Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Resolution 25-052-CC
GRANT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA MEETING REQUEST FORM (Must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board by 12:00pm on Thursday) REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS REQUEST SUBMITTED BY: SHILO NELLIS CONTACT PERSON ATTENDING ROUNDTABLE. DAVE BREN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: ❑YES ©NO DATE: 06/12/25 PHONE: 509-754-6082 1110950 1wrigm -- ❑Agreement / Contract ❑AP Vouchers ❑Appointment / Reappointment ❑ARPA Related ❑ Bids / RFPs / Quotes Award ❑ Bid Opening Scheduled ❑ Boards / Committees []Budget ❑Computer Related ❑County Code ❑Emergency Purchase El Employee Rel. ❑ Facilities Related ❑ Financial ❑ Funds ® Hearing ❑ Invoices / Purchase Orders ❑ Grants — Fed/State/County ❑ Leases ❑ MOA / MOU ❑ Minutes ❑ Ordinances ❑Out of State Travel ❑ Petty Cash ❑ Policies ❑ Proclamations ❑ Request for Purchase © Resolution El Recommendation ❑Professional Serv/Consultant ❑Support Letter ❑Surplus Req. ❑Tax Levies ❑Thank You's ❑Tax Title Property ❑WSLCB VOW WE WON i mffil�-Z "'M NOTICE OF HEARING AND RESOLUTION FOR THE 2026-2031 TIP, TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN ADOPTION ON ON 07.01.25 @ 3:15 PM 0 DATE OF ACTION:? APPROVE: DENIED ABSTAIN D 1: f D2: D3: El NO ON/A 0 N/A DEFERRED OR CONTINUED TO: RECEIVED JUN 10 2025 4/23/24 GRANT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Grant County, Washington RESOLUTION NOTICE OF HEARING, RESOLUTION No. 25- 05--)---CC TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE 2026-2031 YEARS WHEREAS, Grant County has updated the Transportation Improvement Program for the 2026 to 2031 period per RCW 36.81.121; and WHEREAS, the Transportation Improvement Program is updated each year to provide for an annually updated six -year window, which may include new projects; and WHEREAS, a Non -Project SEPA has been submitted for the projects proposed by the updated Transportation Improvement Program, and WHEREAS, an updated Priority Array of Projects for the 2026-2031 years has been provided to the Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THAT AN OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD July 1, 2025 at 3:15 p.m. in the Grant County Commissioners Hearing Room, Courthouse, Ephrata, WA The Annual TIP can be viewed anytime at: https://www.uanteountyEa.gov/239/Public-Works Any interested persons may appear regarding these matters. Grant County is also providing access to this scheduled heating via Zoom audio. To participate in the hearing please call in to the hearing at 1 (253) 205-0468, enter the access code (956 0520 8517) and password (26229323) andyou will be joined to the meeting in a `muted' status until such time as the hearing allows for public testimony. If you have any questions about this procedure, please call the Commissioner's Office in advance of the hearing. DATED: Yea Nay CP r � • � r . r cooe4 ri,, YNGTON , `��A0 ATTES�. �✓ Barbara J. Vasquez � ❑ Clerk of the Board BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER$ Abstain GRANT COUNTY, ASHINGTON Rob' hair Cindy C r, Vice Chair Kevin Burges , ember Grant County Roads 2026=2031 WAS 6-Year Transportation Improvement Program Annual Update Prepared 06.05-2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE COVER PAGE 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 ADOPTING RESOLUTION 33-4 ROAD, BRIDGE, AND CULVERT INVENTORY 5 PREVIOUS YEARS' COMPLETION REPORTS 2024 ACP PROJECTS STATUS 6 2025 ACP PROJECTS STATUS 7 PRIORITY ARRAY PROJECTS AND FUNDING: 6-YEAR PROJECTS MAP 8 2026 TIP PROJECTS 9 2027 TIP PROJECTS 10 2028 TIP PROJECTS 11 2029 TIP PROJECTS 12 2030 TIP PROJECTS 13 2031 TIP PROJECTS 14 BRIDGE REPORT APPENDIX A SEPA APPLICATION APPENDIX B BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Grant County, Washington RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF RESOLUTION No. 25- -CC ADOPTING THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE 2026-2031 YEARS WHEREAS, a priority array of projects was prepared in accordance with the County Road Administration Board Standards of good Practice: WAC 13 6-14 and was made available and consulted by the Board during the preparation of the Six Year Program; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 3 6.81.121 and WAC 13 6-14, the Grant County Road Engineer submitted the Six Year Program to the Board of County Commissioners on June 17, 2025; and WHEREAS a report with respect to deficient Bridges was available to the Board during the preparation and discussion of the Six Year Program; and WHEREAS a SEPA application was submitted for environmental pre -assessment and a letter of Addendum was received from Grant County Development Services indicating that the social, economic and aesthetic values would not be disturbed; and WHEREAS, A Notice of Public Hearing was published twice for 2 weeks preceding the Hearing, with no objections to the process and, said hearing was held on July 1, 2025; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has reviewed the recommended Six Year Program and has made the revisions and changes deemed practicable to the County's long range road program; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of R.C.W. 36.81.121 the legislative authority shall adopt a Six Year Transportation Improvement Program updated yearly, the Board of County Commissioners did prepare, revise, and extend the Six Year Program and did hold a Public Hearing on July 1, 2025, Adopting said program as resolution 25- -CC; N:\Staff\BVasquez\Resolution-Ordinance\0 - Form.docx NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THAT the Grant County Board of Commissioners, ADOPT the attached Six Year Transportation Improvement Program for the years 2026 through 2031. DATED: ATTEST: Barbara J. Vasquez Clerk of the Board BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Yea Nay. Abstain GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON Rob Jones, Chair ❑ ❑ ❑ Cindy Carter, Vice Chair ❑ ❑ ❑ Kevin Burgess, Member N:\Staff\BVasquez\Resolution-Ordinance\O - Form.docx SPRING 2025 ROAD INVENTORY ROAD FUNCTION ROAD SURFACE URBAN URBAN RURAL ' RURAL >RURAL_ TOTALS TYPE- PRINCIPLE MINOR MAJOR: -'MINOR LOCAL ARTERIAL ARTERIAL COLLECTOR .:.COLLECTOR ACCESS' --- ---- (FFC 14) (FFC 16) ' (FFC 07) (FFC 08) '.(FCC 09) HMA--- (ASPHALT) - 2.0 7.8 49.1 15.0 51.3 ' 125.2 ` BST .(OIL CHIP) 0 1.5 264.5 411.8 644.1 1321.9 PCC (CONCRETE BRIDGES)- 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 GRAVEL 0 0 0 35.9 175.1 211.0 PRIMITIVE GRAVELED 0 0 4.2 28.7 744.1 777,60 PRIMITIVE UNIMPROVED ' 0 0 0 0 6300 63.0 TOTAL I 2498.3 SPRING 2025 BRIDGE AND CULVERT INVENTORY BRIDGE BRIDGE LENGTH TYPE 20' T < 2 ' 0 O 3Q 30 TO 50 50 TO 100 100 j TOTALS CONCRETE NA 8 36 37 46 127 STEEL NA 11 4 1 2 18 WOOD NA 17 21 8 3 49 TEMP (BAILEY) NA 0 0 2 0 2 SHORT SPAN [CULVERT (ANY MATERIAL) 62 NA NA NA NA _ 62 TOTAL 258 PAGE 5 (A) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION DONE (total sum of column 15 + column 16): $14,521,900 (B) COMPUTED COUNTY FORCES LIMIT: $1,307,393 (C) TOTAL COUNTY FORCES CONSTRUCTION (total sum of column 16): $1,000,000 Annual C.R.P. Project Status Project Name Program No. Item No. 1 23-020 Bridge 247 Replacement (PW5044) 2 23-03 Silica Road Overlay 3 23-04 Baseline Road Widening 4 23-07Silica Road Widening 5 23-08 Bridge 202 Repair 6 23-09�Dodson and Road 12-SW Roundabout 7 23-12 Bridge 426 Deck Repair 8 23-13 1 Comprehensive Road Safety Plan 9 22-03 MOMPL�9-NW RECONSTRUCTION 10 19-10 H-SE RECONSTRUCTION 11 18-04 "ADA Ramp / Sidewalk Upgrades 12 NAlllft�,PWJECT SMALL MISC PROJECTS (LOCAL FUNDING) 13 22-04 2026 CN Bridge 171 Replacement 14 23-14 P' COMPLETE G.7-NW TO H-NW Grant County 2024 Annual Construction Projects (ACP) Report WAC 136-16 Road Segment Information Completed Project Type County Forces County Forces Sources of Funds Length(mi.) Code Project Project Closure County Road Other Funds Road # Road Name BMP EMP FFC Announcement Funds Amount $3,544,000 Program Souris CDF FEDERAL ROAD W-SE 1.98 NA 09 NA BR NA NA $0 26530 $886,000 LDF STATE 30990 SILICA ROAD 5 6.99 07 2.49 NA NA $167,000 $933,000 STBG 93000 BASELINE W ROAD 0.00 0.87 07 0.87 NA NA $105,900 $600,000 LTAC 30990 SILICA ROAD 4.00 5.00 07 1.00 NA NA $0 $1,000,000 REET 44750 ROAD N-NE 3.81 NA 08 NA BR NA NA $400,000 $2,000,000 FEDERAL 91030 DODSON ROAD 2.24 2.25 07 0.01 Y NA $450,000 $0 NA 16570 S FRONTAGE ROAD NW 1.52 NA 08 NA BR Y NA $0 $845,000 FEDERAL NA COUNTY WIDE NA NA NA NA NA NA $270,000 $280,000 SS4A FEDERAL 93020 ROAD 9-NW (SR283 TO DODSON) 5.84 10.06 08 4.22 RC NA NA $210,600 $1,892,400 RATA 92005 ROAD H-SE 0.00 4.67 7 4.67 RC NA NA $351,500 $1,498,500 STATE NA LARSON BASE SUBAREA NA NA NA NA NA NA $150,000 $150,000 PORT ML GRAN NA COUNTY WIDE NA NA NA NA NA NA $300,000 $0 NA 93048 ROAD 23-NW 9.32 NA 09 NA BR NA NA $290,000 $0 NA 38830 ROAD G.7-NW TO H-NW 0.00 2.17 09 2.17 Y NA $400,000 $0 NA PAGE 6 -13 -14 -15 -16 -11 Estimated Expenditures Right of Way Construction County Grand Total Dollars (595.20) Contract Forces (All595) PE & CE (595.10) $870,000 $0 $3,460,000 $100,000 $4,430,000 $18,000 $0 $1,082,000 $0 $1,100,000 $20,000 $0 $685,900 $0 $705,900 $20,000 $0 $980,000 $0 $1,000,000 $400,000 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,400,000 $15,000 $0 $335,000 $100,000 $450,000 $66,000 $0 $779,000 $0 $845,000 $350,000 $0 $0 $200,000 $550,000 $148,000 $0 $1,955,000 $0 $2,103,000 $185,000 $0 $1,665,000 $0 $1,850,000 $20,000 $0 $280,000 $0 $300,000 $50,000 $0 $150,000 $100,000 $300,000 $40,000 $0 $150,000 $100,000 $290,000 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $400,000 Grant County 2025 Annual Construction Projects (ACP) Report WAC 136-16 (A) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION DONE (total sum of column 15 + column 16): $10,077,772 (B) COMPUTED COUNTY FORCES LIMIT: $1,307,393. (C) TOTAL COUNTY FORCES CONSTRUCTION (total sum of column 16): $707,000 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Road Segment Information (6) Completed (7) Project Type (8) County Forces (9) County (10) 1 -11 T -12 Sources of Funds -13 Estimated Expenditures -14 Right of Way -15 Construction -16 County Forces -17 Grand Total Annual C.R.P. Project Status Project Name Length(mi.) Code Project Forces Dollars (S95.20) Contract (All 595) Program No. Road # Road Name BMP EMP FFC Announcement Project County Road Funds Other Funds PE & CE Amount Program Source Item No. Closure (595.10) ROAD W-SE 1.98 NA 09 NA BRIDGE (>20') NO NO $0 $3,544,000 CDF FEDERAL $870,000 $0 $3,560,000 $0 $4,430,000 1 23-02 2015 PE/202>6 it' `Bridge 247 Replacement (PW5044) 26530 886,000 WSDOT STATE 2 23-12 2015PE/202lC CN : Bridge 426 Deck Repair 16570 S FRONTAGE ROAD NW 1.52 NA 08 NA BRIDGE (>20') NO NO $0 $845,000 FEDERAL $66,000 $0 $779,000 $0 $845,000 3 21-06 fJN �t'UfN57R�'016 Stratford Road (PHASE 3) 94025 STRATFORD ROAD 17.24 20.28 07 3.04 RECONSTR YES NO $106,000 $744,000 RAP $0 $0 $678,000 $172,000 $850,000 4 18 05 2025 PE%2026 CN Grape &Maple 42350 GRAPE DRIVE 0.12 0.36 18 0.99 RECONSTR NO NO $205,875 $1,319,125 STP(US) $125,000 $0 $1,400,000 $0 $1,525,000 42600 MAPLE DRIVE 0.00 0.75 5 23-13 20246r 2025 PE "Comprehensive Road Safety Program (YEAR 2) NA COUNTY WIDE NA NA NA NA SAFETY NA NA $200,000 $0 ALL LOCAL $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 6 24-03 2025 PE/2026 CN Desert Aire Ped Safety 10660 DESERT AIRE DRIVE 0.00 2.57 07 2.57 SAFETY NO NO $45,900 $294,100 STP(US) $45,900 $0 $294,100 $0 $340,000 7 20 05 Uf�ERO�571i1TfON = 2025 Gravel to Oil Program 46220 ROAD 7.8 NE (VISTA DR TO D.5 NE) 0.00 1.16 09 1.16 NEW SURFACE YES NO $185,000 $0 ALL LOCAL $0 $0 $0 $185,000 $185,000 8 25-01 Ujyj7jbbfRlCfi+1 , Drumheller Connector (PHASE 3) 40555 DRUMHELLER ROAD (CENTER ROCKS) 7.87 8.87 09 1.00 NEW CONSTR YES NO $0 $150,000 REET $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 9 21-08 Westshore Drive Overlay 40950 WESTSHORE DRIVE 0.83 2.95 05 2.12 RESURFACE NO NO $376,090 $2,409,760 STP(US) $126,178 $0 $2,659,672 $0 $2,785,850 10 25 02 UC1110N Stratford Bridge #110 Repair 94026 STRATFORD ROAD 0.21 0.28 07 0.07 RECONSTRUCTION YES NO $200,000 $0 ALL LOCAL $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $1,118,865 1 $10,191,985 $1,433,078 $9,370,772 $707,000 $11,510,850 PAGE 7 GRANT COUNTY ROADS 2026 PROJECTS PLAN TIP ITEM # 1 FED FUNCT CLASS (FCC) 09 COUNTY ROAD LOG It 26530 COUNTY ROAD PROJECT (CRP) 23-02 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT # 5044 PROJECT NAME BRIDGE 247 REPLACEMENT PROJECT TYPE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ROAD NAME ROAD W-SE BEGIN MILE POST # 1.98 END MILE POST # NA LENGTH MILES NA COUNTY FORCES CONSTR USE NO FUNDS SOURCE CDF FEDERAL FUNDS ALLOCATED $3,544,000 ESTIMATED PRELIM ENGINEERING CONST ENGINEERING (595.10) $870,000 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION (595.20) $0 CONSTRUCTION BY CONTRACT $3,S60;000 CONSTRUCTION BY COUNTY SO ESTIMATED TOTAL (ALL 595) $4,430,000 WSDOT $886,000 / U/ 1 71030 1 L} V7 1 5052 1 VvvSv v & 1 ROUNDABOUT SAFETY I DODSON ROAD 1 2.24 1 2.25 1 001 1 YES I LOCAL $450 000 $15,000 $0 I $435,000 I $0 $450,000 3 O8 1 16570 23-12 1 5054 1 BRIDGE 426 DECK REPAIR IREHAB BRIDGE IS FRONTAGE ROAD NW 1.52 1 NA NA NO I FEDERAL $845,000 1 $66,000 $0 1 $779,000 1 $0 $845,000 4 07 91031 TBD TBD Q-SW RECONSTRUCTION RECONSTRUCTION ROAD Q-SW 0.82 1--5.82 5.00 NONE LOCAL RAP $144,000 $1,296,000 $160,000 $0 $1,280,000 $0 $1,440,000 5 18 42350 18-05 42600 5010 GRAPE & MAPLE RECONSTRUCTION GRAPE DRIVE MAPLE DRIVE 0.12 0.00 0.36 0.75 0.99 NO �--STP(US) LOCAL $205,875 $1,319,125 $125,000 50 $1,400,000 $0 $1,525,000 6 1 09 20550 18-10 1 5015 1 B-SE CULVERTS NEW CULVERTS I ROAD B-SE 0.24 1 0.44 1 0.20 YES LOCAL $400,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $300,000 $400,000 7 NA NA 23-13 5055 lCOMPREFIENSIVE ROAD SAFETY PROGRAM (YEAR 3) SAFETY SIGNAGE lCOUNTYWIDE NA NA NA NA LOCAL $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 8 07 10660 24-03 5059 DESERT AIRE PED SAFETY SAFETY DESERT AIRE DRIVE 0.00 2.57 2.57 NO LOCAL STP(US) $45,900 $294,100 $45,900 $0 $294,100 $0 $340,000 9 09 12010 TBD TBD 12026 GRAVEL TO OIL PROGRAM IGRAVEL TO OIL K-SW (11-SW TO 12.5-SW) 0.00 1.00 1.49 YES LOCAL $375,000 $0 $0 $0 $375,000 $375,000 10 09 4DSS5 TBD TBD 1DRUMHELLER CONNECTOR (PHASE 4) 1 IMPROVE GRAVEL SURFACE 1DRUMHELLER ROAD 4,63 1 8.63 1 4.00 YES REET $250,000 $0 $0 $0 1 $250,000 $250,000 TOTAL GRAN-• • •CONTRACTCOUNTY„�AL GRANT COUNTY ROADS 2027 PROJECTS ITEM # FED FUNCT CLASS COUNTY ROAD LOG COUNTY ROAD PROJECT PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT PROJECT NAME PROJECT TYPE ROAD NAME BEGIN MILE POST END MILE POST LENGTH MILES COUNTY FORCES CONSTRUCTION FUNDS SOURCE FUNDS ALLOCATED ESTIMATED PRELIM ENGINEERING CONST ENGINEERING RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION CONSTRUCTION BY CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION BY COUNTY ESTIMATED TOTAL (ALL 595) 11 (FCC) 07 # 9402S (CRP) 21-02 # 5035 STRATFORD ROAD (PHASE 2) RECONSTRUCTION STRATFORD ROAD # 13.24 # 17.24 4.00 USE YES LOCAL $120,000 (595.10) $100,000 (595,20) 50 $1,100,000 $0 $1,200,000 RAP $1, 080, 000 12 06 31550 23-16 5058 S-NW & BRIDGE 355 REPLACEMENT RECONSTRUCTION ROAD S-NW 0.99 3.99 3.00 NONE LOCAL RAP $161,500 $1,4S3,500 1 $120,000 $0 $1,495,000 SO $1,615,000 13 05 41550 41550 41600 14-09 4068 COCHRAN & OTTMAR RECONSTRUCTION COCHRAN ROAD COCHRAN ROAD OTTMAR ROAD 0.10 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.89 0.13 0.92 NONE LOCAL STP(US) HIP(US) $145,800 $0 $0 $1,080,000 $0 $1,080,000 $808,022 $126,178 14 04 41250 21-04 5037 VALLEY ROAD OVERLAY RESURFACE VALLEY ROAD 1.53 2.11 0.58 NO LOCAL STP(US) $110,750 $389,250 $50,000 $0 $450,000 $0 $500,000 15 07 92035 24-02 5059 U-NE HMA OVERLAY ROAD U-NE 12.84 15.80 2.96 NONE LOCAL RAP $1S0,525 $964,475 $15,000 $0 $1,100,000 $0 $1,115,000 16 1 09 93048 22-04 1 5043 IBRIDGE 171 REPLACEMENT NEW BRIDGE IROAD 23-NW 9.32 NA NA YES LOCAL $290,000 $40,000 1 $0 1 $0 $250,000 1 $290,000 17 07 91041 TBD TBD R-SW (24-SW TO 27-SW) RECONSTRUCTION ROAD R-SW 1.01 4.01 3.00 NONE LOCAL TBD $107,500 $967,500 $80,000 $0 5995,000 $0 $1,075,000 18 08 30430 TBD TBD BRIDGE 382 AT ROAD H-NW NEW BRIDGE ROAD H-NW 2.28 2.29 0.01 NONE LOCAL N H P P $175,000 $ 700,000 $75,000 $0 $800,000 $0 $875,000 19 00 NA 23-13 5055 lCOMPREHENSIVE ROAD SAFETY PROGRAM (YEAR 4) ISAFETY SIGNAGE ICOUNTY WIDE NA NA NA NONE LOCAL $200,000 1 $200,000 1 $0 1 $0 $0 $200,000 20 07 95035 TBD TBD W NE RECONSTUCTION RECONSTRUCTION ROAD W-NE (SR28 TO KRUPP) 16.74 19.33 2.59 NONE LOCAL RAP $104,000 $936,000 $40,000 $0 $1,000,000 SO $1,040.000 211 09 10270 TBD TBD 2027 GRAVEL TO OIL PROGRAM GRAVEL TO OIL 12-SW (END OF OIL TO K-SW) 6.74 7.97 1.23 YES LOCAL 1 $325,000 $0 $0 $0 $325,000 1 $325,000 22 1 09 40555 TBD TBD 1DRUMHELLER CONNECTOR (PHASE 5) IMPROVE GRAVEL SURFACE DRUMHELLER ROAD 1 8.63 1 12.54 1 3.91 YES REET 1 $250,000 $0 $0 1 $0 1 $250,000 1 $250,000 TOTAL GRANTS $7 674 925 TOTALLOCAL $OIT ,075 J TOTAL PE & CE $720,000 CONTRACT $8,020,000 COUNTY $825,000 TOTAL $9,565,000 GRANT COUNTY ROADS 2028 PROJECTS ITEM # 23 FED FUNCT CLASS (FCC) 09 COUNTY ROAD LOG # 43070 COUNTY ROAD PROJECT (CRP) TBD PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT # TBD PROJECT NAME K.7-NE7-NE TO 8-NE PROJECT TYPE RECONSTRUCTION ROAD NAME ROADK.7-NE BEGIN MILE POST # 0.00 END MILE POST # 1.06 LENGTH MILES 1.06 COUNTY FORCES CONSTRUCTION USE YES FUNDS SOURCE LOCAL FUNDS ALLOCATED Sll`>,UOU ESTIMATED PRELIM ENGINEERING CONST ENGINEERING (595.10) $15,000 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION (595.20) $0 CONSTRUCTION BY CONTRACT $0 CONSTRUCTION BY COUNTY $100,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL (ALL 595) $115,000 23-10 5051 BRIDGE 248 AT 11-SE REPLACEMENT NEW BRIDGE ROAD 11-SE 4.21 4.22 0.01 YES CDF FEDERAL $4,205,000 $1,000,000 $0 $4,005,000 $0 $5,005,000 24 09 24500 I WSDOT 5800,000 25 07 11700 24-04 5061 24-NW PALISADES RECONSTRUCTION RECONSTRUCTION 24-NW 4.31 8.29 3.98 NONE LOCAL $405,000 $250,000 5250,000 $2,500,000 $0 $3,000,000 26 00 NA 23-13 S5 COMPREHENSIVE ROAD SAFETY PROGRAM (YEAR 5) SAFETY SIGNAGE COUNTY WIDE 05 NA NA NA NONE LOCAL 52DU,DUO $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 21 07 95039 TBD TBD GRAND COULEE HILL (UPPER) RECONSTRUCTION RECONSTRUCTION GRAND COULEE HILL 0.00 2.89 2.89 NONE LOCAL h:',1' $105,000 $945,000 $50,000 $0 $1,000,000 $0 $1,050,000 Ill -SW 0.00 0.75 0.75 YES LOCAL $190,000 $0 $0 $0 $190,000 1$190,000 09 10270 TBU TBD 28 2028 GRAVEL TO OIL PROGRAM GRAVEL TO OIL 09 21930 TBD TBD K-SE (END OF OIL TO 4-SE) 1.50 2.01 0.51 YES LOCAL $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 150,000 29 09 40555 TBD TBU DRUMHELLER CONNECTOR (A -NE ROUNDABOUT) SAFETY DRUMHELLER ROAD 4.63 12.54 0.01 YES LOCAL $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 TOTALLOCAL TOTAL PE & CE CONTRACT COUNTY TOTAL TOTAL GRANTS $8,545,000 $1,665,001) $1,515,000 $7,505,000 $940,000 $10,210,000 GRANT COUNTY ROADS 2029 PROJECTS ITEM # FED FUNCT CLASS FCC COUNTY ROAD LOG # COUNTY ROAD PROJECT (CRP) PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT # PROJECT NAME BRIDGE 353 AT R-NW REPLACEMENT PROJECT TYPE NEW BRIDGE ROAD NAME ROAD R-NW BEGIN MILE POST # 0.01 END MILE POST # 0.02 LENGTH MILES 1 0.01 COUNTY FORCES CONSTRUCTION USE YES FUNDS SOURCE LOCAL FUNDS ALLOCATED $100,000 ESTIMATED PRELIM ENGINEERING CONST ENGINEERING (595.10) $5,000 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION (595.20) $0 CONSTRUCTION BY CONTRACT $0 CONSTRUCTION BY COUNTY $95,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL (ALL 595) $100,000 30 09 30330 31 08 42 000 7-NE TO N-NE TRUCK ROUTE INTERSCT & RECONST RECONSTRUCTION ROAD N-NE AND 7-NE 0.00 0.89 0.01 YES LOCAL GRANT TBD $127,500 $722,500 $50,000 $50,000 $750,000 $0 $850,000 32 09 21590 SAND DUNES CONNECTOR AND TRAIL (PHASE 1) RECONSTRUCTION SAND DUNES ROAD 2.28 3.40 1.12 YES TRAILS LTAC $150,000 5500,000 $100,000 $0 $350,000 $200,000 $650,000 33 07 94025 �STRATFORD AND 7-NE ROUNDABOUT INTERSECTION STRATFORD 4.02 4.04 0.02 NONE LOCAL GRANT TBD $700,000 $2,800,000 $250,000 $250,000 $3,000,000 $0 $3,500,000 34 00 NA 1 23-13 1 5055 COMPREHENSIVE ROAD SAFETY PROGRAM (YEAR 6) ISAFETY SIGNAGE ICOUNTY WIDE I NA NA NA I NONE LOCAL $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 1 $0 1 $200,000 09 32260 TBD 35 09 12530 TBD TBD 2029 GRAVEL TO OIL PROGRAM TBD 12-NW (U-NW TO 12-SW) GRAVEL TO OIL H-SW (SR-26 TO 12-SW) 1.00 0.00 1 1.33 1.02 0.33 1.02 YES YES LOCAL LOCAL $100,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 >0 $0 $0 1 $100,000 1 $250,000 $100,000 250,000 36 09 40555 TBD TBD DRUMHELLER CONNECTOR (OILING PHASE) *** FFC07 RECLASSIFICATION NEW CONSTRUCTION DRUMHELLER ROAD (OILING) 4.63 12.54 7.91 YES LOCAL STBG 5375,000 $2,125,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 TOTAL GRANTS $6,297,500 TOTALLOCAL $1,852,500 TOTAL PE& CE $605,000 CONTRACT $4,100,000 COUNTY $3,145,000 TOTAL $8,150,000 GRANT COUNTY ROADS 2030 PROJECTS FED COUNTY COUNTY PUBLIC BEGIN END FED COUNTY ESTIMATED PRELIM ENGINEERING RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED ITEM F ROAD ROAD WORKS PROTECT NAME PROJECT ROAD NAME MILE MILE LENGTH # CLASS LOG PROJECT PROTECT TYPE POST POST MILES FCC # CRP # # # 37 4475p ROAD N-NE TRUCK ROUTE RECONSTRUCTION RECONSTRUCTION ROAD N-NE 0.49 4 02 3.53 FORCES FUNDS CONSTRUCTION SOURCE USE NONE TAX INC FINANCE AGREEMENT FUNDS ALLOCATED $1,200,000 CONST ENGINEERING 595.10 $50,000 ACQUISITION 595.20 $0 BY CONTRACT $1,150,000 BY COUNTY $0 TOTAL ALL 595 51,200,000 38 07 40514 ROAD 5-NE CONNECTOR FROM E-NE TO DRUMHELLER NEW CONSTRUCTION ROAD 5-NE 0.99 5.03 4.04 NONE RID DEVELOPMENT $2,100,000 $100,W0 $0 $1,900,000 $0 $2,100,000 GRAND COULEE HILL (LOWER) RECONSTRUCTION RECONSTRUCTION GRAND COULEE HILL 2.89 4.92 2.03 NONE LOCAL $337,500 $250,000 $0 $2,250,000 -7 $0 $2,SOO,000 39 07 95039 STPR $2,162,500 40 00 NA 23-13 5055 ICOMPREHENSIVE ROAD SAFLTY PROGRAM (YEAR 1) SAFETY SIG NAG E COUNTY WIDE NA NA NA NONE LOCAL $200,000 1 $200,000 1 $0 $0 1 $0 $200,000 2.01 YES LOCAL $400,006 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $400,000 41 09 43750 TBD TBD 2030 GRAVEL TO OIL PROGRAM GRAVEL TO OIL S-NE(END OFOIL TO5.5-NE 3.52 5.53 TOTAL GRANTS $5,462,501 TOTAL LOCAL $937,500 TOTAL PE & CE $600,000 CONTRACT $5,300,000 COUNTY $400,000 TOTAL $6,400,000 GRANT COUNTY ROADS 2031 PROJECTS ESTIMATED ITEM # FED FUNCT COUNTY ROAD LOG COUNTY ROAD PROJECT PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT PROJECT NAME PROJECT TYPE ROAD NAME BEGIN MILE POST END MILE POST LENGTH MILES CONSTRUCTION COUNTY FORCES FUNDS SOURCE FUNDS ALLOCATED PRELIM ENGINEERING CONST ENGINEERING RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION CONSTRUCTION BY CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION BY COUNTY ESTIMATED TOTAL 595) 42 CLASS (FCC) 07 # 10660 (CRP) # DESERT AIRE DRIVE & SR243 ROUNDABOUT INTERSECTION DESERT AIRE DRIVE # 0.00 # 0.01 0.01 USE NONE LOCAL $750,000 (S95.10) $450,000 (595.20) $300,000 $4,250,000 $0 (ALL $5,000,000 HISP $4,250,000 43 09 21590 SAND DUNES CONNECTOR AND TRAIL (PHASE 2) RECONSTRUCTION SAND DUNES ROAD 3.40 4.50 1.10 YES TRAILS $150,000 $100,000 $0 $350,000 $200,000 $650,000 LI AC $500,000 44 00 NA 23-13 5055 COMPREHENSIVE ROAD SAFETY PROGRAM (YEAR 2) SAFETY SIGNAGE COUNTY WIDE NA NA NA NONE LOCAL $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 45 09 22100 TBD TBD 2031 GRAVEL TO OIL PROGRAM GRAVEL TO OIL BASELINE 0.5-SE 0.00 1.01 1.01 YES LOCAL $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 TOTAL GRANTS TOTALLOCAL TOTAL PE& CE CONTRACT $4,600,000 COUNTY $400,000 TOTAL $6,050,000 $4,900,000 $1,150,000 $750,000 GRANT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ANNUAL BRIDGE &INSPECTION REPORT 2025 C011 ROAD I � G !7INEER I'DA VE BREIV,PE, MSCE Public Works Director Bridge Inspection Team Leader, G1409 ANDYBOOTH 44 W A' -ST A Bridge Crew Supervisor Bridge Inspection Team Leader, G1801 TIM MA SS.KY' IV INTRODUCTION 11. DEFICIENT BRIDGES BRIDGE INSPECTIONS 1. Routine Bridge Inspections 2. Special Inspections IV. SCOUR EVALUATIONS ve BRIDGE RESTRICTIONS VI. EMERGENCY REPAIRS V11* MAINTENANCE PROJECTS VIII, COMPLETED PROJECTS IX CURRENT PROJECTS X. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS Appendix A- Deficient bridges Appendix B- Bridge scour ratings Appendix C- Posted bridges I. INTRODUCTION The 2024-2025 Annual Bridge and Inspection Re -port summarizes the status of bridges owned, operated, and maintained by Grant County, and is prepared under the direction of the County Engineer in accordance with WAC 136-20-060. This report is for your use during preparation of the 2025-.2030Six Year Transportation Improvement Program. This report is based upon the most current data available in our Bridgeworks files. The health of Grant County's bridge infrastructure is good overall. We currently have one bridge with a sufficiency rating below 40. A sufficiency rating of 40 or below would make a National Bridge, Inventory (NBI) bridge eligible for federal bridge replacement funding. Project selection for all funding sources, other than local, is based upon a statewide. priority selection process and. bridges with a sufficiency rating higher than 40 are not currently considered. County Arterial Federal Aidbridges are eligible for STP, BR , RAP, and local funds. County Arterial Non -FA bridges are eligible for BROS, RAP, and local funds. Focal access bridges are eligible for BROS, and local funds. 11-0 DEFICIENT BRIDGES Appendix A describes how Public Works determines if a bridge is considered -deficient in one way or another. Reasons we determine a structure to be deficient include structural deficiency, functional obsolescence, posted for weight restrictions or deck condition, 111. BRIDGE INSPECTIONS Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requirements mandate that public agencies inspect and report on all bridges (vehicle c structures with span length equal to or arrying greater than 20 feet) at least once every 24 months. The purpose of routine inspections p I is to evaluate and record the current condition of the bridge, determine the degree of wear and deterioration, and recommend repairs or needed services. Bridge inspections also ensure and maintain public safety, while protecting public investment. rr1%1 Grant County has three certified bridge 'inspectors. The public works director is a certified bridge inspector and is qualified as the program manager. The bridge crew supervisor is also a certified bridge inspector and qualifies as a team leader. In addition the safety coordinator is a certified bridge inspector. The county engineer 'is a professional engineer who passed the BCIT in the spring of 2023. The county has a project engineer who began inspecting the last inspection cycle and also passed the BCIT in the spring. 1. Routine Bridge Inspections Grant County inspects a total of 195 bridges subject to the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). Grant County also performs NBIS routine inspections on all our 65 short span bridges even though it is not mandated. Of these, 95 National Bridge Inventory (NBI) bridges and 37 short span bridges (SSB) have received 'Inspections during the 2024-2025 inspection season. I All bridge inspections must be performed mid to late October through mid -Fehr any due to high water levels in the canals. The following breaks out the number of bridges inspected by month this past inspection cycle: 8 National Bridge Inventory (NBI) This number October includes 2 city owned bridges. 23 Short Span Bridge (SSB) November 30 NBI (12 with specialized inspection equipment' December 29 NBI 2 SSB, January 18 NBI 12 SSB 10 NBI February Inspections were performed by qualified public works personnel. County personnel also inspect bridges for the cities of Krupp/Marlin, Quincy, and Wilson Creek, for which Grant County is reimbursed. 2. Special Inspections Special inspections are performed by Grant County personnel using specialized equipment such as a boat and underwater camera or platform trailer. WSDOT performs the underwater inspection on one of our structures. UBIT Inspection: An Under Bridge Inspection Truck (UBIT) is necessary to perform 'inspection if the underside of the bridge is inaccessible. The UBIT inspections are generally required on a 24 month frequency. A total of 22 bridges in Grant County require this type of inspection. Grant County performs these on a 12 or 24 month frequency. Grant County performed 12 of these inspections in 2024/2025 season. Underwater Inspection: In 2015 Grant County purchased and , implemented the use of a high -definition underwater camera to eliminate the need for underwater inspections on all but Br-303. Grant County will use the camera in con' junction with our boat at every routine inspection. Should Grant County find any deficiencies during this inspection we would have an underwater inspection performed at thaftime. WSDOT performed an underwater inspect*ion on Br-303 in September 2021. IV., SCOUR EVALUATIONS A scour evaluation is required for all bridg es over water. The purpose of a scour evaluation is to determine susceptibility of the bridge's foundation to the erosive actions of flowing -water removing material from the bridge's foundation. A bridge is considered scour critical if its foundation Is determined to be unstable for observed or calculated scour conditions. When a bridge inspector identifies an actual or potential problem, the bridge must be further evaluated to determine whether .or not it should be considered scour critical. Grant County has no scour critical bridges. See Appendix B. V. BRIDGE RESTRICTIONS A load rating is performed for each bridge in the NBIS inventory and the Short Span Bridge inventory in accordance with federal and state regulations by a professional structural engineer. A bridge; I load rating is the measure of the bridge's load carrying capacity. There are two capacity levels that bracket this ability, the *inventory ratina and the operating rating. The Inventory Rating is the load that a bridge can carry for an'�' indefinite number of load cycles without detriment to the bridge. The Operating Rating is the maximum load that can be carried on an infrequent basis without significant detriment to the bridge. The NBIS requires the posting of load limits or restrictions on a bridge when the load rating factors for the legal loads are less than one. Load rating factors are calculated using six standard truck configurations to check the capacity levels: three truck configurations represent legal loads; one a national standard truck; and two overload vehicles. A recent development is specialized haul vehicles (SHVs). SHVs are closely spaced multi -axle single unit trucks introduced by the trucking industry in the last decade. Examples include dump trucks, construction vehicles, solid waste trucks and other hauling trucks. SHVs generally comply with Bridge Formula B and are for this reason considered legal in all states if a state's laws do not explicitly exclude the use of such vehicles. Grant County has 35 bridges posted using the SHV analysis. All of the load ratings have -44 been completed at this time. See Appendix C V1. EMERGENCY REPAIRS Br-229 on M-SE @ 5-SE was damaged in a motor vehicle accident. Girder G stem 4 was damaged beyond repair. Grant County is currently negotiating to replace girder G. The condition of this bridge has not worsened since the "initial impact. The replacement of girder 0 will most likely take place after the bridge 247 project is completed. See photos. Br-202 on N-SE South of 7-NE. A scour hole developed underneath the northwest corner of abutment 2 causing the footing and abutment wall to crack, and rotate downward. This left, girder A with no support and girder B with m, inimal support. The damage to the abutment and unsupported. girders prompted casting of a new temporary footing and miniature piers. The miniature piers rs were used as jacking supports to raise the north side of the structure. Once the pressure was released from abutment 2 it was removed. Soil was excavated down to a basalt layer that s panned the entire width of the bridge. A new footing and abutment wall were poured. Lastly, the bridge was lifted off the miniature piers and placed on the new abutment. The bridge was closed to traffic in August 2023 and was expected to reopen 'in June 2024. Repairs were completed and this structure was reopened in the last week of June 2024. See photos. VITO MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES Proper maintenance and repairs are necessary to prevent further deterioration of structures, to extend their useful life and to prevent or reduce major repair costs in the future. During 'Inspections maintenance needs are documented, prioritized and work is scheduled for completion by the Bridge Crew. The Grant County Bridge Crew was formed in 2002. The crew consists of 3 crew members and a working supervisor. Specialized equipment and vehicles are assigned to UP the crew. The Bridge Crew performs a wide range of maintenance and construction projects on our extensive bridge and drainage structure system., Typical annual maintenance and construction activities in lude: me • Repair wood posts, railing, curbing, and .uprights due to vehicle collision. • Repair guardrail and concrete corbels due to vehicle damage. • Replace rotted or broken wood girders, wood decking, curbinp, and uprights. • Replace rotted wing rail posts. • Clean decks in the spring and tops of abutments in the fall. • Repair concrete deck spalls and grout lines. • Repair ACP or BST on decks and settled or heaved approaches. • Install new large or multiple culverts as needed. Annual cleaning of all large culverts. Repair or replacement of drainage structures from flash floods or winter 41 , runoff, including resetting of pipes, adding, or repairing riprap. * Joint repair. * Deck sealing of concrete bridge decks, V111. COMPLETED PROJECTS Br. 418 H-SE was replaced as part of a road and bridge rebuilding project. Originally constructed in 1953 as a wood bridge. The new structure is concrete. See photos IX. CURRENT PROJECTS SSB 405 B-SE at Crab Creek, Two 6' diameter corrugated metal pipes have failed. Road B-SE was closed in 2020 and reopened June 22,, 2023, due to the installation of two temporary Bailey bridges. The Bailey bridges will remain in place until new permanent structures can be built. See photos. Br 247 W-SE at East Low Canal. Grant County Public Works removed span 3 of the three span bridge so that East Columbia Basin Irrigation District could widen the canal. Grant County's intention was to install a temporary Bailey bridge that would span the void. During the widening process, the East Columbia Basin Irrigation District damaged pier 3 beyond repair. Due to the severity of the damage, the decision was made to remove the existing spans and piers. Federal funding has been finalized we are now waiting on design work to be completed. See photos. X6 RECOMMENDED PROJECTS Dr 426 West Canal at George. The bridge deck has 7.7% in Condition State 2 (repaired) and 2.8% is Condition State 4 (poor). This project has been WSDOT ftinded. This project will have design work done in the fall of 2025. Br 373, 1 NW.5 W of U. Single span wooden bridge and the deck is four feet narrower This than the 28-foot roadway. Several girders have neutral axis cracking. i nis bridge sees very high traffic volume -during concerts at the Gorge Amphitheater. Br 301 on Crescent Bar Road. The bridge deck is four feet narrower than roadway. Water is leaching through all grout lines. Several spalls with exposed mbar. Transverse cracking throughout structure. .��;GRANT COUNTY W A S H I N G T 0 N Appendix A Bridge Sufficiency Rating The sufficiency rating (SR) is the basis for establishing eligibility and priority for replacement or rehabilitation of bridges with Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (H.BRRP) funds. The sufficiency rating is a numeric value which indicates a bridge's relative ability to serve its intended purpose. The value ranges from 100 to 0. The sufficiency rating is the summation of four calculated values: Structural Adequacy and Safety, Serviceability and Functional Obsolescence, Essentiality for Public Use, and Special Reductions. The sufficiency rating is generated automatically in Bridge Works) the Washington State Bridge Inventory System (WSBIS) bridge management software. There are two types of deficient bridges. structurally deficient (SD) and functionally obsolete (FO). A structurally deficient bridge, as defined by Federal Highway Administration (FHW,A), is one whose condition or design has impacted its ability to adequately carry its intended traffic loads. A functionally obsolete bridge as defined by FHWA, is one in which the deck geometry, load carrying capacity, clearance, or approach roadway alignment has reduced its ability to adequately meet the traffic need or is below accepted design standards. Those bridges meeting the criteria for both SD and FO are only considered SD, the structural. deficiency overrides the functional obsolescence, and the bridge will be considered in the SD classification. In general, the lower the sufficiency rating, the higher the priority for rehabilitation or replacement. To qualify for replacement, a bridge must have a sufficiency rating of less than 40.00 and be structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. To be eligible for rehabilitation, a bridge must have a SR of 80.00 or less and be structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The bridge must be greater than ten years old. Based on funding availability and critical needs within Washington State, H&LP sets a sufficiency rating val qualification for monies available for local projects. The current sufficiency rating qualification is 40. r � GRANT COUNTY Appendix B On February 3, 1949, Grant County and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USER.) signed the Blanket Crossing Agreement. This document contains 27 Articles, of which Article 18 covers Title to and Maintenance of Crossing Facilities. Each party is required to perform maintenance on their own structures or waterworks. If canal flows create adverse effects on Grant County bridges, it is the responsibility of the USBR to complete repairs within their canal prism to mitigate the damage or potential damage to Grant County bridges. Each fall as the irrigation canals drain, a survey is performed by County bridge inspectors to identify any areas of concern with respect to exposed pier or abutment footings lying within the canal prisms. If any are found, the respective irrigation district personnel are contacted with repair requests. - �, GRANT COUNTY e ndl*x C WASH I N GTQ N 35 Structures Bridge Number Location SHV Rating Factors Posting Rating Factors 101 Wilson Creek @ RR Xing SU6-.98, SU7-.89 103 20-NE @ Adrian Rd SU6-.91, SU7-.83 106 36 NE SU4-.681 SU5-.64o SU6-.58p SU7-35 Type 3-.80, 3-S2-.85,F 3-3-.97 119 20-NE @ Main Canal SU4-.85, SU5-.80., SU6-.73, SU7-.70 208 W-NE Ruff SU6-.95, SU7-.87 210 P-NE S of 7-NE SU6-.98, SU7-.90 221 T-SE North of 7-SE SU5-.98, SU6-.90, SU7-.86 229 M-SE @ 5-SE SU4-34 SU5-.68, SU6-.63., SU7-.61 Type 3-.88, 3-S2-.91 248 11-SE @ East Low Canal SU7-.97 305 N-SW @ 123 SU6-.93, SU7-.90 310 Frenchman Hills @ Tunnel 5U6-.93, SU7-.87 311 9-NW @ Winchester WW SU4-.91, SU5-.86, SU6-38, SU7-34 312 5-NW @ Winchester WW SU4-.84, SU5-39, SU6-32, SU7-.68 313 E SE at 14.8 SU6-.99., SU7-.95 317 1 SW North of 11 SU4-.62, SU5-.58, SU6-.53, SU7-.50 Type 3-34, 3-S2-.77,3-3-.92 319 12-SW.2 East of K SU4-.98, SU5-.90, SU6-.83, SU7-.82 323 8 NW at the West Canal SU4-37, SU5-.70, SU6-.65, SU7-.63 Type 3-.91, 3-S2-.94 328 Martin Rd. @ H SU5-.96, SU6-.87,, SU7-.83 339 Q-NW @ Upper Lateral SU6-..96, SU7-.91 342 Martin Rd SU6-.97, SU7-.93 351 Martin Rd at R-NW SU5-.99, SU6-.91, SU7-.82 356 9-NW @ S SU4-.98, SU5-.95, SU6-.96, Su7-384 357 E-SE N of 12 SU6-.94, SU7-.91 360 3-NW East of P 5U6-.99, SU7-35 362 P-NW Feedlot North SU5396, SU6-.88, SU7-.84 372 M-SW Asparagus SU6-.99, SU7-.95 373 1-NW.5 W of U SU5-.99, SU6-.91, SU7-.89 375 V-SW South of Baseline SU5-39f SU6-.91,, SU7-.89 376 Dodson 1.3 N of 9-NW SU6-.93, SU7-.85 382 H-NW @ West Canal SU6-.93,, SU7-.88 383 G-NW @ West Canal SU4-.88,SU5-.79,SU6-.71,SU7-.64 Type 3-.98, 3-S2-.81, 3-3-.80 384 !-NW @ Pumping Plant SU4-.90, SU5-.82, SU6-36, SU17-33 387 0-NW @ West Canal SU4-.90, SU5-.83, SU6-36, SU7-.73 419 E.3 SW South of Frenchmen SU4-.80, SU5-35, SU6-.69, SU17-16 Type 3-.97,3-S2-.99 422 D-SW South of Frenchman SU5-.96, SU6-.90., SU7-30 Br�229-Deckat ti l . • � T 1 ' • , - tr 1 s, � r �T t i i..• � - r 4w + + • , t VI lk 10, � t Wirt? r .r •►_ a ' a � - T „^ • . a �, ►+ r � �' , ram. , •i �. .. tom, i IL i'1 ! "M • • /l � y r 41 Iry AdmVw l � ` ; : .; y+; i ; i ,'' �,• t Mir 00 Br-229 MmS - Girder G after Motor Vehicle Damage r Br-418 H-S - Old Deck Photo WOW Br-418 H-SE - New Deck Photo ............ Br-202 Abutment Damage Am v�c 41 to e f. ,y e , 9' �.� � � '�p•����: �' ��; ,r;' � �Y�'��y�%•fit �.:: ► }.,� � :,r �'�j • 1 7 �` ,r• •Poo REM t � t .t S � Sys • �_ , • • ` '• �,• ,.r ='ems r�X �`- � .. .• •• �� •~ „Z O Jil ol •.' ( i ` 1_ --yam .jam+•' , t ' M .. �y� �1,' It '- ``,�yy`�1\ ,` t +' ' ` •,, IN t �•�.�, `' ` t t _ 1 ; YY". `�C ''r it -UW � 1+1 Y , t •� • � , • ,� — +' ate► 1 Y t �' a e = • `.fit % 4rk 7 t '. r �, � •'yam~ r • �� ' j° �� �'~ J s � - *.`• .. • �` , r a,aa n M• . •.,ram Bailey Bridge oil 4F. 779=1:7 -7-T 411, it oz .eZ dip 40, a- qe 411 lob •• 41 4b I .00 Ig 10 Ott do A* I A dm Ilk dr 111Z � r' I t �, r 1 .� f '�► •dO y � f P. r 16 `• • r 010. k 1 �• • J •I v : .J 1 I y 06 Br-247 Impact Damage Y 1 r 1 1 y( \. .� M 1 r•. ) . _ � \� .ram .. it or of }r►��'j��:� _ ' � �' •ifs `• i i �' ft �� • L��'�•v F � • � +� � � !'�c '� • , Apr '. � i ,- . R�-;� *w 'b` �+.1 'E< �' � 1 .;' T�� ' tom', : .may , �� � ��� ..���• 4AV = �' 1 f{.r I• •r 1 y 1,�.,. .►, •�,, "� .:♦ 1,. -• .•' . •.. . •` r+rs r..1 E t �j`� OP •,•` 1� • �'"F ,y .. «r ..� y� ate, �1=a�Vi jW r r - •� '? IIll )•-let j)•Ima rw i , � � 'f,; • '.:� u 4 rip • ii ��j11.� } �. ' w1 r..� �, .s.' , •/+ '� :Y Y,�.i�:•f� r Ji .�� 1'1 ,�1��11s �f 5 �`•� j�'� .1. t• to Pei ' %, •�.'.! 1 -) �� _ �i.,^•`1.✓_��•.-!' • ! I' `. . iF'�.. ,. r•i'/� 7 I� 1'�i•+.�.1/.'.'.0 �... •�'�` tl `% ��y• Alp 1:2 lei � �` • .� •4 � �'� .e off•-t`iIV 't !• !., wl...• .n • ti •f, , s �' . �•[ •�; a '� , .'. I � '.ems �. lie ♦ • ry I Nor 1 AW r#-' : • R�.44• i/ � t '•t '1 S Olk t �, _ n , � j t �J► �`�� Via. { a • 1 J , � l [(fi�r, •al( lot.t Permit Number GRANT COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 37 - 264 WEST DivISION AVENUE EPHRATA, WA 98823 (509) 754-201 1 ExT 2501 TYPE OF PERMIT YOU ARE APPLYING FOR *SEE FEE SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION FEE AMOUNT* Ow "MR03VOT, Preliminary Short Subdivision Planned unit Development Administrative Approval SEPA Preliminary Subdivision I Alt Conditional Use Permit F] Administrative Interpretation Planning Permit El Preliminary Binding Site Plan El Transient Residence (CUP) El General Information Meeting El Site Plan Review 11 Final Subdivision Short / Long I Alt F1 Discretionary Use Permit El Pre -Application Conference El Developer Agreement El Final Binding Site Plan Reasonable use Exception Fl utility Easement Alteration El Variance APPLICANT INFORMATION APPLICANT Grant County Public Works MAILING ADDRESS 124 Enterprise Street SE, Ephrata WA 98823 PHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS 509-754-6082 dbren@grantcountywa.gov NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNER(S), IF OTHER THAN APPLICANT N/A - Various Public Rights -of -Way AGENT INFORMATION AUTHORIZED AGENT Dave Bren, PE, MSCE MAILING ADDRESS 124 Enterprise Street SE, Ephrata WA 98823 PHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS 509-754-6082 x3502 dbren@grantcountywa.gov PROJECT SITE INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS Road Construction Projects Located Throughout Grant County (See Attachment A) ASSESSOR TAX PARCEL NUMBER(S) SITE SIZE (acres or sq. %) N/A - Various Public Rights -of -Way N/A SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE FARM UNIT BLOCK N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ZONING CLASSIFICATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION Public Rights -of -Way N/A I acknowledge that: 1 - The information, plans, maps and other materials submitted on and with this application are, to the best of my knowledge, a true and accurate representation of this proposal; 2. This application shall be subject to all additions to and changes in the laws, regulations and ordinances applicable to the proposed development until a determination of completeness has been made pursuant to {UGC 25.04.160; 3. Grant County does not guarantee success of this permit application, and/or the issuance of an affirmative notice of action. The County's assistance to the applicantlowner does not preclude the need to address impacts raised by the public or by other federal, state or local agencies; 4. Project correspondence will be sent to the identified project agent, and may be sent to applicant Failure to notify applicant does not constitute a procedural deficiency; 5. If the applicant is not the owner of the real property which is the subject of the permit application, this application and acknowledgment shall also be executed by each owner; S. All persons executing this acknowledgment in a representative capacity shall be personally liable and hereby personally guarantee payment of all fees, expenses and costs required by this application; 7. If the applicant, representative and/or owner fail to respond to a request by the Department to submit additional information, or the applicant, representative and/or owner request, orally or in writing, that further processing be suspended or postponed, and if such failure to respond or requested suspension/postponement exceeds 90 days, the application shall be considered abandoned and all proposed development, uses and activities shall only be further considered in the submission of a new application and fees; 8. This application does not constitute approval of the proposed development activity and it is acknowledged that additional permit applications and approvals may be necessary to conduct specific activities and 9. Owner's signature serves as authorization for Agent/Applicant to act on my behalf. DATED: Applicant/Agent Applicant/Agent DATED: Q. 500,0 0Zo*L5,0 FOR STAFF USE ONLY: Permit Type: Owner C� � T,,,_ QQVC. ar2.11CCOVAY tt4ZIJ Elg1Aear Owner Subdivision & BSP - Proposed Lots up to 100: Fee Per Lot: Subdivision & BSP - Proposed Lots 101 and above: Fee Per Lot: Intake By: Receipt # Fee Paid: Sub -Total: Sub -Total: TOTAL: 2 GRANT COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES P.O. BOX 37 - 264 WEST DIVISION AVENUE EPHRATA, WA 98823 (509) 754-201 1 EXT. 2501 SEPA Checklist The following information must be present to be accepted at the counter. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. Missing Items Counter Complete Submittal Requirements F-1 F-1 Completed Master Application (Signed &all parcel numbers included) ❑ 1-1 Pre -Application Summary (If applicable) ❑ ❑ Complete SEPA Checklist ❑ ❑ Site Plan (Consistent with GCC 23.04.140(f)(2)) or Other Land Use Permit Plans ❑ ❑ Reproducible Site Plan at 1117x17" 1:1 [:1 Applicable Fees Counter Review By: NOTE: The above required information is necessary to start the application review. Additional information/materials may be required during the course of project review. Revised 05/09/2024 SEPA-1 Environmental Checklist Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization, or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable" or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision -making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B, plus the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions (Part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non - projects) questions in "Part B: Environmental Elements" that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. 1 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/Checklist-guidance SEPA Environmental checklist July 2025 Page 1 (WAC 197-11-960) GRANT COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVIGES P.O. Box 37 - 264 WEST D[V[SION AVENUE EPHRATA, WA 98823 (509) 754-201 1 ExT 2501 A.Background Find help answering background auestionsz 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2026-2031 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 0 2. Name of applicant: Dave Bren, PE, MSCE 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 124 Enterprise Street SE, Ephrata WA 98823 - 509.754.6082 x3502 4. Date checklist prepared: 06.05.2025 5. Agency requesting checklist: Grant County Public Works 6. Proposed timing of schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Projects are phased over (6) years from 2026-2031. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes. The Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan is updated annually. Completed projects are removed and new projects are added. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Some of the projects will require environmental, cultural, and historical reports, assessments, and permits. This will be determined during the design process for each project. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None Known. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Not known. Additional government approvals or permits will be determined during the design process for each project. https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-A-Background SEPA Environmental checklist July 2025 Page - 2 (WAC 197-11-960) 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The proposed project is for the adoption of the 2026-2031 Six Year Transportation Improvement (TIP) Program and the related Resolutions authorizing County Road projects, all as approved by the Grant County Board of Commissioners. 12. location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Please see the attached project location map: B.Environmental Elements 1. Earth Find help answering earth auestions3 a. General description of the site: 2026-2031 Six Year TIP - Projects Map Road Construction Projects Located Throughout Grant County (See Attachment A) Circle or highlight one: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Flat , Rolling, Hilly, Steep Slopes Apply. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Maximum Slope of 10% for these Public Roads. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them, and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. The soils vary from location to location but, generally consist of fine grained near surface soil grading to sands and gravels with depth. Some locations have exposed basalt bedrock. 3 https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/sepa/environmental-review/sepa-guidance/sepa-checklist- guidance/sepa-checklist-section-b-environmental-elements/environmental-elements-earth SEPA Environmental checklist July 2025 Page 3 (WAC 197-11-960) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Non known for these projects. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Earthwork will consist of road grade cuts, fills, and widening to meet current road geometry standards. Each individual road construction project will likely be more than the 500 cubic yards threshold. f. Could erosion occur because of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes. However appropriate Department of Ecology BMP measures will be taken by the designated Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) for the project, both during and after const. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Varies by project. Most project overlay existing impervious roads. Typically 45-80% of ROW will be impervious pavement, gravel, curbs, sidewalks, trails, or paths. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. Adoption of the TIP and Annual Construction Program does not require specific mitigation measures. Individual projects that are determined to have adverse environmental impacts, will be evaluated prior to construction activities and mitigation plans developed as necessary. 2. Air Find help answering airquestions a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust and emission from construction equipment, during construction only. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None Known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Water will be used for dust control during construction. 4 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-Air SEPA Environmental checklist July 2025 Page 4 (WAC 197-11-960) 3. Water Find help answering water questions Find help answering surface water questions6 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. None proposed. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. None proposed. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No surface waters filling or dredge materials are proposed. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No surface water withdraws are required. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. None proposed. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No discharges to surface waters are proposed. 5 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-3 -Water 6 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-e lements/Environmental-elements-3- Water/Env ironmental- elements-Surface-water SEPA Environmental checklist July 2025 Page 5 (WAC 197-11-960) • !t Find help answering ground water questions 1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No groundwater draws or recharging are proposed. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None proposed. c. Water stormwater): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. All stormwater generated by roads will be infiltrated in the roadside shoulders, roadside ditches, or drywells. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Yes. Vehicle collisions/accidents on a public roadway could result in a spill. 3. Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. Yes. However, all overland flows are conveyed under the road by culverts or bridge structures into their original conveyance paths. In addition, all stormwater generated by roads will be infiltrated in the roadside shoulders, roadside ditches, or drywells. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: The Grant County Road Standards require roadside ditches. Long linear ditches provide excellent infiltration capacity for the soils typical of Grant County. ' https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-3-Water/Environmental- elements-Groundwater SEPA Environmental checklist July 2025 Page 6 (WAC 197-11-960) 4. Plants Find help answering plants questions a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: ✓❑ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ❑ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other 0 shrubs © grass © pasture © crop or grain ❑ orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops. ❑ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ❑ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Weeds, grasses, shrubs, and trees within public right-of-way work areas for most of the proposed projects. Typically associated with shoulder widening. Some vegetation may be removed for safety and sight distance requirements. c. list threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. None Known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. Post -construction reseeding of native grasses. e. list all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Grant County Public Works has a vegetation control program to mitigate roadside noxious weeds. It should be noted that public truck and automobile transportation continuously distributes noxious weeds and invasive vegetation on road shoulders, therefore vegetation control is continuous as well. SEPA Environmental checklist July 2025 Page 7 (WAC 197-11-960) &0 5, Animals Find help answering animal questions$ a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: • Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Hawks, Eagles, Songbirds • Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Deer • Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. Threatened & Endangered species exist throughout the County. Projects require individ analysis. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Grant County is in the Pacific Flyway migration route. Projects will not impact. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. None proposed. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. None Known. 6. Energy and natural resources Find help answering energy and natural resource questions9 a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. N/A b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. N/A c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. N/A 8 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-5-Animals 9 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-e lements/Environmental-elem ents-6 -Energy-natural-resou SEPA Environmental checklist July 2025 Page 8 (WAC 197-11-960) 7, Environmental health Health Find help with answering environmental health auestions10 a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur because of this proposal? If so, describe. Yes. A future collision / accident on public roadways could result in a spill. 1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. None. 2. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. None known. 3. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. Fuel and Oil from the construction heavy equipment, during construction. Contractors are required to have a spill prevention and response plan ready to implement on all County projects. 4. Describe special emergency services that might be required. County forces are trained in spill prevention and response. Contractors are required to have a spill prevention and response plan ready to implement on all County projects. 5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. County forces are trained in spill prevention and response. Contractors are required to have a spill prevention and response plan ready to implement on all County projects. 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Construction equipment. " https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-7-Environmental-health SEPA Environmental checklist July 2025 Page 9 (WAC 197-11-960) 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site)? Construction equipment. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None. 8. Land and shoreline use Find help answering land and shoreline use questions" a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. Adjacent uses are typically agricultural or residential, with a very small amount of commercial. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands? If so, describe. How much agricultural land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses because of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland tax status will be converted to nonfarm use? None. All projects are in the public right-of-way. However, some of the properties adjacent to the projects are agricultural. 1. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farmland normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how? Non known. c. Describe any structures on the site. No structures are proposed to be demolished. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No structures are proposed to be demolished. " https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-8-Land-shoreline-use SEPA Environmental checklist July 2025 Page 10 (WAC 197-11-960) e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? All projects are in public rights -of -way. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Public / Right -of -Way g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the county? If so, specify. None known. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None - Public Right of Way. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None - Public Right of Way. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. None - Public Right of Way. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. Projects are consistent with Grant County Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: None proposed. 9, Housing Find help answering housing questions1z a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. All projects are in the public right-of-way. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. All projects are in the public right-of-way. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. All projects are in the public right-of-way. " https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-e lements/Environmental-elements-9-Housing SEPA Environmental checklist July 2025 Page 11 (WAC 197-11-960) 10. Aesthetics Find help answering aesthetics questions" a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? None. All projects are in the public right-of-way. Roadway project are typically at grade with the ground, with some cuts and fills of existing ground. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. All projects are in the public right-of-way. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None. All projects are in the public right-of-way. 11. Light and glare Find help answering light and glare questions1a a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? N/A b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? MIMA c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Existing farm/residential/commercial lighting. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None proposed. 12. Recreation Find help answering recreation questions a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Varies on the project location. Grant County has ATV Parks, Boating, Hunting, Fishing, and Hiking available close to all of the proposed projects. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. The proposed projects provide access to these recreational uses. " https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environm ental-elements-1 O-Aesthetics " https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-e lements/Environmental-elements-ll-Light-glare SEPA Environmental checklist July 2025 Page 12 (WAC 197-11-960) c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. 13. Historic and cultural preservation Find help answering historic and cultural preservation questionsls a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. All projects are in the public right-of-way. Private property buildings adjacent may be old. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. All projects are in the public right-of-way. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. Cultural studies, as needed for projects. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. Most projects overlay the existing roadway. Additional disturbance outside the right-of-way is not proposed. 14. Transportation Find help with answering transportation questions16 a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The proposed projects are all upgrades to existing segments of the Grant County Road System. is https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-e lements/Environm ental-elements- 13 -Historic-cultural-p " https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-e lements/Environmental-elements-l4-Transportation SEPA Environmental checklist July 2025 Page 13 (WAC 197-11-960) b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The proposed projects are all upgrades to existing segments of the Grant County Road System. c. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle, or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The proposed projects are all upgrades to existing segments of the Grant County Road System. d. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. None proposed. e. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? None. All projects are road projects, withing the public right-of-way. f. Will the proposal interfere with, affect, or be affected by the movement of agricultural products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. None. All proposed projects are transportation improvements, which will improve transportation for the County. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None. All proposed projects are transportation improvements, which will improve transportation for the County. 15. Public services Find help answering public service questionsl' a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Traffic flows may be impacted, delayed, or rerouted during construction. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. A traffic plan will be prepared during the design phase of each project. 17 https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/sepa/environmental-review/sepa-guidance/sepa-checklist- guidance/sepa-checklist-section-b-environmental-elements/environmental-elements- 15-public-services SEPA Environmental checklist July 2025 Page 14 (WAC 197-11-960) 16. Utilities Find help answering utilities auestionsis a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: Not known. None Proposed. b, Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. None Proposed. C.Signature Find help about „who osshu�d sign 19 The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead ageq�relying on them to make its decisions G*5"'*'0 ZOZOS"O Type name of signee: C)cx%je. (3(%" Position and agency/organization: Gq,J�r ROC&A 61�OuNser, CV'&A+GWOq ?UUitWpt"kS Date submitted: � � 1;7 0, 2(�57 11 https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/sepalenvironmental-review/sepa-guidance/sepa-checklist- guidance/sepa-checklist-section-b-environmental-elements/environmental-elements-,1 G-utilities 19 https:i/ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-C-Signature SERA Environmental checklist July 2025 Page 15 (WAC 197-11-960) D.Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions Find help for the nonproiect actions worksheet?° Do not use this section for project actions. Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? None. All projects will be designed to infiltrate stormwater generated by the roadway in roadside ditches or drywells. • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 100% infiltration of stormwater. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? No new impacts proposed. The proposed projects are within the existing public rights -of -way to reconstruct existing roads. • Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: No new impacts proposed. The proposed projects are within the existing public rights -of -way to reconstruct existing roads. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? N/A • Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: N/A 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection, such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? No new impacts proposed. The proposed projects are within the existing public rights -of -way to reconstruct existing roads. • Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: No new impacts proposed. The proposed projects are within the existing public rights -of -way to reconstruct existing roads. 20 https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/sepa/environmental-review/sepa-guidance/sepa-checklist- guidance/sepa-checklist-section-d-non-pro j ect-actions SEPA Environmental checklist July 2025 Page 16 (WAC 197-11-960) 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No new impacts proposed. The proposed projects are within the existing public rights -of -way to reconstruct existing roads. • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: No new impacts proposed. The proposed projects are within the existing public rights -of -way to reconstruct existing roads. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? None expected. These projects preserve existing transportation capacity. • Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None expected. These projects preserve existing transportation capacity. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. None expected. SEPA Environmental checklist July 2025 Page 17 (WAC 197-11-960)