHWA, progress reports, and final
reports) are available on this website.
American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities
The AASHTO Guide for the Development
of Bicycle Facilities, updated in June 2012,
provides guidance on dimensions, use,
and layout of specific bicycle facilities. The
standards and guidelines presented by
AASHTO provide basic design information,
such as minimum multi-use trail widths,
bicycle lane dimensions, geometric
design, detailed striping requirements
and recommended signage and pavement
markings.
AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design,
and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/travel/commute-
choices/walk/designing
The 2004 AASHTO Guide for the Planning,
Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities
provides comprehensive guidance on
planning and design for people on foot.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
9
National Association of City
Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) 2012
Urban Bikeway Design Guide
https://nacto.org/publication/urban-
bikeway-design-guide/
The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
is the newest publication of nationally
recognized bikeway design, and offers
guidance on current state-of-the-practice
designs. The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design
Guide is based on current practices in the
best cycling cities in the world. The intent
of the guide is to offer substantive guidance
for cities seeking to improve bicycle
transportation in places where competing
demands for the use of the right of way
present unique challenges. All of the NACTO
Urban Bikeway Design Guide treatments
are in use internationally and in many cities
around the US.
US Department of Transportation
(USDOT) Small Town and Rural Multi-
modal Networks (STAR) Guide
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/
bicycle_pedestrian/publications/small_
towns/
The STAR Guide translates existing street
design guidance and facility types for bicycle
and pedestrian safety and comfort for the
smaller scale places not addressed in guides
such as the NACTO Street Design Guide and
ITE Walkable Urban Thoroughfares report.
The guide provides clear examples of how
to interpret and apply design flexibility to
improve bicycling and walking conditions.
The stated goals of the STAR guide include
“to provide a bridge between existing
guidance on bicycle and pedestrian design
and rural practice, encouraging innovation
in the development of safe and appealing
networks for bicycling and walking in
small towns and rural areas, and to provide
examples of peer communities and project
implementation that is appropriate for rural
communities.”
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
10
The Recreational Trails Program of the
Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation. (FHWA)
Equestrian Design Guidebook for Trails,
Trailheads, and Campgrounds, 2007.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/
recreational_trails/publications/fs_
publications/07232816/
The Equestrian Design Guidebook provides
guidance for construction of trails and
associated facilities with specific treatments
for use by equestrians.
2010 Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) Standards for Accessible Design
https://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards_
index.htm
The 2010 ADA Standards contain guidance
for the construction of accessible facilities.
This includes requirements for sidewalk curb
ramps, slopes, and pedestrian railings along
stairs.
Some of these treatments are not directly
referenced in the current versions of the
AASHTO Guide or the MUTCD, although
many elements of the treatments are found
within these documents. In all cases,
engineering judgment is recommended to
match the application to the context of each
treatment. Meeting the requirements of the
ADA is an important part of any bicycle and
pedestrian facility project.
Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility
Guidelines (PROWAG)
https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-
and-standards/streets-sidewalks/public-
rights-of-way/proposed-rights-of-way-
guidelines
The U.S. Access Board’s proposed Public
Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines
(PROWAG) also provides guidance on
accessible design for public outdoor facilities.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
11
State Guidelines
Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) Design Manual
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/
Manuals/M22-01.htm
The WSDOT Design Manual provides
policies, procedures, and methods
for developing transportation design
improvements in Washington. The manual
was primarily developed for state facilities
and may not be appropriate for all county
or city roads (WSDOT Design Manual).
Division 15, Chapter 1515, of the manual
details design standards for bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, with a specific emphasis
on multi-use trails. The Design Manual has
been adopted by WSDOT as an equivalent
resource to the AASHTO guidelines for
designing both bicycle facilities and multi-
use trails.
Local Guidelines
The Peninsula Trails Coalition Design
Guidelines, Approved September 2013.
Since its founding in 1988, the PTC
has advocated for a fully functioning,
demonstrably safe, multi-modal, bi-
directional, non-motorized Olympic
Discovery Trail (ODT), extending from Port
Townsend west to La Push. The guidelines
created in 2013 outline the features that
should be apart of any trail segment of the
ODT. These include adhering to AASHTO
guidelines for shared use pathways and
standards set forth by the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) Access Board. In
addition typical dimensions for the trail are
identified.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
12
USER
GUIDELINES
Image source: Alta Planning + Design
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
13
2.1 USER-BASED DESIGN
People Riding Bicycles
It is important to consider bicyclists of all
skill levels when creating a non-motorized
plan or project. A detailed understanding of
the U.S. population as a whole is illustrated in
Figure 1. Developed by planners in Portland,
Oregon and supported by data collected
nationally since 2005, this classification
provides the following alternative categories
to address varying attitudes towards
bicycling in the US:
Strong and Fearless (approximately 1% of
population) – Characterized by bicyclists
that will typically ride anywhere regardless
of roadway conditions or weather. These
bicyclists can ride faster than other user
types, prefer direct routes and will typically
choose roadway connections — even if shared
with vehicles — over separate bicycle facilities
such as multi-use trails.
Enthused and Confident (7% of population)
–This user group encompasses bicyclists
who are fairly comfortable riding on all types
of bikeways but usually choose low traffic
streets or multi-use trails when available.
These bicyclists may deviate from a more
direct route in favor of a preferred facility
type.
Interested but Concerned (approximately
60% of population) – This user type
comprises the bulk of the cycling population
and represents bicyclists who typically only
ride a bicycle on low traffic streets or multi-
use trails under favorable weather conditions.
These bicyclists perceive significant barriers
to their increased use of cycling, specifically
traffic and other safety issues.
No Way, No How (approximately 33% of
population) – Persons in this category are
not bicyclists, are disinterested in cycling
or physically unable to ride a bicycle. Some
may perceive severe safety issues with riding
in traffic. Some people in this group may
eventually become more regular cyclists with
time and education. A significant portion of
these people will not ride a bicycle under any
circumstances.
<1%
7%
60%
33%No Way, No How
Interested but
Concerned
Enthused and
Condent
Strong and Fearless
Figure 1: Typical distribution of bicyclist types (Roger Geller, Portland Office of Transportation,
2009).
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
14
Similar to motor vehicles, bicyclists and
their bicycles exist in a variety of sizes and
configurations. These variations occur in
the types of vehicle (such as a conventional
bicycle, a recumbent bicycle or a tricycle),
and behavioral characteristics (such as the
comfort level of the bicyclist). The design of a
bikeway should consider reasonably expected
bicycle types on the facility and utilize the
appropriate dimensions.
Figure 2 illustrates the operating space
and physical dimensions of a typical adult
bicyclist, which are the basis for typical
facility design. Bicyclists require clear space
to operate within a facility. This is why the
minimum operating width is greater than the
physical dimensions of a person on a bicycle.
Bicyclists prefer 5 feet or more operating
width, although 4 feet may be minimally
acceptable. Table 1 summarizes the typical
dimensions of an upright adult bicyclist.
In addition to the design dimensions of
a typical bicycle, there are many other
commonly used pedal-driven cycles and
accessories to consider when planning
and designing bicycle facilities. The most
common types include tandem bicycles,
recumbent bicycles, and trailer accessories.
Figure 3 summarizes the typical dimensions
for bicycle types.
The expected speed that different types
of bicyclists can maintain under various
conditions also influences the design of
facilities such as multi-use trails. Table 2
provides typical bicyclist speeds for a variety
of conditions.
The growing use of electric-assist cycles
also contributes to a higher average speed of
traffic on multi-use trails.
As a recreational and social activity, cycling
on multi-use trails has seen a growing desire
for people to be able to ride next to each
other, while passing pedestrians who are
walking next to each other. The minimum
trail width that accommodates this is 12 feet,
with a preferred width of 14 feet.Physical Operating Width
2’6” (0.75 m)
Minimum Operating Width
4’ (1.2 m)
Preferred Operating Width
5’ (1.5 m)
Vertical Operating Envelope 8’4” (2.5 m)
Eye Level
5’ (1.5 m)
Handlebar Height
3’-3’8” (0.9-1.1 m)
Figure 2: Typical bicycle operating widths.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
15
Figure 3: Typical dimensions for common bicycle types.
Table 2: Bicycle design speed expectations.Table 1: Upright adult bicyclist - typical
dimensions.
*Tandem bicycles and bicyclists with trailers have typical
speeds equal to or less than upright adult bicyclists.
Standard Bicycle
Tandem Bicycle
Bicycle + Child Trailer
Cargo Bicycle
Recumbent Bicycle
Trailer Bike
Feature
Typical
Dimensions
Physical width 2 ft 6 in
Operating width (Minimum) 4 ft.
Operating width (Preferred) 5 ft.
Physical length 5 ft 10 in
Physical height of handlebars 3 ft 8 in
Operating height 8 ft 4 in
Eye height
Vertical clearance to obstructions
(tunnel height, lighting etc.)
Approximate center of gravity
5 ft
10 ft
2 ft 9 in = 3 ft 4 in
Bicycle
Type Feature
Typical
Speed
Upright Adult
Bicyclist
Paved level surfacing
Crossing intersection
Downhill
Uphill
8-15 mph
10 mph
20-30 mph
5-12 mph
Recumbent
Bicyclist
Paved level surfacing 11-18 mph
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
16
People Walking
Pedestrians have a variety of characteristics
and the transportation network should
accommodate a variety of needs, abilities,
and special needs. Age is one major
factor that affects pedestrians’ physical
characteristics, walking speed, and
environmental perception. Children have
low eye height, walk at slower speeds than
adults, and have slow reaction times and
sometimes unpredictable lines of travel. They
also perceive the environment differently at
various stages of their cognitive development,
including difficulty with speed perception.
Older adults walk more slowly and may
require assistive devices for walking stability,
sight, and hearing. Table 3 summarizes
common pedestrian characteristics for
various age groups and Figure 4 indicates
recommended widths for multi-use trails from
a pedestrian perspective.
The MUTCD recommends a normal
walking speed of 3.5 feet per second when
calculating the pedestrian clearance interval
at traffic signals. The walking speed can
drop to 3 feet per second for areas with
older populations and persons with mobility
impairments. While the type and degree of
mobility impairment varies greatly across the
population, the transportation system should
accommodate these users to the greatest
reasonable extent. Demographic data and
population trends can be gathered on the
county and sub-county levels using a number
of public resources, including the U.S. Census
Bureau’s American Community Survey.
Eye Level
4’6” - 5’10”
(1.3 m - 1.7 m)
Shoulders
1’10” (0.5 m)
Walking
2’6” (0.75 m)
Preferred Operating Space
5’ (1.5 m)
Table 3: Pedestrian characteristics by age.
Figure 4: Pedestrian recommended trail widths.
Age Characteristics
0-4 Learning to walk
Requires constant adult supervision
Developing peripheral vision and depth perception.
5-8 Increasing independence, but still requires supervision
Poor depth perception
9-13 Susceptible to “dart out” intersection dash
Poor judgment
Sense of invulnerability
14-18 Improved awareness of traffic environment
Poor judgment
19-40 Active, fully aware of traffic environment
41-65 Slowing of reflexes
65+Difficulty crossing street
Vision loss
Difficulty hearing vehicles approaching from behind
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
17
Minimum Operating Width
3’ (0.9 m)
Minimum to Make a 180 Degree Turn
5’ (1.5 m)
Eye Level
3’8” (1.1 m)
Physical Width
2’2” (0.7 m)
Physical Width
2’2” (0.7 m)
Manual Wheelchair Power Wheelchair
Minimum Operating Width
3’ (0.9 m)
Minimum to Make a 180 Degree Turn
5’ (1.5 m)
People Using Assistive Devices
As the American population ages, the
number of people using mobility assistive
devices (such as manual and powered
wheelchairs) increases.
Manual wheelchairs are self-propelled
devices. Users propel themselves using push
rims attached to the rear wheels. Braking is
done through resisting wheel movement with
the hands or arm. Alternatively, a second
individual can control the wheelchair using
handles attached to the back of the chair.
Power wheelchairs use battery power to
move the wheelchair. The size and weight
of power wheelchairs limit their ability to
negotiate obstacles without a ramp. Various
control units are available that enable users
to control the wheelchair movement based
on their ability (e.g., joystick control, breath
controlled, etc.).
Maneuvering around a turn requires
additional space for wheelchair devices.
Providing adequate space for 180 degree
turns at appropriate locations is an important
element for accessible design.
Table 4: Wheelchair use
typical speed.
Table 5: Wheelchair user design considerations.
Figure 5: Assistive device use operating widths.
User
Typical
Speed
Manual Wheelchair
3.6 mph
Powered Wheelchair
6.8 mph
Effect on Mobility Design Solution
Difficulty propelling over uneven soft surfaces
Firm, stable surfaces and structures,
including ramps or beveled edges.
Cross-slopes cause wheelchairs to veer downhill.
Cross-slopes of less than two percent.
Require wider path of travel Sufficient width and maneuvering space.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
18
People Riding Horses
Equestrians and their mounts require specific
considerations, not only for their size but
also in consideration of the behavior of the
animals and a variety of age and experience
levels of riders, who may need additional
space to be able to control their mounts
should they become excited and move out
of their track. Horses and mules (generally
referred to as ‘stock’) prefer natural surfaces
to hard surfaces, which cause wear on their
joints but also can become hazardous and
slippery under their hooves.
For these reasons, it is typically preferable
to provide a separate natural surface trail
alignment to accommodate equestrians.
Stock typically require a shy distance
between the track edge and nearby objects or
dense vegetation of 2 feet to 3 feet and prefer
a distance of 6 feet with a vegetative buffer
between themselves and bicycle traffic of
moderate volume and speed.
A minimum 2 foot buffer is preferable where
equestrian trails must be adjacent to multi-
use trails.
Figure 6: Equestrian recommended trail widths.
Tread
18” (.46 m)
Width
4’(1.22 M)
Shy Distance
2’-3’
Shy Distance
2’-3’
Height
7’-8’
(2-2.4 m)
Clearance
10’ -12‘
(3- 3.7 m)
Preferred Operating Space
6’ to 10’ (1.8-3 m)
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
19
2.2 ACCESSIBILITY
General guidelines have been created in response to the Americans for Disabilities Act (ADA)
for accessible trails.
Guidance
• Trail surface: hard surface such as asphalt, concrete, wood, compacted gravel.
• Trail gradient: less than 5% maximum without landings.
• Trail cross slope: 2% maximum.
• Passage width: 5 feet minimum.
• Detectable pavement changes at curb ramp approaches should be placed at the end of
ramps before entering roadways.
• Crosswalks should incorporate appropriate non-slip materials where striping is used to avoid
slipping on slick surfaces.
• Desired height for pedestrian actuated push buttons is 42 inches. The minimum height is 15
inches and maximum height 48 inches (2014 WSDOT Chapter 1510).
• Trailhead signage should provide accessibility information, such as trail gradient/profile,
distances, tread conditions, location of water facilities, and rest stops.
• At trailheads, parking areas should meet ADA parking requirements.
• Locate seating and rest areas at regular intervals along the trail.
Materials, Maintenance, and Safety
The trail surface should be solid, free of obstacles and tripping hazards. Trail edge vegetation,
screening, and signage should be maintained and located so as not to present obstacles for
visually impaired trail users.
Discussion
Steeper grades call for landings at regular intervals. Tactile queues and audible push-button
indicators at crossings provide visually impaired trail users with a safer, more comfortable
experience. Trail amenities, drinking fountains and pedestrian-actuated push buttons should be
placed no higher than four feet off the ground.
Constructing multi-use trails may have limitations that make meeting Americans for
Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines difficult and sometimes prohibitive. Prohibitive impacts
include harm to significant cultural or natural resources; a significant change in the intended
purpose of the trail; requirements of construction methods that are against federal, state, or
local regulations; or terrain characteristics that prevent compliance.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
20
TRAIL DESIGN
Image source: Alta Planning + Design
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
21
3.1 TRAIL DESIGN WITH EQUESTRIANS
Multi-use trails provide a desirable facility, particularly for recreation and users of all skill levels
preferring separation from traffic. The following guidance provides general and typical design
recommendations for trails with equestrians.
The Jefferson County Non-motorized Transportation and Recreational Trails Plan recommends
that the County use either the AASHTO Guidelines for Development of Bicycle Facilities or the
WSDOT Design Manual Chapter 1515 and 1520 for multi-use trail design guidelines.
Guidelines that describe equestrian facilities include the Equestrian Design Guidebook for
Trails, Trailheads, and Campgrounds, published by the Recreational Trails Program of the
Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2007.SoftSurface/EquestrianShoulderShoulder12’ (10’ min.) 2’2’6’ (4’ min.)Multi-useTrailFigure 7: Typical multi-use trail with equestrian section.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
22 Soft Surface/Equestrian1’Shoulder12’ (10’ min.)4’Multi-useTrailFigure 8: Typical section of multi-use trail in conditions with reduced space.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
23
Guidance:
Width of Paved Tread
• 12 feet, excluding shoulders, is recommended in most situations along the trail. (2014
WSDOT Chapter 1515; AASHTO 2012)
• A minimum with for the trail with an equestrian/running surface is 16 feet with a 10 foot
hardened trail surface, 4 foot packed gravel equestrian/running surface, and 2 foot gravel
shoulder on the side of the trail opposite of the 4 foot gravel surface (The Peninsula Trails
Coalition Design Guidelines 2013).
• When 12 feet is not achievable, 10 feet, excluding shoulders, is the minimum in most
situations and will only be adequate for light to moderate use.
• Exceptions to this minimum exist when there is a physical constraint, short trail distance, or
low use. A width of 8 feet is the absolute minimum trail width in these rare circumstances.
(2014 WSDOT Chapter 1515)
Lateral Clearance
• A 2 foot or greater shoulder on both sides of the trail should be provided. The installation
of signage or other furnishings should be located at least 2 feet beyond the 2 foot shoulder.
(2014 WSDOT Chapter 1515; MUTCD 2009)
Overhead Clearance
Clearance to overhead obstructions should be 12 feet recommended. (2014 WSDOT Chapter
1515; MUTCD 2009)
Materials, Maintenance, and Safety
Due to strain on the animals’ joints and lack of traction, paved surfaces are not recommended
for equestrian use. Compacted natural surface trails are the most preferred surface type for
equestrian use. Some types of compacted gravel are also suitable.
The hardened surface of the trail can be a variety of surfaces, such as concrete, asphalt, or chip-
sealed gravel. The key feature is that the surface should support all typical wheeled devices and
all uses without mud, sinking, or slipping (The Peninsula Trails Coalition Design Guidelines
2013).
Vegetation should be trimmed to permit a vertical clearance of 12 feet and 2 feet on either side
of trail should be maintained free of heavy shrubbery or fallen trees to allow for appropriate
clearance.
Stream crossings should be appropriately stabilized to withstand equestrian traffic
without eroding and sedimentation as well as maintain adequate traction. Refer to current
environmental standards for crossings in other sensitive areas.
Horses can walk on boardwalk surfaces, however consideration for animal and rider’s safety
should be considered carefully when considering boardwalks for portions of equestrian trails
and generally additional traction is recommended.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
24
3.2 TRAIL EDGE & SEPARATION
Vegetation, topography, ditches, fencing, railings, or walls may be used to clearly mark trail
edges. Such features serve multiple purposes, including:
• Providing visual separation/privacy screens
• Delineating public space from properties adjacent to the trail
• Discouraging the development of informal access trails
• Separating users from hazardous drop-offs or land uses
• Providing drainage and erosion control to maintain a stable walkway and trail surface
Figure 9: Example of trail separation using vegetation.
Trail Separation
drainage swale (when needed)
8.5’ minimum
low maintenance shrub (max. 3 feet high)
15’ preferred minimum
Guidance
• Select landscaping material (e.g. vegetation with thorns) approximately 3 feet tall should be
used when vegetation is used to create separation between adjacent land uses and a multi-
use trail.
• For physical separation aimed at preventing trespassing or guarding against hazardous
slopes, consider the use of topography, ditches, semi-transparent fencing or railings, and
hostile vegetation.
• If drop-off is greater than 2 feet 6 inches then a pedestrian rail is needed (WSDOT Design
Manual Chapter 1515).
• Railings on bridges, boardwalks, and at the edges of steep drop-offs of more than 30 inches,
should be at least 42 inches above the surface.
• Fences and railings adjacent to equestrian passages should stand between 48 inches and
54 inches maximum and have a 4 inch strip of white reflective vinyl fence tape along the
top rail, especially if wire fencing is used where visibility may be reduced and/or the fence
is separating the trail from traffic. This will help the fences to be visible to horses during
twilight hours.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
25
Materials, Maintenance, and Safety
Use native plant species to reduce maintenance costs and enhance local identity and avoid
invasive species such as blackberries and scotch broom. Follow Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) principles to address safety concerns. See Chapter 3.7 CPTED
for additional information.
Discussion
Wildlife passage and safety for trail users are important factors in determining appropriate trail
edge treatments. Although the public often perceives fencing as a means of providing safety by
prevention of unwanted access, fencing that blocks visual access can have the opposite effect
by impairing informal trail surveillance.
3.3 CROSS SECTIONS WITH STEEP SLOPES
Multi-use path cross sections where there are significant cross slopes may or may not require
retaining walls. When needed, retaining walls can be used either on the uphill or downhill slope
(see Figures 10 & 11, next page ) to minimize site disturbance and/or reduce impact to areas
with sensitive habitat and mature trees.
Guidance
• Trail width is at least 14 feet including shoulders and 15 feet where equestrian trail is
alongside paved trail.
• Provide 6 foot setback from retaining wall to property line. This will allow for the
construction of walls without impacting adjacent properties (Coordinate with civil,
structural and geotechnical engineers).
• Match existing grade at property line.
• Side slopes should be 2H:1V or flatter.
• For paved surfaces, a 2% cross slope will resolve most drainage issues on a paved trail and
should be used for both the trail and its shoulders. A maximum 1:6 slope may be used for the
shoulders although 2% is preferred. For sections of cut where uphill water is collected in a
ditch, water should be directed under the trail in a drainage pipe of suitable dimensions.
Materials
When wall design criteria allows, use rockeries for retaining walls to reduce costs. Use locally
sourced boulders to reduce environmental impact of constructing retaining walls. Plant the
base of rockeries with native plants to soften the visual impact of walls.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
26
1’ 12’ (10’ min.) 4’
4’ 1’ 12’ (10’ min.) 4’
4’
01 5 2010Feet
drainage when
steep slope exists
downhill
<2%
2:1 max slope
2:1 max slope
gabion/gridblock
6% batter
2:1 max slope
drainage
2:1 max slope
drainage
optional
<2%
1’ 12’ (10’ min.) 4’
4’ 1’ 12’ (10’ min.) 4’
4’
01 5 2010Feet
drainage when
steep slope exists
downhill
<2%
2:1 max slope
2:1 max slope
gabion/gridblock
6% batter
2:1 max slope
drainage
2:1 max slope
drainage
optional
<2%
Figure 10: Trail section with cut and fill profile for stabilized slope.
Maximum slope condition without retaining structure.
Slope condition with retaining structure.
Figure 11: Trail section with gabion retaining wall, showing cut and fill profile.
Note: Retaining walls could be on the downside slope which would require a railing.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
27
3.4 VEGETATIVE SCREENING
Landscape features, including trees and shrubs along trails, can enhance the visual
environment and improve the trail user experience. Trees and shrubs can also shade users
from sun and shelter users from rain. When possible, landscaping is the first choice for creating
separation between the trail and adjacent properties. Vegetative buffers create a natural privacy
screen, provide habitat for wildlife, and stabilize erodible soils. Select landscaping material
(e.g. vegetation with thorns) can deter unwanted access or exit points, entrapment areas, and
undesired off-trail routes.
Safety and personal security is a concern for many trail users that should be considered in
the selection and placement of landscape features including planting. Blocking visibility at
intersections and creating hiding places are key design concerns to be avoided or mitigated.
Guidance
• When using shrubs for screening from adjacent properties, use plants that are not dense and
allow light to pass through (Figure 12).
• Groundcover and shrubs should be trimmed to a maximum of 3 feet above ground level
height.
• Trees should be trimmed to provide a minimum of 8 feet of vertical clearance over the trail
and shoulder.
• Tree canopies should not obstruct trail illumination.
• Select and place trail vegetation to provide seasonal comfort: shade in the warmer months
and sunlight in colder months.
slope varies
15’ preferred
minimum
shrub height
varies
Screening (transparency)
2’
shoulder
50’ ROW
property line
drainage swale
(when needed)
Figure 12: Vegetative screening with attention to transparency.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
28
15’ preferred
minimum
Screening (sightlines)
2’
shoulder
50’ ROW
property line
slope varies
drainage swale
(when needed)
Figure 13: Vegetative screening with attention to site lines.
Materials, Maintenance, and Safety
Use native plant species and plants appropriate to the Pacific Northwest that are already
adapted to the local soil and climate. Keep the vegetation buffer maintained so that it does not
impede views or interfere with trail circulation.
Discussion
Select plant species based on the desired effect or function along trail segments. For example,
consider the use of plant species that assist with stormwater management along trail edges.
In some situations, vegetative buffers alone may not create the desired degree of separation.
Where separation is desired to protect users from adjacent roadways, steep slopes, or wetlands
consider additional treatments.
Consider plants that have some transparency rather than those that block views for safety
reasons.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
29
3.5 ACCESS CONTROL
Access control on multi-use trails may take many different forms, but all serve to deter motor
vehicle access onto the trail. Access control devices should be located far enough off any
roadway so that maintenance or emergency vehicles can safely pull off the roadway while
gaining access through the device. Access control should be prioritized according to the
following: first, raised crosswalks should be used when appropriate; second, use vertical curb
cuts in all other locations; and third bollards may be considered when there is a demonstrated
problem with motor vehicles accessing the trail (every effort should be made to minimize using
bollards along the trail because they present a collision hazard).
Vertical Curb Cuts
Curb cut design and signage are appropriate methods used to reduce the likelihood of motor
vehicle access on multi-use trails (Figure 14). Vertical curb cut design with pavement markings
or splitting the trail into smaller directional lanes divided by a median is a preferred access
control method for the Olympic Discovery Trail - Eaglemount.
Guidance
• Use vertical curb cuts for access control when raised crosswalks are not used
• “No Motor Vehicles” signage (MUTCD R5-3) may be used to reinforce access rules (see
Figure 31).
• At intersections, split the trail tread into two sections separated by a 4 inch tall and 3 foot
wide concrete curb or painted diagonal stripes
• Vertical curb cuts should be used to discourage motor vehicle access.
• Consider targeted surveillance and enforcement at specific intrusion locations.
Figure 14: Vertical Curb Cut
12’ (10’ min)
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
30
Bollards
AASHTO states that bollards should not be considered the default solution to potential
motor vehicle access problems as they are often ineffective at preventing access, and they
create safety hazards to all trail users. Bollard should only be used to retrofit when there is a
demonstrated problem with continued motor vehicle access, and other techniques and devices
have proven ineffective.
Guidance
• Bollards should not be used in the traveled way.
• Locate bollards beyond the edge of the paved surface on either side.
• Bollards should be permanently reflectorized for nighttime and “brightly colored” for
daytime use.
• Include standard striping per MUTCD.
“Bollards are often ineffective at preventing access, and
they create safety hazards to legitimate trail users.”
-AASHTO
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
31
3.6 SPUR TRAILS
Neighborhood accessways provide residential areas with direct bicycle and pedestrian access
to parks, trails, green spaces, and other recreational areas. They most often serve as small trail
connections to and from the larger trail network, typically having their own rights-of-way and
easements. Additionally, these trails can be used to provide bicycle and pedestrian connections
between dead-end streets, cul-de-sacs, and access to nearby destinations not provided by the
street network.
Guidance
• Neighborhood accessways should remain open to the public.
• Trail pavement shall be at least 10 feet wide with a 2 foot shoulder, the same minimum width
as the Olympic Discovery Trail, in order to accommodate emergency and maintenance
vehicles, meet ADA requirements and be considered suitable for multi-use.
• Trail widths should be designed to be less than 10 feet wide only when there is a physical
constraint, short trail distance, or low use.
• The site line triangle at the junction of spur trails and the Olympic Discovery Trail should
remain clear for safety reasons.
Discussion
Neighborhood accessways should be designed into parks, recreation areas, new subdivisions
at every opportunity and should be required by city/county when new development occurs. An
example of a possible spur trail for the Olympic Discovery Trail - Eaglemount would be a trail
connection to Gibb’s Lake.
3.7 CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
Personal safety, both real and perceived, heavily influences a trail user’s decision to use a
facility and a community’s decision to embrace the trail system. Proper design must address
both the perceived safety issues (i.e., feeling safe or fear of crime) and actual safety threats (i.e.,
infrastructure failure and criminal acts). Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
(CPTED) is a proactive approach to deterring undesired behavior in neighborhoods and
communities. When all spaces have a defined use and the use is clearly legible in the landscape,
it is easier to identify undesired behavior.
Apply CPTED guidelines to multi-use trail facilities, management features, and amenities when
appropriate.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
32
Guidance
• If fencing is installed along the trail, it should not obstruct the view of trail users.
• If fencing is installed for long stretches, intermittent openings should be located to allow
users to enter and exit the trail. Access points to the trail should be at locations with good
visibility from the surrounding neighbors.
• Trail signage should include the contact number to report graffiti, suspicious behavior, and
maintenance issues (e.g., “Immediately report any observed graffiti to 911”).
• All groundcover and shrubs along multi-use trails should be trimmed to a maximum height
of 3 feet above ground level.
• Trees should be limbed-up to provide a minimum of 8 feet of vertical clearance over the trail
and 12 feet of clearance over equestrian trails.
• Tree canopies should not obstruct pathway illumination.
• Hostile native landscaping material (e.g. vegetation with thorns) can be used in strategic
areas to discourage unauthorized use and eliminate entrapment areas.
• Add anti-graffiti application to retaining walls, where appropriate.
• Trail alignments and maintenance strategies should maintain clear visibility and line of site
to avoid situations such as blind corners.
• Where possible lighting should be added at trailheads.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
33
ROADWAYS &
STRUCTURES
Image source: Alta Planning + Design
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
34
4.1 TRAIL-ROADWAY CROSSINGS
At-grade roadway crossings can create potential conflicts between trail users and motorists.
However, well-designed crossings can mitigate many operational issues and provide a higher
degree of safety and comfort for trail users. At grade crossings between trails and roadways
can be complex because it requires thinking about all types of users who pass through the
intersection: motorists, bicyclists, equestrians, and pedestrians. The multi-user trail design
should minimize new at-grade crossings wherever possible. In most cases, at-grade trail
crossings can be properly designed to provide a reasonable degree of safety and can meet
existing traffic and safety standards.
Consideration must be given to adequate warning distance based on vehicle speeds and line
of sight, with the visibility of any signs absolutely critical. Directing the active attention of
motorists to roadway signs may require additional alerting devices such as a flashing beacon,
roadway striping or changes in pavement texture. Signing for trail users may include a standard
“STOP” or “YIELD” sign, and pavement markings, possibly combined with other features
such as a bend in the trail to slow bicyclists. Care must be taken not to place too many signs at
crossings lest they begin to lose their visual impact.
Jefferson County should refer to the WSDOT Design Manual, AASHTO, and MUTCD for trail
design recommendations for roadway crossings. However, a few important pieces to keep in
mind are:
• In order to determine the need and what kind of traffic control devices that are to be
used at all trail/roadway intersections, the County should use the MUTCD warrants and
engineering judgment in consultation with Jefferson County Public Works.
• Bicycles are vehicles in Washington State and bicycle traffic on the trail can be classified as
vehicular traffic for the MUTCD warrants.
• Right-of-way should be assigned appropriately.
• Jefferson County should avoid designing trees and landscaping that would at all obscure
views within the stopping sight distance for bikes and for motor vehicles.
Guidance
• The trail has the right-of-way at all private driveway crossings and low volume residential
(i.e., vehicles stop for trail users).
• The trail users stop at arterial and highway crossings and roadways with restricted sight-
lines.
• Provide four-way stop at low volume arterials
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
35
Typical conditions
Figure 15: Typical trail intersection with spur trail
12’ (10‘min) - paved trail 12’ (10‘min) - paved trail2’ gravel shoulder
6’ (4‘ min) - unpaved equestrian trail
Spur trail
15’15’
25’Sight line clear zoneSi
g
h
t
l
i
n
e
c
l
e
a
r
z
o
n
e
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
36
Figure 16: Typical multi-use trail crossing road at non-signalized intersection.
6’ (4‘ mi
n) -
u
n
p
a
v
e
d
e
q
u
e
st
ri
a
n t
r
ail
6’ (
4
‘
m
i
n
)
-
u
n
p
a
v
e
d
e
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
t
r
a
i
l
12’ (10‘
mi
n) -
p
a
v
e
d t
r
ail
12’ (
1
0
‘
m
i
n
)
-
p
a
v
e
d
t
r
a
i
l
2’ gravel
shoulder
Stop (R1-1)
** The distance between the specific crossing point
and advance Bicycle/Pedestrian sign should be
determined in accordance to Table 2C-4 - Placement
of Warning Signs (MUTCD 9B.18)
Trail X-ing Ahead (W11-15**, W11-15P, W16-9P)
No Motor
Vehicles (R5-3)
No Motor
Vehicles (R5-3)
Trail X-ing here
(W11-15, W11-15P, W16-7P)
Sign location per MUTCD
Trail X-ing here
(W11-15, W11-15P, W16-7P)
Sign location per MUTCD
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
37
Figure 17: Typical mid-block crossing.
No Motor Vehicles (R5-3)
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
No Motor Vehicles (R5-3)
Road
Trail X-ing Ahead (W11-15, W11-15P, W16-9P)**
Trail X-ing Ahead (W11-15, W11-15P, W16-9P)**
6’ (4‘ min) -
12’ (10‘ min) - paved trail
2’ gravel shoulder
unpaved equestrian trail
** The distance between the specific crossing point
and advance Bicycle/Pedestrian sign should be
determined in accordance to Table 2C-4 - Placement
of Warning Signs (MUTCD 9B.18)
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
38
4.2 ACTIVE WARNING BEACONS
Enhanced marked crossings are unsignalized crossings with additional treatments designed
to increase motor vehicle yielding compliance on rural, multi-lane or high volume roadways, in
addition to signing, these enhancements include trail user or sensor actuated warning beacons,
Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB), or in-roadway warning lights.
Guidance
• Warning beacons shall not be used at crosswalks controlled by YIELD signs, STOP signs, or
traffic control signals.
• Warning beacons shall initiate operation based on user actuation and shall cease operation
at a predetermined time after the user actuation or, with passive detection, after the user
clears the crosswalk.
• To provide access for mounted equestrians, a second activation button should be located at a
position between five and six feet above the ground. The button should also be set back from
the travel lanes 6 feet 6 inches to keep the animals’ heads out of traffic.
Figure 18: Examples of active warning beacons.
Image sources: (bottom left) https://lincoln.ne.gov/city/pworks/engine/traffic/rrfb/images/33rd-mopac1.jpg; (bottom right) http://1p40p3gwj70rhpc423s8rzjaz.
wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/sr-99-zig-zag-lines-21.jpg, (top) Alta Planning + Design.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
39
4.3 MEDIAN REFUGE ISLANDS
Median refuge islands are located at the mid-point of a marked crossing and help improve
bicycle and pedestrian safety by allowing bikes and pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic
at a time. Refuge islands minimize pedestrian exposure by shortening crossing distance and
increasing the number of available gaps for crossing.
Guidance
• Can be applied on any roadway with a left turn center lane or median that is at least 6 feet
wide.
• Appropriate at signalized or unsignalized crosswalks.
• The refuge island must be accessible, preferably with an at-grade passage through the island
rather than with ramps and landings.
• The island should be at least 6 feet wide between travel lanes (to accommodate bikes with
trailers and wheelchair users) and at least 20 feet long.
• On streets with speeds higher than 25 mph there should also be double centerline marking,
reflectors, and “KEEP RIGHT” signage.
Materials, Maintenance, and Safety
Locate markings out of wheel tread when possible to minimize wear and maintenance costs.
Signing and striping need to be maintained to help users understand any unfamiliar traffic
control. A second activation button can be installed for equestrians between 5 feet and 6 feet
above the trail surface.
Discussion
A study of the effectiveness of going from a no-beacon arrangement to a two-beacon RRFB
installation increased yielding by motorized vehicles from 18 percent to 81 percent. A four-
beacon arrangement raised compliance to 88 percent. Additional studies of long term
installations show little to no decrease in yielding behavior over time.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
40
Materials, Maintenance, and Safety
Refuge islands may collect road debris and may require some maintenance. Refuge islands
should be visible to snow plow crews and should be kept free of snow berms that block access.
Discussion
If a refuge island is landscaped, the landscaping should not compromise the visibility of
pedestrians crossing in the crosswalk. On multi-lane roadways, consider configuration with
active warning beacons for improved yielding compliance.
Figure 19: Example section with median refuge islands.
Cut through median islands are preferred over
curb ramps, to better accommodate bicyclists.
W11-15,
W16-7P
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
41
4.4 ADVISORY BIKE LANES
Advisory shoulders create a usable area for bicyclists on a roadway that is otherwise too narrow
to accommodate one. The shoulder is delineated by pavement markings and optional pavement
color. Motorists may only enter the shoulder when no bicyclists are present and must overtake
these users with caution due to potential oncoming traffic and cyclist safety.
Guidance
• The preferred width of the advisory shoulder space is six feet. Absolute minimum width is
four feet when no curb and gutter is present.
• Preferred two-way center travel lane width is 13.5 to 16 feet although may function with
widths of 10 to 18 feet.
Discussion
Advisory shoulders are an emerging treatment in the US. While all required traffic control
device elements are included in the MUTCD in some capacity, the manual does not fully
address the particular combination of traffic control devices which make up the treatment.
It is recommended communities implement advisory shoulders within the experimentation
process established by the FHWA. The experimentation process has monitoring and reporting
requirements, but offers benefits to communities and agencies in the form of stronger liability
protection, FHWA technical support, and makes a positive contribution to the body of
knowledge regarding this facility type. The process involves writing a letter to the FHWA with
the details of the existing circumstances, a proposed plan, and answering questions that may
arise (Lessons Learned: Advisory Bike Lanes in North America, 9).e.
Figure 20: Two-way low volume road with advisory bicycle lanes.
6’ (4’ MI
N.)
6’ (4’ MI
N.)
13.5’ (1
6’
MI
N.)
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
42
4.5 BRIDGES, OVERCROSSINGS, & BOARDWALKS
Trail bridges (also called, ‘bicycle/pedestrian bridges’ or ‘footbridges’) are most often used to
provide trail access over natural features such as wetlands and rivers, where a culvert is not an
option. The type and size of bridges can vary widely depending on the trail type and specific
site requirements. When determining a bridge design for multi-use trails, it is important to
consider emergency and maintenance vehicle access.
Bicycle/pedestrian overcrossings provide critical non-motorized system links by joining areas
separated by barriers such as major transportation corridors. In most cases, these structures are
built in response to user demand for safe crossings where they previously did not exist.
Guidance
Bridge
• The preferred clear width of the bridge deck is 16 feet.(Figure 23)
• Bridge deck height should match that of the trail surface to provide a smooth transition.
• A minimum vertical clearance of 12 feet is desirable for motor vehicle access.
• Protective railings, fences, or barriers on the bridge should be 48 inches high or greater and
42 inches high at minimum. Where equestrian users will be crossing the bridge, railings of
54 inches are recommended with a continuous 4 inch or wider white top rail.
• Maximum opening in the railing posts is not to exceed 4 inches
• It is recommended that a smooth railing or barrier be included between 36 and 44 inches to
minimize bicycle handlebars being caught in the railing.
• A trail bridge should support 6.25 tons if motor vehicle access is permitted.
• Where appropriate, a separate crossing for stock to ford shallower streams may be provided
along with the appropriate bank stabilization and safe footing to prevent erosion and
slippery or hazardous conditions.
Overcrossings
• The preferred width of overcrossings is 16 feet clear and 8 foot minimum width only when
constrained. If overcrossing has any scenic vistas, additional width should be provided to
allow for stopping. A separate 5 foot pedestrian area may be provided for facilities with high
bicycle and pedestrian use.
• The overcrossing should have a centerline stripe even if the rest of the trail does not have
one.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
43
Boardwalks
• Generally, boardwalks are used when traversing wetland areas or wet soils to protect
the surroundings from erosion. Boardwalks are to be constructed of solid wood or other
planking set on concrete footers. Though railings are not necessary on boardwalks, less than
30 inches high, a wooden kick plate will add security for users in wheelchairs.
Materials, Maintenance, and Safety
• High quality prefabricated bicycle and pedestrian bridges are available.
Discussion
Overcrossings for bicycles and pedestrians typically fall under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), which strictly limits ramp slopes to 5% (1:20) with landings at 400 foot intervals,
or 8.33% (1:12) with landings every 30 feet. Bridges have been included in the recommended
alignment over fish bearing streams and one long span over Moon Creek ravine.
Bridge/Trestle
12’2’
shoulder
2’
shoulder
42-48”
railing CBA
A = 36” bottom of rubber rail
B = 42-44” top of rubber rail
C = 42-48” top of railing
4” between posts
10’ vertical clearance
Figure 21: Bridge design considerations and dimensions.
16’
12’ min. vertical clearance
54”
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
44
4.6 TUNNELS & UNDERCROSSINGS
Undercrossings can provide critical trail system links in areas separated by barriers such as
railroads and highway corridors. In most cases, these structures are built in response to user
demand for safe crossings where they previously did not exist. There are no minimum roadway
characteristics for considering grade separation.
The undercrossing should have a centerline stripe, even if the rest of the path does not have
one, to discourage passing movements. Safety is a major concern with undercrossings as path
users may be temporarily out of sight from public view and may experience poor visibility.
To mitigate safety concerns, an undercrossing should be designed to be spacious, well-lit,
equipped with emergency phones at each end and completely visible for its entire length from
end to end. Potential problems of undercrossings include conflicts with utilities, drainage, flood
control, and vandalism.
Guidance
• Undercrossings must be a minimum of 14 feet wide, and greater widths are preferred for
undercrossing lengths of over 60 feet.
• For maintenance vehicles, there must be a 10 foot minimum vertical clearance.
Figure 22: Trail undercrossingImage source: Alta Planning + Design
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
45
TRAIL AMENITIES
Image source: Alta Planning
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
46
5.1 PARKING AREA
Any successful multi-use trail will attract local residents and visitors to drive and park near the
trail for recreation and use. A feasibility study should be completed when assessing the need for
a parking area, and should include a full analysis of access to the trail from local communities,
along with a projection of future annual and peak day usage and modal split. If the analysis
reveals that a significant number of vehicles will be parking near the trail, then a trailhead
parking scheme should be developed.
Guidance
• Parking should be located at trailheads and be accompanied by additional amenities
including bicycle parking, restrooms, drinking fountains, and wayfinding signage.
• Locate parking areas on the same side of the road as the trail, eliminating the need for
people to cross the road.
• Equestrian users are best served by dedicated segments of trailhead parking suitable for
truck and trailer circulation, and should include water, toilets, wayfinding and trail etiquette
signing, hitching posts and horse-friendly fencing with gates.
• Parking lots should be made accessible according to the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). Specific guidance regarding the number of accessible spaces, signage, striping, etc.
required can be found on the ADA website. Accessible access points from the parking lot to
the trailhead are also necessary.
Materials, Maintenance, and Safety
Parking lots should follow CPTED policies for safety. Wheel stops, where used, could be made
from local timber to create a more rustic aesthetic.
Figure 23: Example of multi-use trail parking lot configuration.
Source: FHWA Equestrian Design Guidebook
Designing Roads and Parking Areas
8
156
Figure 8–19—When user groups are separated, surface materials can match the needs of different groups. In this illustration, the equestrian parking area is surfaced with aggregate and the nonequestrian
parking area is paved.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
47
5.2 BICYCLE PARKING
Short-term bicycle parking is meant to accommodate visitors, customers, and others expected
to depart within two hours. It should have an approved standard rack, appropriate location and
placement, and weather protection. The Association for Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals
(APBP) recommends selecting a bicycle rack that:
• Supports the bicycle in at least two places, preventing it from falling over.
• Allows locking of the frame and one or both wheels with a U-lock.
• Is securely anchored to the ground.
• Resists cutting, rusting and bending or deformation.
Guidance
• Close to destinations; 50 feet maximum distance from main building entrance.
• Minimum clear distance of 6 feet should be provided between the bicycle rack and the
property line.
• Should be highly visible from adjacent bicycle routes and pedestrian traffic.
• Locate racks in areas that cyclists are most likely to travel.
Materials, Maintenance, and Safety
Use of proper anchors will prevent vandalism and theft. Racks and anchors should be regularly
inspected for damage.
Discussion
Some types of bicycle racks may meet design criteria, but are discouraged. This includes
undulating “wave” racks, schoolyard “wheel bender” racks, and spiral racks.
Figure 24: Example of bicycle parking and dimensions.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
48
5.3 EQUESTRIAN PARKING
Equestrian parking areas should be designed to be separate from other types of parking, where
possible. Turning radii, entrance widths and grades should take into account the limitations of
loaded trailers.
Guidance
• Equestrian trailer parking spaces should be a minimum of 18 feet to 28 feet wide by 55 feet
to 78 feet long. Extra width and length are preferred for staging areas as stock are unloaded,
groomed, and saddled in those areas.
• In situations where space for parking trailers is constrained, the width and length left for
staging can be replaced with ample hitching rails on the periphery of the parking area.
• Where parking stalls are not delineated, such as an open parking configuration, sufficient
space for a 15 foot drive isle and undefined parking spaces 28 feet by 78 feet.
• Parking areas designated for stock should be as level as possible, with positive drainage
and shade provided. Aggregate or compacted natural surface are preferred for parking and
unloading areas.
Figure 25: Example of bicycle parking along a multi-use trail.
Image source: http://www.sportworks.com/product/tofino-no-scratch-bike-rack
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
49
5.4 EQUESTRIAN AMENITIES
Hitch Rails
• Equestrian hitch rails commonly are constructed of wood or steel. Wood rails are suitable
for low and moderate levels of development—however, stock may chew on them, causing
damage.
• Common steel hitch rails range from 4 to 10 feet long. A hitch rail that is 4 feet long generally
has space for one animal tied on each side. A hitch rail that is 10 feet long accommodates
three animals—two animals on one side and the third animal tied to the opposite side in the
middle of the rail. This allows a comfortable distance between the three animals
• Use of proper anchors will prevent vandalism and theft. Hitch rails and anchors should be
regularly inspected for damage. Educate snow removal crews to avoid burying hitch rails
during winter months.
• Hitch rails should be 42 inches high and located in a level area free of grade changes or
obstructions including curbs, signage and vegetation.
• Hitch rails should be at least 25 feet from water sources.
• Good places for hitch rails are near toilet facilities and water access facilities.
Water facilities for equestrians
• To meet the needs of all riders, provide both water hydrants and troughs. At a minimum,
provide a water trough and hydrant at each toilet building and at trail access points.
• Use an ADA/ABAAG approved controls that can be operated by riders with disabilities,
along with appropriate wheelchair clearance zones.
Gates for equestrian parking area
• Road gates are normally 16 feet to 20 feet wide and two-lane roads typically require a pair of
gates that open in the center.
• Gates intended to contain horses from escaping should be between 48 inches and 60 inches
in height.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
50
5.5 BICYCLE REPAIR STATIONS
Bicycle fix-it stations are small kiosks designed to offer a complete set of tools necessary for
routine bicycle maintenance. Popular locations for these stations include trailheads or public
areas that are centers for activity, easily accessible by foot or bicycle.
Guidance
Potential locations for bicycle fix-it stations include:
• Trailheads and parking lots
• Intersection of two trails
• Public gathering spaces and lookout points along the trail
Figure 26: Example of a bicycle repair station with tire pump.
Materials, Maintenance, and
Safety
Similar to bicycle racks, the use of proper anchors will prevent vandalism and theft. Repair
stations should be inspected periodically for damage and vandalism.
Discussion
Bicycle repair station tools are secured by high security cables, but will still be an attractive
target for theft. Proper placement of kiosks in areas of high activity is one key strategy to reduce
vandalism.
Image source: traillink.com/trail-photos/snohomish-county-centennial-trail
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
51
5.6 TRAILHEADS
Good access to a trail is a key element for its success. Trailheads serve the local and regional
population arriving to the trail by car, transit, bicycle or other modes. Trailheads provide
essential access to the trail and include amenities like parking for vehicles and bicycles,
restrooms (at major trailheads), and posted maps.
Guidance
• Trailheads could include automobile and bicycle parking, trail information (maps, user
guidelines, wildlife information, etc.), garbage receptacles and restrooms.
• Separate areas are often provided for equestrian trailheads.
Materials, Maintenance, and Safety
Trailhead signage will require regular maintenance. Major trailheads will require regular
servicing.
Discussion
Trailheads with a small motor vehicle parking area should additionally include bicycle parking
and accessible parking. Neighborhood access should be achieved from all local streets
crossing the trail. No parking needs to be provided, and in some situations “No Parking” signs
will be desirable to minimize impact on the neighborhood. See Spur Trails (section 3.6) for
neighborhood connection guidance.
Figure 27: Example of a trailhead.
Image source: Alta Planning + Design
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
52
5.7 WATER
Access to potable water provides a more enjoyable trail experience and protects the health of
two and four-legged trail users.
Guidance
• Locate potable water spigots at least 5 feet from trail edge.
• Locate potable water spigots near restrooms, at trailheads, parks and other public gathering
places along the trail.
• Trail signing should identify where potable water can be found.
• Spigots should be placed on a well-drained surface (i.e. 2% sloped concrete slab).
• Water access for equestrian needs should be conveniently accessible at trailheads as
animals require a significant amount of water. Both spigots for filling buckets and water
troughs are suitable.
• Water troughs must be at least 2 feet tall and can be constructed of metal, plastic or concrete
and sit on the ground. The water does not need to be more than a couple of inches deep
inside the trough. A clear area with appropriate wearing surface should be provided around
water troughs.
• Water spigots, where provided, should be ADA compliant (refer to current ADA guidance).
Materials, Maintenance, and Safety
Include hose bib connections for maintenance purposes.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
53
5.8 SEATED REST AREAS & VIEWPOINTS
Seating along trails provide places for trail users to rest, congregate, contemplate views, or
people-watch along the trail. Benches can be designed to create identity in a place or along the
trail or be strictly utilitarian. Picnic tables provide places for trail users to congregate for meals
or to just relax.
Guidance
• Locate benches (and other site furniture) a minimum of 5 feet from the edge of the paved
tread.
• Provide a minimum 4 feet level area adjacent to the bench(es) for a wheelchair to participate.
• Locate benches at all trailheads, picnic areas and at regular intervals along the trail.
• Locate benches and picnic tables in all areas that provide interesting views, are close to an
educational or historical trail element, and offer shade or shelter from seasonal winds.
• Drainage should slope away from the bench and the trail.
• Locate benches a minimum of 4 feet from restrooms, phone booths and drinking fountains
and a minimum of 2 feet from trash receptacles, light poles and sign posts.
• Locate picnic tables far enough back from the trail to avoid interfering with traffic (minimum
of 3 feet).
Figure 28: Section diagram of seating dimensions along a multi-use trail.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
54
Materials, Maintenance, and Safety
Benches should be securely anchored to the ground.
Discussion
Wheelchair access should be possible at picnic tables and alongside benches and safely off the
trail tread. Provide access with a solid surface trail such as concrete or asphalt. Where possible
rest areas should be located at a viewpoint, such as overlooking Discovery Bay.
Figure 29: Examples of rest areas and benches.
Image source: seattlerefined.com/travel/cycling-the-snohomish-county-centennial-trail;
traillink.com/ trail-photos/snohomish-county-centennial-trail.aspx
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
55
5.9 PUBLIC ART & SCULPTURE
Public art engages the community through artist’s work and creates a memorable experience
for trail users. Art and sculpture can create an identity for the trail and strengthen the emotional
connection between the trail and its users. Depending on the scale and form, it can become an
“event” in itself and serve as a public attraction.
Public art can be aesthetic and/or functional, and double as sitting or congregational areas.
Memorable installations can act as landmarks and serve as valuable wayfinding tools. Public art
can be a device for telling a compelling and memorable story about the trail and area history.
Guidance
• Local artists, architects and landscape architects can be commissioned to provide art for the
trail, trailheads and points of interest making it distinctly “local.”
• Local artists should be encouraged to produce artwork in a variety of materials for sites
along the corridor.
• Considerations for public art installations include placement, longevity, maintenance,
interactivity, and possible copyright restrictions.
Materials, Maintenance, and Safety
Public art installations should be inspected periodically for damage, vandalism, and litter.
Discussion
Public art can be used to create trail identity. Continuity of style and repetition along the trail
in benches, drinking fountains and signage serve to “brand” the trail. Transitions like street
crossings, turns or landscape changes can be illustrated with trail markers. Consider how to
provide continuity between elements while maintaining the unique styles of multiple artists.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
56
SIGNAGE
Image source: Alta Planning + Design
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
57
6.1 REGULATORY & DIRECTIONAL
Regulatory signs give a direction that must be obeyed, and apply to intersection control,
speed, vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian movement and parking. They are usually rectangular
or square with a white background and black, white or colored letters. Regulatory signs with a
red background are reserved for STOP, YIELD, DO NOT ENTER or WRONG WAY messages.
Red text indicates restricted parking conditions, and a circle with a line through it means the
activity shown is not allowed.
Guidance
• Small-sized signs or plaques may be used for bicycle-only traffic applications, such as along
multi-use trails.
• See the MUTCD 9B for a detailed list of regulatory sign application and guidance.
Materials, Maintenance, and Safety
Maintenance needs for regulatory signs are similar to other signs and will need periodic
replacement due to wear.
Discussion
Signs for the exclusive use by bicyclists should be located so that other road users are not
confused by them.
R1-1 R1-2
R15-2P
9 inches
9 inches
9 inches
27 inches
R15-1
90º
9 inches
48 inches
R5-3
W10-2 W10-3 W10-4 W10-1
W16-9P*
W11-15*
W11-15P*
*A flourescent yellow-green background
color may be used for this sign or plaque.
The background color of the plaque should
match the color of the waring sign that it
supplements.
W16-7P*
R1-1 R1-2
R15-2P
9 inches
9 inches
9 inches
27 inches
R15-1
90º
9 inches
48 inches
R5-3
W10-2 W10-3 W10-4 W10-1
W16-9P*
W11-15*
W11-15P*
*A flourescent yellow-green background
color may be used for this sign or plaque.
The background color of the plaque should
match the color of the waring sign that it
supplements.
W16-7P*
R1-1 R1-2
R15-2P
9 inches
9 inches
9 inches
27 inches
R15-1
90º
9 inches
48 inches
R5-3
W10-2 W10-3 W10-4 W10-1
W16-9P*
W11-15*
W11-15P*
*A flourescent yellow-green background
color may be used for this sign or plaque.
The background color of the plaque should
match the color of the waring sign that it
supplements.
W16-7P*
Figure 30: Examples of regulatory signs.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
58
6.2 ETIQUETTE
Informing trail users of acceptable trail etiquette is a common issue when multiple user types
are anticipated. Yielding the right-of-way is a courtesy and yet a necessary part of a safe trail
experience involving multiple trail users. The message must be clear and easy to understand.
For example, a clear etiquette sign may say: Keep right except to pass.
Guidance
• Trail right-of-way information should be posted at trail access points and along the trail.
Materials, Maintenance, and Safety
Trail signs will need periodic replacement due to wear.
Discussion
In addition to etiquette signs along the trail, more detailed educational information may be
provided at kiosks. Education curriculum’s, similar to “Safe Routes to Schools” programs, could
be used to encourage safe practices of various trail users on the trail.
Figure 31: Examples of etiquette signs.
Figure 32: Example emergency locater sign.
R9-6
Image source: Alta Planning + Design
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
59
Figure 32: Example emergency locater sign.
6.3 WAYFINDING
Wayfinding is a coordinated system of signage, pavement markings, and other elements to
guide and orient trail users both on the trail, and to nearby destinations. Wayfinding also
provides a sense of place and identity, and can reflect the unique character of the trail and/or
surrounding community through consistent sign construction, materials, and branding (such
as shapes, colors and typefaces, symbols and logos). Typical wayfinding elements for trails
may include trailhead map kiosks, mile markers, directional signs or fingerboards, gateways,
pavement markings, or name identifying signage. Wayfinding elements may vary depending
on the directional and orientation needs of a particular trail. There are six core principles which
guide the design and placement of a wayfinding system:
1. Connect Places: Facilitate travel to and from destinations and provide guidance for seamless
connections.
2. Promote Active Travel: Encourage active transportation by helping people realize they can
walk, bike, or roll to the places they want to go.
3. Maintain Motion: Be legible and visible for people moving so that they can interpret
information without stopping.
4. Keep Information Simple: Organize and present information simply, use clear fonts and
simple designs, so that it can be understood quickly.
5. Be Predictable: Standardize the placement and design of signs so that patterns are
established and wayfinding elements are anticipated.
6. Be Inclusive: Signage should be accessible and designed to be understood by a wide range of
users, including people of all ages, ability levels, and languages.
6.4 EMERGENCY LOCATORS
Emergency locators are signage and wayfinding elements that include mileposts and other
types of location assistance markers that can be used to direct maintenance activities, help
users measure their travel times/distances and to direct emergency response. Examples include
vertical mile markers and pavement mounted markers.
Guidance
• Frequent spacing should be considered, at regular intervals.
• Legends, where provided, should include distances to logical locations, trail name and a
unique location identifier coordinated with local emergency services.
OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL - EAGLEMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2019
60 Image sources: Alta Planning + Design