Harney County debates federal paving grant, safety and Andrews bypass after residents warn paving could increase risks

Harney County officials and residents debated whether to accept a Federal Highway grant to pave portions of East Steens Road, with speakers arguing over whether the “best bang” for limited federal dollars should go to the North End — where visitation numbers are higher to some federal recreation sites — or the South End, which county staff said currently has a pending paving award.

The debate centered on safety, visitation-driven traffic and the existence of a previously recorded county court order that surveyed a bypass around the town of Andrews.

Why it matters: A Federal Highway‑administered public-lands-access grant can pay millions for pavement on remote routes, but residents warned that paving certain segments without additional safety work would increase speeds and could raise the risk of serious crashes. The decision affects where the county spends a large, multi‑million-dollar federal award and whether the county prioritizes building a bypass to remove through‑traffic from Andrews before pavement arrives.

What county staff said: Eric, the county road representative, confirmed the single‑segment federal award in current planning is about $8.4 million for the South End. He told the court he has contacted project managers at the Federal Highway Administration to verify schedule and funding availability and to ask whether the project can be reevaluated from south-to-north. “When you put in the application, you’re putting in where you’re providing access to,” he said, describing how visitation data (including BLM counts) affected the federal review.

Residents’ concerns: Multiple residents said paving the South End as currently scoped would attract more visitors and vehicles at higher speeds and increase the likelihood of serious accidents at known trouble spots. They pressed the court to delay final acceptance until a safety review or bypass is guaranteed. One resident asked the county not to pave straight through Andrews without building the surveyed bypass, noting that the county has an older recorded order to legalize a new alignment around the town.

Legal and funding context: The court reviewed documents and county counsel advised that the older recorded order to survey and legalize a bypass does not itself obligate the county to build the bypass; construction depends on funds being available. Eric provided a preliminary estimate for the immediate realignment work (one segment estimated roughly $125,000) and a larger corner/realignment work that together pushed the combined estimate into a higher bracket; he said a full buildout of the bypass realignment and associated work might fall in the $150,000–$200,000 range for the portions discussed, exclusive of paving and prevailing‑wage contractor costs.

Budget tradeoffs and next steps: Court members discussed whether to reallocate next year’s capital budget to prioritize a bypass or other safety improvements; they also raised transient-lodging and recreation taxes as potential revenue sources to supplement grants. Eric agreed to pursue a follow-up with the Federal Highway project manager to confirm whether the federal selection can be altered and to request a traffic/safety review before pavement is placed. The county pledged to examine prioritization options and report back to the court.

Less-critical details: Discussion included past, larger cost estimates (a 2012 county engineering package had estimated tens of millions to pave longer stretches), the role of prevailing-wage and contracting specifications in increasing project costs, and the practical difficulties of redirecting an already-awarded federal project.