Sinclair Inlet public access potential

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

State of Washington

T
ME j

U In
IC
:i A"

4( V. Y@ i-"j :s'
-N@

Z
CO
AsIr
'41
-w
PT
@N 7.

"-4W
A 51

d,f
prep=, :
On
)ared b
pr);F
'IT
i"
b

K -In Design -)Ur
ITS'A--O COUNN
J
Seattle
'1986.
Local Plan,

fag aall

Mr. Clyde Stricklin
Long Range Planner
Kitsap County Courthouse
Port Orchard, Washington 98366
iia-sprisin design group
ARCIUTECTURE-URBAN PLANNIKG-0O1nUJN= DEMGN
30 June 1986 architects and urban planners
2510 fairview ave. e. seattle, wa. 98102
Dear Clyde: 2065-328-0900

THE KASPRISIN DESIGN GROUP is pleased to submit this staff
advisory report entitled "Sinclair Inlet Public Access
Potential". The purpose of this report is to investigate
the public access potential of the waterfront, tidelands and
uplands in the unincorporated areas of Kitsap County
surrounding Sinclair Inlet.

During the investigation, the KDG team was impressed by the
potential of the Inlet as a scenic view and recreational
amenity but also as an intriguing habitat for marine and
related mammals, water fowl, and shorebirds all under
increasing pressure from surrounding upland man-made
developments and by-product pollutants.

Our team. has suggested design options for public visual
and/or nhysical access to the Inlet. In addition, the
investigation conceptually explores means to protect the
urban habitat system from further development encroachment
while affording human b@eings the public access to use and
enjoy the resource.

We sincerely hope that this conceptual study stimulates
dialogue on further planning and policy actions. Kitsap
County and its residents are certainly fortunate to have as
EL resource the Sinclair Inlet combined industrial use,
recreational area, and ecologic habitat system.

We are committed to the issues of public waterfront access
and urban wildlife enhancement and are available to assist
Kitsap County in the further exploration and investigation
of this unique area.

S* rely,

Rona d J. _r si -A APA

contents
letter of transmittal
contents
acknowledgements
1 introduction and background ................... 1
2 sinclaff- inlet setting ........................ 3
location of potential access sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
biophysical factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Sr 3 / Sr 16 improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3 recommendation for potential access sites . . . . . . . . . 7
non site - specific recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
waterfront cle an-uD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
highway-waterfront . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
urban wildlife habitat development encroachment
barrier (uw@deb) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 10
site - specific recommendations: upper sinclair inlet . . . . . . . . . . . 12
thomas wynn-jones county park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
ross Doint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
annapolis ferry terminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
gorst area recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

public access concept diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
creek orotection zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
bnrr/us navy bridge . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
north bank bnrr/us navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
north shoreline west of bnrr bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
pedestrian pier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 22
gorst creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
log pond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
appendix ................................ 25

--aeknowledgements
ktsap county

county commissioners

John Horsley

Ray Aardal

Bill Mahan

department*of community development.
Ron Perkerewicz, Director

Clyde Stricklin, Long Range Planner

consultants
the kasprisin design group
Ron Kasprisin, Architect/Planner
Principal-in-Charge

This project was supported, in part, by funds
from the Office of Coastal Zone Management,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Ecology,
State of Washington.

Use of graphics within this document in any
way may only be with the written permission
of Kitsap County or the Kasprisin
Design Group. These grapliics may not be used
in the production of any artifact for sale,
trade or commercial gain or use.

introduction and. backgrou

M [ introduction and
introduction and background

The preparation of this document was funded
by a $5,000 grant from the Coastal Zone
Management Program of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration through the
Washington State Department of Ecology under
the direction of Kitsap County Planning and
Building Department to explore the potential
for public Access along Sinclair Inlet.

The tasks assigned to the Study Team,
consisting of Clyde Stricklin , Long Range
Planner for Kitsap County, and THE KASPRISIN
DESIGN GROUP, Architects and Urban Planners
included a documentation of selected
potential public access sites and a
conceptual design portrayal of means to
provide that access.

This document illustrates that access
potential in sketches, diagrams and text
captions.

The document is intended to be used as a
stimulus for further discussion, assessment
of county priorities regarding access and
habitat protection. It is for discussion
purposes only.

sinclair inlet setti

F2] L sinclair inlet setting
sinclair ifflet settffig

Sinclair Inlet is located in west central The Inlet is framed on all three waterfront
Puget Sound in Kitsap County. The City of edges by highway improvements. On the
Bremerton and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard northern edge is State Route 3 (SR3). The
are located at the northern edge of the Inlet SR16 and SR3 intersection occurs at and
where Port Washington Narrows, the Inlet and through the Gorst community on the Western
Port Orchard Passage all meet. The City of edge of the Inlet. SR16, connecting to Port
Port Orchard is located on the southern edge Orchard and Tacoma, forms the southern edge.
of Sinclair Inlet directly opposite the SR160 continues north and east to Port
shipyard. Orchard.

PO orchard sr 60

sr 16

source: kasprisi des* group
location map

location. of potential access si -tes, sinclair inlet sett 27
1 annapolis ferry terminal (state of Washington)
2 kitsap county stzeet end
3 us navy / bnff rip rap along sr 3 edge Road and highway construction along ihe
water's edge has extensively restricted both
4 ross point (Washington state) development and pedestrian access to the
5 kitsap county sdxx)l district waterfront from the western perimeter of the
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard to the city limits
6 Washington state lands of Port Orchard.
7 Washington state lands
8 port of bremerton, vacated oysterlands The Burlington Northern rail operations
located on US Navy right-of-way forms an
.9 Washington state lands additional and in some locations
10 port of bremerton industrial site / us government insurmountable barrier between the uplands
and the water's edge.
11 Waterman fishing pier
12 thomas Wynn - jones park (kitsap county)
13 port of bremerton log pond

+If+

nd
Shipyard

MANCHFSrER

SinclairIntet ANN U

.2
913 ]PO 0

RST

location of potential access sites
source: kasprisin design group 5

El sinclair inlet setting

The community of Gorst, and in particular Field interviews and discussions with DOT
it's industrial/manufacturing/auto service personnel, property tenants, and local
district, is the only water edge condition residents indicates a population of octopus
west of Port Orchard with substantial (or laraer squid) using the Inlet. This is
developable land between the highway corridor not substantiated by field inspection or
and Sinclair Inlet. This development, for observations, but bears consideration
the most part, is encroaching on the Red regarding the diversity of habitat in the
Alder Wetland Habitat Zone in the western tip Inlet. Detailed classifications of Inlet
of the Inlet. species are specified in the Final Environ-,
mental ImDact Statement, LMTEiL__Gorst
Developable waterfront lands east to Port Vicinity by the Washington State Department
Orchard from Gorst along SR160 are used for of Transportation, May 10, 1985.
water dependent/related marine activities
such as boat repair, servicing, sales and
moorage. Water Quality

While beyond the scope of this study and not
biophysical factors directly influencing public access issues,
water quality within Sinclair Inlet should be
Coastal Flooding a factor in all proposed developments, public
or private, which permit people to interface
Historical as well as potential or suspected with the water. The Kitsap County Health
flood hazards exist at the western or Gorst Department is investigating outfalls which
daylight sewage directly into the Inlet.
end of the Inlet, encompassing a number of While water cuality is improving in the Inlet
potential sites west 01' the SR160/SR16 due to new- sewage treatment facilities,
separation. No catastrophic wave hazards or contamination remains an issue in the Gorst
seismic hazards are reported for the Inlet area.
area. These flood hazards do not pose a
threat to public waterfront access
potentials; and, should be used to deter
development activity in the hazard zones.
Critical_BioloEical Areas sr3 / sr 16 improvements
Surf smelt use the shallows east and west of The State of Washington Department of
Ross Point during the fall and winter. TransDortation is pursuing design and
construction of Alternative 1 for SR3/SRl6 in
In the vicinity of Gorst, the nearshore area the Gorst Vicinity. This Alternative is
is used by shorebird and waterfowl, fish and referred in the Final Environmental Impact
shellfish, herring and "smelt spawning areas, Statement, SR3/SR16 Gorst Vicinity, by The
and invertibrate use. Washington State Department of Transportation
Of, all the alternatives investigated,
Streams Alternative 4 provided the most protection
for the wetlands surrounding the Gorst
Anderson Creek, Gorst Creek and WRIA 15.0215 Aquatic Preserve. Development would th-en
all feed into the Inlet near Gorst and all have been established west of the right-of-
have an anadromous fish population. Gorst way with the highway action as a boundary to
Creek is used by Coho, Chinook and Chum development. The wetlands-preserve would
Salmon as well as by Steelhead and Cutthroat have been set off in a visually uncompromised
trout. Anderson Creek has Coho Salmon and environment once highway construction was
possibly Chum (suspected). Creek WRIA comDlet.e.
15.0215 is also a suspected Salmon habitat.

recommendations for potential access sit

7
Ere

1. Kitsap County
2. The Gorst Community
recommendations 3. State of Washington DOT, Fisheries
4. Port of Bremerton
5. BNRR
recommen&fions for potential 6. US Navy
X_ 7. School District
access sites 8. Private property owners adjacent to or
abutting the Gorst Aquatic Preserve
9. South Kitsap Park and Recreation
District
non S1 LVW sr%,p ic
10. Port of Waterman
recommendations 11. Port of Manchester
highway - waterfront pedestrian walks
waterfront cleanup
The water side of the Port Orchard Annapolis-
A basic yet critical aspect to all waterfront Waterman roadway is generally unsafe and
public access projects is that of Shoreline inaccessible for people. The narrow shoulder
pollution due to discarded debris and other varies in width and does not permit a
obsolete, deteriorated or neglected artifacts comfortable and safe distance between road,
and structures. vehicles, and pedestrians. As in the City of
Port Orchard situation, the upland side of
Around Sinclair Inlet there is considerable the street is also generally hazardous
evidence, based on field observations, of due to parking lots, driveways, etc. While
debris from both public use and private in-
dustry. Clean-up should be a coordinated
effort between all jurisdictions on the
Inlet, including:

hwiav-' source: kasprisin
trian w kup"
Vaterffont pedes alks' 2

more expensive than conventional sidewalks,
the following options depict ways to improve recommendatiom
public physical and visual access to the L
waterfront -and -.t 0 improve .- the vehicle-
pedestrian separation distance and increase
safety. Option 1 portrays a wooden deck and
piling structure four feet in width, elevated
above grade at least six inches and separa ted
from the roadway by concrete bollards and
cable. Pedestrian lighting and a safety ra i 1
are recommended.

Option 2 is a combined pede strian walkway and
dike, constructed further out over the
mudflats with a concrete walking surface,
concrete bollards on the roadway side, and
painted metal railings and pedestrian lights.

A separated bike lane is shown in Option 2
between the roadway and the walk. A rolled
asphalt curb separates the bike lane from the
N@ hicular traffic lanes.

RPM
highw I taspmi
wAtewryon-t ped.es ks option 1 9

F-1 [recommendations
urban __Iwildlife habitat development
encroachment barrier (uwh&b)
Investigate the cost feasibility of Trade-offs with land owners could transfer
constructing an Urban Wildlife Development developable land and wetlands to establish a
Encroachment Barr i er __T797q_D_E`B. -pronounced mutually compatible edge or barrier location
Ty--ou-:j-e T------- fiTf i- (UHWDEB) performs a
separator function between encroaching fill,
debris and development (legal or illegal);
and protects the habitat areas from
pollutants. Secondary but important
functions consist of a visual aesthetic
improvement or buffer from urban clutter;
and, a potential base for a pedestrian trail.
The form of the UHWDEB could consist of an
earthen berm on a gravel-rock base; or, a
rock rip rap, both illustrated in the
accompanying diagrams.

Implementation of this barrier could be as
follows: 1) a sensitive habitat area
perimeter is established (the zone of impact
from adjacent development which is next to
but not in the habitat area*); 2) a choice is
offered to abutting property owners of either
removing all encroaching development and fill
from the perimeter zone; or, be assessed a
penalty which would be placed in a clean-up
fund; or, establish an assessment district to
construct the UHWDEB and establish a line up
to which private development could fill and
develop as a bonus for participating. The
UHWDEB would act as a limit to development as
well as a barrier to pollution.

VAN'5
deft-
AV.

ru I

uwhdeb ite: 1-c-a-sprisin &esign group
10

recommndations

uwhdeb
s e: prisin des n group

recommendations'
*site - specific .0 limit development of - the waterfront in
recommendations this area;
upper sindair inlet 0 visitor tour buses and school buses
could be accommodated with a drop-
thornas wynn jones county park off/pick up facility but no on-site
This forty (40) acre site contains an * storage for more than three or tour
existing house and a woodworking shop both of buses;
excellent condition and quality architectural e parking could be restricted to the
character. The site is heavily wooded with grounds of the estate, requiring people
older growth evergreen trees. Fresh water to walk to other portions of the site.
supply to the site is limited, restricting Crushed rock or natural path trails
lar@e scale develoDment. would be appropriate;
Access into the site is restricted, with Eventually, if budgets and priorities permit,
little room for visitor parking. a future pier with covered shelter could be
constructed on the embankment to the we@t of
Recommendations for this site include: the house.

� maintain the site features and buildings
in their present character;

� maintain water views as a Dublic visual
access feature to Port Orchard Passage;

Tbomas Wynn-Jones PArk beyond ---%Wnn-Jones House
proposed nature trail area proposed community meeting house
Sinclair Inlet location for future pier private properties
with covered viewing platform creek bed
ate TEM

recommendations 3

roffi point An open picnic area is illustrated on top of
the existing concrete foundation wall. This
Ross Point Is under State of Washington open area could contain from two to four
Department of Fisheries jurisdiction and is a tables with a safety rail. The surface would
prime candidate for a passive, low pressure be wood decking and security lighting
'people place' on the water. As of January controlled by a light sensitive device would
be provided. Due to the remoteness of this
1986, a Ross Point Beach Access project was
funded by DNR's Aquatic Lands Enhancement site and obstructed sight lines from the
Account for $54,000. The natural point and highway the lower picnic area could be
beach area jet out into the Inlet providing subjected to vandalism.
unobstructed views. Limited land along SR160 Locational and educational signage is
restricts any parking access to the site. recommended at this and other key sites along
Presently, parking is available along the the Inlet . Subject matter could relate to
highway in an unsafe and limited capacity. geography of Puget Sound, territorial and
The site is utilized informally by people for urban/shipyard views and history; and,
varying activities, including shellfish habitat information relative to the Inlet.
gathering, beach walking, viewing, and other
social activities.

Note: The County staff should determine the
Recommendations for this site include i-e-v-el of public use pressure on the beach.
There is expressed concern that added
� retain and preserve beach area in its facilities such as a shelter and picnic area
natural state; could attract more people than the site and
its smelt habitat could endure.
� remove Alder trees from along the
roadway to open up a public visual vista
of the Inlet;

� this should be implemented to the east
and west of Ross Point for a one quarter
mile in each direction;

Future improvements phased over time, could
include a wooden pier type parking structure
immediately adjacent to the highway, at
highway grade, for four parking spaces,
paral,lel parked, and drop-off/pick-up space;
a wooden bridge would connect the parking
area to a viewing platform positioned
slightly below street grade (ramped for
elderly and handicapped); the platform with
or without shelter would separate viewing
activities from beach walking. Stair access
would be provided to the beach from the
platform. A ramp/stair to the beach is
another option although more costly in
relation to the number of parking spaces
available to service the site and the walking
distance of the site to residential
neighborhoods. 13

M Lrecom ndations

ross POM

source: kasprisin design group

recommendations 3

retain natural beach area

clear alder trees for
visual access to water

ross WMt

WA
source: kasprisin design

F
3@ Lrecom=ndatio
annapolis ferry terminal

Options 1 and 2 portray variations of
waterfront improvements in the vicinity of The Annapolis ferry piercould benefit from a
the Annapolis Ferry dock and parking lot. covered waiting shelter at the upland end of
the existing ferry dock. The structure would
Option I illustrates an improved stationary preferably be located out over the beach-
non-floating pier, a covered shelter with tidelands in order to accommodate as much
benches, flags, and signage as well as a upland parking as possible.
floating dock for visitor and/or short term The shelter would include a rain protected
moorage. roof, benches, bicycle racks and signage.
Community access and use of the water as a The shelter may also contribute to an
recreational resource is advantageous for increase in kiss and ride travelers if the
AnnaDolis Waterman and so on. The Waterman waiting area was convenient and comfortable.
City dock could be developed in the same While the design of the shelters and other
manner with like function. A reduced scale public access elements is conceptual, a
option would include an improved floating consistent application of design iorms and
pier for visitor moorage. materials would contribute to an overall
Option 2 illustrates an improvement of the Sinclair Inlet atmosphere. Individual
existing picnic area, retaining the function communities could demonstrate individual
with the addition of a wood deck, lighting, flair through sLgnage, banners and color.
and trash receptacles. A wooden boardwalk on
pilings could connect the ferry landing area
to the picnic area under the existing tree
and continue over to the new visitor moorage
pier.

amnapolis city dock option 1
16 source: kasp in design group

recommendations 3

option 2 ann oUs walkw and 17
source: kasprisin design group

F3@ recommendations
L

- ----------@

annapolis ferry source: kasprisin design group
18

recommendations

9 gorst area reconunendations south bridge terminus, a pedestrian-bike lane
could be added to the bridge with a stair
access on the school district land remnant as
public access concept diagram indicated in the accompanying sketch.
The pedestrian lane could be attached to the
The most challenging urban public access area exterior face o If the bridge, providing a
is the Gorst business district. Developed valuable crossover from the northern uplands
with a mix of light industrial and to the former log pond area and the Gorst
manufacturing, auto services, construction Creek area west of the bridge. In addition,
materials processing, lodging and retail the imzroved bridge would act as a more
activities, this area is in direct conflict aesthetic entrance to the Gor5t commercial
with the adjacent lowlands mudflats, wetlands district, complete with a new coat of paint.
and creek systems. SR'@ and SR16 intersect in
the business district with heavy traffic
volumes, creating a difficult barrier between north bank bm / us navy
the west district and the eastern uplands The north embankment of the BNRR tracks rip
along the Inlet. Commercial development east rap on the Inlet is a boulder constructed
of SR!6 i s limited in expansion space, structural rip rap with some vegetation along
creating pressures on landowners and tenants the slope. The area offers a pleasant view
to increase their land base by filling in the of the Inlet including the 6orst Aquatic
mudflats. Preserve and the City of Port Orchard.
The Gorst Aquatic Preserve is located in this Legal access is an issue not easily resolved.
area yet is only visually accessible from Informal use of the embankment for fishing,
various highway approaches. Development relaxing and water viewing is obvious based
pressure could have negative impacts on creek on field observations. Recommendations for
habitats, wetland areas and the water quality this area include:
within the preserve itself.
1. retain informal character and use, with
In order to accommodate growth within the no imDrovement in access facilities;
Gorst business district, provide much needed
public waterfront access, and protect 2. trash rece-otacles could be provided
wildlife habitats, the following along the slope; they should, however,
recommendations are presented and illustrated be anchored firmly in concrete footings
(See Public Access Concept Diagram. next page) and be vandal resistant;
creek protection zones 3. This area is presently out of sight from
the main highway (SR3) and therefore out
Gorst, Anderson and WRIA 15.0215 should all of sight for security observation. Due
have designated protection zones established to the fact that the area is used, abeit
around them. An area of one hundred (100) informally, some security is required
feet from the center line of each creek whether the area is improved or not.
should be set aside as a minimum for this The question remains as to who or what
special zone, regardless of property agency has responsibility for security
ownership. and maintenance.
bnrr / us navy bridge

As a future option, and utilizing the
Washington State land remnant due east of the

recommendations

north shoreline west of bnrr bridge

The waterfront strip between the SR16 right-
of-way and the Inlet is proposed to be
purchased by DOT as a result of the SR3
revision. DOT prefers to limit or exclude
access to this linear, narrow portion of
land.

bg pond

informal ped. aciantat to water
=WrrMM9 G@om 6dign

ped pubs fm

Option 1-lenve open
Option 2-park

SINCLAIR INLET

Option I - pedestrian piet
(walk" for'i-ml
Option 2- nothing
limited a.
public viewing platform

GORST AOLIATIC PRESERVE

.."000010

than habitat t
e r (uhdelP
k protection
IE - E=- -@'
public ememe"t
V 'To, and viewing arvai through
private water dependent
industrial d-lopmem
GOk�@
"N
io potential public
10
0 0 50 lQ0 200 300
@O atailatalaaaa-rata"M
20 concept diagram: gorst vicinity
source: kasprisin design group

recommendations 3

Options for the site include:
1. landscape the site with low flowering A bicycle-jogging trail should be considered
shrubs and grassesp providing a visual along the BNRR-Navy right-of-way between the
foreground for Sinclair Inlet; existing RR bridge and the small park near
the former USS Missouri moorage. When a new
2. establish a.park on the site which could bridge is constructed over SR16 at or near
include vehicle parking, picnic area the present RR bridge, a pedestrian (bicycle-
with tables, interpretive information jogger) crossing should be a part of the
signs for Gorst Aquatic Preserve, design.
trash receptacles and landscaping
(again, open and low to preserve Inlet
views from the highway).

Vehicular access would be from the west only,
a drawback to the site. However, if this
site is connected to Gorst with the pedes-
trian pier (see next project discussion),
ser4ous consideration should be given to
vehicular access. Kitsap County should enter
in discussion with DOT as soon as possible -pedestrian bridge on
due to DOT's construction schedule for SR3.
existing railroad briag

--pedestrian staircase

bnrr us- navy bridge 21
source: kasprisin design group

F3 ]1 recommendations
pedestrian pier gorst creek
As a connection between Gorst Creek and the Gorst Creek is an imDortant Salmonoid
DOT North Shoreline open space area, a pedes- habitat. While this investigation recommends
trian viewing pier is suggested for consider- a minimal public physical access to the creek
ation as both a viewing platform and a for reasons of pollution, a public visual
bridge. This option was explored due to the access and educational awareness program is
scarcity of waterfront open space in the strongly recommended as a part of Kitsap
Gorst business district. While the pier County's overall Public Access Program.
would be in close proximity to the noise and Sinclair Inlet cannot, in the estimation of
vehicle toxins of SR3, the value of the study team, be assessed separately and
waterfront access at this point may be worth without its contributing drainage, creeks and
the imnacts. streams, and uplands and their uses.
The following sketch illustrates the The Suquamish Tribe has a Chinook rearing
beginning of the Pedestrian Pier at Gorst facility at Gorst Creek. This facility
Creek where it is utilized as a viewing area should be supported in its function and
for the creek habitat. The pier could be purpose, particularly through protection and
developed in conjunction with a Gorst Creek enhancement of the environment which
surrounds the creek and its tributaries.
Interpretive Program directed at preserving
the creek habitat through information and The following description of the Gorst Creek
education. Access to the creek itself would habitat and fishery has been provided by Dee
be restricted, both north a nd south of SE3. Ann Kirkpatrick, Environmentai Biologist for
the Sucuamish Tribe.

. . ...... .

Aii I i

01 11

717

2
gorst creek pedestnan pier
source: kasDrisin design,grow

recommendations

For generations Suquamish Tribal members Gorst Creek Drainage
have harvested salmon and shellfish for both
subsistence and commercial uses. The Gorst Creek drainage system includes
Historically, when the salmon started several tributaries; Heins Creek, Parrish
running, small groups of families left their Creek, Baileys Creek and two unnamed creeks,
villages and traveled by canoe to favorite totaling approximately 12 miles of stream.
fishing and shellfish gathering places, one This system drains a watershed of
of which was Sinclair' Inlet. Near these approximately nine square miles. In 1911,
sites they set up temporary camps at the the City of Bremerton was granted a riparian
to withdraw up to 15 the flow
mouths of streams and rivers. Tribal members right cfs of
fished for salmon and steelhead and gathered from Gorst Creek for the City's water supply.
the coming year's supply of shellfish from During much of the year, this gave the City
the rich tidelands. To this day the the right to divert the entire flow of the
harvesting of salmon in Sinclair Inlet creek. This practice was stopped in 1979,
remains an iMDortant economic and cultural when the City discontinued using Gorst Creek
activity for tribal members. Shellfish as a water supply.
harvesting however, has been discontinued in The Gorst Creek drainage-system contains much
Sinclair Inlet, ever since the area was
decertified due to on-going pollution useable habitat for salmonoid production,
problems. however the diversion structure, located at
0.6 miles upstream from the mouth, poses an
The Sucuamish Tribe's historical use of Puget impassable barrier to fish migration. It is
Sound waters for harvesting activities was estimated that this barrier blocks access to
maintained by the Treaty of Point Elliot. about 3.0 miles of excellent coho, steelhead
Today Sinclair Inlet is included in the and chum habitat upstream. At present, chum,
Sucuamish @r-*be's usual and accustomed coho, steelhead, and chinook utilize all the
fishing grounds. Along with the right to suitable habitat below the diversion
harvest fish in Sinclair Inlet, the Tribe structure.
ma.,ntains the right and responsibility to
protect fish habitat in this area, thereby The Gorst Fall Chinook Rearing Project
maintaining an interest in all the salmon-
bearing streams flowing into the Inlet. A cooDerative fisheries enhancement effort by
the @ity of Bremerton, the Kitsap Poggie
To manage fish harvest, enhance fish stocks Club, and the Washington Department of
and protect fish habitat, on-going programs Fisheries was undertaken in the early 1970's
have been established and are maintained to rear a maximum of one million fall chinook
within the Tribe's fisheries department. at the City's Gorst Pumping Station. Because
Fishing season regulations are set, of a change in political winds the project
develooment projects are monitored, spawning was phased out before major adult salmon runs.
:@urveys are conducted and hatchery could become established.
operations, off-station eggboxes and rearing
ponds are maintained. The Suquamish Tribe became involved with the
Poo,@ie Club and City of Bremerton in 1982 and
In the Sinclair Inlet area specifically the Gorst fall chinook rearing project was
spawning surveys are conducted on Blackjack, revived. The Tribe provided the fish and
Ross, Anderson and Gorst Creeks on an annual fish food, the Poogie Club provided the
basis. Chum egg-boxes are maintained in the manpower for site preparation and fish
upper watershed of Blackjack Creek and a fall feeding, and the City provided the
chinook rearing pond is maintained on Gorst facilities. Approximately 50,000 fall
Creek. chinook were released in 1982. In 1983,
85,000 smolts were released, in 1984 69o,ooo.
In 1985 and 1986 the release of fall chinook
smolts was expanded to one million. The
Washington Department of Fisheries took an
23

F-3] Lrecommendations

active role in 1986 providing both the fish Option 2- Working with the Port of Bremerton,
feed and construction funding for two new the county could propose a limited access
earth rearing ponds, planned to be in use by rest stop with capacity six vehicles or less
1987. The new ponds are designed for an at the east edge of the log pond. A small
annual production of two million smolts. picnic area could be provided along with path
The goal of the - Gorst Fall Chinook Rea .ring easement through the industrial property to
Project is to build up a viable sport and the water's edge. Problems facing this
commercial fishery, particularly on chinook option include tenant conflicts with public
salmon in and near Sinclair Inlet". pedestrian access; legal and liability issues
involved- with crossing the BNRR and US Navy
Recommendations properties; and general ingress-egress from
the improved SR3 alignment.
1. Kitsap County should coordinate a hab-
itat enhancement and protection policy The Port of Bremerton has expressed interest
with the State of Washington Department in working with Kitsap County to improve the
of Fisheries and the City of Bremerton; visual appearance of the log pond and ad-
jacent Shoreline. Landscaping with conifer
2. The creek diversion structure located trees as a backdrop and dwarf flowering trees
0.6 miles upstream should be removed. in the foreground highlighted by high quality
Discussions by the team with the City graphic si.-nage could substantially improve
of Bremerton's Bill Duffy regarding the the image of Gorst and Sinclair Inlet. A
City's dependence on the creek for water public perception of a polluted and/or rubble
supply indicated a po-tential for the strewn pond may carry over in a mental
eventual removal of the diversion; association to Sinclair.Inlet.
3. A critical, riparian zone for Gorst, implementation
Anderson, and i4RIA 15.0215 should be
established with a preferred distance Of the State agency programs available, the
of two hundred(200) feet from the center DNR Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA)
along both sides of each creek. One offers the greatest opportunity to
hundred(100) feet is the minimum pro- accommodate some public access facility on
tection zone. the Inlet in the near future. This is a new
program and it funded nine local projects as
of January 1986 totaling $430,705.00; and,
ten State agency projects for the same period
log pond totaling t54o,442.00.
The former log pond-industrial site east of The Corps of Engineers will play an important
the BNRR Bridge on the north side of the role in wetlands management around the Gorst
Inlet at Gorst will remain in Port of Aquatic Preserve. Other programs include the
Bremerton ownership for industrial uses. KitsaD County Shoreline Management Program,
This site is highly visible from SR3. Two the Coastal Zone Management Program through
options are recommended for consideration: DOE for additional detailed study of the
Gorst district and waterfront; and,
Option 1- The county should coordinate a Interagency Committee Funds for Outdoor
beautification effort with the port for the Recreation (IAC/BOR) through the State of
area immediately surrounding the pond. This Washington for parks and recreational
could include landscaping and clean-up as a facilities. The IAC/BOR offers funds for
minimum effort to provide visual public implementation on a 50-50 match basis.
access to the tidal pond and improve the
entry to Gorst. A detailed description of applicable programs
is provided on the following pages.
24

appe*RIx

--;;ncfix
ap

RELEVANT PROGRAMS towards improving @economic development
Economic DeveloDment AdminL@@Y@Lc@nj_ Public opportunities. The program has financed
Works Assistance Program: downtown and waterfront improvement programs
--------- in other communities around the state and the
Many communities within an economic nation.
development dis.trict are eligible to
participate in the Economic Development Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Administration Public Works Assistance
Program and other EDA funding. Most of these The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Department
programs direct funding towards such projects of the Interior, now referred to as Heritage
as: Conservation and Recreation Services (HCRS)
is an available resource for various elements
A. Making land suitable for industrial or of the proposed program for small parks,
commercial use, or providing utilities, pedestrian amenities, trails and other such
access, and site preparation. items can be assisted on a 50/50 matching
bass. The availability of funds should be
B. Building facilities and providing equip- pursued with the State of Washingtonp as in
ment for job training programs. most cases the State of Washington
Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation
C. Improving public facilities at airports manages and disburses the funds. The City
and harbors. needs an improved parks and recreation plan
on file with the State Interagency Committee
D. Providing a very poor-community with a for Outdoor Recreation, and the plan as well
basic infrastructure that is a pre- as this document should be updated and
requisite to initiating or stimulating submitted to them for its inclusion with
economic development. applicable projects. Recent projects funded
by the Interagency Committee for Outdoor
E. Renovating inner city buildings for Recreation include waterfront improvements,
special development purposes. riverfront parks and walkways, swimming
pools, bike paths, play fields, trail
F. Building or improving publicly-owned systems, and other general parks and
recreational facilities to build up the recreation improvements. Recent guidelines
area's tourism. for eligibility include projects which are
family oriented, participatory, active yet
G. Improving the appearance and efficiency not athletic and waterfront access oriented.
of Dublic facilities in run-down,
congested areas. These elements of the revenue Code deserve
attention and research by business people in
These types of projects are evaluated by the the community and their particular
amount and quality of the benefits that can accountants and auditors.
be expected from the federal investment. In
many cases, Economic Development This program is presently recommended for
Administration funds can be used as. a termination by the Reagan Administration. if
mechanism for improving the vitality and it is sealed in the Tax Reform Act, the ITC
competitiveness of the business district. may drop to 20", still an attractive ITC for
However, it must be noted that a commercial 'a
or waterfront project may have a lower degree certain projects.
of profitability for funding than an
industrial project. The Economic Development
Administration program may be used to
construct streets, sewers, water lines, and
other necessary public facilities directed
'26

appendix

fal:@ing-and-Business-Improvement Areas (SBIA) 3. The estimated rate of levy of special
assessments with a proposed breakdown
In order to aid economic development and to by class of business and the assessment
facilitate business cooperation, Washington classification to be used.
State law (RCW 35.8TA) authorizes all
counties and all incorporated cities and
towns to establish Parking and Business The initiating petition shall also contain
Improvement Areas for the following purposes: the signatures of persons who operate
businesses in the proposed area which will
A. The acquisition, construction, or main- pay 50% of the proposed special assessments.
.tenance of parking facilities for the
benefit of the area. The County, after receiving a validation
initiation petition or after passage of an
B. The decoration of any public place in initiation resolution, shall adopt a
the area. resolution of intention to establish such an
area. The resolution shall state the time
C. Promotion of public events which are to and place of hearings to be held by
take place in public places in the area. legislative authority to consider
establishment of an area. It shall state all
D. Furnishing of music in any public place the information contained in the initiation
in the area. petition or initiating resolution regarding
boundaries, projects and uses, and estimated
E. Providing professional management, plan- rates of assessment.
ning, and promotion for the area, in-
cluding the management and promotion In establishing the special assessments, the
of retail trade activities in the area. law has been amended to clarify alternatives
available to the program. The legislative
authority establishing such assessments may
In order to assist in the cost of achieving make a reasonable classification of
these Durposes, cities are authorized to levy businesses, giving consideration to various
special assessments on all businesses within factors such as business and occupation taxes
the area specifically benefited by the imposed, square footage of the businesses,
parking and business improvement assessment. number of employees, gross sales, or other
The County, in accordance with the special reasonable factors relating to the benefit
provisions of the statute authority, may received, including the degree of benefit
issue and sell revenue bonds for some of the received from parking.
costs involved in the parking and business
improvement area. The bill also elaborated on the purposes
served by the previous amendments and
refined, without limiting the scope of,
permissible purposes to be served by the
To initiate such a process in the business improvement area assessment
establishment of an area., a petition must district. Specifically, it added for that
contain the following: assessments could aid economic
!I-tate merchant and
___Lac I
1. A description of the boundaries of the business .-cooperat* on-- which --assists trade
proposed area.
of the,__a ea.
(L of
2. The proposed uses and projects to which _.2.romotion
proposed special assessments and retail activities in the area".
revenues shall be put, and the total
estimated cost thereof.
27

FaWxndix

The legislative authority of each city shall 1 Alley, avenues, boulevards, lanes, park
have sole discretion as to how the revenue drives, parkways, public places, public
derived from the special assessment is to be squares, public streets, their grading,
used within the scope of that purpose. regrading, planking, replanking,
However, the legislative authority can also paving, repaving, macadamazing,
appoint existing advisory boards or remacadamizing, graveling, regraveling,
commissions to make recommendations as to piling, repiling, capping, recapping,or
issues, or the legislative authority, such as other improvements; if the management
Kitsap County, could create a new and control of park drives, parkways,
advisory board or commission for such and boulevards is vested in a board of
purposes. park commissioners, the plans and
specifications for the improvement must
be approved by the park commissioners
Local Impr2vfment_Districis: before their adoption.

Local Improvement Districts are widely used 2. Auxiliary water system.
in the State of Washington to provide for
public improvements, particularly streets, 3. Auditoriums, field houses, gymnasiums
sewers, and water programs. A local swimming pools, or other recreation or
improvement district is formed and playground facilities or structures.
assessments are applied to the property
owners for the cost of the improvements, 4. Bridges, culverts, and trestles and
based on the amount of benefits they receive approaches thereto.
from the improvements., Often these
improvements are done on a footage basis; 5. Bulkheads and retaining walls.
i.e., the amount of property frontage in the
case of the street improvement, or the direct 6. Dikes and embankments.
cost of the water lines or sewer lines that
serve the project on a pro rata basis. 7. Drains, sewers, and sewer appurtenances
which as to trunk sewers shall include
Any LID should be developed with the affected as nearly as possible all the territory
property owners well before any formal action which can be drained through the trunk
is proposed. sewer and subsewers connec.ted thereto.

In complex situations, often several 8. Escalators or moving sidewalks,
assessment roles are developed based on together with the expense of
formula that attempts to determine a operation and maintenance.
particular property's benefit from the public
improvement. One example is the construction 9. Parks and playgrounds.
of parking lots, the cost of those lots, and
the distance of the parking lots from 10. Sidewalks, curbing, and crosswalks.
individual property and the nature of the
property being served. 11. Street lighting systems, together
with the expense of furnishing
Chapter 35.43 in the Revised Code of electrical energy, maintenance,
Washington establishes authority for local and operation.
improvement districts and the requirements
for initiating the above proceed-ings. 12. Underground utilities, transmission
Authority generally inclu-aes the lines.
construction, reconstruction, repair, or
renewed landscaping relative to the
following:

'28

appencUx

13. Water mains, hydrants, and appurtan-
ces which as to trunk water mains
shall include as nearly las possible
all the territory in the zone or
district to which water may be
distributed from the trunk line
mains through lateral service and
distribution mains and services.

14. Fences, culverts, siphons, or cover-
ings or any other feasible safe-
guards along, in place of, or over
open canals or ditches to protect
the public from hazards thereof.

15. Road beds, trackage, signalization,
storage facilities for rolling stock,
overhead and underground wiring, and
any other stationary equipment reason-
ably necessary for the operation of
electrified public streetcar lines.

Section 35.43-070 specifies action on
petition or resolution for such an ordinance
to establish an LID. A local improvement may
be ordered only by an ordinance of the City
or County Council, pursuant to either
resolution or petition. The ordinance must
receive the affirmative vote of at least the
majority of the members of the council.
Charters of cities of the first class may
prescribe further limitations. In cities and
towns other than cities of the first class
may prescribe further limitations. In cities
and towns other than cities of the first
class, the ordinance must receive the
affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of
the members of the Council if, prior to its
passage, written objections to its enactments
are filed with the County Clerk by or on
behalf of the owners of the majority of the
linear frontage of the improvement and of the
area within limits of the proposed
improvement district.

2.9

NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY

I
1
3 6668 14112806 8