HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 26-042-CCGRANT 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: Victoria Seim
CONTACT PERSON ATTENDING ROUNDTABLE: John Brissey
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: ❑YES *NO
DATE:06.17.2026
PHONE: 509-754-6082
IF
❑Agreement / Contract
❑AP Vouchers
❑Appointment / Reappointment
❑ARPA Related
❑ Bids / RFPs / Quotes Award
❑ Bid Opening Scheduled
❑ Boards / Committees
❑ Budget
❑ Computer Related
❑ County Code
❑ Emergency Purchase
❑ Employee Rel.
❑ Facilities Related
❑ Financial
❑ Funds
® Hearing
❑ Invoices / Purchase Orders
❑ Grants — Fed/State/County
[:]Leases
❑ MOA / MOU
❑Minutes
❑Ordinances
El Out of State Travel
❑Petty Cash
❑ Policies
❑ Proclamations
0Request for Purchase
im7 Resolution
El Recommendation
❑Professional Serv/Consultant
❑Support Letter
❑Surplus Req.
❑Tax Levies
❑Thank You's
❑Tax Title Property
❑WSLCB
e Wh
Resolution notice of • for the Transportation Improvement•• • 1
2032, to be held July 14, 2026 @ 11:30 AM in the Grant County Commissioners
Hearing Room, in the Courthouse in Ephrata, Washington.
If necessary, was this document reviewed by accounting? ❑ YES ❑ NO 0 N/A
If necessary, was this document reviewed by legal? ❑ YES ❑ NO 0 N/A
DATE OF ACTION: -4U'07G DEFERRED OR CONTINUED TO:
APPROVE: DENIED ABSTAIN
D1: Kk e,
D22:
D3:
WITHDRAWN:
4/23/24
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Grant County, Washington
RESOLUTION NOTICE OF HEARING, RESOLUTION No. 26-04Z- -CC
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM FOR THE 2027-2032 YEARS
WHEREAS, Grant County has updated the Transportation Improvement Program for the
2027 to 2032 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 2027-2032 years has been
provided to the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THAT AN OPEN RECORD
PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD July 14, 2026 at 11:30 a.m. in the Grant County
Commissioners Hearing Room #101, Courthouse, Ephrata, WA 98823.
The Annual TIP can be viewed anytime at: https://www.grantcountywa.gov/1379/ROAD-
PLANNING
Any interested persons may appear regarding these matters.
Grant Countyis also providing access to this scheduled hearing via Zoom audio. To participate in the
hearing please call in to the hearing at 1 (253) 205-0468, enter the access code (940 4827 7440) and
password (26229323) and you 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: 25, 2,02-o
mg
°U N
SEAKn. ...
• O -.
'•••' A
co
ATTEST:
aitlin E. Manell
Clerk of the Board
Yea Nay Abstain
❑ ❑
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Page 1 of 1
Grant County Roads
2027=2032
6-Year
Transportation Improvement Program
Annual Update
Prepared 06-16-2026
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
COVER PAGE
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
ADOPTING RESOLUTION
3-4
ROAD, BRIDGE, AND CULVERT INVENTORY
5
PREVIOUS YEARS' COMPLETION REPORTS
2025 ACP PROJECTS STATUS
6
2026 ACP PROJECTS STATUS
7
PRIORITY ARRAY - PROJECTS AND .FUND ING:
6-YEAR :PROJECTS MAP
8
2027 TIP PROJECTS
9
2028 TIP PROJECTS
10
2029 TIP PROJECTS
11
2030 TIP PROJECTS
iZ
2031 TIP: PROJECTS
l3
2032 TIP PROJECTS
l4
BRIDGE REPORT
APPENDIX
A
SEPA APPLICATION
APPENDIX
B
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Grant County, Washington
RESOLUTION IN THE MATTED OF RESOLUTION No. 26- -cc
ADOPTING THE TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE
2027-2032 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 6.81121 and WAC 13 6-14, the
Grant County Road Engineer submitted the Six YearTrogram to the Board of County
Commissioners on June 23, 2026; 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 obj eetions to the process and, said hearing was held on July 14, 2026; 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 shalt 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 14, 2026, Adopting said program as resolution 26- -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 2027 through 2032.
1
DATED:
ATTEST:
Caitlin E. Manell
Clerk of the Board
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Cindy Carter, Member
N:\Staff\BVasquez\Resolution-Ordinance\O - Form.docx
SPRING 2026
ROAD INVENTORY
ROAD FUNCTION
ROAD SURFACE
URBAN
URBAN
RURAL
-RURAL
RURAL
TOTALS
TYPE
PRINCIPLE
MINOR
MAJOR
MINOR
LOCAL'
ARTERIAL
ARTERIAL
COLLECTOR
'COLLECTOR
ACCESS
(FFC14)
(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
211A
`.PRIMITIVE GRAVELED
0
0
4.2
28.7
744.1
777A
PRIMITIVE UNIMPROVED
0
0
0
0
63.0
63.0
TOTAL 2498.3
SPRING`2026
BRIDGE AND .CULVERT INVENTORY
BRIDGE
BRIDGE LENGTH
TYPE
< 20'
20' TO 30'
30' TO 50'
50' TO 100
100' +
TOTALS
CONCRETE
NA
8
36
37
45
126
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-165
TOTAL 11 260
PAGE 5
GRANT COUNTY Previous Years'
Completion Reports
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
dnnual "'C.R.P: Pr -a ect5tatus
Program Na.
It No.
Project Name�,
�\�� .\a��,\ \
,�•: \ , �. \. , \
\
\ \ , \ �
Road Segment Information
•
Len th mt.
g ( J
\ \
\
•,�
\
;
\ \ , \
Sources of Funds
;.•.• , � • „.g�,.,h;.
\ \\�20�\
,•\ \\.\ \\
\ \•
\
$870,000
t,.a , �,
\
\.
$0
\\.•� � �\ � \\;
\
\� \
$3,560,000
\ \
$0
\119inal
$4,430,000
,•.
\ V \ �,
\
� \ \ \
\
\ \ a�
�
NA 09
\
t n
0 her'
gg .mount Program Sourc
1 23-02 2025 PE / 2026 CN Bridge 247 Replacement (PW5044) 26530
ROAD W-SE
1.98
NA
BRIDGE (>20')
NO
NO
$0
$3,544,000
CDF FEDERAL
$886,000
WSDOT STATE
2 23-12 2025 PE / 2026 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 UNDER CONSTRUCTION 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 2024 & 2025 PE Comprehensive Road Safety Program (YEAR 2) NA
COUNTYWIDE
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 UNDER CONSTRUCTION 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 UNDER CONSTRUCTION Drumheller Connector (PHASE 3) 40555
DRUMHELLER ROAD (CENTER ROCKS)
7.87
8.8? 09
1.00
NEW CONSTR
YES
NO
$0
$150,000
REET
$0
$0
$0
$150,000
$150,000
9 21-08 UNDER CONSTRUCTION 'Westshore Drive Overlay 40950
WESTSHORE DRIVE
0.83
2.95 0S
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 UNDER CONSTRUCTION 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
$10,191,985
$1,433,078
$9,370,772
$707,000
$11,510,850
`Project is under construction.
Project is in design phase.
PAGE
Grant County
2026
Annual Construction Projects (ACP) Report
WAC 136-16
(A) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION DONE (total sum of column 15 + column 16): $10,177,772
(B) COMPUTED COUNTY FORCES LIMIT: $1,307,393
(C) TOTAL COUNTY FORCES CONSTRUCTION (total sum of column 16): $807,000
Annual
Program
g
C.R.P.
No.
Project Status
„\ \ „, Project Name
\c\\ ,,,.
\ �.e a \.g
n \\\\.,,: \\\
�\ \\\�:�� \ \,
\,\\\\�; �\\•,
Road Segment Information
Completed
Len thmi.
g {
Project Type
Code ,,. \
County forces
project
e e t
pnounr m n
County
Farces\
1�\
project .
Sources of Funds
Estfmat tlditures
\\\ \ \
Right of any
\15-4
trUctian`
my Fo
Road Name
BMP
EMP
FFC
County Road
., ,;
Other Funds
\
Item No.
.���\�\ ,\Q�;,<
\\�
Road #
CIQS:
unds
\,
Amount Pro rama ,
g
, .
o
$0
$3,560,000
$0
$4,430,000
1 23-02 2025 PEE 2026 CN Bridge 247 Replacement (PW5044) 26530
ROAD W-SE
1.98
NA
09
NA
BRIDGE (>20')
NO
NO
$0
$3,544,000
CDF FEDERAL
$870,000
$886,000
WSDOT STATE
I
2 23 12 ,^` 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=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 1805 Z>� Grape &Maple 42350
__. .
42600
GRAPE DRIVE
MAPLE DRIVE
0.12
0.00
0.36
0.75
18
0.99
RECONSTR
NO
NO
$205,875
$1,319,125
STP(US)
$125,000
$0
$1,400,000
$0
$1,525,000
5 23 13�a' Comprehensive Road Safety Program (YEAR 2) NA
N�„__ ,_... t
COUNTY WIDE
NA
NA
NA
NA
SAFETY
NA
NA
$200,000
$0
ALL LOCAL
$200,000
$0
$0
$0
$200,000
6 24 03 z 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 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 25-01tiH Drumheller Connector (PHASE 4} 40555
DRUMHELLER ROAD
4.63
8.63
09
4.00
NEW CONSTR
YES
NO
$0
$250,000
REET
$0
$0
$0
$250,000
$250,000
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 QNStratford Bridge #110 Repair 94026
OR . o ..
STRATFORD ROAD
0.21
0.28
07
0.07
RECONSTRUCTION
YES
NO
$200,000
$0
ALL LOCAL
$0
$0
$0
$200,000
200,000
e� 110 occ
tin -)w ooc
C1 aa2 n7R
S9.370.772
5807.000
S11.610.850
Project is under construction.
Project is in design phase.
PAGE 7
J6Co; , GRANT COUNTY priority Array
Projects & Funding
127 PRG
ITEM FUNCT ROAD ROAD WORKS PROJECT NAME
17 CLASS LOG PROJECT PROJECT TYPE POST POST MILES CONSTR SOURCE ALLOCATED CONST ENGINEERING ACQUISITION BY CONTRACT BY COUNTY TOTAL
(FCC) JI )CRP) q R J✓ USE (595.10) (595.20) (ALL 595)
1 09 2.6530 1 23-02 1 5044 1BRIDGE 247 REPLACEMENT IBRIDGE REPLACEMENT ROAD W-SE l 1.98 NA NA NO CDF FEDERAL S4,430,000 $830,625 $0 $4,706,875 $0 $5,537,500
2 07 91030 23-09
5052
IDODSON & 12-SW ROUNDABOUT
ISAFETY
I DODSON ROAD
2.24
2.25 1
0.01 1
LOCAL
$562,500 i $18,75G
$0
$543,750
$0
$562,500
R 08 16570 23 12
5054
IBRIDGE 426 DECK REPAIR
IREHAB BRIDGE
S FRONTAGE ROAD NW
52
Nk
NA
NO
FEDERAL
$1 056 250 $147,875
50
I $908,375
$0
I $1,056,250
4 07 91035 I TBD
TBD
Q'SW RECONSTRUCTION
RECONSTRUCTION
ROAD Q-SW
I 0.82
5.82
5.00
NONE
LOCAL
HAP
$180,000 $200,000
S1,620,000
$0
$1,600,000
$0
$1,800,000
5 07 92035 24-02
5059
U-NE
HMA OVERLAY
ROAD U-NE
12.84
15.80
2.96
NONE
LOCAL
STP(U;)
$188,156 $143,750
$0
51,250,000
$0
$1,393,750
6 09 20550 18 10
5015
B SE CULVERTS
NEW CULVERTS
I ROAD B-SE
0.24
0.44
0.20
YES
LOCAL
$500 000 $125 U00
$0
$0
$375,000
$500,000
7 NA NA 23-13
5055
ICOMPREHENSIVE ROAD SAFETY PROGRAM (YEAR 3)
ISAFETY SIGNAGE
COUNTY WIDE
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOCAL
$250,000 $250,000
$0
$0
$0
$250,000
8 07 10660 74-03
E
5060
IDESERT AIRE PED SAFETI'
I
SAFETY
DESERT AIRE DRIVE
0.00 i
I
2.57
I
2.57
NO
LOCAL
51Plus)
557,375 1 557,375
53o102S L
$0
5367,62'
SO
$425,000
I
9 U9 12010 TBD
TBD
2027 GRAVEL TO OIL PROGRAM
1GRAVEL TO OIL
K SW (11 SW TO 12.5-SW)
0.00
1.U0
1.49
YES
LOCAL
$468,750 $0
$0
$0
$468,750
$468,750
10 09 40555 TBD
TBD
DRUMHELLER CONNECTOR (PHASE 5)
IMPROVE GRAVEL SURFACE
DRUMHELI ER ROAD
' 8 63
12 54
3 91
YES I
REET
j 5312 500 $0
$0
$0
$312,500
$312,500
Gravel to Oil Project
TOTAL GRANTSl
$10,099,469
TOTAL LOCAL TOTAL PE & C€
1$2,206,781 I $1,773,375
Local Funds
Funding Source Other than Local
I CONTRACT
$9,376,625 -�
COUNTY
$1,156,250
TOTAL
$12,306,250 ,
PAGE 9
o i A9Vd
le:)ol ueyl jaylO a:)jnoS Sulpun j�
spunjle�ol
000'sa,ms 000'osg,gs
IVIOI • • • •
000 SZ9S
000'SZ9�
0$
0$ 1
Oq
001 IVDOI SIA 10.0 £0'17I TO'bT OVOH d3ll3HNn8al A13JVS (inO9V(1Nno8 IN-V) 8O1DINNOD dJll1Hvqndaj a81 Ia8i SSSOb I60 T_Z
OSZ'90b$
OSZ'90b$
0$
0$
0$
OSZ'90b$ IIV-)Ol S3A £Z'T L6'L bL 9 (MS-)q 01110 30 aN3) MS-ZTI 110 O113AV89 NV89O8d 110 Ol l3L\V89 SZOZ 091 1 aei OLZOT 6O OZ
000'OOE'T$
0$
000'OSZ'TS
0$
000'OS$
000'OLI'T.$ dv8
000`OEI$ IVJ 3NON 6S'Z EE'6T bL'9T (ddm>i of 8Z85) 3N-M 0VO8 NOI1Dn81SNOJ38 NOI1Jn15NOD38 3N-M 081 a8i SEOS6 LO 6T
O00'OSZ$
OS
0$
0$
000'OSZ$
o00`OSZ$ IVDOI INON VN VN VN 301M A1NnOJ 39VN91S A13AVSI (b 8VIA) NV89O8d A133VS OVO8 3NSN3H3ddAOJ SSOS ET-EZ I VN 00 8T
OSL £60'T$
OS
000'000'TS
0$
OSL'E6$
000'SL8$ ddHN
OSL'8TZ$ l d:Ol 3NON TO'0 5Z'Z 8Z'Z /V\N-H OVO8 390189 M3N MN-H OVOH 1V Z8E 3901d9 09l 091 0£b0£ 80 LT
0$
OSL'£bZ'T5 --T
0$
000'OOI$
SLE'60CT$ 081FOSL'£bE'TS
SLE'b£I$ IVDOI 3NON 00-£ TO'b TO'T MS-8 avOB NOI1Dn815NOD38 (MS LZ Ol MS bZ) MS 8 a81 a81 Tb0T6 LO 9I
OOS'Z9E$
005'ZT£$
0$
0$
000'OS$
OOS'Z9£$ { IVDOI 53A VN VN ZE'6 MN-EZ OV08 390188 M3N LN3N3JV1d38 TLT 39a188 £bD5 b0 ZZ 8b0£b 60 ST
000'SZ9$
0$
005'Z95$
O$
OOS'Z9$
SEb'8EI$ IVDOI 3NON 8S'0 LT'Z £S'T 0VO8 A31lvA 3DV38nS38 Av183n0 OVOB A311VA LEOS b0-IZ OSZIb b0 bT
000'OSE'T$
L0$
000'OSE'T$
OS
0$
£ZL'LSC$
(Sn)dlH
(Sn)d1S
1v701 3NON
Z6'0
ET
680
SZ'O
00'0
SZ'0
OT'0
0VO8 dvwllo
OVOB NVBHDOD
OVod NVAHDOD
NOI1Jnd1SNOJ38
8VN11O 19 NVBHDOD
890b
60171
009Tb
OSSib
OSSTb
SO
ET
SZO`OTD'T$
OSZ'Z8T$
OS RTD Z$
0$
OS 898 TS
n<
nnn'OSI$
SLH'918'T$ dv8
5!8'TOE$ -,VJOI 3NON 00-£ 66'E 660 MN-S 0V08 NOl1Jn81SNOJ38I LN3N3DV1d38 SSE 39a189'8 MN-S SSOS 9T-EZ OSST£ 9D ZT
r r rr r rr r �rr •®� •. •.• • • �.• .• r r®Si��'a
1
1 •
'• •
••ZI AVM • •.• t •. •. •, • 1vo � •.
���� • , \ .� �� 1 � iU\C\\�M W`I � �i'�I �i�VO�N�iI) \\ ;; r � r \\� , , "\\\ � H\q ny �\A> � , , W ; ;i •0
FED COUNTY COUNTY PUBLIC BEGIN END COUNTY ESTIMATED
ITEM FUNCT ROAD ROAD WORKS PROJECT NAME PROJECT ROAD NAME MILE MILE LENGTH FORCES FUNDS FUNDS PRELIM ENGINEERING RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED
# CLASS LOG PROJECT PROJECT TYPE POST POST MILES CONSTRUCTION SOURCE ALLOCATED CONST ENGINEERING ACQUISITION BY CONTRACT BY COUNTY TOTAL
(FCC) # (CRP) # # # USE (595.10) (595.20) (ALL 595)
�� nv 43070 TBD TBD K.7-NE 7-NE TO 8-NE RECONSTRUCTION ROAD K.7-NE 0.00 1.06 1.06 YES LOCAL $143,750 $18,750 $0 SO 5125,000 $143,750
23 09 14100
23-10
5051
BRIDGE 248 AT 11-SE REPLACEMEN 1
NEW BRIDGE
ROAD 11-SE
4.21 1
4.22
0.01
YES
CDF FEDERAL
WSDOT
S5,256,250
$1,000,000
$1,250,000
$0
55,006,250
SO
$6,256,25G
-]
24 07 33700
24-04
.5061
124-NW PALISADES RECONSTRUCTION
RECONSTRUCTION
24-NW
4.31
8.29
3.98
NONE
LOCAL
STPR
$506,250
$3,243,750
$312,500
$312,500
$3,125,000
$0
$3,750,000
25 00 NA
23-13
5055
ICOMPREHENSIVE ROAD SAFETY PROGRAM (YEAR 5)
SAFETY SIGNAGE
1COUNTY WIDE
NA I
NA
NA
NONE
LOCAL
$250,000
$250,000
$0
$0 1
$0
1 $250,000
26 07 95039
TBD
TBD
GRAND COULEE HILL (UPPER) RECONSTRUCTION
RECONSTRUCTION
GRAND COULEE HILL
0.00
2.89
2.89
NONE
LOCAL
RAP
$131,250
51,181,250
$62,500
S0
$1,250,000
$0
$1,312,500
I
09 10270
27 09 21930
TBC
TBD
TBD
TBD
2029 GRAVEL TO OIL PROGRAM
GRAVEL TO OIL
11-SW
K-SE (END OF OIL TO 4-SE)
0.00
1.50
0.75
2.01
0.75
0.51
YES
YES
LOCAL
LOCAL
$237,500
$187,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$237,500
$187,500
$237,500
$187,500
28 09 40555
TBD
TBD
DRUMHELLER CONNECTOR (OILING PHASE)
*** FFC 07 RECLASSIFICATION
NEW CONSTRUCTION
DRUMHELLER ROAD (OILING)
4.63
12.54
7.91
YES
LOCAL
STBG
$468,750
$2,656,250
SO
$0
$0
$3,125,000
$3,125,000
29 09 40555
TBD
TBD
HIAWATHA CONNECTOR (OILING)
*** FFC07 RECLASSIFICATION
GRAVEL TO OIL
HIAWATHA ROAD (OILING)
3.08
4.63
1.55
YES
LOCAL
STBG
$156,750
$888,250
$45,000
SO
$0
$1,000,000
$1,045,000
Gravel to Oil Project
TOTAL GRANTS
$14 225 750
TOTAL LOCAL
$2 O81 750
TOTAL PE & CE
$1 938 750
ROW
$312,500
CONTRACT
$9,381,250
COUNTY
$4,675,000
TOTAL
$16,307.500
PAGE 11
FED
COUNTY
COUNTY
PUBLIC
BEGIN
END
COUNTY
ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED
ITEM
FUNCT
ROAD
ROAD
WORKS
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
ROAD NAME
MILE
MILE
LENGTH
FORCES
FUNDS
FUNDS
PRELIM ENGINEERING
CONST ENGINEERING
RIGHT OF WAY
ACQUISITION
CONSTRUCTION
BY CONTRACT
CONSTRUCTION
BY COUNTY
TOTAL
#
CLASS
LOG
PROJECT
PROJECT
TYPE
POST
POST
MILES CONSTRUCTION
SOURCE
ALLOCATED
(595.10)
(595.20)
(ALL 595)
30
(FCC)
09
If
30330
(CRP)
#
1
BRIDGE 353 AT R-NW REPLACEMENT
NEW BRIDGE
ROAD R-NW
#
0.01
#
0.02
0.01
USE
YES
LOCAL
$125,000
$6,250
SO
$0
$118,750
S125,000
31 08 42700
7-NE TO N-NE TRUCK ROUTE INTERSCT & RECONST
RECONSTRUCTION
ROAD N NE AND 7-NE
0.00
0.89
0.01
YES
LOCAL
1 $159,375
1 $62,500
$62,500
$937,500
$0
51,062,500
GRANT TBD
$903,125
32 09 21590
SAND DUNES CONNECTOR AND TRAIL (PHASE 1)
RECONSTRUCTION
SAND DUNES ROAD
2.28
3.40
1.12
YES
TRAILS
$187,500
$125,000
50
$437,500
$250,000
5812,500
I
LTAC
$625,000
33 07 14025
STRATFORD AND 7-NE ROUNDABOUT
INTERSECTION
STRATFORD
4.02
4.04
0.02
NONE
LOCAL
$875,000
S312,500
$312,500
$3,750,000
$0
54,375,000
GRANT TBD
$3,500,000
34 00 NA
23-13
5055
1COMPREHENSIVE ROAD SAFETY PROGRAM (YEAR 6)
ISAFLTY SIGNAGE
I COUNTY WIDE
NA
NA
NA
NONE
LOCAL
$250,000
$250,000
1 $0
$01
$0
1 $250,000
09 32260
TBD
TBD
12-NW (U-NW TO 12-SW)
1.00
1.33
0.33
YES
LOCAL
$125,000
$0
$0
$0
$125,000
$125,000
35
09 12530
TBD
TBD
2030 GRAVEL TO OIL PROGRAM
GRAVEL TO OIL
H-SVV (SR-26 TO 12-SW)
0.00
1.02
1.02
YES
LOCAL
$312,500
$0
$0
$0
$312,500
$312,SU0
Gravel to Oil Project
TOTAL GRANTS
$5 215 625
TOTAL LOCAL
$1 846 875
TOTAL PE & CE
$756 250
ROW
$375,000
CONTRACT
$5,125,000
COUNTY
f $806,250
TOTAL
I $7,062,500-
�—
Local Funds
Funding Source Other
than Local
PAGE 12
£ I HJVd
000'000`8$
1Vi01
000'005$
A1N(1O3
000'OSL`9$
i3VN1NO3
leaol ueyl
OOQ'OSL$
33 83d1ViO1
jay10 a»noS Aulpun j 1��- i
spunjleaoll,
SL8'TLT'T$ SZT'8Z8'9$
1V301itl101 ; S1NtlH9ltl101
1»f0Jd 1!0 011aneJ9�
F 000'005$
f 000O05$
OS I
O5
OS
000'OOSS I IVJOI
S3A
TO Z £S S ZS £ (IN-S'S 01110 30 ON3) 3N S 110 Ol lMVH9 WVH90Hd 110 Ol l3/1VH9 T£OZ (lei 81 091 60 Otr
000'OSZS
0$
0$
0<
G00'OSZ$
I 000'0SZS 1VJGl
3NON
VN VN HN �- 3GIM AlNf10J 3JVN915 A133HS (i HV3A) WHHJOHd A133VS OVOH 3�ISN3H3HdWOJ SSOS £T £Z 7N 00 6£
000'SZI'£$
OS
O05'ZT8'ZS
0S
00S'ZT£S
SZT'EOL'Z$ Hd1S
SL8'TZb$ 1VJ01
3 ION
£0'Z Z6'b 68'Z 111H 33]nOJ ONVH9I NOLDn' 1SNOJ3HI NOI DmUSNOJ3H (H3MOl) 111H 33l(lOJ ONVH�J 6£056 LO 8£
000"SZ9'Z$
000'00S'ZS
05
000'SZTS
1N3WdOl3A3G
000'SZ9'ZS GH
3NON
1
£OS 660 3N-S GVOH JH'dbiSOb LO L£
j.
000'OOS'T5
OS
OOS'L£b'T$
OS
00S"Z9$
iN3VJ33H9V
000'GOS'TS 3JNVNIj JNI XVI
3NON
£S'£ ZO'b 6VO I 3N-N GVOH
NOI DmiSNOJ3H UOI1Jf USNOM3 31110H ADnu 3N-N (Iml ) OSLbb 80 9£
�d213) {3:0
(565 11V)
g1V101
O3IVIMIlS3
!
A1N(103 A8
N0113(1H1SN03
1WHIN03 A8
N0113(IN1SN03
(OZ'S6S)
NOI1151ri'mv
AVM 101H91a
(OT'S6S)
I 9NR133N19N31SN03
` 9N11(3031 I13Hd
i WI153
! 031V3011V Dims
i SONnA SONni
35f1
N0113f1a1SN03
S33801
A1Nno:)
#
S31IW 1SOd
H19N31 311W
ON3
# I
1SOd
31IW I 3WVN OV021
N1938 1
3dAl
133(OMd 3WVN 103(Oad
8
133(ONd 1331`021d 901 SSV13
SN80M Ovoid OV0i7 13N(13
3118(1d A1N(103 A1N(103 03d
#
W311
11010 IN'
\ w1\011\
k%\\) m1\111 'm m1\10M I
BEGIN
MILE
POST
#
0.00
&
END COUNTY
MILE LENGTH FORCES
POST MILES CONSTRUCTION
# USE
0.01 0.01 NONE
FUNDS
SOURCE
LOCAL
HYSP
FUNDS PRELIM
ALLOCATED CONST
$937,500
$5,312,500
ESTIMATED
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
(595.10)
$562,500
RIGHT OF WAY
ACQUISITION
(595,20)
$375,000
CONSTRUCTION
BY CONTRACT
$5,312,500
CONSTRUCTION
BY COUNTY
$0
ESTIMATED
TOTAL
(ALL , 95)
00
$6,250000
ITEM
#
41
FED
FUNCT
CLASS
(FCC)
07
COUNTY
ROAD
LOG
#
10610
COUNTY
ROAD
PROJECT
(CRP)
PUBLIC
WORKS PROJECT NAME PROJECT
PROJECT TYPE
#
DESERT AIRE DRIVE & SR243 ROUNDABOUT INTERSECTION
ROAD NAME
DESERT AIRE DRIVE
-T
42 09 21590
SAND DUNES CONNECTOR AND TRAIL (PHASE 2)
RECONSTRUCTION
SAND DUNES ROAD
3.40
4.S0 1.10 YES
TRAILS
LTAC
$187,500
$625 U00
$125,000
$0
$437,500
$25U,000
$812,500
43 00 NA
23-13 S055 COMPREHENSIVE ROAD SAFETY PROGRAM (YEAR 2)
ISAFETY SIGNAGE
ICOUN rY WIDE
I NA
NA NA I NONE
I LOCAL
$250,000 1
$250,000
$0
$0
$0 1
$250,000
44 09 22100
TBD TBD 2032 GRAVEL TO OIL PROGRAM
GRAVEL TO OIL
BASELINE 0.5-SE
0.00
1.01 1.01 YES
LOCAL
$250 000
$0
$o
$0
$250,000
$250,000
Gravel to Oil Project
TOTAL GRANTS
$6,125,000
TOTAL LOCAL TOTAL
$1,437,500
Local Funds
Funding Source Other than Local
PE& CE
$937,500
ROW
$375,000
CONTRACT
$5,750,000
COUNTY
$500,000
TOTAL
57,562,S00
PAGE 14
u�
`J GRANT COUNTY Appendix A
Bridge Report
GRANT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ANNUAL BRIDGE & INSPECTION REPORT 2026
COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER
CADE C. EGBER T, PE
Public Works Director
Bridge Inspection Team Leader, G1409
ANDY BOOTH
Bridge Crew ,Supervisor
Bridge Inspection Team Leader, G1801
TIM MASSE Y
I. INTRODUCTION
11. DEFICIENT BRIDGES
BRIDGE INSPECTIONS
1. Routine Bridge Inspections
2. Special Inspections
IV. SCOUR EVALUATIONS
V. BRIDGE RESTRICTIONS
VI. EMERGENCY REPAIRS
VII. MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
VIII. COMPLETED PROJECTS
IX. CURRENT PROJECTS
X. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS
Appendix A- Deficient bridges
Appendix B- Bridge scour ratings
Appendix C- Posted bridges
The 2025-2026 Annual Bridge and Inspection Report summarizes the status of bridges
owned, operated, and maintained by Grant County, and is prepared under the direction of
the County Engineer in accordance I with WAC 136-20-060. This report is for your use
during preparation of the 2026-2031 Six 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 Aid bridges are eligible for STP, BRS, RAP, and local funds.
County Arterial Non -FA bridges are eligible for BROS, RAP, and local funds. Local
access bridges are eligible for BROS, and local funds.
11. DEFICIET®T 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.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requirements mandate that public agencies
inspect and report on all bridges (vehicle carrying structures with span length equal to or
greater than 20 feet) at least once every 24 months. The purpose of routine inspections 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.
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 has an Assistant County
Road Engineer who passed BCIT in the spring of 2023. She began inspecting in the fall
of2023.
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, 111 National Bridge
Inventory (NBI) bridges and 20 short span bridges (SSB) have received inspections
during the 2025-2026 inspection season.
All bridge inspections must be performed mid to late October through raid -February due
to high water levels in the canals. The following breaks out the number of bridges
inspected by month this past inspection cycle:
October 14 National Bridge Inventory (NBI).
7 Short Span Bridge (SSB)
November 28 NBI (11 with specialized inspection equipment)
30 NBI This number includes 1 city owned bridge.
December 6 SSB
January 30 NBI7 SSB
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
p g
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 11 of these inspections in
2025-2026 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 conjunction
with our boat at every routine inspection. Should Grant County find any
deficiencies during this inspection we would have an underwater inspection
performed at that time. WSDOT performed an -underwater inspection on Br-303
in September 2021. Br-303 is due for underwater inspection in September 2026.
IV. SCOUR EVALUATIONS
A scour evaluation is required for all bridges 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.
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 load rating is the measure of the bridge's load carrying
capacity. There are two capacity levels that bracket this ability, the inventory rating 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. See Appendix C
VI. EMERGENCY REPAIRS
Br-229 on M-SE g 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 G will most likely take place after the bridge 247 project is completed. See photos.
VIIa MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
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
the crew. The Bridge Crew performs a wide range of maintenance and construction
projects on our extensive guardrail, bridge and drainage structure system.
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.
Typical annual maintenance and construction activities include:
• Repair wood posts, railing, curbing, and uprights due to vehicle collision.
• Repair guardrail and concrete corbels due to vehicle damage.
• Clean winter sand, chip seal gravel and debris from under guardrail to
maintain adequate height.
• Replace rotted or broken wood girders, wood decking, curbing 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. 4' and larger.
• Annual cleaning of all large culverts.
• Repair or replacement of drainage structures from flash floods or winter
runoff, including resetting of pipes, adding, or repairing riprap.
• Joint repair on bridge decks.
• Deck sealing of concrete bridge decks.
• Replace, reset and clean survey monument cases.
• Replace and repair sidewalks as needed.
V111. COMPLETED PROJECTS
No completed projects in 2025.
IX. CURRENT PROJECTS
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. Construction will begin in Fall of 2026. See photos.
Br 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 WSD®T funded. This project
will have design work done in the summer of 2026. Construction will begin in Fall of
2026. See photos.
Br 370 E SE .8 mi S of 13 SE. Routine inspection showed increasing amount of rotten
deck boards. Gravel was removed from the deck and further inspection revealed a 330
square feet area of rotten decking. Removal of existing and replace with new treated 2X4
lumber is planned for late summer of 2026. See photos.
Br SSB 171 Sagebrush Flats at 23 NW. Replace 8" by 19" deck boards with treated
nail laminated 2x4 decking.
Br 382 H NW at West Canal. Inspection showed 2 red tagged girders due to rot and I
due to large split. All in span 2. Replacement of these girders to be done early summer of
2026.
OM GRANT COUNTY
_ dAppendl*x
WAS H! N GTO N
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 (HBRRP) 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. Sufficiency rating has been discontinued as of 2025. This description has been
left in the inspection report as it is still populated in Bridgworks. Taking its place is
called the Overall Condition Rating, Good/Fair/Poor, to capture the overall condition of
the bridge. This field is automatically populated from the lowest condition code for Deck,
Superstructure, or Substructure.
There are two types of deficient bridges. structurally deficient (SD) and functionally
obsolete (FO).
A structurally deficient bridge, as defined by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
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
qualification for monies available for local projects. The current sufficiency rating
qualification is 40.
GRANT COUNTY
=-,0: WaSHI N G T 0NAppendi*x
On February 3, 1949, Grant County and the United States Bureau of Reclamation
(USBR) 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.
0i ..r
GRANT COUNTY
Appendl*x
C
W A S H I N G T 0 N
Bridge Number
Location
SHV Rating Factors
Posting Rating Factors
i0l
Wilson Creek @ RR Xing
SUE-.98, SU7-.89
103
20--NE @ Adrian Rd
SU6-,91, SU7-.83
1001-
306 NE
SU4-,68., SU5-.64, SU6-.58, SU7-.55
Type 3-.80, 3-S2-.85, 3-3-.97
119
20-NE @ Main Cana!
SU4-,85, SU5-.80, SU6-33, SU7-..70
208
W-NE Ruff
SU66-.95, SU 1/.87
210
P-NE 5 of 7-NE
SUo'-.98, SU7-.90
221
T-SE North of 7-SE_
SUS-.98, SU6_.910, SU7-.86
229
M-SE @ 5-SE
SU4-.74 SU5-.r68, SU6-.63, SU7-.61
Type 3-.88, 3-S2-.91
248
11-SE @ East Low Canal
SU7-.97
305
N-SW @ 12.5
SU6-.93, SU7-.90
310
Frenchman Hills @ Tunnel
SU6-.93, SU7-.87
311
9-NW @ Winchester WW
SU4-.91, SU5-.86, SU6-38, SU7-.74
312
5-NW @ Winchester WW
SU4-.84, SU5-.79, SU6-.72, SU7-.68
313
E SE at 14.8
SU6-.99, SU7-.95
317
1 SW North of 11
SU4'-.62,SU5-.58,SUt-)-,.53,SU7-.O
Type 3-34,3-S/2-37, 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
SU4371 SU5-.70, SU6-.65, SU7-,63
Type 3-.910 3-S2-.94
328
Martin Rd. @1 H
SU5-.96., SU6-.87, SU7-.83
329
K NW @ 11.5 NW
SU4-.90, SU5.83, SU6.78, SU7.77
,3391
Q-NW @ Upper Lateral
SU6-..96, SU7-.91
342
Martin Rd
SU6-,971, SU7-.93
351
Martin Rd at R-NW
SU5-.99, SU6-.91, SU7-.82
356
9-NW @ S
SU4-.98, SUS-.95, SU6-.906, Su7-384
357
E-SE N of 12
SU6-.94, SU7-.91
360
3-NW East of P
SU6-.99, SU7-.9_15)
362
P-NW Feedlot North
SU5-396, 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-.99,, SU6-.91, SU7-.89
376
Dodson 1.3 N of 9-NW
SU6-.93, SU7-.85
382
H-NW @ West Canal
SU4,-.623 SU5-.58, SU6-.53, SU7-.50
Type 3-.74, 3-S2-.76, 3-3-.92
383
G-NW @ West Canal
SU4-.88, SU5-39, SU6-.71, SU7-,64
Type 3-.98, 3-S2-.81, 3-3-.80
384
J-NW @ Pumping Plant
SU4-.90, SU5-.82, SU6-36, SU7-.73
387
O-NW @ West Canal
SU4-.90, SU5-.83, SU6-36, SU7-.73
415
F SE @ county line
SU4-.99, SU5-.92, SUS-.84 SU7-.81
417
6 SE North of 12 SE
SU6-.96 SU7-.91
419
E.3 SW South of Frenchmen
SU4-.80,, SU5-,75, SU6-.69, SU7-.66
Type 3-.97, 3-S2-.99
422
D-SW South of Frenchman
SUS-.96, SU6-.90,, SU7-.90
Br-229 M-S - Deck at Girder G
INN 11AN I C,
_Alt.
Vt
777
i <
)l Z111,►
.. ..
_y�� � •� .
S a.. V, F' a i
. Ti Mint��yFl7��i fl���'; �Ji�'�tM��•
� ttt. Ji'
Br -382 levati*on
J1,
A t '�[•rT
1
+'t 7: • r'..•V �. 1�� ��-;fair `, t,�+ ` .I,•
� �Lr Chi+�t�• � ,,c �. »� :.r .,r +lx,. ,
, tr
'� • � ��• �+�`,[?� ' � •t' •'n'� ',i�'� � t" i'r �� , J� ;,.'�,ri ,t to f ►. �:. Ei `•�-. . �t !.
'11��.j •'1'. � _ t r, ,••i' �_�`'' S� aR•. _'I __ Z, �! � b, -1� !1:'•� ,"� .+«y ifr lrj �y ,• f r'.
. , 7 7•
J
_ t +� i --'SC w 1.. ..�-.� 1 Tj'►� 'lar rpt• •�?.7.r •Jc,',i -. ['• ,' .T',G�l+-. 'si. 1r" ...1'aa...1 _. .:.r .. �,.. J _, , `, .
lip
ilk,;Y,'%fiv.SLItr •���.t
` -
7;t• ` 'Sid-"iR - 'ram �M�:'C ,r � N., r Y �• w� ji`i •,f .4• _ 1- . � : - ♦, .. � -
w - t7(r • 1 �ff .���'q��``��` � j: L � �. aT( t -.1 �� ! 4 ;{•� j:.�,•,``�� � .. _ � � : •R :• - ,�-'. � _ -
•' + r � n;. .."L •..lit•
t2� y. l' • �• /
dW
Ir
ter,.
�• 1� � I jl. w � n - v
io
1 y I 4
� f
It I
Jk
it
61
Rt
16
' f
1
1 I
F f f
1 l
+1�A
;2p
w• 1
aq
t
' (��v d r 't •t 1 11
v. � � ,=J .h � � y �t• 1
rl i
�ji t'i .•/'t' t` 1, ♦,•f r` ♦tt �` '`� ; �` J `r l+
.,tt j �I4,,i.�� �� ..•J.��'�� 1 '.: .•• . -1�r. � � L t ! F � .,1 �IJ .� � r
„ ems",C w Tom" , t r ••.
opo
90
�� i 7' �Fr • `r?
••':,(' ,: '.f(y. ' 't; �y 4 ; � � r rrT'� ; � 1 ., ', al • p, ?{ � � � r �/,1
.I
i i! a ti,r �t� •J 1�,' ? 1�k t• ,�� �' h ,, r +�•� � ', t$',� 4'� y,t
�•- .. , �, 1
4
'9
10,
P t:!7
jam' \ rj�f'��{{i'. ; �� ;T�r1 '�, .r, r ..{�?: .• � :•�' �, RR _
fit
,' mil_ \ .� � 't ;� • 1`•
t
.% 1 � �►.!. t •C , y�a',( v , ♦1 � ! �S t`� ,', •1,, 77"CC ,tt
'.t � ' :,.a3 Y-., - �•~ XI`� '� ! � l ; z: , . ,F: .� • 1 , ' �, ice;
�",.=.�� .�. t f •� :.�,'�; � ���°;fib �`�v '�,,�:i.•����.�n'``,,�', ��!' N�
Y
4,
"''\ GRANT COUNTY
Appendix B
(J WGT0N
SEPA Application
Permit Number:
GRANT COUNTY
PL,ANleiIICIG DEPARTMENT
�-
- - P.O. Box 37 - 264 WEST DIVISION AVENUE
.�
EPHRATA, WA 98823
(509) 754-20 1 1 ExT 2501
TYPE OF PERMIT YOU ARE APPLYING FOR
*SEE FEE SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION FEE AMOUNT*
❑ Preliminary Short Subdivision
❑ Planned Unit Development ❑ Administrative Approval Fv'] SEPA
El Preliminary Subdivision / Alt
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Administrative Interpretation El Planning Permit
El Preliminary Binding Site Plan
El Transient Residence (CUP) El General Information Meeting ❑ Site Plan Review
❑ Final Subdivision Short / Long
/ Alt El Discretionary Use Permit ❑ Pre -Application Conference El Developer Agreement
❑ Final Binding Site Plan
El Reasonable Use Exception El Utility Easement Alteration ❑ Variance
APPLICANT INFORMATION
APPLICANT
Grant County Public Works
MAILING ADDRESS
124 Enterprise Street SE, Ephrata WA 98823
PHONE NUMBER
EMAIL ADDRESS
509-754-6082
ccegbert@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
Cade C. Egbert, PE
MAILINU AUUKtab
124 Enterprise Street SE, Ephrata WA 98823
PHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS
509-754-6082 x3502 ccegbert@grantcountywa.gov
I 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. ft.)
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
1
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 GCC 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 applicant/owner 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;
6. 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: Owner
Owner
FOR STAFF USE ONLY:
Permit Type:
Subdivision & BSP - Proposed Lots up to 100:
Subdivision & BSP - Proposed Lots 101 and above:
Intake By:
Fee Per Lot:
Fee Per Lot:
Receipt #
2
Fee Paid:
Sub -Total:
Sub -Total:
TOTAL:
GRANT COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVIGES
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
Completed Master Application (Signed &all parcel numbers included)
❑
F-1
Pre -Application Summary (If applicable)
❑
EJ
Complete SEPA Checklist
❑
❑
Site Plan (Consistent with GCC 23.04.140(f)(2)) or Other Land Use Permit Plans
❑
F-1
Reproducible Site Plan at 11 "x17"
❑
F-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.
Erb
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 September 2023 Page 1
(WAC 197-11-960)
GRANT COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
P.O. Box 37 - 264 WEST DIVISION AVENUE
EPHRATA, WA 98823
(509) 754-201 1 ExT 2501
A.Background
Find help answering background questions2
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
2027-2032 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
2. Name of applicant:
Cade C. Egbert, PE
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
124 Enterprise Street SE, Ephrata WA 98823 - 509.754.6082 x3503
4. Date checklist prepared:
06.02.2026
5. Agency requesting checklist:
Grant County Public Works
6. Proposed timing of schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Projects are phased over (6) years from 2027-2032.
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.
2 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-
guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-A-Background
SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 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 2027-2032 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
. Eartri
Find help answering earth questions3
a. General description of the site:
2027-2032 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 September 2023 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. Ai t
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 September 2023 Page 4
(WAC 197-11-960)
3. Water
Find help answering water questions-5
a. Surface.
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
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-Surface-water
SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page S
(WAC 197-11-960)
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.
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.
7 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 September 2023 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
❑ 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 September 2023 Page 7
(WAC 197-11-960)
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.
Gone known.
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-elements/Environmental-elements-6-Energy-natural-resou
SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page 8
(WAC 197-11-960)
?. Environmental health
Health Find help with answering environmental health questions10
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.
S. 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.
to https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Envirorunental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-
guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-7-Environmental-health
SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 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 questions11
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 known structures are proposed to be demolished.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No structures are proposed to be demolished.
11 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 September 2023 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.
12 https:Hecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-
guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-9-Housing
SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page 11
(WAC 197-11-960)
10. Aesthetics
Find help answering aesthetics questions13
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. Might and glare
Find help answering light and glare questionsla
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?
N/A
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.
13 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-
guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-1 O-Aesthetics
14 https:Hecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-
guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-ll-Light-glare
SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 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 he answering historic and cultural preservation questions1s
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:Hecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-
guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-13 -Historic-cultural-p
16 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-
guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-l4-Transportation
SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 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?
No additional trips will be added. Improvements are for maintenance.
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 questionsi-7
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 September 2023 Page 14
(WAC 197-11-960)
16. Utilities
Find help answering utilities questionsl$
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 should 19
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the
lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Type name of signee:
Cade C. Egbert
Position and agency/organization:
County Road Engineer
Date submitted:
18 https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/sepa/environmental-review/sepa-guidance/sepa-checklist-
guidance/sepa-checklist-section-b-environmental-elements/environmental-elements- 16-utilities
" https:Hecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-
guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-C-Signature
SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page 15
(WAC 197-11-960)
D.Supplernental 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 for 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-proj ect-actions
SEPA Environmental checklist September 2023 Page 16
(WAC 197-11-960)
S. 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 September 2023 Page 17
(WAC 197-11-960)