The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About*Other - Public WorksMemo Grant County Department of Public Works 124 Enterprise St. S.E. Ephrata, WA 98823 Serial No. 22. To: Honorable Grant County Board of County Commissioners From: Dave Bren, PE, MSCE County Road Engineer Date: January 13, 2023 Re: Completing the Widening of the East Low Canal Elective Bridge Replacements #247 and #248 Framework for a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 2, 3 q� 36 Av-c J� Legislative History: Financial Impact: • First Presentation: January 17, 2023 = • Grant Writing Support: $15,000 • Second Presentation: • Staff work Support: $15,000 • Action Requested: = Authorize MOU Drafting • Matching Funds Support Varies Overview The East Columbia Basin Irrigation District (ECBID) is requesting Grant County to make replacement of Bridge #247 and Bridge #248 its highest priority for Congressionally Directed Funding efforts. Unfortunately, when the East Low Canal was widened, the associated bridges were not widened, so the earthen embankments left behind stick out into the canal and greatly reduce the potential water delivery capacity of the Canal. The East Columbia Basin Irrigation District needs County help to complete the project. Elective Replacement Photo 1: Bridge 247 Elevation These bridges continue to provide excellent useful service for Grant County agricultural, commercial, and residential access. These bridges are critical to provide transportation services for Grant County citizens. Replacement of these bridges is currently elective for the Grant County transportation purposes. Regional Replacement Benefits The replacement of these bridges would greatly increase the water delivery capacity of the East Low Canal. This increased water capacity would provide many benefits to the region and Grant County itself. The Columbia Basin Development League (CBDL) has outlined the many direct and indirect benefits that completion of the East Low Canal will have on their website, previous meetings with the County, and provided documents. r'r "To meet current and future needs, serving together with public and private entities, while, fostering a respectful and successful work environment.." information...!lbN J.YYIWwY.Y!-N..uw...w.Y�..../YI t+Y M.Y.+....a.Yw.V��X'M �'754-6082 Dave area, PE,,Cou .. y Road, Engineer ... ... ......... M./Ext. 35o,2 ,1M #w. '.w'MN , super iso DiSt. NO. �.Y+Y1i+.Yi+sf.YAWW IR Y++aYk4Alf Y. Y.si�NRnA 9M".AI.�I.�' ,a�t.l.a..Y.lR....,. ... .+............................. (5 ►) 754-6087 Bob. sersanb, Construction Eng7ineer...3503 M e DeTrclic, Supervisor -Dist. No. 3591 ma I ...... ...... ... pub h hcworks@grant�ountyNya.gov Loc Ohl, Accountant :Lead .... ...Y.. ........................... EXt. 35 55 ��(pris My, supervisor -Dist upnrvisorTDiFj1. M ........bV . ..1:Y./>h. .0eM3541 Sam Castro, Public works Director ................. a t. 3504 ROd Follett, Forem an -Sign Shop .... ...... ......w..a.......... Ext. 3579 John Spiess, Superui or- entr'al shop.-... --(S ►) 754-608's Samuel Dart, Asssistant Director ........................ Ext.3513 Jason Collings, Solid Waste ... ,....... ....... ........ (5 754-4313 Andysooth, 3ridge 3upetvisor......... .Y.......................... Ext 3535 MOU Framework: A Memorandum of Understanding Framework would need to address the roles that each party would need to perform for a successful Congressionally Directed Funding effort. At a minimum the following elements must be addressed in the MOU: i Reimbursement for Grant Writing Costs • Reimbursement for Staff Work Costs • Plan for Matching Funds Costs Photo 1; Bridge 248 Elevation • Agreement of Highest Priority for Congressionally Directed Funding • Understanding that Grant County does not intend to Vacate • Understanding that Replacement is Elective for Grant County Fiscal and Policy Implications Agreement to make Bridge Replacement the Highest Priority for Congressionally Directed Funding efforts by Grant County would be the goal of this MOU. A successful application and lobbying campaign for Congressionally Directed Funds will require efforts of County Staff and contracted Grant Writing Support. The Staff and Grant Writing Costs are estimated to be under $30,000 for the initial application. This work could be conducted by the County and reimbursed. The Memorandum of Understanding will need to address the possibility of matching funds requirements to receive the Congressionally Directed Funding. The County Road Fund should not be used to electively replace bridges. This use would be very hard to support with constituents as well. Therefore, other mechanisms would need to be explored to provide for matching funds. Commission Packet Attachment A. Columbia Basin Development League (CBDL) Bridge Replacement Priority List B. Columbia Basin Development League (CBDL) County Bridge Replacement Memo Action Requested Public Works Staff requests authorization to coordinate with the East Columbia Basin Irrigation District and Columbia Basin Development League (DBDL) to draft a mutually acceptable Memorandum -of -Understanding addressing the Framework as presented before major expenditures on this project. "To meet current and future needs, serving together with public and private entities, while fostering a respectful and suceessful work environment." Information .................................................(509) 754-6082 Dave Bren, PE, County Road Engineer .................. Ext. 3502 Ed Lowry, Supervisor -Dist. No. 1 ................................ Ext. 3540 FAX...............................................................(509) 754-6087 Bob Bersanti, Construction Engineer .................... Ext. 3503 Mike DeTrolio, Supervisor -Dist. No. 2 ........................ Ext. 3591 E-mail ............................. publicworks@grantcountywa.gov Loc Ohl, Accountant Lead ....................................... Ext. 3555 John Brissey, Supervisor -Dist. No. 3 ........................... Ext. 3541 Sam Castro, Public Works Director ....................Ext. 3504 Rod Follett, Foreman -Sign Shop ............................ Ext. 3579 John Spiess, Supervisor -Central Shop ............. (509) 754-6086 Samuel Dart, Assistant Director .........................Ext. 3519 Jason Collings, Solid Waste .......................... (509) 754-4319 Andy Booth, Bridge Supervisor .................................... Ext. 3535 To: Board of Directors From: Jon Erickson, Development Coordinator cc: Craig Simpson, Nate Andreini, John McCourtie, Rosa Dekker Date: January 3, 2023 Re: County Bridge Replacement and Potential Impacts 55 North 8th Avenue P4 Box E Othello, WA 99344 Phone — (509) 488-9671 The District has had many discussions regarding flow restrictions at certain bridges over our facilities and the potential impacts to the District's ability to deliver water reliably. I have laid out the potential impacts and the problems that they pose to the District and its landowners as well as outside contracts. The District is limited on remedies to address insufficient flows, such as could be caused by bridge obstructions. We have established through our contractual arrangements and policies the following hierarchy for service interruptions, listed from first to be interrupted: 1. M&I contracts 2. Groundwater replacement contracts (390s) 3. Article 28 contracts (801, 802, 803, 290s) 4. First Phase Continuation contracts (190s) 5. Rationing Farm Unit deliveries. We have chosen in the past to coordinate with landowners to minimize curtailments. This has to be do with full agreement of those affected or we need to make interruptions for the whole class affected (eg., partially rationing 290s below LCWW rather than completely shutting off all 290s along the whole ELC). The Rd. "W" bridge, located in Grant County, has already impacted the District and its facilities in 2021. During our peak flow, the ELC started backing up at the bridge above operating level, in the name of doing our diligence to deliver to our landowners and the newly constructed EL47.5. With that, below is the illustration of the effects of capacity constraints on our facilities, by sequential order of operation: 0 Page 1 1. M&I contracts downstream of the bridge shut off (The District has the authority to shut ALL M&I's off District wide, and may do so for parity) a. Effects — i. Processing facilities lose water during peak season (June -August), potentially leaving multi-million dollar facilities sitting idle, when they used to get curtailed they just relied on groundwater, which we're trying to address with OGWRP. ii. Municipalities lose water for their ASR projects, leaving multi-million dollar facilities sitting idle iii. Golf Courses lose water for landscaping maintenance 2. 390 (backside) Contracts downstream of the bridge shut off (The District has the authority to shut ALL M&I's and 390s off District wide). Interruptions continue down the hierarchy until adequate operating conditions exist. a. Effects — i. All M&Is shut down ii. Farmers lose water in their private and public pumping systems (EL 47.5, for example), thus triggering the potential turning of wells back on 1. Depleting the aquifer even further, effecting towns that depend on it for the "sole" water supply. 2. Effecting water supply to water dependent crops, thus damaging the production of the Columbia Basin. a. Effecting the processing facilities even further b. Potential crop loss for our landowners 3. Potential funding impacts a. PL -566 -With the potential of deep -wells coming back on line, thus reversing progress in the OGWRP and rendering public systems funded by the PL -566 offline for a period or periods of time during the watering season. This may be something that the NRCS might find too much of an impact and or "not the best use of public funds". (this assumption has not been verified with N RCS to date) b. Impacts to State OGWRP funding c. Weakening of our bonding position from exercising the interruption of water supplies to lands contracted with for debt service repayment This process will repeat itself downstream through the following bridges, as the future public systems become operational: • Page 2 1. Booker Rd. Bridge, sufficient until the 4tyh system d/s of the LCWW is operational 2. Rd. 11 Bridge, sufficient until the 4�1 system d/s of the LCWW is operational 3. Providence Rd. (Rd 12) Bridge, sufficient until the 4the system d/s of LCWW is operational 4. Sackman Rd. Bridge, sufficient until 41 system d/s of RCWW or LCWW is operational 5. Cunningham Rd Bridge, sufficient until the 4�1 system d/s of the LCWW is operational 6. Foley Rd. Bridge, sufficient until the 41 system d/s of LCWW is operational 7. Herman Rd. Bridge, sufficient until the 41 system d/s of the LCWW is operational NOTE: Lucy and Hatton Rd are being verified sufficient this winter, by the ECBI D surveying and engineering team. The sufficiency of the above list of Bridges may vary depending on landowner support and their direction to the District on how to move forward. With this said, I am working with Senator Murray's and Cantwell's offices and am continuing to search out other avenues to assist the County Commissioners in both Adams and Grant County, to accomplish these projects with as little impact to their budgets as possible. Adams County has been awarded funding for a single bridge, with thanks to Senator Murray and her efforts, but as you have just read, there are more than one that impact the Districts ability to deliver "reliable" water supplies to the service area noting that the Rd "W" Bridge is impacting us presently. • Page 3 COLUMBIA BASIN DEVELOPMENT LEAGUE . . . . . . . ..... .... 11 OGWRP Bridge Replacement as of 1/11/23 $32,,609,,000 is needed for the replacement of eight bridges in Adams and Grant Counties: ➢ All identified bridges need to be replaced (or removed) in order for water deliveries to be made at the south end of the canal. The East Low Canal in Adams and Grant Counties has been widened under the Odessa Groundwater Replacement Program (OGWRP) as implemented by the East Columbia Basin Irrigation District (ECBID), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Washington State Department of Ecology and Office of Columbia River (Ecology). The irrigation canal widening will provide surface water from the Federal Columbia Basin Project to replace existing deep -well irrigation of agriculture land that causes declining groundwater in the Odessa Subarea. Eight bridges (6 in southwest Adams County and 2 in southeast Grant County) are affected by the widening of the canal and need to be lengthened to allow for the increase of canal hydraulic capacity. An August 2022 analyses by the East Columbia Basin Irrigation District (ECBID) indicated that two additional bridges in Adams County, the Lucy and Hatton Road bridges, appear to provide sufficient width required for channel expansion. Lucy and Hatton Rd are being verified sufficient by the ECBID surveying and engineering team. In April 2020, Nicholls Kovich Engineering, PLLC (NKE) completed a planning report under the direction of Adams County and with input provided from Grant County. Aspect Consulting provided preliminary geotechnical recommendations. In March 2022 cost estimates were updated per below. Prioritized List of Bridge Replacements and Estimated Cost: Bridge Construction Cost (2022) Engineering Cost (2022) Total Cost/Ft2 (2022) Total Cost (2022) Total Cost (2023) Total Cost (2025) 247 - Rd W SE $2,5771000 $492I -# I J000 $r,7:Z $3,069,000 $3315.'000 $3,866,000 415-3 - Booker Rd $2,6521000 $506,000 $621 $3,158,000 $3,410,000 $3,978,000 248 - Rd 11 SE $2,7981000 $534,000, $665 $3,333,000 $3,599,000 $4,198,000 413-3 - Providence Rd $2,803,000 $535,000 $656 $31339,000 $3,606,000 $41206,000 411-3 - Sackman Rd $3,0151000 $576,000 $675 $315911000 $31878,000 $4,523,000 417-3 - Cunningham Rd $21503,000 $478,000 $618 $2,981,000 $3,220,000 $31755,000 416-3 - Foley Rd $2,876,000 $549,000 $683 $3,425,000 $3,6991000 00 $4.3141000 414-3 - Herman Rd $2,512,000 $480,000 $620 $2,992.1000 I $3,231,000 $31769,000 Total $21.,736..000 $4,150,000 $25,888#000 I $27,958,000 $32,6091? 1 000 Costs are preliminary estimates. Bridge replacements prioritized based on latest engineering analyses. PRO COLUMBIA BASIN DEVELOPMENT LEAGUE Estimated Construction Schedule: It is believed that a maximum of two bridges could successfully be constructed by a single contractor in one dewatered construction season. The primary limiting factors are availability of experienced crews, availability and mobilization of heavy construction equipment (such as cranes and pile driving equipment), complexity of schedule beyond two bridges, and time constraints with the spring fill of the canal. However, one or two bridges per year is not a timely solution. It is expected that multiple contractors would be contracted to expedite the process. One significant aspect of the construction schedule is the lead-time for prestressed girder fabrication. The lead time from project award to girder delivery can be up to 6 months depending on the market. This lead time should be taken into account when scheduling the project. The two schedule scenarios that have been developed for the 120-135 ft. bridges are: 1. Construction of a single bridge in one season -84 -day construction duration 2. Construction of two bridges during one season using a single contractor (two crews) -94 -day construction duration