Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - BOCC (003)September 19, 2022 GRANT COUNTY OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY C:DM ISS1ONERS P O Box 37 EPHRATA WA 98823 (509) 754-2011 Raquel M. Crowley Central Washington Regional Community Outreach Director U. S. Senator Patty Murray 402 E. Yakima Avenue Suite 3901 Yakima, WA 198901 Re: Congressionally Directed Spending — Bridge Funding Ms. Crowley: Grant County, through our Public Works Department, received an email from you which seemed to indicate that Grant County would be receiving $3,315,000.00 in funding to begin replacing Grant County Bridge 247 - Rd W SE Bridge. This would widen the East Low Canal where the flow is restricted at this time. When we visit the Appropriations website, Grant County is not listed as receiving this funding. On the contrary, we do notice the Adams County bridge, located downstream from Bridge 247, seemingly was approved. (See attached) As you can also see in the attached letter from the East Columbia Basin Irrigation District, our upstream bridge is considered of first prioritization for replacement if the Odessa Groundwater Replacement Program is to be successful. Without replacing it, the replacement of a downstream bridge in Adams County will have little to no effect on providing the necessary flow for that project. We are sincerely hoping that Bridge 247 replacement will be included in this current CDS. We are requesting clarification from you. Was Grant County approved for this funding allocation? We look forward to your response. BOARD OF GRANT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Danny .Stone, Chair Kob JqdQg--� :bjv CC: Grant County Public Works Danny E. Stone District 1 Rob Jones District 2 Cindy Carter District 3 "To MEET CURRENT AND FUTURE NEEDS9 SERVING TOGETHER WITH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ENTITIES, WHILE FOSTERING A RESPECTFUL AND SUCCESSFUL WORK ENVIRONMENT." 205 TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATION OF COMMUNITY PROJECT FUNDING ITEMS—Continued Agency Account Project Recipient House Amount Department of Transpor- Highway Infrastructure Mykawa Road Widening City of Pearland 2,000,000 tation Programs Project Department of Transpor- Highway Infrastructure Port of Warden Road In- Port of Warden 2,500,000 tation Programs frastructure Improve- ment & Expansion Project Department of Transpor- Highway Infrastructure Yakima East-West Cor- Yakima County 2,500,000 tation Programs ridor Department of Transpor- Highway Infrastructure Adams County Bridges Adams County 3,000,000 tation Programs Department of Transpor- Highway Infrastructure Orland Park 143rd Street Village of Orland Park 7,000,000 tation Programs Widening (West Ave- nue to Southwest HighwaY) Department of Transpor- Highway Infrastructure First Avenue Bridges Re- San Bernardino County 2,000,000 tation Programs placement over Mo- Transportation Au- jave River and Over- thority flows Department of Transpor- Highway Infrastructure Cedar Street Improve- City of Hesperia 2,000,000 tation Programs ments Department of Transpor- Highway Infrastructure Wildwood Canyon Inter- City of Yucaipa 2,000,000 tation Programs change Department of Transpor- Highway Infrastructure Westchester Square New York City Depart- 1,000,000 tation Programs Plaza ment of Transpor- tation Department of Transpor- Highway Infrastructure Gila River Indian Com- Gila River Indian Com- 1,000,000 tation Programs munity Traffic Signal munity at State Route 87 & Skousen Road Department of Transpor- Highway Infrastructure THORNTON ROAD WID- City of Casa Grande 3,000,000 tation Programs ENING — PHASE 3 Department of Transpor- Highway Infrastructure UPRR Pedestrian Bridge/ City of Maricopa 2,700,000 tation Programs Crossing Department of Transpor- Highway Infrastructure Neffs Canyon Trailhead Millcreek City 800,000 tation Programs Improvement Project Department of Transpor- Highway Infrastructure 4700 South Reconstruc- West Valley City 2,000,000 tation Programs tion Department of Transpor- Highway Infrastructure 4700 South Roadway Kearns Metro Township 2,000,000 tation Programs Reconstruction Phase 3 Department of Transpor- Highway Infrastructure 12th Street Roadway City of Laurel 3,000,000 tation Programs and Pedestrian Im- provements Department of Transpor- Highway Infrastructure Carteret Ferry Terminal Borough of Carteret 6,000,000 tation Programs Building 55 North 8' OTHELLO, WA 99344 P.O. Box E August 22, 2022 Grant County Commissioners 35 C Street NW Ephrata, WA 98823 Re: East Low Canal Bridges Dear Commissioners Stone, Jones and Carter: (509) 488-9671 info@ecbid.org Thank you for your federal funding request regarding Grant County road bridges crossing the East Low Canal (ELC). We appreciate your efforts to address the widening of ELC crossings to allow the additional flows necessary to replace groundwater withdrawals for Adams, Grant, Franklin and Lincoln County farmland currently dependent upon the Odessa Subarea Aquifer. The Adams County Commissioners recently asked for a prioritized list of bridges needing replacement or removal to pass OGWRP flows. We'll share that info with you also for your planning needs. As explained previously on our tour, the ELC bridge replacements are not something that lends itself to be considered a long term, phased endeavor. The nature of water conveyance in the Columbia Basin Project is dependent on gravity flow. The ELC has structures placed at topographically 'advantageous locations to allow regulation of those flows. As such, once water passes a regulation point, such as our Rocky Coulee Wasteway (RCWW) or Lind Coulee Wasteway (LCWW), the water needs to be conveyed to a delivery point or a wasteway, Please note, the next wasteway below LCWW is over 30 miles away and the ELC flows under numerous county road bridges to get there. We have analyzed the individual bridges to identify which will back up flow to the greatest extent. We present them in order of greatest risk to overtopping the ELC, however, please recognize that replacing one immediately makes another the greatest concern. This continues a %.0 U .1 unt';'i ail b;-ic-lges- ad ed. Adams County bridges aren't projected to impede flows significantly until after the next three systems beyond LCWW are operational (likely the EL 86.4, EL 80.6 and EL 84.7). Following those however, all remaining bridges, besides Lucy and Hatton Rd, will back up water in the ELC to levels that are unacceptable for safe operations. If the bridge -related flow restrictions aren't address by replacement or removal, avoiding unsafe canal conditions will necessitate interruption of deliveries which will negatively impact our collective landowners' operations. That is understandably unacceptable to landowners after the large economic investments they will have made -to convert their operations to accept a CBP water supply. The District and State investments in the program would also be -a concern, alp Grant County Commissioners August 22, 2022 Page 2 The next groundwater replacement delivery system likely to be completed, for 2024 deliveries, is the EL 86.4 Delivery System located at the end of the ELC. Approximately 80 cfs (36,000 gpm) is needed to serve that system and that additional flow needs to pass under all bridges crossing the ELC once we send it downstream from Billy Clapp Lake, over 90 miles upstream. Based upon our review this additional flow should pass under existing Adams County road bridges and not necessitate replacements for us to operate safely. However,- that additional flow will cause a water level rise, in addition to what we are currently observing near peak flows, at Grant County's Rd "W" bridge (BR 247).- The Road "W" bridge provides the most pressing flow 9 restriction of all the bridges.. Unfortunately, it is also reasonably high.in our system so it impacts most of the delivery systems. On a fiscally brighter note, our analysis did find some potential room for relief. Based on info available to us currently, it appears that the Lucy Rd and Hatton Rd Bridges do not need to be replaced to pass the flows expected for delivery of full groundwater replacement supplies as currently envisioned. We will survey these locations this winter to confirm these findings. No significant changes from previous surveys taken.in.the mid -201 Os are . expected. Once confirmed, this will greatly decrease the bridge replacement expense previously anticipated for full flow conveyance. Bridge replacements, catalogued by increased water elevations,- based upo . n the analysis of data available, follows: 1) Rd "W" bridge, Grant Co., backed up water at 2021 - peak flows following the startup of the first delivery system in 2021 (EL 47.5 Delivery System) 2) Booker Rd Bridge, Adams Co., sufficient until 4th system d/s of LCWW is operational 3) Rd 11 Bridge, Grant Co., sufficient until 4th system. d/s of LCWW is operational 4) Providence Rd (Rd 12), Adams Co., sufficient until 4th System d/s of LCWW is operational 5) Sackman Rd, Adams Co., sufficient until. 4th system d/s6f . R'CWW or LCWW is operational 6) Cunningham Rd, Adams Co., sufficient until 4th System d/s of. LCWW is operational 7) Foley Rd, Adams Co., sufficient until 4th system d/s of LCWW is operational 8) Herman Rd, Adams Co., sufficient until 4th system d/s of LCWW is operational Dote: Lucy - -a-rid Hatt.oh -Rd -bridgo*s appea. r LO provide cuffi . ci . e ..ni .w"ath for canal expansion necessary to convey anticipated flows for full OGWRP development -without replacement. Please do not misconstrue this analysis. It provides. a list of the ELC bridges by severity of the backwater elevation increases from bridge obstructions. 'Operating at, increased elevations isn't an acceptable approach. The East Low Canal is designed to ope . rate at specified elevations dependent on unimpeded flow conditions. Increased water elevations present additional stresses on the core bank of the canal which provides freeboard above the operating elevation as a safety and stability function. For your planning purposes, three delivery systems d/s* of LCWW are approaching 30% designs. One system could make deliveries as early as 2024. The other two are more likely to begin deliveries around 2026-2027 if the current plan to utilize NRCS PL -566 Small Watershed Adams County Commissioners August 10, 2022 Page 3 Plan grant funds is followed. If alternative funding is secured that timeline could be shortened. The Adams County bridges are ok for those three systems at their current lengths. No other systems d/s of RCWW (or LCWW) are currently being designed. Two systems above RCWVV (no impact to Rd "W" and Adams County bridges) are beyond 30% design presently. The landowners on a system located just above the LCWW have started discussions to get the design process moving. Landowner support for any delivery system can expedite its completion and is difficult to predict. Since the flow of the ELC is currently impacted by the Rd "W" bridge, additional systems coming on-line below the RCWWwill amplify the necessity for the Rd t1wil Bridge replacement or removal. Systems above RCWW do not impact Grant County bridges. Two are currently being designed above RCWW. Additional landowner constructed delivery systems will worsen conditions also. With recognition of the reluctance to take bridges out of service., consideration onsideration of vacating The Rd "W" Bridge. "could help alleviate some of the pressure 'associated with scheduling and the funding needed for bridge replacements. It could be replaced on. . a more relaxed schedule if removed to allow our required flows to pass. We have enclosed copies of the current delivery system layout and the ELC improvements that depict the bridge locations to assist visualization of the facilities, mentioned. We are available to discuss this information in greater detail if, you would find it beneficial. The success of our delivery systems for groundwater replace-ment relies upon the passage of water beneath the county road bridges. We remain available to assist you in addressing the bridge replacement effort. Sincerely,. iz .Simpson, P.E. oe.cretar_y — Manager CNS:wI Enclosures cc: Directors Nate Andreini John McCourtie Rosa Dekker Jon Erickson Tom Tebb Marc Maynard Mike Schwisow 8enatorSohoeoler 8enator\&arnick Representative Dent Representative [)ye Representative |barna Flepreoentetive8ohnnick