Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout110518_ra01Department of Public Works O Regular Agenda: 10:00 AM Page 1 of 1 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Agenda Request To: Board of Commissioners Philip Morley, County Administrator From: Monte Reinders, PE, Public Works Director/County Enginee Agenda Date: November 5, 2018 Subject: Adoption of 2019-2024 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Statement of Issue: Conduct a public hearing for the purpose of receiving public testimony concerning adoption of the 2019-2024 Jefferson County Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Analysis / Strategic Goals / Pros Et Cons: RCW 36.81.121 requires the annual adoption of a six-year transportation improvement program after holding a public hearing. The purpose of the law is to "assure that each county shall perpetually have available advanced plans looking to the future for not less than six years as a guide in carrying out a coordinated transportation program" (RCW 36.81.121(1)). Fiscal Impact / Cost -Benefit Analysis: The TIP relies heavily on the availability of outside grant and program funding from the State and Federal government. Fiscal impact is evaluated through the annual budgeting process including adoption of an Annual (Road) Construction Program. Recommendation: After considering public testimony, approve by Resolution the proposed Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program. Return a signed copy of the Resolution to Public Works for further processing. Department Contact: Wendy Clark-Getzin, PE, Transportation Planner, 360-385-9162 Reviewed By: ,, Philip Morley, qounifAdministra or Date COUNTY OF JEFFERSON STATE OF WASHINGTON In the Matter of Adoption of the 2019-2024 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, State law obligates the legislative authority of each county to adopt on an annual basis a six-year transportation improvement program, holding a public hearing prior to adoption, the purpose of which is to "assure that each county shall perpetually have available advanced plans looking to the future for not less than six years as a guide in carrying out a coordinated transportation program" (RCW 36.81.121(1)); and, WHEREAS, an analysis of the Road Fund was prepared covering the six-year program period using the County's best estimate of future revenues and expenditures in accordance with WAC 136-15- 130; and, WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, Jefferson County, State of Washington, has reviewed the transportation project array and bridge condition report as prepared by the Department of Public Works, and has conducted apublic hearing on the corresponding proposed six-year transportation improvement program; IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners does approve and adopt the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program for the years 2019 through 2024 inclusive. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that, with respect to the items listed in the Program, the County Engineer is authorized to make revision to individual project scope, length and termini, timing, and funding sources, as may be required from time to time due to additional resources becoming available or unavailable and in accordance with RCW 36.81.130 and WAC 136-16, without the Board of County Commissioners having to conduct a public hearing or adopt a resolution to amend the Program. ADOPTED and signed this day of 2018. ATTEST: Carolyn Gallaway Deputy Clerk JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS David Sullivan, Chair Kate Dean, Member Kathleen Kler, Member Jefferson County Public Works DRAFT 2019-2024 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Jefferson County Public Works 623 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: 360-385-9160 www.co.jefferson.wa.us/publicworks-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0 DEERE; Agency: Jefferson County DRAFT SIX-YEAR County No. 16 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Hearing Date: 11/05/2018 2019-2024 Adoption Date: XX/XX/XXXX Resolution No. XX -XX y J O Lj Z U w O a a items added based upon 11/05/18 public comment PROJECT IDENTIFICATION A. Road Log Number - Bridge Number B. Beginning and End Milepost C. Project /Road Name D. Description of Work E. Total Cost (incl. prior/future) Z Win w w p } a ~ 9 y p j F Z J '� F O a m } F o z0 j 2 LL PROJECTCOSTS IN DOLLARS FUNDING SOURCE INFORMATION FEDERALFUNDS STATE FUNDS Z y o F M U y z O y a ¢ a U ¢ OTHER F a F a REVENUES w w > ¢ ¢ } w w m y N m LOCAL FUNDS TOTAL YEAR 1 2019 YEAR 2 2020 EXPENDITURE SCHEDULE YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 TOTAL 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 < a w a 07 1 91420 M P 0.00 to M P 12.04 Upper Hoh Road Phase 2 - FLAP Project Matching funds for infrastructure protection projects performed by Western Federal Lands division of FHWA. Total = $13,966,000 M (FFY2013 Federal Lands Access Program funds) 11 S 12.04 P.E. R/W Const. Total 0 0 0 0 6/19 FLAP 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 0 0 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 20,000 N/A 2 US 101 & multiple county roads MP 294.6 to MP 295.0 Quilcene Complete Streets - Phase 1 Pedestrian and bicycle improvements involving: US 101, county roads; crosswalk improvements, traffic calming, lighting & separated paths. Connects school, community center & commercial. Total = $884,165 21 S 0.50 P.E. R/W Const. Total 1/19 PBP 23,300 23,300 23,300 23,300 0 0 6/19 PBP 1 678,278 678,2781 678,278 1 1 1 678,278 1 701,578 0 0 701,578 701,578 0 0 0 0 0 701,578 08 3 60150 MP3.20to MP4.56 South Discovery Road Pavement Preservation 2R Project (Resurface & Restore): Pavement preservation project to preserve the roadway structure, improve ride quality and safety. Total = $500,000 05 S 1.36 P.E. R/W Const. Total 1/19 RAP 6,840 760 7,600 7,600 7,600 0 0 6/19 RAP 403,380 44,820 448,200 448,200 448,200 410,220 0 45,580 455,800 455,800 0 0 0 0 0 455,800 N/A 4 850200 South Discovery Bay to Larry Scott Trail Olympic Discovery Trail (ODT) - Connection Complete a preferred route report, begin PS&E development, SEPA, and right-of-way appraisal and acquisition. Total = $1,000,000 (Planning and Right of Way) 15,16 18 S 8.0 I P.E. R/W Const. Total 1/19 RCO-RRG 101,500 101,500 101,500 101,500 1/19 RCO-RRG 300,000 300,0001 300,000 300,000 0 0 401,500 0 0 401,500 401,500 0 0 0 0 0 401,500 09 5 151009 MP 0.90 to MP 2.185 Undi Road Bypass - FLAP Project Matching funds for preservation project performed by Western Federal Lands division of FHWA to preserve access to ONP and ONF. Total = $2,001,815 (FFY 2016 Federal Lands Access Program funds 06 S 1.285 P.E. R/W Const. Total 1/19 FLAP 15,000 15,000 6,900 5,000 3,100 15,000 0 0 6/21 FLAP 0 0 0 0 15,000 15,000 6,900 5,000 3,100 0 0 15,000 07 6 93150 M P 14.61 to M P 15.01 Quilcene Center Rd Rebuild 2R Project (Resurface & Restore): Project will remove and replace multiple layers of deteriorating asphalt pavement. Total = $710,000 06 S 1 .40 1 P.E. R/W Const. Total 1/19 RAP 11,520 1,2801 12,800 12,800 12,800 0 0 6/19 RAP 580,140 64,460 644,600 644,600 644,600 591,660 0 65,740 657,400 657,400 0 0 0 0 0 657,400 07 7 91420 M P 0.00 to M P 12.04 Upper Hoh Road Pavement Preservation - FLAP project Pavement preservation and safety improvements along entire length of county road to Olympic National Park Boundary/Hoh Rain Forest. Total = $1,975,673 2018 Federal Lands Access Program + RAP funds 06,21 S 12.04 P.E. R/W Const. Total 1/19 FLAP RAP 61,400 61,400 32,000 29,400 61,400 0 0 6/21 FLAP RAP 347,000 347,000 347,000 347,000 408,400 01 0 408,400 32,0001 29,400 347,0001 0 0 0 408,400 07 8 93250 Old Hadlock Road Realignment & Trail Old Hadlock Road and Chimacum Road intersection realignment with multi -use trail connecting Rick Tollefson Trail to Bob Bates Fields. Total = $110,000 21 1 P 0.30 1 P.E. R/W Const. 1 Total 1/19 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 0 0 6/19 88,000 88,000 88,000 88,000 0 0 110,000 110,000 110,000 0 0 0 01 0 110,000 09 9 35290 M P 0.84 Snow Creek Road Culvert Replacement Replace and upsize deteriorated metal culvert above Lake Leland on an unnamed tributary w/o anadromous fish. Total = $1,775,000 (FEMA Hazard Mitigation Program) 11 P N/A P.E. RIW Const. Total 1/22 FEMA 111,700 8,300 120,000 8,300 111,700 120,000 4/23 FEMA 13,300 6,700 20,000 6,700 13,300 20,000 6/23 FEMA 1,650,000 1651,650,000 1,650,000 1,775,0001 0 0 15,000 1!77920!20202011 15,000 111,7001 1,663,3001 0 0 01 1,790,000 Last updated: 11/5/2018 REVISED 1 of 3 Agency: Jefferson County DRAFT SIX-YEAR County No. 16 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Hearing Date: 11/05/2018 2019-2024 Adoption Date: XX/XX/XXXX Resolution No. XX -XX y J O Lj Z U w O a a items added based upon 11/05/18 public comment PROJECT IDENTIFICATION A. Road Log Number - Bridge Number B. Beginning and End Milepost C. Project /Road Name D. Description of Work E. Total Cost (incl. prior/future) Z Win w w p } a ~ y � p j F Z J '� F O a m x } < F o z0 j 2 LL PROJECTCOSTS IN DOLLARS FUNDING SOURCE INFORMATION FEDERALFUNDS STATE FUNDS Z y o F M U y Z O w a ¢ a U ¢ OTHER F a F a REVENUES w w > ¢ ¢ } w w m y N m LOCAL FUNDS TOTAL YEAR 1 2019 YEAR 2 2020 EXPENDITURE SCHEDULE YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 2021 2022 2023 YEAR 6 TOTAL 2024 2019-2024 < a w a 09 10 13430 MP 8.50 to MP 10.98 Oil City Road Engineering Assessment FLAP Project Matching funds for planning performed by Western Federal Lands-FHW for Hoh River bank stabilization and to preserve vehicular access. Total = $250,000 2016 Federal Lands Access Program funds 18 S 2.48 P.E. R/W Const. Total 1/19 FLAP 30,000 30,000 6,900 7,500 7,500 8,100 0 0 0 0 30,000 30,000 6,900 7,500 7,500 8,100 0 0 08 11 41870 M P 4.71 Thorndyke Road Culvert Replacement -Thorndyke Creek Replace culverts at Thorndyke Creek with fish -passable crossings. Total = $1,808,313 (Planning and Restoration) 11 P N/A P.E. R/W Const. Total R1,610,000 7/19 FBRB 198,313 0 198,313 79,500 116,313 0 2,500 7/21 FBRB-SRF 1,600,000 10,000 1,610,000 10,000 1,600,000 1,798,313 0 10,000 1,808,3131 82,000 116,3131 10,000 1,600,0001 0 0 1,808,313 09 12 51410 MP 2.59 and 51750 MP 1.82 West Valley Road Culvert Replacement - Naylors Creek Gibbs Lake Road Culvert Replacement - Naylors Creek Replace culverts at Naylor Creek with fish -passable crossings. Total = $1,098,850(Planning and Restoration 11 P N/A P.E. R/W Const. Total 7/19 FBRB 198,850 198,850 65,500 130,850 196,350 0 2,500 2,500 7/21 FBRB-SRFE 890,000 10,000 900,000 10,000 890,000 900,000 1,088,850 0 10,000 1,098,850 68 000 130,850 10,000 890,000 0 0 1,098,850 09 13 63710 MP0.00-0.46 Cedar Avenue & Ness' Corner Rd (SR 116) Ped -Bike "Safe Routes to School" project includes ped/bike safety improvements including installation ofsidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, & RRFB. Total = $858,490 21 P 0.61 P.E. R/W Const. Total 7/19 SRTS 122,920 122,920 63,960 58,960 1 122,920 01 1 0 6/20 SRTS 735,570 735,570 735,570 735,570 858,490 0 0 858,490 63,960 794,530 0 0 0 0 858,490 N/A 14 SR19 MP 9.1 to MP 10.1 HJ Carroll Park to Chimacum Crossroads Ped -Bike Ped/Bike improvements to connect HJ Carroll Park/Rick Tollefson Trail, thru Chimacum School Campus, to Chimacum Road/SR19 intersection. Total = $198,000(Preliminary Engineering only) 18 P 1.0 P.E. R/W Const. Total 7/19 PBP 193,000 5,000 198,000 99,000 99,000 198,000 0 0 0 0 193,000 0 5,000 198,000 99,000 99,000 01 0 0 00 011","",,75 N/A 15 US 101 & multiple county roads MP 294.54 to 295.03 Quilcene Complete Streets - Phase 2 Phase 2 project implementing plan to provide sidewalks, bicycle lanes, crosswalks, connecting school, community center & local businesses. Total = $1,296,600 21 P 0.05 P.E. R/W Const. Total 7/19 PBP 181,750 181,750 120,000 61,750 50 0 0 1/20 PBP 1,114,850 1,114,850 1,114,850 50 1,296,600 0 0 1,296,600 120,000 1,176,600 0 0 0 000 '775,000 N/A 16 850100 Rick Tollefson Trail -Phase 2 Ped/Bike connection from Lopeman Rd. to Chimacum Creek Primary School & J.C. Library, thru county owned future sewer facility property. Total = $775,000 21 P 0.62 P.E. R/W Const. Total 0 7/21 PBP-SRTS 125,000 125,000 50,000 50,000 25,000 00 0 0 6/22 PBP-SRTS 650,000 650,000 650,000 00 775,000 0 0 775,000 0 0 50,000 50,000 675,000, 000 17 60150 M P 3.62 to M P 4.00 Discovery Road Realignment Realign a portion of South Discovery Road in order to adequately road from eroding shoreline bluff. = $2,150,000 07 P 0.38 P.E. R/W Const. Total 0South 1/21 RAP 135,000 15,000 150,000 15,000 90,000 45,000 00008 1/23 RAP 450,000 50,000 500,000 500,000 000setback 1/24 RAP 1,350,000 150,000 1,500,000 1,500,000000Total 1,935,000 0 215,000 2,150,000 0 0 15,000 90,000 545,000 1,500,000000 08 18 60150 M P 4.52 to M P 4.84 South Discovery Road 311 Project Widen and pave shoulders and remove roadside hazards to improve sight distance and safety from Adelma Beach Rd to SR20. Total = $854,000 04 P .32 P.E. R/W Const.1 Total 1 1 1 0 1/23 1 RAP 145,8001 16,2001 162,00 1 162,0001 162,000 0 0 1/24 1 1 RAP 1 622,5001 1 69,5001 692,0001 1 692,000 692,000 768,3001 01 85,7001 854,0001 0 0 0 01 162,000 692 000 854 000 Last updated: 11/5/2018 REVISED 2 of 3 Agency: Jefferson County DRAFT SIX-YEAR County No. 16 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Hearing Date: 11/05/2018 2019-2024 Adoption Date: XX/XX/XXXX Resolution No. XX -XX y J O Lj Z U w O a a items added based upon 11/05/18 public comment PROJECT IDENTIFICATION A. Road Log Number - Bridge Number B. Beginning and End Milepost C. Project /Road Name D. Description of Work E. Total Cost (incl. prior/future) Z Win w w p } a ~ 9 U) p j F Z J '� F O 202,600 a m } F o z0 j 2 LL PROJECTCOSTS IN DOLLARS FUNDING SOURCE INFORMATION FEDERALFUNDS STATE FUNDS Z y o F M U y Z O y a ¢ a U ¢ OTHER F a F a REVENUES w w > ¢ ¢ } w w m y N m LOCAL FUNDS TOTAL YEAR 1 2019 YEAR 2 2020 EXPENDITURE SCHEDULE YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 2021 2022 2023 YEAR 6 2024 TOTAL 2019-2024 < a w a N/A 19 850200Salmon Creek to Hwy 20/Hwy 101 Intersection Olympic Discovery Trail (ODT) South Discovery Bay - Segment B ODT segment from existing South Discovery Bay trail terminus (over Salmon & Snow Creek) to SR 20/US 101 intersection. Total = $1,486,000 01 P .33 P.E. R/W Const. Total 1,894,078 3,010,420 3,167,000 2,515,000 2,001,000 2,592,000 15,179,498 Total 1,886,325 15,492,861 0 1,029,445 18,408,6311 3,110,0381 3,648,8931 3,392,9001 0 7/21 WWRP 126,000 14,000 140,000 35,000 105,000 140,000 4/22 WWRP 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 6/23 WWRP 1,240,000 86,000 1,326,000 1,326,000 1,326,000 1,386,000 0 100,000 1,486,000 0 0 35 000 125,000 1,326,000 0 1,486,000 N/A 20 Countywide Bridge Load Re -Rating Federally required re -analysis of county bridge load ratings for accomodation of new specialized hauling vehicles by 12-31-22. Total = $128,7000 21 P N/A P.E. R/W Const. Total 0 1/22 STP -R 111,325 17,375 128,700 43,700 85,000 128,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 111,325 0 0 17 375 128 700 0 0 0 43,700 85,0001 0 128,700 09 21 13430 MP 0.50 Oil City Road Culvert Replacement Replace culvert and realign road over unnamed tributary ofthe Hoh River. Total = $485,000 11 P N/A P.E. R/W Const. Total 0 FBRB 73,950 26,050 100,000 13,000 87,000 100,000 FBRB 8,500 1,500 10,000 10,000 10,000 FBRB 297,500 77,500 375,000 375,000 375,000 379,950 0 105 050 485,000 0 13 000 97 000 0 0 375,000 485,000 N/A 22 Countywide Various Improvements Various projects countywide involving safety, culvert replacement, drainage, surfacing upgrades, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, or other improvements. Total = $180,000 P N/A P.E. R/W Const. Total 0 30,000 30,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 30,000 0 01 1 0 150,000 150,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 150,000 0 0 180,000 180,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 N/A * 23 850200 4 Corners Road to Anderson Lake State Park Olympic Discovery Trail (ODT) - Connection PS&E and Construction of ODT segment between the Larry Scott Trail and Anderson Lake State Park Total = $2,500,000 28 P N/A P.E. R/W Const. Total 0 6/19 RCO-RRG 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 0 0 1/20 RCO-RRG 2,250,000 2,250,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 2,250,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 250 000 1,125,000 1 125 000 0 0 01 2,500,000 I 1,88b,JZb1 1 1a,49Z,8b11 01 1,UZa,44a1 18,408,W11 s,110,W81 s,b4a,89JI s,J9Z,9001 Z,8sb,8001 Z,uZ3,0001 z,a91,000I 18,4U8,W11 P.E. 223,025 Pt 1,955,143 0 200,965 2,379,133 904,260 638,473 202,600 301,800 322,000 5,000 2,374,133 13,300 778,500 0 58,200 850,000 311,700 0 23,300 20,000 500,000 0 855,000 Const.1,650,000 12,759,2111 0 770,280 15,179,498 1,894,078 3,010,420 3,167,000 2,515,000 2,001,000 2,592,000 15,179,498 Total 1,886,325 15,492,861 0 1,029,445 18,408,6311 3,110,0381 3,648,8931 3,392,9001 2,836,8001 2,823,0001 2,597,000 18,408,631 Last updated: 11/5/2018 REVISED 3 of 3 Clallam County fferson County a l ardine Beach R�— efferson--- Jefferson County s�9 Transportation (Grays Harbor) 17 Improvement Program Discovery Bay 2019-2024 as 'o Scale in Miles 0 1 2 3 0 0 Funding Secured 0 Planned (unfunded) Box numbers correspond 141, a , to project numbers in o� narrative summary. �oU"t fi s 19 12b O1 11 15 ",. Jal y ,: M. 12a Peek in { d z t 1 v 3 p � o � � Sr �• a 13 Ferry St lot �d Rd w 'r Bo47 �o a � 14 Oak Bay 0�-ooa'rtanCreek J/ Creed 21 v 1 Wh ed G ee t Creek Dabob Bay 11 CANADA Island I Clallam efferson--- a m (Grays Harbor) Mason 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Department of Public Works 623 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385-9160 Monte Reinders, P.E. Public Works Director/County Engineer FROM: Monte Reinders, P.E., Public Works Director/County Enginee11141-1-- DATE: September 11, 2018 SUBJECT: Bridge Condition Report 2018 INTRODUCTION As required by WAC 136-20-060, each county engineer shall furnish the county legislative authority with a written report of the findings of the bridge inspection effort. This report shall be made available to said authority and shall be consulted during the preparation of the proposed six- year transportation program revision. The report shall include the county engineer's recommendations as to replacement, repair or load restriction for each deficient bridge. The resolution of adoption of the six-year transportation program shall include assurances to the effect that the county engineer's report with respect to deficient bridges was available to said authority during the preparation of the program. BRIDGE INVENTORY Jefferson County Public Works has 34 active bridges — see the attached Master Bridge List (Appendix A) for a listing of the county bridges. Of these, 32 bridges meet the federal definition of a bridge and are subject to the National Bridge Inspections Standards. Two of the bridges do not meet the federal bridge definition, one because it is a pedestrian bridge, and one because it has less than a twenty foot span; nevertheless, these two bridges are on Jefferson County's biannual bridge inspection program. Jefferson County also has two permanently closed bridges, which are not listed on the Master Bridge List. Bridge Condition Report 2018 Page 1 of 4 BRIDGE INSPECTIONS The National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) and WAC 136-20-030 mandate that public agencies inspect and report on all bridges at least once every two years (routine inspection). Jefferson County staff performs all routine inspections. Special inspections are required for bridges that cannot be inspected adequately from the ground. For these bridges an Under -Bridge Inspection Truck (UBIT) is required. Steel bridges with fracture critical members may also require special inspections with the UBIT and/or other special equipment. Jefferson County has two bridges which require the UBIT inspection and one bridge which requires both the UBIT and the fracture critical inspection (identified in the attached Master Bridge List). Jefferson County currently has a contract with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to perform these inspections. Jefferson County Public Works has split up the bridge inspections so that East Jefferson County bridges are inspected in odd -numbered years and West Jefferson County bridges are inspected in even -numbered years. In conformance with that schedule, Jefferson County has completed the biennial inspections for all West Jefferson County bridges in 2018. WSDOT, under contract with Jefferson County, performed the required UBIT and Fracture Critical inspection of the Cassel Creek Bridge. The completed inspection reports were submitted to WSDOT, which verifies compliance with the NBIS and reports to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). DEFICIENT BRIDGES All bridges are assigned a sufficiency rating (SR), which is a calculated score based on numbers assigned to all of the bridge elements reviewed by the bridge inspector. The SR is a number from 0 to 100, with 100 being an entirely sufficient bridge, and 0 being an entirely insufficient or deficient bridge. For additional explanation of the sufficiency rating and other ratings see the attached WSDOT publication, Bridges and Structures Ratings (Appendix B). The sufficiency rating is used to determine if a bridge is eligible for federal rehabilitation or replacement funding. Under the current funding requirements, to be eligible for replacement a bridge must be structurally deficient and have a sufficiency rating of less than 40; to be eligible for rehabilitation a bridge must be structurally deficient and have a sufficiency rating of less than 80. Currently, none of the county's bridges meet these criteria, and therefore none are eligible for rehabilitation or replacement. As described in previous Bridge Condition reports, the Tower Creek Bridge is being monitored for potential scour problems associated with down -cutting of the streambed. The Tower Creek streambed experienced significant down -cutting in 2007-2008 due to migration of the Hoh River and heavy flows in Tower Creek. However, based on regular monitoring, the streambed elevation has been relatively stable since 2008. Public Works will continue to monitor this situation. The Tower Creek Bridge is scheduled to be replaced in 2019-2020 by the Federal Highway Administration Western Federal Lands Division, and is being funded entirely by a Federal Lands Access Program grant. Bridge Condition Report 2018 Page 2 of 4 POSTED BRIDGES All bridges are required to have a "Load Rating" calculation. The Load Rating establishes how much weight the bridge can carry for several standard configurations of vehicle axle loads. If the load rating calculation shows that a bridge cannot safely carry the legal traffic loads, as indicated by having an operating rating of less than one, then the bridge must be posted with the appropriate load limits. The operating rating values are listed on the attached Master Bridge List (Appendix A). Jefferson County currently does not have any bridges with load restrictions. The Yarr Bridge, which has an operating rating of 0.66, is being inspected on an annual basis, and shows no signs of distress. This plan of increased inspection frequency, which was recommended by the WSDOT Local Programs Bridge Engineer, is an acceptable alternative to load posting, provided that the bridge continues to show no signs of distress. A 2013 FHWA mandate requires that all bridges be load rated for a relatively new class of vehicle, the Specialized Hauling Vehicle (SHV). SHV's 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. The FHWA has divided bridges into two categories, with the first category requiring updated load ratings by December 31, 2017, and the second category requiring updated load ratings by December 31, 2022. Jefferson County has completed the new load ratings for three bridges for the 2017 deadline. An additional twenty-two bridges will need to be re -load rated prior to the 2022 deadline. It is possible that some Jefferson County bridges will need to be load posted for SHV's after the load rating results are known. OBSOLETE BRIDGES The Old Little Quilcene Bridge and the Maple Creek Bridge have been placed in obsolete status and removed from the Master Bridge List. Both are permanently closed to vehicular traffic. This action removes the requirement for biennial bridge inspection. EMERGENCY REPAIRS AND INSPECTIONS No emergency repairs or inspections were performed in 2018 at the time of this report. MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES Routine maintenance of the county's bridges is conducted by the road maintenance department. Typical routine maintenance consists of deck cleaning, brush clearing, and minor miscellaneous repairs. COMPLETED PROJECTS No bridge projects were completed in 2018 at the time of this report. Bridge Condition Report 2018 Page 3 of 4 CURRENT PROJECTS Current projects include the following: An 80 foot span concrete bridge at West Uncas Rd MP 0.804 is currently under construction. Construction is scheduled to be completed in December 2018. This project is being funded by a Salmon Recovery Funding Board grant (approx. 85%), a National Fish Passage Program grant (approx. 10%), and local funds (approx. 5%). PROGRAMMED PROJECTS The Tower Creek Bridge on Upper Hoh Road is scheduled to be replaced during the 2019 — 2020 construction season. This project is being managed by the Federal Highway Administration Western Federal Lands Division, and is funded entirely by a Federal Lands Access Program grant. Jefferson County is currently applying for grant funding to design replacements for fish - barrier culverts at Thorndyke Road milepost 4.71 (Thorndyke Creek), West Valley Road milepost 2.59 (Naylor Creek), and Gibbs Lake Road milepost 1.82 (Naylor Creek). If funded, each of these culverts would most likely be replaced with new bridges. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS There are no recommended bridge projects at this time. Bridge Condition Report 2018 Page 4 of 4 APPENDIX A Jefferson County Public Works Master Bridge List LAST UPDATED: 6/14/18 Total number of bridges in inventory: Total number of permanently closed bridges: Total number of active bridges: Total number of West Jefferson County bridges: Total number of East Jefferson County Bridges 34 2 34 19 active bridges 1 short -span (non NBIS) bridge 1 permanently closed bridge 13 active bridges 1 pedestrian (non NBIS) bridge 1 permanently closed bridge Jefferson County Public Works Master Bridge List East Jefferson County Last Updated: 9/132018 Page 1 of 2 w z o w a w 0 0� w w V W BRIDGE TYPE v F w a a, 0 a w w x a a a o xaa c 5 o x x 3 0 H w a wok H x az 5w5 o a a x U '� w a z e c a Superstructure Substructure 7996700 15E Hunts 634509 Hunt Rd. 0.15 27 Reinforced Cone. Cone. Abutment w/ 1971 NO NO NO NO NO 1.18 1.97 STD. 4/25/17 88.92 Slab C.I.P. cone. piles (42 TON) (70 TON) 8165100 16E Little 931507 Center Rd. 14.6 64 Reinforced Cone. Cone. Pile cap, 1955 NO NO NO NO NO 0.63 1.05 STD. 4/25/17 59.75 FO Quileene Slab, Cone. Girder Prestress. Cone. (22 TON) (37 TON) River piles 8464900 17E Yarr 931507 Center Rd. 3.44 25 Cone. Multiple Web Cone. Abutment w/ 1955 NO NO NO NO NO 0.39 0.66 STD. 4/25/17 64.61 12 MONTH INSPECTION Girder Prestress. Cone. (14 TON) (23 TON) FREQUENCY les 8320300 23E Linger 301309 Linger 0.42 81 Prestress. Cone. Cone. Abutment w/ 1969 NO NO NO NO NO 0.89 1.49 STD. 4/19/17 70.03 Longer Longer Rd. Bulb -T Girder Cone. column over (32 TON) (53 TON) C.I.P. cone. piles 8381400 24E Rocky 250008 Dosewallips 3.01 47 Prestress. Cone. Cone. Abutment w/ 1964 NO NO NO NO NO 0.72 1.20 STD. 4/19/17 76.99 Brook Rd. Bulb -T Girder Cone. Spread (25 TON) (43 TON) footin 8229900 25E Meyers 503409 Belfrage 0.12 30 Timber Timber abutment, 1977 NO NO NO NO NO 0.81 1.12 STD. 6/29/17 63.58 Rd. timber piles (29 TON) (40 TON) 8488200 26E West Uneas 500209 West Ureas 1.89 61 Reinf Cone. Slab Cone. Abutment, 1964 NO NO NO NO NO 0.66 1.10 STD. 4/19/17 82.17 Rd. Cone. column over (23 TON) (39 TON) C.I.P. cone. pile 8136900 28E Leland 344009 Rice Lake 0.33 32 Prestress. Cone. Cone. Abutment, 1987 NO NO NO NO NO 1.59 2.66 STD. 4/19/17 88.20 Creek Rd. Slab Cone. spread (57 TON) (95 TON) FO footin 8660000 29E Contractors 501409 Old 3.56 294 Timber Deck, Cone. Pile cap, steel2000 NO NO NO NO NO 0.78 1.31 UBIT 7/13/16 86.41 UBIT EVERY 4 YEARS -- Creek Gardiner Timber Girders piles (28 TON) (47 TON) LAST UBIT 7/13/2016 Rd. Page 1 of 2 Jefferson County Public Works Master Bridge List East Jefferson County x 6y w � „ w ° H H� z F w z w 7 w 0 0 w V W BRIDGE TYPE F W H z Q O Q P4A'i WdW Ci G4 U O u w x x a' C x x z e 4, P H, w Z C a c4 Superstructure Substructure 8754000 31E Shine Creek 447608 South Point 0.25 70 Prestress. Cone. Cone. Abutment w/ 2005 NO NO NO NO NO 1.45 1.76 STD. 4/25/17 97.58 Rd. Slab Cone. Pile (64 TON) (108 TON) 8753900 32E Donovan 327508 E Quilcene 0.77 70 Prestress. Cone. Cone. Abutment w/ 2006 NO NO NO NO NO 1.25 1.62 STD. 4/19/17 89.28 Creek Rd. Slab Cone. Pile (60 TON) (101 TON) 8753800 33E Old Twboo 357509 Old Tarboo 0.88 42 Prestress. Cone. Conc. Abutment w/ 2005 NO NO NO NO NO 1.84 3.07 STD. 4/25/17 89.98 Rd. Slab steel piles (66 TON) (I I I TON) 8753800 38E Andrews 352909 Snow Creek 3.78 24 Conc. 3 -sided Box Conc. Spread 2014 NO NO NO NO NO 1.23 1.60 (57 STD. 4/19/17 91.14 Creek Rd. Culvert Footing (44 TON) TON) 8898600 41E 352909 Rick 0.17 80 Steel Th. Truss Conc. Spread 2017 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A STD. 4/26/18 N/A �RTMT Pedestrian Tollefson Footing Mem. Trail Page 2 of 2 Jefferson County Public Works Master Bridge List West Jefferson County t.ast Uadate.d: 9/13/2018 W � O 0 WW U U V O z w w V W BRIDGE TYPE WF�' 95a .1 � OV OF' OF' O W Z 2. a '� w a W Superstructure Substructure 8451600 01W Fletcher 911607 Quinault S. 3.19 78 Prestress. Conc. Conc. Abutment w/ 1974 NO NO NO NO NO 0.98 1.64 STD. 5/22/18 99.50 Creek Shore Rd. Bulb -T Girder C.LP. cont. pile (35 TON) (58 TON) 825850002W Barlow 134309 Oil City Rd. 9.75 64 Prestress. Conc. Slab Conc. Abutment w/ 2005 NO NO NO NO NO 1.53 1.99 STD. 5/22/18 83.53 C.LP_ Conc. Pile (69 TON) (115 TON) 8145800 03W Anderson 134309 Oil City Rd. 4.44 87 Prestress. Conc. Conc. Abutment w/ 1974 NO NO NO NO NO 0.91 1.52 STD. 5/22/18 90.43 Creek Bulb -T Girder C.I.P. conc. pile (32 TON) (54 TON) 8280100 04W Hell Roaring 914207 Upper Hoh 0.16 120 Prestress. Conc. Conc. Abutment w/ 1982 NO NO NO NO NO 1.31 2.19 STD. 5/23/18 91.88 Creek Rd. Girder steel H pile (47 TON) (78 TON) 8298800 05W Alder Creek 914207 Upper Hoh 2.07 67 Prestress. Conc. Conc. Abutment w/ 1972 NO NO NO NO NO 111 1.85 STD. 5/23/18 99.59 Rd. Bulb -T Girder C.LP_ cone. pile (40 TON) (66 TON) 838360006W Rock Creek 914207 Upper Hoh 6.49 83 Prestress. Conc. Conc. Abutment w/ 1973 NO NO NO NO NO 1.13 1.89 STD. 5/23/18 92.80 Rd. Bulb -T Girder C.I.P. cont. pile (40 TON) (67 TON) 8384000 07W Tower Creek 914207 Upper Hoh 7.5 71 Prestress. Conc. Conc. Abutment w/ 1973 NO NO NO NO NO 1.10 1.84 STD. 5/23/18 92.80 Rd. Bulb -T Girder C.LP. cont. pile (39 TON) (66 TON) 8391000 08W Queets River 107509 Clearwater 0.6 844 Steel Plate Girder, Conc- Piers, Conc. 1988 NO NO NO NO NO 1.07 1.79 UBIT 7/11/16 98.71 UBIT EVERY 4 YEARS -- Rd. C.I.P. cont. deck Abutment w/ steel H (38 TON) (64 TON) LAST UBIT 7/11/2016 pile 804780009W Hemphill 146809 Dowans 2.3 31 Timber Deck, Timber abutment, 1977 NO NO NO NO NO 0.75 1.06 STD. 5/22/18 60.39 Creek Creek Rd. Timber Girders timber piles (27 TON) (38 TON) 7966600 IOW Dowans 146809 Dowans 0.52 81 Prestress. Conc. Conc. Abutment w/ 1974 NO NO NO NO NO 1.10 1.84 STD. 5/22/18 93.79 Creek Creek Rd. Bulb -T Girder C.LP. cont. pile (39 TON) (66 TON) Jefferson County Public Works Master Bridge List West Jefferson County t.ast Uml.te.d: 9/13/2018 z zF �a a U a zww L7 O W T BRIDGE YPE F .1 y FF Wd z ¢WWF'' FG W FF U -t �w U d w o w p5 U o w U z a a a N a o SRPerstructnre Substructure 8475700 11W Owl Creek 135109 Maple 129 69 Prestress. Cone. Slab Con,. Abutment w/ 1989 NO NO NO NO NO 1.36 227 STD. 5/22/18 83.45 Creek Rd. steel H piles (49 TON) (81 TON) FO 8253600 13W Hurst Creek 107509 Clearwater 2.66 67 Prestress. Cone. Con, Abutment, 1969 NO NO NO NO NO 1.03 1.72 STD. 5/22/18 98.86 Rd. Bulb -T Girder Cone. column, Cone. (37 TON) (61 TON) footing 8339400 27W Willoughby 914207 Upper Hoh 3.52 60 Prestress. Cone. Cone. Pile cap w/ 1962 NO NO NO NO NO 0.82 1.37 STD. 5/23/18 59.03 Creek Rd. Bulb -T Girder Prestress. Cone. (29 TON) (49 TON) piles 8659900 30W Cassel Creek 134309 Oil City Rd. 3.59 154 Steel Girder Cone. Pile cap, steel 2000 YES NO NO NO NO 1.19 2.00 UBIT 7/11/16 72.52 Frame CriBral speciat lvspeW-- piles (43 TON) (72 TON) FO Wsnae perf-smspectiov wnh UBrr m-ao-atty 8829800 34W Pole Creek 914207 Upper Hoh 8.3 37 Cone. 3 -sided Box Cone. Spread 2010 NO NO NO NO NO 1.11 IA4 STD. 5/23/18 92.80 Rd. Culvert Footing (50 TON) (65 TON) 8845600 35W Dismal Creek 914207 Upper Hoh 9.19 22 Cone. 3 -sided Box Cone. Spread 2011 NO NO NO NO NO 1 1.3 STD. 5/23/18 91.00 Rd. Culvert Footing (36 TON) (46 TON) 8853500 36W Spruce Creek 914207 Upper Hoh 9.7 22 Cone. 3 -sided Box Cone. Spread 2012 NO NO NO NO NO 1.176 IA65 STD. 5/23/18 92.80 Rd. Culvert Footing (42 TON) (52 TON) 8863300 37W Alder Creek 914207 Upper Hoh 2.15 25 Cone. 3 -sided Box Cone. Spread 2013 NO NO NO NO NO 1.00 129 STD. 5/23/18 91.11 Tributary Rd. Culvert Footing (36 TON) (46 TON) 8886600 39W Upper Hoh 914207 Upper Hoh 6.95 21 Cone. 3 -sided Box Cone. Spread 2016 NO NO NO NO NO 1.65 2.13 STD. 5/23/18 82.69 Rd. MP 6.95 Rd. Culvert Footing (59 TON) (76 TON) XG0307041E Donkey 107509Clearwater 129 17 Cone. 3 -sided Box Open-ended steel 2015 NO NO NO NO NO 1.04 1.34 STD. 5/22/18 0 Creek Rd. Culvert pipe piling (37 TON) (48 TON) APPENDIX 6 WSDOT - Bridges and Structujr� - Ratings Page 1 of 2 i Ank Washington State vjr DepartmeiA of Wansportation Bridge Ratings The safety of bridge structures in Washington State is ensured through a meticulous inspection system. All public bridge owners, such as WSDOT, Counties and Cities, follow the same bridge inspection procedures. The condition rating of all bridge decks, superstructures and substructures and other elements based on these inspections. USDOT's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires all public bridge owners (state, city, and county ) to inspect and their bridges and report information including bridge condition ratings as part of their requirements in the National Bridge Inventory Standards (NBIS). Important aspects of the NBIS were: 1. All states must perform periodic inspections of bridges greater than 20 feet in span on at least a biennial basis. SR6 Wiliapa River bridge SR20 Deception Pass Bridge 2. Data collection was standardized and must be reported to FHWA. 3. Qualifications for inspection personnel were defined. 4. Training programs were developed and implemented. 5. The Bridge Replacement Program (BRP) was established to provide funding for bridge replacement on the system. Structurally Deficient Structurally deficient means that a bridge requires repair or replacement of a certain component. This may include cracked or spalled concrete, the bridge deck, the support structure, or the entire bridge itself. If the condition is such that it no longer is able to carry its intended traffic loads it may be weight restricted. Being structurally deficient does not imply that the bridge is in danger of collapse or unsafe to the traveling public. If a bridge is open then it is considered safe. A bridge is classified as "Structurally Deficient" when bridge inspectors give either the superstructure, deck, and/or substructure a rating of four or less on a scale of zero to nine. WSDOT's poor condition category uses the same data, criteria, and rating scale. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Bridge/Reporting/BridgeRatings.htm 8/14/2015 WSDOT - Bridges and Structures - Ratings WSDOT has 137 state owned bridges that are classified as structurally deficient as of Jan. 2015. A list of these bridges is available in pdf and web page and map format. Functionally Obsolete Functional obsolescence is assessed by cornparing the existing design of each bridge to current standards. A bridge can be categorized functionally obsolete a number of ways including: substandard bridge widths, low vertical clearance that can lead to repeated damage from over height trucks, load -carrying capacity, or flood potential. There are 866 WSDOT bridges that are rated "Functionally Obsolete" Good, Fair, Poor Condition Rating Page 2 of f t _'i Interstate 82 Columbia River bridge near Umatilla Good: A range from no problems to some minor deterioration of structural elements. Fair: All primary structural elements are sound but may have deficiencies such as minor section loss, deterioration, cracking, spalling, or scour. Poor: Advanced deficiencies such as section loss, deterioration, cracking, spalling, scour, or seriously affected primary structural components. Bridges rated in poor condition may be posted with truck weight restrictions. A summary of the WSDOT bridge network conditions is available in the 2014 Bridge Annual Report in the Gray notebook. Copyright WSDOT © 2015 http://www.wsdot.wa.govBridge/Reporting/BridgeRatings.htm 8/14/2015 t ■ Bridge inspection Definitions What are "general condition ratings?" According to the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS), condition ratings are used to describe an existing bridge or culvert compared with its condition if it were new. The ratings are based on the materials, physical condition of the deck (riding surface), the superstructure (supports immediately beneath the driving surface) and the substructures (foundation and supporting posts and piers). General condition ratings range from 0 (failed condition) to 9 (excellent). For detailed definitions, click here. Which bridges are included in the NBI system? NBI structures are bridges or culverts that carry vehicular traffic and have an opening longer than 20 feet measured along the center of the roadway. What bridges are not considered part of the NBI system? Non-NBI structures include bridges or culverts that carry vehicular traffic and are equal to or less than 20 feet measured along the center of the roadway. VDOT exceeds the NBI standards by inspecting and documenting in our inventory a// bridges regardless of their length and all culverts having an opening greater than 36 square feet. What is a "structurally deficient" bridge? Bridges are considered structurally deficient if they have been restricted to light vehicles, closed to traffic or require rehabilitation. Structurally deficient means there are elements of the bridge that need to be monitored and/or repaired. The fact that a bridge is "structurally deficient" does not imply that it is likely to collapse or that it is unsafe. It means the bridge must be monitored, inspected and maintained. How is "structural deficiency" determined? The condition of different parts of a bridge is rated on a scale of 0 to 9 (with 9 being "excellent" and zero being "failed"). A structurally deficient bridge is one for which the deck (riding surface), the superstructure (supports immediately beneath the driving surface) or the substructure (foundation and supporting posts and piers) are rated in condition 4 or less. What makes a bridge structurally deficient, and are structural deficient bridges unsafe? The fact that a bridge is "structurally deficient" does not imply that it is likely to collapse or that it is unsafe. A "deficient" bridge is one with some maintenance concerns that do not pose a safety risk. A "deficient" bridge typically requires maintenance and repair and eventual rehabilitation or replacement to address deficiencies. To remain open to traffic, structurally deficient bridges are often posted with reduced weight limits that restrict the gross weight of vehicles using the bridges. If unsafe conditions are identified during a physical inspection, the structure must be closed. What is a "functionally obsolete" bridge? A functionally obsolete bridge is one that was built to standards that are not used today. These bridges are not automatically rated as structurally deficient, nor are they inherently unsafe. Functionally obsolete bridges are those that do not have adequate lane widths, shoulder widths, or vertical clearances to serve current traffic demand, or those that may be occasionally flooded. A functionally obsolete bridge is similar to an older house. A house built in 1950 might be perfectly acceptable to live in, but it does not meet all of today's building codes. Yet, when it comes time to consider upgrading that house or making improvements, the owner must look at ways to bring the structure up to current standards. What is a "fracture -critical" bridge? A fracture -critical bridge is one that does not contain redundant supporting elements. This means that if those key supports fail, the bridge would be in danger of collapse. This does not mean the bridge is inherently unsafe, only that there is a lack of redundancy in its design. What is a bridge's "sufficiency rating?" Sufficiency ratings were developed by the Federal Highway Administration to serve as a prioritization tool to allocate funds. The rating varies from 0 percent (poor) to 100 percent (very good). The formula considers structural adequacy, whether the bridge is functionally obsolete and level of service provided to the public. History of Federal Bridge Inspection Program The federal bridge inspection program regulations were developed as a result of the Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1968 following the collapse of the Silver Bridge in Point Pleasant, West Virginia. The United States Secretary of Transportation established the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) to locate and evaluate existing bridge deficiencies to ensure the safety of the traveling public. The 1968 Federal -Aid Highway Act directed the states to maintain an inventory of federal -aid highway system bridges. This was amended over time to establish criteria for NBIS bridges including: Defining the NBIS to bridges to those on the federal -aid highway system Requiring inspections of bridges longer than 20 feet on all public roads Expanding bridge inspection programs to include special inspection procedures for fracture - critical members and underwater inspection Bridge andition ode key Code Description N NOT APPLICABLE 9 EXCELLENT CONDITION 8 VERY GOOD CONDITION No problems noted. 7 GOOD CONDITION Some minor problems. 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION Structural elements show some minor deterioration. 5 FAIR CONDITION All primary structural elements are sound but may have some minor section loss (due to corrosion), cracking, spalling (deterioration of concrete surface) or scour (erosion of soil) 4 POOR CONDITION Advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour. 3 SERIOUS CONDITION Loss of section, deterioration, spalling or scour have seriously affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present. 2 CRITICAL CONDITION Advanced deterioration of primary structural elements. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present or scour may have removed substructure support. Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close the bridge until corrective action is taken. "IMMINENT" FAILURE CONDITION Major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put back in light service. 0 FAILED CONDITION Out of service - beyond corrective action_ Guide to Codes and Acronyms The following is a guide to codes and acronyms used in the TIP project spreadsheet for Jefferson County. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION 02 Rural Other Principal Arterial 09 Rural Local Access 06 Rural Minor Arterial 17 Urban Collector 07 Rural Major Collector 19 Urban Local Access 08 Rural Minor Collector IMPROVEMENT TYPES per the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 01 New construction roadway 15 Preliminary Engineering 03 Reconstruction - added capacity 16 Right -of -Way 04 Reconstruction - no added capacity 17 Construction Engineering 05 4R Maintenance - resurfacing 18 Planning 06 4R Maintenance - restoration & rehabilitation 19 lResearch 07 4R Maintenance - relocation 20 Environmental only 08 Bridge - new construction 21 Safety 10 Bridge replacement - added capacity 22 Rail/highway crossing 11 lBridge replacement - no added capacity 23 Transit 13 Bridge rehabilitation - added capactiy 24 ITraffic Management/Engineering - HOV 14 Bridge rehabilitation - no added capacity 25 Vehicle Weight Enforcement 40 Special Bridge 26 Ferry Boats 48 Bridge Protection 27 Administration 49 lBridge Inspection & Training 28 Facilities for Pedestrians & Bicycles FUNDING STATUS S=Secured (funded); P=Planned (unfunded) PROJECT PHASE PE = Preliminary Engineering; R/W = Right -of -Way; CN = Construction Guide to Codes and Acronyms The following is a guide to codes and acronyms used in the TIP project spreadsheet for Jefferson County. FEDERAL FUND CODES (applicable to Jefferson County) ER Emergency Relief FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency Hazard Mitigation Program FLAP Federal Lands Access Program HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program NFPP National Fish Passage Program PILT Payment in Lieu of Taxes SRS Secure Rural School STBG Surface Transportation Block Grant STP -R Surface Transportation Program -Rural STP -S Surface Transportation Program -Safety STP -TA Surface Transportation Program -Transportation Alternatives WAFH Washington Forest Highways Program STATE FUND CODES (applicable to Jefferson County) ALEA Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account CAPP County Arterial Preservation Program FBRB Fish Barrier Removal Board NOVA Non -Highway and Off -Road Vehicle Activities Program PBP Pedestrian and Bicycle Program PSAR Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund RAP Rural Arterial Program RRG Recreation Resource Grant SRFB Salmon Recovery Funding Board SRTS Safe Routes to School Program WWRP Washington Wildlife Recreation Program OTHER FUND CODES (applicable to Jefferson County) PIF Public Infrastructure Fund ENVIRONMENTAL TYPE CE Categorically Exempt DCE Documented Categorically Exempt EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement SEPA State Environmental Protection Act