    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                             THE
                                     THIRD YEAR
                                         OF THE
                   SATSOP CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

                                                  AN D

                                                          SOCIOECONOMIC CHANGE
                                                           IN
                                                          GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY

                                             THE
                                   GRAYS HARBOR
                               REGIONAL PLANNING
                                       COMMISSION

                                                APRIC 1981

               TK
               1078
               T55
               1981

                                THIRD YEAR OF THE SATSOP

                                  CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

                                           AND

                                 SOCIOECONOMIC CHANGE IN

                                  GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY:

                                      A Report to the

                                    Grays Harbor Regional

                                    Planning Commission

             "The preparation of this report was financially aided.through a grant from the
             Washington State Department of Ecology with funds obtained from the National
             Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and appropriated for Section 308(c)
             (1) of.the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972."

                                  Contract Number G81-021

                                    Prepared by the Staff

             Ln                     of the Grays Harbor

                                     Regional Planning

                                        Commission

                                2109 Sumner Avenue, Suite 202
                                    Aberdeen, Washington

                                        APRIL 1981
                                  US Department of Commerce
                               NOAA Coastaa Services Center LibrarY
                                    2234 Sout h    Avenue
                                    Charleston, SC 2@)-,@-05-2413

                                      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

                    This discussion summarizes the third comprehensive'analysis by the Grays
               Harbor Regional Planning Commission staff of the impact of the construction of
               the Satsop Nuclear Power Plant on the socioeconomic character of its host county,
               Grays Harbor. Each analysis is prepared annually covering the entire construc-
               tion period. This analysis adds a third year--June 1979 to July 1980--to the
               earlier work. The methodology employed in the earlier analysis has been extended
               and improved in this third effort.

                    This executive summary has been prepared to both summarize the    full report
               and to pre'sent a brief overview of,change occurring since the start   of the Project.
               As such, it is published both by  itself and within the full report. Selected
               graphics and tables from the full report are added to this summary when published
               separately. For explanations of the full methodology used, please refer to the
               text of the full report.

                    Construction began of the Satsop Project, consisting of twin nu   clear
               reactors, on April 8, 1977. In July of 1980, the end of the period covered in this
               analysis, the Project employed 3,143 persons. It will be constructed over a ten-
               year period and involve an estimated 20,091 man years. The peak of the construc-
               tion activity will occur in 1983.when approximately 6,400 workers will be
               employed.

                    Grays Harbor, the host county, had a 1980 population of 66,314. The reac    'tors
               are being built in the eastern part of the County near several small cities;
               Elma (2,720 population), McCleary (1,419), and Montesano (3,247). The total.
               population of the eastern part of the County is about 16,939. The general
               Aberdeen/Hoquiam area has a population of over 30,000.

                    During the third year,@the Construction Projectsimpact on Grays Harbor
               County continued to increase. The predominate difference between the third
               year of construction and its predecessing years (other than its steadily increas-
               ing magnitude) is that while the growth pressure exerted by the Project on the
               County during the first two years added to an otherwise increasing regional
               economic base, the regional economy was declining in the last year covered by
               this report. The Satsop Project during this year then assisted in reducing
               problems with a faltering economy rather than adding toan underlying growth
               as in previousyears. Consequently, while just over 60%-of the growth experienced
               by the County during the first two years of the Project could be attributed to
               the Project, virtually all of the growth during the@third year could be related
               to the influence of the Project. Indeed, some areas of the County may have lost
               population if it were not for the Project.

                    This change in the role  of the Project on  the host economy tended to also
               change thecharacter in which the Project impacted the affected communities.
               The Satsop-Project tended to serve as a "buffer" for economic problems which
               manifested themselves during this last year

                    While unemploymen t in the County rose to 16.'5%, (430 more unemployed) and
               employment decreased by 6.4% (a loss of,1,950 jobs) during this third year,
               the Satsop Project employed 936 County residents as construction workers as
               of July 1980. An additional 1,198 jobs can be attributed to.the secondary
               impact.of the Project. However, while this buffering effect of the Project is

                significant, most of the actual employment benefit of the Project went to
                other counties where the remaining 2,207 workers reside and commute to the
                Project.

                     The County's general economic downturn is related to significant prob-
                lems confronting several aspects of the County?s economic base. The most
                significant of these is the effect of the poor condition of the U. S. and
                Japanese housing markets which.has substantially curtailed production in the
                County's lumber and wood products industry which accounted for 21.5% of the
                areals wage and salary employment in 1979. These conditions are due to cycles
                -in these markets and, consequently, tend to be temporary. While current
                conditions are poor, the general level of economic activity is, nonetheless,
                above long-term trending of these cycles. The "boost" above long-term trends
                occurred since the start of the Satsop Project and is probably related. So,
                in addition to buffering current problems, the Project tends to continue its
                general influence of raising regional growth levels.

                     The same problems which  confront the housing industry nationwide also
                confront the housing industry in the County. Consequently, new housing starts
                are depressed which in turn may be depressing current growth.

                     The 936 County residents employed on the Project may be placed into three
                categories:

                     1.   People who were residents of the County-prior to the start of the
                          Project. As such, these employees do not in themselves exert a
                          new growth influence in the area (referred to as "prior residents").

                     2..  People.who moved to the area to work on the Project and have
                          formed a new household (referred to as "in-migrants"). These
                          workers constitute a strong new growth   pressure in the County.

                     3.   Workers who reside in the area only on a temporary basis (referred
                          to as "transients").

                     Of the 936 Satsop workers who were County residents in July of 1980, 278
                (307.) were residents of the area prior to.the start of the Project, and 658
                (70%) were new residents of the County. of these new residents, 219 could be
                classed as "transients" and 439 as "in-migrating" households. While the total
                number of new residents increased from 420 to 658 (57%) over the last year, the,
                number.of prior residents actually decreased during the year by 10 workers (288
                to 278).

                     The distribution of these workers was focused    on the Elma-McCleary area in
                East County where 240 of the in-migrant households    were located and 93 of the
                worker households were prior residents. The remaining in-migrants were distri-
                buted as follow6: 67.in the Montesano area; 22 in the Oakville area; 91 in
                the Aberdeen/Hoquiam area; and 19in the beach areas of the C*ounty. The remaining
                prior residents were found as follows: 53 in the Montesano area; 3 in the
                Oakville area; 122 in the Aberdeen/Hoquiam area;. and 7 in the beach areas of the
                County..  One hundred twenty-six (126) of the transients resided in the Elma/
                McCleary area (mostly in RV parks) and 64 transients resided in Aberdeen/Hoquiam
                (mostly in motels and other..rooming accommodations); 25 in the Montesano area;
                and 4 elsewhere.

                    Not only does the Satsop Project exert this direct'influence of-in-migrating
               workers on the County's growth, it also exerts considerable indirect pressure.
               it is estimated in this analysis that for each Satsop worker there is another
               1.28 jobs created indirec  'tly by the Project in trade, service, and other sectors
               of. the economy: a total of 1, 198 jobs since the start of the Project. The direct
               and indirect effect of these factors led to the creation of 1,251 new households
               in the County. This represented 41.7% of total new households in the County since
               the start of the Project. Since 38.5% of total new households are needed just
               to accommodate the decline in average household size (or in other words to main-
               tain the existing Population), the Satsop Project accounts for most of the net
               new growth in the County (67.8%). Again, the total growth attributable to the
               Project focused in the Elma-McCleary 'area where 45.2% of it occurred., The Satsop
               Project co*uld account for all of the net new.growth that occurred in Aberdeen-
               Hoquiam, almost all in the Elma-McCleary area (93%), four-fifths of the eastern
               part of the County, and only 28% of the growth that occurred in the beach area of
               the County.

                    While the added economic and population stimulus of the Project clearly
               boosted the economy of the eastern portion of the County during the first two
               years of construction, economid conditions in the area were slackening during
               the third year of-construction. This situation, however, was clearly less
               severe in this area than in the Aberdeen/Hoquiam area.

                    Similar to the economic picture, and probably related to it, the third
               year of construction saw a drop in land development activity from the first two
               years. In spite of this, however, land development and related activities were
               still well above pre-Project levels. As in the case of previous years, the focus
               of actual land use change inEa'st County was in Elma, although some shift in
               related activity (such as housing starts) could be detected back to the Montesano
               area (khere development activity was focused in East County prior to the start of
               the Project). The beach area, relatively unaffected by the direct influence of
               the Project, continued to lead in new building s   .tarts.

                    Considerable efforts continue to measure the effect of the Project and its
               induced change on the various aspects of the County's'social system. However,
               measurement of this aspect of the impact of the Project is most difficult due to
               the inadequacy of the available tools.    The most measureable part-of this aspect
               is how the Project influences crime and police activity.. These rates continue to
               rise in the County in general, and they   continue to be well above the national
               averages. This problem is particularly    characteristic of the Elma area where a
               definite Project relationship can be established. In Elma, 67% of all aggravated
               assault arrests are Project related, 25% of the DWI arrests, 17% of the larceny,
               and 17% of other assault arrests. Eighteen percent (18%) of total Elma and
               McCleary arrests could be,related to the Project.

                    Due to the time needed to analyze the complex data involved in thi,�-compre-
               bensive analysis, this report is being p  ,ublished in April of 1981. During the
               time that this report was being prepared, the Project has grown significantly
    0          to a work force of over 4,000. Preliminary indications seem to point to a con-
               tinuation of the influences that the Project exerts ontbe County, probably in
               porportion to the growth in labor force. While the Project has grown, the general
               economy continues to worsen with rising unemployment as the lumber market continues
               to fall. This would continue.the trends assessed in this report.

                    The conclusions presented In thIs summary, and in' the full re
                                                                                    ,port, represent
               the sole v'iews of the staff of the Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission.
               These opinions' are intended to give a potential interpretation of the data and
               do not represent the position of the Commission, its members, or the Washington
               Public Power-Supply System.
                                                        IV

                                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS

                 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

                 TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                   v

                 TABLE OF TABLES, MAPS, GRAPHS,    AND MODELS                                        vii

                 INTRODUCTION                                                                        1
                    Introduction Notes                                                               8

                 CHAPTER 1: REGIONAL GROWTH PATTERNS                                                 11
                    1.1    Introduction                                                              12
                    1.2    Overall County Growth                                                     12
                    1.3    East County Growth                                                        14
                    1.4    Conclusion                                                                19
                    Chapter I Notes                                                                  19

                 CHAPTER 2: GENERAL CAUSES OF GROWTH                                                 21
                    2.1    Introduction                                                              @2
                    2.2    Declining Household Size and Growth                                       22
                    2.3    Economic Change and Growth                                                23
                    2.4    Other General Causes of Growth                                            28
                    2.5    Conclusion                                                                29
                    Chapter 2 Notes                                                                  29

                 CHAPTER 3: INFLUENCE OF SATSOP CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON GROWTH                       31
                    3.1    Introduction                                                              32
                    3.2    Secondary Effect During the Two Years of Project Construction             36
                           3.2.1   Migration for Secondary Jobs                                      38
                           3.2.2   Distribution of Secondary Workers                                 38
                    3.3    Secondary Effects During Third Year of Project Construction               40
                    3.4 -  Conclusion                                                                40
                    Chapter 3 Notes                                                                  43,

                 CHAPTER 4    SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SATSOP WORKERS                               46
                    4.1    Introduction                                                              47
                    4.2    Data                                                                      47
                    4.3    Age and Family Structure                                                  47
                    4.4.   Distribution of.Satsop Workers                                            48
                    4.5    Household Tenure                                                          52
                    4.'6   Residential Patterns by Structure Type                                    52
                    4.7    Household Characteristics                                                 54
                    4.8    Conclusion                                                                55
                    Chapter 4 Notes                                                                  55

                 CHAPTER  5: -ECONOMIC CHANGES                                                       57
                    5.1    Introduction                                                              58
                    5.21   Employment and Unemployment                                               58
                    5.3    Sales Activity                                                            60
                    5.4    Banking Activity                                                          65
                    5.5    Business Activity                                                         .65
                    5.6    New Construction                                                          68
                    5.@    Conclusion                                                                70
                    Chapter 5 Notes                                                                  71

                                                           _v_

                                           TABLE OF CONTENTS continued

                                                                                            Page
                CHAPTER 6: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CHANGES                                  72
                   6.1   Introduction                                                        73
                   6.2   Zoning                                                              73
                   6.3   Land Divisions                                                      74
                   6.4   Other Zoning Actions                                                76
                   6.5   Building Permits                                                    81
                   6.6   Housing Costs and Availability                                      87
                   6*7   Actual Land Use Change                                              93
                   6.8   Land Development and the Project                                   101
                   6.9   Conclusion                                                         102
                   Chapter 6 Notes                                                          102

                CHAPTER 7; SOCIAL CONCERNS                                                  105
                   7.1   Introduction                                                       105
                   7.2   Crime                                                              105
                   7.3   Other Police Services                                              109
                   7.4   Traffic                                                            110
                   7.5   Schools                                                            119
                   7.6   Social Services                                                    124
                   7.7   Political Change                                                   125
                   7.8   Conclusions                                                        126
                   Chapter 7 Notes                                                          127

                                  TABLE OF TABLES, MAPS, GRAPHS, AND MODELS

                                                                                            Page

              INTRODUCTION
              Map I         Five County Study Area,  -Vicinity Map                             2
              Map 2         Grays Harbor-County, Washington                                    3
              Graph  1      WNP-3/5 Workforce History                                          5
              Map 3         Primary Study Area, East Grays Harbor   County                     6
              Map 4         WPPSS Power Plant Site and Vicinity                                7

              CHAPTER 1.,
              Table  1.1    Resident Population                                               12
              Graph  1.1    Population Trends, Grays Harbor County, 1960-1980                 13
              Table  1.2    Population and Residential Electrical Services by    Grays
                              Harbor Public Utility District                                  14
              Table  1.3    Population Trends and Electrical Service Trends                   15
              Table  1A     Population of-Study Are"a, 1970-1980                              16
              Table  1.5    Population Growth of East County Cities, 1910-1980                16
              Table  1.6    Growth of Residential Power Connections, 1974-1,980               17
              Map 1.1       East County Growth Patterns, 1977-1980                            18

              CHAPTER 2:
              Table 2.1     Average Annual Decline in Ratio of Population Per
                              Residential Electrical Service, 1970-1980                       22
              Table  2.2    Household Size and Household Growth in Grays Harbor
                              County, 1970-1980                                               23
              Table  2.3    Growth in Residential Electrical Connections above
                              Growth Attributable to Declining Household Size                 24
              Table  2.4    Actual Labor Force and Employment Change 1975-1979
                              (Annual Averages)                                               25
              Graph  2.1    Average Annual Labor Force and Employment, Wage and
                              Salary-Employment, and Residential Electrical Service
                              with 1977 Regression Analysis                                   26
              Table  2.5    Trend Deviation in Employment and Labor Force, 1.976-1979
                              Annual Averages                                                 27
              Table  2.6    Population, Labor Force, and Employment, Thurston County          28

              CHAPTER.3:
              Model 3.1     Input Analysis                                                    33
              Model  3.2    Impact Analysis                                                   34
              Table  3.1    Residential Patterns of Construction.Workers, July 1980
                              (Project.9mployment 3,143)                                      36
              Table  3.2    Cumulative Change in Resident Worker Patterns, June 1978
                              to July 1980                                                    36
              Table  3.3    Basic and Non-Basic Economic Change in Grays Harbor,
                              June 1977 to June 1979                                          38
              Table  3.4    Allocation of Secondary Households During First Two Years
                              of Construction, 1977-1979                                      39
              Table  1.5    Satsop Induced Growth During the First Two Years of
                              Construction, 1977-1979                                         39
              Table  3.6    Allocation of Secondary Households During Third    Year of
                              Construction, 1979-1980                                         40
              Table.3.7     Satsop Induced Growth During the Third Year of-Con-
                              struction, 1979-1980                                            41

                                                      -vii-

                              TABLE OF TABLES, MAPS, GRAPHS, AND MODELS 'continued

                                                                                             TMe

                CHAPTER 3 continued
                Table 3.8    Satsop Induced Growth in Grays Harbor for   the Entire
                               Construction Period, 1977-1980                                 41
                Map 3.1      Total Household Growth and Satsop Induced   Growth In
                               Grays Harbor County by Area for Entire Construction
                               Period, 1977-1980                                              42

                CHAPTER 4:
                Table 4.1    Age of Workers                                                   48,
                Table 4.2    Marital Status                                                   49.
                Table 4.3    Type of Household                                                49
                Table 4.4    Household Size                                                   50
                Table 4.5    Estimated Residential Distribution of Newly Hired   Satsop
                               Workers by Workers Responding to Survey                        50
                Map 4.1      Distance in Miles from Site                                      51
                Table 4.6    Estimated In-Migration Patterns of Satsop   Workers              52
                Table 4.7    Tenure Patterns of Satsop Workers by Percent of Satsop
                               Workers Responding to Appropriate@Survey Questions             53
                Table 4.8    Residential Patterns of Satsop Workers by Structure Type
                               By Percentage of SatsoR Workers Responding to
                               Appropriate Questions                                          54
                Table 4.9    Household Characteristics of In-Migrating Satsop Workers
                               for Selected Areas by Percent of Satsop Workers
                               Responding to Appropriate Questions                            55

                CHAPTER 5:
                Table 5.1    Grays Harbor  Employment, Unemployment, and Labor Force
                               Compared to On-Site Construction Employment, Monthly
                               Averages, June 1977 to July 1980                               59
                Table 5.2    Change in Regular Entitlement 'Unemployment, Insured
                               Recipients by Sector, Grays Harbor County                      60
                Table 5.3    Employment Applications and Placement at Aberdeen
                               Employment Service                                             61
                Table 5.4    Taxable Retitil Sales, Grays Harbor Countyj  1975-1979,
                               (in thousands of dollars)                                      62
                Graph  5. 1  Taxable Retail Sales for Selected Grouping  s, Grays
                               Harbor County, April-June 1977-1980                            63
                Table  5.5   Taxable Sales of Grays Harbor County, by Incorporated
                               Areas (thousands)                                              64
                Table  5.6   Banking Activity in  Grays Harbor County                         66
                Table  5.7   Real Estate Mortgage Activity, Grays Harbor County               66
                Graph  5.2   Mortgage Activity, Grays Harbor County, 1970-1979                67
                Table  5.8   East County Businesses                                           68
                Table  5.9   Number of Businesses by Sector                                   69
                Table  5.10  Valuation of New Construction (Excluding   the Satsop
                                Project)                                                      70

                CHAPTER 6:
                Table 6.1    Zoning Changes, 1973-1980                                        74
                Map 6.1      Zoning Changes, 1975-1979                                        75
                Table 6.2    Subdivision Lots Created (Excluding Condominium                  76
                Table 6.3    Short Plat Lots Created                                          76

                                                     -viii-

                              TABLE OF TABLES, MAPS, GRAPHS, AND MODELS continued

                                                                                              Page

                CHAPTER 6 continued
                Map 6.2      Location of Subdivisions. 1975-1979                                77
                Map 6.3      Location of Short Plats, 1975-1079                                 78
                Table 6.4    County Conditional Use Permit Activity                             79
                Table 6.5    Agricultural Areas and Gravel Permits                              79
                Map 6.4      Location of Conditional.Land Use Permits Approved for
                                Gravel Extractions, Rock Quarries, and Surface
                                Mining, 1975@1979                                               80
                Table 6.6    Variance Permit Activity                                           81
                Map 6.5      Location of Variances, 1975-1979                                   82
                Graph 6.1    Authorized New Dwelling Units by Type, Eastern    Grays
                                Harbor County, 1975-1980                                        83
                Graph 6.2    Authorized Dwelling Units by Geographic Area,    Grays
                                Harbor County, 1975-1980                                        84
                Graph 6.3    Authorized Dwelling Units by Type, Grays Harbor County,
                                1974-1980                                                       85
                Table 6.7    New Building Starts by Location                                    86
                Table 6.8    Completed New Dwellings Units,(Excluding Mobile Homes),
                                1911-1979                                                       87
                Table 6.9    Housing Costs, East County                                         88
                Table 6.10   Median Residence Values, Grays.Harbor    County and
                                Comparative.Areas, 1970-1978                                    88
                Graph 6.4    Average Rent-per Unit,(all units@includes, regardless     of
                                type) Montesano, Elma, McCleary, Satsop,   and Oakville,
                                (East County), Grays Harbor County                              89
                Table 6.11   Housing Availability, East County                                  90
                Table 6.12   Increases in Housing Starts in Grays    Harbor County by
                                Area, 1976-1979                                                 90
                Graph 6.5    Number of Units (by type) Advertised    as Available,
                                Montesano, Elma, McCleary, Satsop,   and Oakville (East
                                County), Grays Harbor County                                    92
                Table 6.13   Annual Units Required to Meet Regional 1990 Construction
                                Goals and Current Construction with Continued Economic
                                Development, 1974-1979                                          92
                Table 6.14   Annual Units Required to Meet Regional 1990 Construction
                                Goals and Current Construction, with Poor Economic
                                Conditions, 1974-1979                                           92
                Map 6.6      Land Use Inventory Areas, Eastern Gray   s.Harbor County,
                                1977-1980                                                       94
                Table 6.15   Total Acres  of Land Use Changes-Original and Expanded
                                Inventory Areas, Eastern Grays Harbor County, 1977--@
                                1900                                                            95
                Table 6.16   Total Number of Land Use Changes-Original and Expanded
                                Inventory Areas, Eastern Grays Harbor County, 1977-
                                1980                                                            95
                Table 6.17   Total Acres of Land Use Changes-Incorporated Areas,
                                Eastern Grays Harbor County, 1977-1980                          96
                Table 6.18   Total Number of Land Use Changes-Incorporated Areas,
                                Eastern Grays Harbor County, 1977-1980                          96
                Table 6.19   Acres,of Land Use Change (excluding gravel pits)
                                Original and Expanded Inventory Areas, Eastern Grays
                                Harbor County, 1977-1980                                        97

                                                       -ix-

                               TABLE OF TABLES, MAPS, GRAPHS, AND MODELS continued

                                                                                                 Page

                CHAPTER 6 continued
                Map 6.7       Land Use Change by Inventory Areas, (Excluding Gravel
                                Pits), Eastern Grays Harbor County                                 98
                Table 6.20    Number of Land Use Changes (Excluding Gravel Pits)
                                Original and Expanded Inventory Areas, Eastern Grays
                                Harbor County, 1977-1980                                           99
                Table 6.21    Ratio of Acres to Number of Changes (Excluding Gravel
                                Pits) 1977-1980                                                  100.

                CHAPTER 7:
                Table 7.1     Offense Rates                                                      106
                Table 7.2     Arrest Rates                                                       107
                Table 7.3     Number of Juveniles Referred    to'County Juvenile Depart-
                                ment for Slected Offenses,    Grays Harbor County, 1975-
                                1978                                                             108
                Table 7.4     Percentage of Total Actual Part I Offenses Known to be
                                Project Related                                                  108
                Table 7.5     Percentage of Part I and II Arrests Known to be Project
                                Related                                                          109
                Table 7.6     Total Calls for Service and Radio Dispatches                       110
                Table 7.7     Traffic Collisions per 1,000 Population                            III
                Table 7.8     Number of Traffic Violations
                Table 7.9     Accident Rates Reported, State Highways, Grays Harbor
                                County                                                           112
                Table 7.10    Average Daily Traffic Volumes (ADT), Grays Harbor
                                County Roads                                                     113
                Table 7.11    Average Daily Traffic Volume (ADT), State Highways                 114
                Graph 7.1     Average Daily Traffic Volumes, Site Related Roads,      Grays
                                Harbor County                                                    115
                Table 7.12    Peak Hourly Traffic Volumes, Site Access Roads                     116
                Graph 7.2     Average Traffic Volumes, Site Access Routes, Grays
                               @Harbor County, December 1980                                     117
                Table'7.13    Composition of Traffic, Percentage of Total Counts over
                                2 Axles                                                          118
                Table 7.14    Vehicle Occupancy Rates                                            118
                Table 7.15    Percentage of Out-of-State Vehicles                                119
                Table 7.16    School Enrollment and Project Relationship                         120
                Table 7.17    School Enrollments (FTE). October 1975-1980                        120
                Table 7.18    Change in Cohort, East County SchoolDistricts,
                                Montesano, Satsop, Elma, McCleary, and Oakville,
                                1973-1980                                                        122
                TGble 7.19    Change in Cohort,. All. School Districts in Grays Harbor
                                County, Except Those in East County,'1973-1980                   M
                Table 7.20    Private School Enrollments                                         123
                Table 7.21    Estimated Unhoused Students, East    County Schools                123
                Table 1.22    Dropout Rates, 1976-1980                                           124
                Table 7.23    Persons Served by Social Service Agencies, 1977-1979               125
                Table 7.24    Percent-Change in Elected Officials, 1976-1978-                    126

                                                          _x_

                                               INTRODUCTION

                   On April 8,. 1977 construction began on a twin nuclear generating facility
              southwest of the City of Elma' in Grays Harbor County, Washington. This project
              is planned to be constructed over a ten year period involving an estimated
              20 091 man years of craft labor and an expenditure of approximately 7.5 billion
              doilars.l. The site of the project is adjacent to the. Chehalis River in a
              rural agricultural and forestry community. Four small rural cities are in the
              immediate vicinity of the project: Elma, population 2,720; Montesano,3,247;
              McCleary, 1,419; and Oakville, 537. Approximately another 12,000 people reside
              in the unincorporated areas surrounding-these communities. The Aberdeen-Hoquiam
              area is the nearest urban center, fifteen miles to the west of the site. This
              project, officially designated as WNP-3 and WNP-5, is commonly known as "The
              Satsop Project."

                   A construction project of-this size was  expected to have the potential
              of substantially modifying the socioeconomic character of the host rural
              communities.2 As a part of the licensing process of the facility by the State
              of Washington, the Project operators, the Washington Public Power Supply System,
              were required to monitor the socioeconomic change within the Project's area of
              influence. The Power System then contracted with the Grays Harbor Regional
              Planning Commission to collect and report data and information which might
              serve as indicators or measures of any,socioeconomic change occurring within
              the area. This Monitoring,Project has, during the first three years of the
              Project, produced thirteen volumes of data and information.3

                   This report presents, in the sole view of the staff of the Grays Harbor
              Regional Planning Commission, the major socioeconomic changes as identified in
              this monitoring data occurring over the first three years of the construction
              Project. This report is produced separate from, and is in.no manner to be
              considered a part of, the Monitoring Project itself. The opinions expressed
              in this report are intended to give a potential interpretation of the data and
              do not represent the position of the Commission, its members, or the Power
              System.

                   Similar reports were issued covering the first two years of construction,
              and this report will compare the third year to.these earlier reports. This
              report will also frequently refer to the analysis.in these reports, rather
              than to unnecessarily duplicate that information.

                   It is expected that this report, followed by other reports by authors   of
              differing perspectives, will contribute to the awareness and knowledge of change
              which is occurring in this Project area, and thereby provide needed insight
              into this process of change for the Commission and Its constituent local govern-
              ments. Furthermore, it is hoped that this discussion will contribute to the
              general body of knowledge relating to the socioeconomic implication of major
              construction projects.

                   The construction began on April 8, 1977 under a limited work authorization
              issuedby the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This authorization was limited to
              the preparation and excavation of the site. On April.11, 1978 the full con-
              struction permit was granted and full construction began. Oil June 30, 1978,
              the end of the period covered by the First Year Report, on-site craft construc-
              tion employment was 442. At the end of June 1979, the period covered by the

                                                      1

                                                                               MAP 1

                                                                      ..........

                                                                                                 ... . . . ..

                                            ................ ....... ....

                                                                                                     VICINITY
                                                                                                            SATE
                                                                lMASOrj                                   PROJ
                                              GRAYS
                                                                                                       5 COUNTY STU
                                             HARBOR             I   Shelton

                                                                                                              NORT
                                                                L
                                                              mcCIFea;*ry              t                0
                                                                r       I
                                                   0berdeen,    Ima             01 mpia
                    NJ                               Warn
                                                        Monte ano

                                                               SATS
                                                                    P
                                                              PROJECT

                                                                  Oakvi

                                                      R ymo,nd                 0 Centralia

                                                                             C ehalls

                                                                                             LEWIS
                                                          CIFIC

                                                                                  . ............

                                                                                                                       MAP 2

                                                              i I o I

                                                                                                                                 r-1       't
                                                                                                                                                                                             01.11. 124 21.4

                                                                                                                                                                                    IL

                                                        GRAYS                          HARBOR COUNTY,                                                          WASHINGTON

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     1971

               second report, on-site craft employment was 1,343. In July 1980, the end of
               the period covered by this report, on-site craft employment was 1,980. In
               addition to craft construction workers, project employment also consists of
               non-manual workers employed by the Engineeering Contractor and WPPSS itself,
               and managerial or clerical workers employed by other contractors. This type
               of employment has grown in a more stable manner throughout the construction,
               gradually growing'from 155 in July 1977 to 387 in June 1978, 802 in June 1979,
               and 1,163 in June 1980 .4 These employment trends are illustrated on Graph 1.

                    In order to monitor socioeconomic change which might be produced by the
               Project, a large potential area was established by the Monitoring Project
               consisting of five counties. These counties were monitored at a very general
               level. Two of these counties, Grays Harbor and Thurston, were monitored in
               greater detail, and particular subareas (called Primary Study Areas) were
               examined very closely in each of these counties. Since this report is prepared
               by the staff of the Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission primarily for the
               use of the Commission and its members, it concerns itself with only.change
               occurring in Grays Harbor County.. Grays Harbor County has been divided into
               two areas: a Primary Study Area and the remainder of the County. The Primary
               Study Area includes the cities of Elma, Montesano, McCleary, and Oakville, and
               their unincorporated surroundings. The t  'erm also may include the unincorporated
               areaof Central Park, but due to difficulties in obtaining information which
               separates this area from the'Aberdeen area, Central Park is sometimes not
               included in the,"Primary Study Area." Map 3 identifies the Primary Study Area.
               For comparison purposes,Aberdeen, Roquiam, and Cosmopolis are termed the "Urban
               Area" within this report, and the "Beaches" refer to the cities of Westport
               and Ocean Shores, and unincorporated areas adjacent to the Ocean. The Primary
              'Study Area is also referred to as East County.

                    As previously noted the purpos e of this report is to first identify,
               describe, and assess socioeconomic change in the study area and the County
               during the past few years in general and during the last three years in
               particular. This is first done without necessarily inferring a particular
               cause for the change, since the fact of change is important information in and
               of itself to the Commission and its members. This reporting of change is rather
               straightforward and clear within the limitations of available information.

                    However, since understanding the cause of*change is an essential pre-
               requisite to anticipating further change, this discussion does seek to identify
               such causes. Such identification can only proceed with peril because socio-
               economic change seldom occurs in clear cause-effect relationships, and any
               effect will have complex roots of causation which tend to defy detection.
               Since it is expected thAt the Construction Project will be a major catalytic
               agent in the study area, this report attempts to relate identified change to
               ,this stimulus. As will be noted,this can range from rather clear situations
               (such as the proliferation of.gravel, pits) to more of a juxtaposition of
               occurrence (a rapid"rise in taxable sales in Elma) without-significant evidence
               of a clear causal relationship. Consequently, discussions herein which seek to
               relate change to the project should be critically reviewed and considered by
               the reader. It is more the underlying desire of the authors to stimulate
               such critical thought on these complex relationships than to necessarily
               establish a position regarding the manner by which change is being produced.

                    In reviewing any situation of this nature, a useful analogy is possible.
               It is too tempting to think of the impact of a major construction project as
               being a rock tossed into a placid pool where the ripples of impact can be

                                                       4

                                                                                            GRAPH I
                                                                    WNP-3/5 Workforce History                                                                                    I

                                                                                                                                                         SRI"? I.MMMX
                                                                                                                                                         Foam

                                     LEGENO                        LATCST VALUC   - 226
                               wppS5
                               EBASCO                                             - 503
                               CONTRFICTOR NON-MiNUAL                             - 536         ItFals ShIcLa *14
                           v - MIFTSMEN                                           - 2321                                015PUTZ
           Ln   A          a - TOTRL WORVORCC                                     - 3S89
                                                                   pral V%ICL0 MFU Iwo Lwlft 76
                                                                                  SIMI

                  SM $no 6176 lon lots $aa lon? 11178 )a.,711 Ull 201 3179 4119 SM V19 6/711 7179 $171 gnt IVIII It-179 131711 1.120 JIM' 3100 ilea ww 5/w sm ?/Go SAM Ilia
                                                                                             M OCT OF%tC

                     SOURCE: WNP-3/5 Socioeconomic SummaEy, October                      1980, WPPSS.

                                                             MAP 3

                                                                 ELMA
                                                                   McCLEAR-@@

                                           MO ESANO

                                                                                         ARI

                                                           co,struction
                                                              Site
                       CENTRAL                AREA
                         PARK
                         AREA

                                                                         OAK1rIL

                     C/

                                                                                 Milos
                                  PRIMARY STUDY AREA, EAST GRAYS HARBOR CO.
                                                                              0 1 2 3 4

                                                                                      MAP 4

                                                                                                                      ELMA
                                                  ow

                                                              State

                                                                                     oigh

                                                                                                                             t7

                                                                                                                    lb
                                                                                                                    %C

                                                                                                                            R

                                                                                                           Let),,,
                                                 ftood                                                             Road

                                                                                                                           Road

                                                                        0sko"                              wpPS.S.
                                                                     -Ate                            POWER PLANr sirE

                                                          oad
                                                                                                         scale- fin --0.5m

                  easily and comfortably counted and measured. The nature of socioeconomic
                  systems, unfortunately, is not so accommodating. A better analogy is a rock
                  tossed into a babbling brook with its own established currents of change. The
                  influence of the rock is an additional influence which will bend and turn those
                  currents but is not the sole "cause."5

                       This report and its conclusionare limited by the nature of available
                  information. Four key problems are present.     First, important pieces of
                  information are not reported until some time after the event occurs. Some cases
                  (such as income information) can be as long as several years. This delay
                  naturally prevents the use of such information in a report like this. This is
                  particularly an acute problem in this report due to the delays associated with
                  the publication of the 1980 Census data. That Census will produce a large volume
                  of information which will make better analysis possible. Second, many important
                  pieces of information (most significantly employment data) are not available
                  on a subcouaty level, and, consequently, county level discussion (where more
                  influences would operate to make analysis of cause more difficult)' must suffice.
                  Third, some information is not generated for many areas (reliable population
                  data for subcounty unincorporated areas), and related to this are time or cost
                  limitations for the Commission to generate information (such as Assessor data).
                  In these cases this analysis has used available information as an indicator
                  of the general. Fourth, the complexity of some data literally defies inter-
                  pretations. This is often true for data relating to this Construction Project
                  itself even for something so apparently clear as employment levels. Needless
                  to say, these general limitations impose hazardous conditions for many con-
                  clusions in this report. More importantly, data limitations also often make
                  meaningful comments about many potential concerns impossible (a key example is
                  the absense of discussion on recreation). Consequently, this discussion
                  limits itself to.those concerns which are possible to discuss meaningfully within
                  the parameters and limitations of the monitoring information. In some cases
                  where data were not previously available, this report will address and even
                  modify conclusions regarding the earlier reports based on this new data.

                       This report is a continuation of an attempt to un  derstand the relationship
                  between the Construction Project and the socioeconomic character of the host
                  region. It is hoped that this effort will lead to further discussion, analysis,
                  and debate which is necessary for a full understanding of the issues which may
                  be raised.,

                                                    INTRODUCTION
                                                         NOTES

                  1.   Total man-hours including  both manual and non-manual estimated.by the Grays
                       Harbor Regional Planning Commission on the basis of Washington Public Power
                       Supply System craft manpower projections. The official designation of this
                       project is WNP-3 and WNP-5.

                  2.   The planning of the Project included several discussions of potential socio-
                       economic implications of the Project. This included publications by the
                       Power System such as-

                         Community Development Services Inc., An Analysis o   f Socioeconomic ILuRacts
                         .of WNP-3 and WNP-5, Washington Public Power Supply System, September
                         17, 1975.

                                                           8

                       - Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Socioeconomic Effects of Construction
                         and Operations of WNP-3 and WNP-5 and Alternatives to Alleviate Adverse
                         Effects, Washington Public Power Supply System, December, 1974.
                       - Washington Public Power Supply System, Environmental Reports.

                       The monitoring requirement in the Site Certification Agreement with the
                       State of Washington grew out of a consideration of these reports, other
                       available literature, and testimony by the Regional.Planning Commission.

                  3.   Thirteen monitoring reports have been published and are on fil   e with the
                       Power System, the Regional Planning Commission, and the Energy Facility Site
                       Evaluation Council.   Frequent references shall.be made to these reports in
                       this study:

                       - Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Quarterly Socioeconomic
                         Report of WNP 3/5, Volume 1, leport No. 2, July 1., 1977 to September
                         30, 1977, Washington Public Power Supply System, October, 1977. '
                       - Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Quarterly Socioeconomic
                         Report of WNP 3/5, Volume 1, Report No. 3, October 1, 1977 to
                         December 31, 1977, Washington Public Power Supply System, January 1978.
                       - Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Quarterly Socioeconomic
                         Report of WNP 3/5, Volume 2, Report No. 1, JanuaEl 1, 1978 to March
                         31, 1978, Washington Public Power Supply System, April 1978.
                       - Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Quarterly Socioeconomic
                        ,Report of WNP 3/5, Volume 2, Report No. 2, April 1, 1978 to June 30,
                         1978, Washington Public Power Supply System, July 1978.
                       - Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Quarterly Socioeconomic
                         Report of WNP 3/5,-Volume 2, Report No. 3, July 1, 1978 to September
                         30, 1978, Washington Public Power Supply System, October 1978.
                       - Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Quarterly Soci    oeconomic
                         Report of WNP 3/5, Volume 2, Report No. 4, October 1, 1978 to
                         December 31, 1978, Washington Public Power Supply System, January, 1979.
                       - Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Quarterly Socioeconomic
                         Report of WNP 3/5, Volume 3, Re26rt No. 1, January 1, 1979 to March
                         31, 1979, Washington Public.Power Supply Systemj.April, 1979.
                       - Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission,.Quarterly Socioeconomic
                         Report of WNP 3/5, Volume 3, Report No..2, April 1, 1979 to June 30,
                         1979, Washington Public Power Supply System, July.1979.
                         Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Quarterly Socioeconomic
                         Report of WNP 3/5, Volume 3, Report No. 3, July 1, 1979 to September
                         30, 1979, Washington Public Power Supply System, October 1979.
                         Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Quarterly Socioeconomic
                         Report of WNP 3/5, Volume 3, Report No. 4, October 1, 1979 to
                         December 31, 1979, Washington Public Power Supply System, January, 1980.
                         Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Quarterly Socioeconomic
                         Report of WNP 3/5,  Volume 4, Report No. 1, January 1, 1980 to March
                         31, 1980, Washington Public Power Supply System, April, 1980.
                         Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Quarterly_Socioeco'nomic
                         Report.of WNP 3/5, Volume 4, Report No. 2, April 1, 1980 to June 30,
                         1980, Washington Public Power Supply System, July 1980.
                         Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Quarterly Socioeconomic
                         Report of WNP 3/5,.Volume 4, Report N  .o. 3, July 11' 1980 to SeRtember
                         30, 1980, Washington Public Power Supply.System, October 1980.

                                                           9

                      Also, this study utilizes information that will be reported in:

                        Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Quarterly Socioeconomic
                        Report of WNP 3/5, Volume 4, Report No. 4, October 1, 1980 to
                        December 31, 1980, Washington Public Power Supply System, January, 1981.

                 4.   Tables in Monitoring-Reports under Tables number GH-T.32.15.

                 5.   This analogy was originally suggested by Carl Van Hoff, staff.of the Supply
                      System.

                                                        10

                                                   CHAPTER I

                                            REGIONAL GROWTH PATTERNS

                                            1. REGIONAL GROWTH PATTERNS

                       1.1 Introduction:    One of the major concerns regarding any large construc-
                  tion project is how such  a project affects growth patterns in the host region.
                  Indeed, this effect is often the primary concern of most socioeconomic studies
                  relating to such projects since growth resulting from such a project will affect
                  virtually every aspect of the socioeconomic character of an area. For this
    0             reason the Monitoring Project has collected substantial information regarding
                  growth patterns in the County. Of this data two are particularly important:
                  U.S. and'State census data and estimates, and electrical service connections.
                  While each of these sources of information have significant limitations, they do
                  provide very useful insights into the pattern of growth occurring within the
                  -region. This information then can be compared to data relating to the migration
                  patterns of construction workers, employment data for the rest of the economy,
                  and other information to assess the relationship between growth in the region
                  and.the Construction Project and other factors which influence growth patterns.

                       This analysis of growth and its causes first seeks in this Chapter to
                  portray regional and subregional growth (primarily in households) which has
                  been occurring before and during the Construction Project. Then, in the follow-
                  ing chapter, potential causes of growth, notably general regional economic
                  growth, are examined to explore what influences are operating in the area
                  besides just the Satsop Project. Finally, from specific information from the
                  Project, an attempt is made to account for the amount of growth that is occurring
                  in the area due to the Satsop      Project.      This attempt includes a measure
    0             of the secondary or induced effec  ,ts of the Project on regional growth.

                       1.2 Overall County Growth: The p9pulation,of Grays Harbor County is noted
                  for its long term stability. It reached a peak population of nearly sixty
                  thousand people during its lumbering heyday of 1930, a population level which
                  was not reached again until 1971. After several decades of population decline
    0             and low growth, the population grew between 1960 and 1970 by 9.3% (0.9% annually).
                  This growth continued through the 1970's with an 11.4% increase between 1970
                  and 1980 (1.1%annually). However, if state population estimates are correct,
                  much of this growth in the 1970's occurred late in the decade (Table 1.2).

                                                       TABLE 1.1
                                                  RESIDENT POPULATION

                                     1930         1940      1950        1960        1970         1980

                  State           1,563,39.6 1,736,191 2,378,963 2.853,214 3,413,244 4,113,331
                  Grays Harbor
                    County           59,982      53,166     53,644      54,465      59,553       66,314
                  Grays Harbor
                    County as
                    Percent of
                    State             3.84%                  2.25%       1.91%       1.74%       1.61%

                  SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
                  1�80 figures are preliminary.

                                                           12

     0                                                     GP.APH 1. 1

                                                   POPULAnON TRENDS
                      too(                 GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY*. 1000-1980

     0

                            GRAYS NA RBOR COUK"

                                                                             QrcrAL wc)Rpo;mTw A REAs
     0                           /All

                                                      000
                                   A @ERDEEN        .00,
                                           Ole                   MINUIAM   tiTOTAL LNINCI RPORATED PI ACE$
     0                100

     0

                                                                   TESANO

                                                              c-ELMA
                                  P4
                          op
                       to                      c    OPO SO/
                                                                                                     (OCEAN-
                                                                                                     SHORES.
                                                                                 WEST$ ORT

                                     OAKVILLE-
                                                                                                . ...............
                                                                    .............. ...............

                        1900        1910      1920       1950      1940      '1950     '1960     '1970   19M

                                                                13

      0

                        While the actual decennial census data for the end of each decade may be
                   viewed as highly accurate, the intercensusal data are estimates and, thus might
                   be less reliable. Another limitation of relying solely on population data for
                   an analysis of growth is that the intercensusal estimates are made only for the
                   County as a whole and each incorporated city and, consequently,-information is
                   not reliable for unincorporated areas. Fortunately, far more accurate information
                   regarding growth is available in the form of residential electrical service
                   connections. While this information is reliable in terms of what it measures,
                   residential electrical services, it is severely limited in its use       'to determine
                   the population trends. Its major limitations is that the ratio between population
                   and number of households is dropping due to a variety of factors.. Consequently,
                   power hookups should beexpected to increase faster than population. However, if
                   this distinction between households and population is kept in mind, power hookups
                   can be used as a very important information source regarding growth in the area.

                                                         TABLE 1.2
                                   POPULATION AND RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICAL SERVICES BY
                                          GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT

                              Population Estimates        Residential Electrical Services Connections
                   Year              April                                    April
                   1970              59,553                                   22,919
                   1971              60,000                                   23,305
                   1972              60,000                                   23,797
                   1973              60,100                                   24,274
                   1974              60,100                                   24,983
                   1975              60,200                                   25,342
                   1976              60,500                                   25,760
                   1977              61,400                                   26,428
                   1978              62,300                                   27,562
                   1979              63,700                                   28,677
                   1980              66,314                                   29,463

                   SOURCE: Table   GH-T.32..16.4, 3/78 as updated and Office of Financial
                             Management.

                        Table 1.3 compares the growth of population by official estimates to the
                   actual utility hookups for the same period. As illustrated in        Ithis table, the
                   population estimates for the early part of the decade seem conservative. Growth
                   in electrical services seemed to spurt between 1971 and 1974, slow between 1974
                   and 1976, then resurge again since 1977 with a significant degree of growth
                   occurring from 1977-1980. This pattern of higher growth early in this decade
                   followed by a slowdown (and possible decline in population) in the middle and
                   a resurgence of growth recently should be particularly noted because it will
                   be a recurrent theme when,this report addresses landuse-and development.
                   Growth during the last year has accelerated from the first year of construc-
                   tion.

                         1.3 East County   Growth,.@ It was ho ped that the 1980 Census of Population
                   would supply detailed   information regarding population change in East County
                   since  1970. However,   the Bureau of Census changed some boundaries in the County
                   Census Divisions (CCD)  which will.make direct comparison between censuses very

                                                              14

                                                      TABLE 1. 3
                                  POPULATION TRENDS AND ELECTRICAL SERVICE TRENDS

                                 Percent Change in Population         Percent Change in Residential
                                         April to April                    Electrical Customers
                   Year                    (Estimates)                        April to April

                 1970-71                       0.8                                  1.7
                 1971-72                          0                                 2.1
                 1972-73                       04                                   2.0
                 1973-74                          0                                 2.9
                 1974-75                       0.2                                  1.4
                 1975-76                       0.5                                  1.6
                 1976-77                       1.5                                  2.6
                 1977@78                       1.5                                  4.3
                 1978-79                       2.2                                  4.1
                 1979-80                       4.1                                  2.7

                 SOURCE:   Office of Financial  Management and previous table.

                 difficult. Due to this change, extensive adjustments based on detailed infor-
                 mation will be required for accurate comparisons. , This can be undertaken only
                 after all detailed Census data is reported. Such details will not be available
                 until next year, at the earliest. In the interim only a crude comparison is
                 possible to gain general insight, and more detailed analysis in this report
                 will depend primarily on the methods developed in previous years as based upon
                 electrical connection data. This electrical information does have the additional
                 advantage of providing highly detailed information for every year, not just U.S.
                 Census years.

                      All CCID's have be en adjusted by the Bureau of the Census. The degree of
                 this adjustment varies from rendering any comparison in some areas between
                 Censuses impossible to relatively minor adjustments involving few if any people.
                 In the study area, two major problems are present. First, the Central Park
                 area is no longer a separate CCD but is incorporated into the Aberdeen-Hoquiam
                 area. Consequently, population data for this area are no longer readily avail-
                 able. A Census Division south of Montesano has been substantially revised
                 paking comparison with earlier data impossible. This is particularly awkward
                 since the new boundary includes some property on the Project site. Fortunately,
                 even though this CCD incorporates some of the Project, it actually includes
                 very few people generally considered "East County" since it lies in the largely
                 uninhabited area to the southwest of the project. While the remaining CCD's
                 have all been adjusted and consequently prevent accurate.comparison, they,
                 nonetheless, represent the same general areas of the County, and the bulk of
                 their population is unaffected by the boundary changes, If Central Park and
                 South Montesano areas are excluded, the remainder of the CCD's in the study
                 area have basically the same overall boundary. The population of these five
                 CCD's together increased by 26.6% during the last' decade (an annual average
                 increase of 2.4%). Table 1.4 presents the available population data for these
                 CCD's. Table 1.5 compares growth trends in the cities of East County.

                                                           15

                                                           TABLE 1. 4
                                            1970-1980 POPULATION OF STUDY AREA

                                                    1970            1980           Annual Rate of Increase
                   Central Park*                    3,164          -N/A                    N/A
                   Montesano Area
                     (Wynoochee CCD)**              5,231           6,253                  1.8
                   Elma Area
                     (Elm and Malone/
                     Porter CCD)                    5,034           6,523                  2.6
                   McCleary Area
                     (McCleary CCD)                 1,891           2,818                  4.1
                   Oakville Area
                     (Oakville CCD)                 1,220           1,345                  1.0
                   Total Excluding
                     Central Park                  13,376-         16,939                  2.4
                   Grays Harbor County              59,553         66,314                  1.1

                   *Revision in CCD boundaries Included the Central Park area in Aberdeen@Hoquiam CCD,
                   and consequently the 1970 figure has no 1980 counterpart.

                   **Previous reports included a CCD for the South Montesano area. Substantial
                   revision in CCD boundaries makes the 1980 CCD totally uncomparable to 1970
                   data.

                                                           TABLE 1.5
                                          POPULATION GROWTH OF EAST COUNTY CITIES

                                               1970      1980      Percent Change        Annual  Growth Rate
                   Montesano                2,847       3,24-7            14.0                   1.3
                   Elma                     2,227       2,720             22.1                   2.0
                   McCleary                 1,265       1,419             12.2                   1.2
                   Oakville                                537            16.7                   1.6
                   TOTAL                    6,799       7,923             16.5                   1.6
                   East County
                     Unincorporated         6,577       9,016             37.1                   3.2

                         As noted on this table, the City of Elma is the fastest growing of the
                   four cities, averaging an annual growth rate of 2% for the decade with the other
                   cities slightly exceeding a growth of 1% per year.

                         Comparison of Table 1.4 with 1.5 indicates,that most of the East County
                   population growth occurred outside the cities where the growth rate was over
                   two times faster thanthe incorporated areas. This difference was particularly
                   dramatic in the McCleary area.

                         Table 1.6 examines.East County growth trends in greater detail from a          nother
                   perspective. It presents the change and growth in various areas of East County

                                                                16

                                                                         TABLE 1. 6
                                                         GROWTH OF  RESIDENTIAL POWER CONNECTIONS
                                                                         1974-1980

                                                     Before Construction                            During Construction
                                                  Total New     Annual Rate      Total New     Annual Rate      Total New      Annual Rate
                                                  Connections of Growth-M        Connections of Growth W Connections of Growth
                                                  1974-1977     1974-1977        1977-1979      1977-1979       1979-1980      1979-1980
                central, Park*                           38           1.1               60           2.6              16            1.4
                Montesano Area Total*                   116           1.9              338           7.2              96            3.7
                  Montesano City                         32           1.0               73           3.4              27            2.4
                  Rural*                                 84           2.5              265          10.5              69            4.7
                Elma-McCleary Area Total                237           2.7              583           9.1             164            4.5
                  Elma City                             130           5.0              243          11.9              15            1.2
                  McCleary City Area                       6          0.3               16           1.3              14            2.3
                  Rural (includes-Satsop   Area)        101           2.4              324          10.3             135            7.4
                Oakville Area Total                      47           3.2               56           5.3              25            4.4
                  Oakville City                            8          1.3                 3          0.7                6           2.8
                  Rural                                  39           4.6               53           8.3              19            5.3
                Total East County                       438           2.2            1,037           7.2             301            3.8
                Total East County   Cities              176           2.2              335           5.7              62            2.0
                Total East County   Rural               262           2.2              702           8.2             239            @.O

                Urban Area                              447           1.1              523           2.0              55            0.4

                Remainder  of County**                  615           3.5              709           5.5             373            5.3
                County Total                          1,500           2.0            2,269           4.3             729            2.6

                SOURCE: Table GH-T.32.16.20 and 22, 10/79 and GH-T-16.27, 10/80.
                Figures are computed on basis    of averages for first half of the year as reported       an the referenced tables.
                *Adjustments made for a route change in Central Park and Montesano rural area in          the fall of 1977. **This includes
                all remaining areas of the County with the majority of this population being concentrated on the north and south
                beach areas.

                                                                                   MAP 1. 1

                                                                     EAST COUNTY GROWTH PATTERNS
                                                                                   1977-1980

                                                                                                ----------------                                        ------

            cc

                                                               .. .........

                                                                                                                                                   .001@

                     SOURCE: Residential Electrical Connec ons.

                  in residential-electrical connections. This electrical service information has
                  some advantages over population data in that it is available bi-monthly and is
                  very detailed. However, it has some disadvantages in that it does not directly
                  measure population growth <it measures households instead) and is available in
                  this detail only since 1974. As indicated on Table 1.6, East County growth
                  increased substantially since the start of the Construction Project. While this
                  growth was particularly rapid during the first two years of construction, it
                  has slacked somewhat during the-last year. As in the case of population growth,
                  this growth exceeds the County as a whole and was particularly strong in the
                  unincorporated areas of the County.

                       The most dramatic change in East County growth patterns during the last
                  year occurred in the City of Elma where the annual growth rate of electrical
                  connections declined from 11.9% per year to 1.2%. This rate of growth was
                  even far below the annual growth rates which were typical of the preconstruction
                  period.

                       As compared to East County, the urban area of the County grew at even a
                  slower rate during the last year than any of the prior periods. Also, the
                  remainder of the County (consisting mainly of the beach areas) continues its
                  steady growth in new electrical connections. While this rate continues, pre-
                  liminary data from the U.S. Census for 1980 indicates that many of these new
                 .connections may be second and vacation homes or trailers and not permanent
                  residents.2

                       Comparison of Tables 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 indicates that growth was not
                  uniform during the entire decade; 1974 to 1977 has slower rates of growth than
                  later in the decade.

                       1.4 Conclusion: After   a period of moderate population growth during the
                  late 1960's and probably the early 1970's, population growth again slacked to
                  a slow pace. After a very low growth rate during 1974 and 1975, population
                  growth spurted 'forward reaching a peak rate of growth during the construction
                  period. This recent growth is occurring most rapidly in the Elma-Montesano,
                  area, but over a longer trend the beach communities tend to have a stronger
                  growth rate. The urban area of the county tends to be slowest growing, both
                  over the long and short term.

                                                      CHAPTER 1
                                                        NOTES

                  1.   The reliability and accessibility of this information is particularly good
                       since there are'only two electrical utilities in the County: Grays Harbor
                       PublicUtility District Number 1 and McCleary Light and Power. Both are
                       public agencies, both are members of the Regional Planning Commission, and
                       both are participants in the Project. All electrical utility information
                       used in this report was'generously supplied by these utilities to the
                       Monitoring Program.

                  2.   There generally was a high discrepancy  in the beach areas between recorded
                       utility connections and occupied housing units, while thes'e counts were
                       much more consistent in other part of the county. Correspondence between
                       the Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission and the Bureau of Census

                                                         '19

                     has lead to the conclusion that many of the recorded "residential con-
                    .nections" serve unoccupied trailer spaces and other situations where a
                     "housing unit" by Census definition does not exist.

                                                        20

                                                  CHAPTER 2

                                           GENERAL CAUSES OF'GROWTH

                                                        21

                                           2.- GENERAL CAUSES OF GROWTH

                      2.1- Introduction: Although growth has slowed during the third year of
                 construction, it is clear that substantial growth in new households has been
                 occurring in the county since the start of the Construction Project. A sub-
                 stantial part of this growth is focused on East,County and appears to be related
                 to that Project. Quantifying the relationship between this growth and the
                 Project is a difficult task due to complex interrelationships between population
                 growth, household formation, economic change, and other factors which influence
                 population growth and how it is manifested. The previous reports analyzed
                 these influences in detail and noted several general influences on the growth
                 of households in the county. These influences were:
                      1.   The declining average household size;1
                      2.   General economic growth in the county;2
                      3.   The Satsop Project itself.

                      All of these influences continue to operate within the county.

                      2.2 Declining Household Size and Growth: Growth in the number of house-
                 holds is not necessarily the same as growth in population. Population st&dies
                 have, in fact, demonstrated that households are generally increasing at a much
                 faster rate than the rate of population growth. This is generally attributed
                 to several important factors including:3

                      1.   A declining birth rate and hence smaller families;
                      2.   High (and increasing) divorce and separation rates, e.g. a divorce
                           generally creates two households in place of one; and,
                      3.   Changing family structures with young adults and senior citizens
                           forming own households instead of living with other family members.

                      The effects of these factors tend to vary from place to place. Past
                 reports have utilized a generally recognized rate of decline of average household
                 size of 1.4% per year .4 This factor can now be evaluated on the basis of 1980
                 U.S. Census data as compared on Table 2.1. Remarkably, the 1.4% factor was
                 correct and this report will continue to use this factor to attribute the
                 ef f ect of the declining household size to population growth. Table 2.2 attributes
                 the amount of County growth that is due to new households formed by population
                 growth by year.

                                                      TABLE  2.1
                                   AVERAGE ANNUAL DECLINE IN RATIO OF POPULATION
                                   PER RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICAL SERVICE, 1970-1980

                  YEAR                                    POPULATION          SERVICES         RATIO

                  1970                                       59,553             22,919         .2.5984
                  1980                                       66,356             29,463         2.2522
                  Percent Change                               11.4%             28.6%         -13.3%
                  Average Annual Percent Change                 1.1%              2.5%          -1.4%

                                                            22

                                                           TABLE 2.2
                                            HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND HOUSEHOLD GROWTH
                                                        IN GRAYS HARBOR

                              Actual          Projected       Connections
                              P.U.D..         Average         Needed To            Net New         Annual
                              Electrical      Household       Maintain             Households       Increment
                              Services        Size*           Household   Size     Since 1970      From 1970

                    1970        22,919           2.5984           22,919                  -              -
                    1971        23,305           2.5615           23,249                 56            56
                    1972        23,797           2.5251           23,584               213            157
                    1973        24,274           2.4892           23,925               349            136
                    1974        24,983           2.4538           24,270              .713            364
                    1975        25,342           2.4190,          24,619               723             10
                    1976        25,760           2.3846           24,974               786             63
                    1977        26,428           2.3507           25,334            1,094             308
                    1978'       27,562           2.3173           25,699            1,863             769
                    1979        28,677           2.2843           26,071            2,606             743
                    1980        29,463           2.2519           26,446            3,017             411

                    Percent Of  Net New Households                                  13.16%

                    Percent Population Growth                                       11.4%**

                    *1970 ratio of population to electrical connections reduced by 1.4% per year.
                    **13.16% reduced by -13.3% for effect of declining household. size in new
                    households.

                        In East   County the declining household size accounts for a portion of the
                  increase in number of households as measured by electrical connections. Table
                  2.2 portrays the growth which is occurring in the study area beyond that which
                  can be attributed to the decrease in average household size. As noted in the
                  previous report, this computation of declining houstihold size is based on the
                  national average trend which might be assumed to be an expression of the over-
                  all tendency. However, the actual rate of decrease is highly subject to local
                  conditions which can vary substantially from place to place and time to time.
                  These conditions may include availability of dwellings, social conditions,
                  divorce rates, employment opportunities (especially for the young), etc.5

                        Table 2.3 indicates that the increase in the number of households in East
                  County between 1974 and the beginning of the Satsop Project had not been
                  significantly greater than that needed to accommodate the effect of the
                  declining household size. The major exception to.this was the City of Elma and
                  the rural area of Oakville. After the start of the Construction Project, the
                  increase in households wa's much greater than that which can be attributed to
                  the decline in household size. The pace of growth, however, slacked during the
                  last year in all of the study area.

                        2.3 Economic Change and      Growth: A major stimulus to any growth, either
                  in terms of total population or hous@holds, can be an increase in employment
                  opportunities. The previous reports illustrated the overall relationship in
                  the county between growth in      employment, households, and population. This
                  discussion will update that analysis.

                                                                 23

                                                        TABLE 2.3
                                 GROWTH IN RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS ABOVE
                                   GROWTH ATTRIBUTABLE TO DECLINING HOUSEHOLD SIZE

                                   Before Construction                   During Construction
                                  Total          Annual     Total         Annual      Total         Annual
                                  Net New        Growth     Net New       Growth      Net New       Growth
                                  Households     Not        Households    Not         Households    Not
                                  Not            Due        Not           Due         Not           Due
                                  Attributable   To         Attributable  To          Attributable  To
                                  To Declining   Declining  To Declining  Declining   To Declining  Declining
                                  Household      Household  Household     Household   Household     Household
                                  Size           Size       Size          Size        Size          Size
              Area                1974-1977      1974-1977  1977-1979     1977-1979   1979-1980     1979-1980

              Central  Park            -9              0'       28            1.2%          -
              Montesano Area
              Total                    24           0.4%       271            5.8%  -      59           2.2%
                Montesano City        -12           -0.4%       42            1.9%         11           1.0%
                Rural                  36           1.1%       229            9.2%         48           3.3%
              Elma-McCleary
              Area Total              115           1.3%       492            7.8%       113            3.1%
                Elma City              94           3.6%       214            10.5%        -2          -0.2%
                McCleary City         -20           -1.1%       -2            -0.2%         6           0.9%
                Rural                  41           1.0%       280            9.0%       109            6.0%
              Oakville Area
              Total                    27           1.9%        41            3.9%         17           3.0%
                Oakville City                         0         -3            -0.7%         3           1.4%
                Rural                  27           3.2%        44            6.9%         14           3.8%
              Total Study Area        157.          0.8%       832            5.8%       189            2.4%
              ;.iberdeen-Roquiam
              @@rban Area             -82           0.2%       159            0.6%       -132          -1.0%
              Beach-Other Areas       369           2.1%       524            4.1%       273            3.9%
                      Total           444           0.6%      1,515           2.9%       330            1.2%

              SOURCE:   Analysis  of  Tables GH-T.32.16.20   and 22, 10/79 and GH-T.16.27, 10/80.
                        Because of rounding figures might not tally.

                       Table 2.4 describes the change in employment which has occu       rred since 1975
                  in the regional economy. While this table indicates a dramatic growth in employ-
                  ment, this recent economic experience is somewhat misleading since 1975, as
                  will be shown on Graph 2.1, was a very bad year economically, and much of the
                  growth that has recently occurred may be considered a recovery from that year.
                  Unfortunately, however, 1980 (for which detailed data are not yet available)
                  appears to be a very bad year similar to 1975. While 1980 data are not available,
                  it is 1979 employment trends which would influence population growth during the
                  period covered by this report. 1980 employment trends will impact current
                  population levels.

                       In order to separate the effect of the economic recovery from the intrinsic
                  long-term growth which might be occurring in the region, a regression analysis

                                                              24

                                                        TABLE 2.4
                                      ACTUAL LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT CHANGE
                                              1975-1979 (ANNUAL AVERAGES)

                                                                                      Number     Percent
                                                     1975        1977,      1979*     Change     Change
                 Labor Force                        25,544     27,540      32,020     6,476        25.4
                 Employment                         22,388     24,884      29,250     6,862        30.7
                 Unemployment                        3,156       2,656      2,770       -386     -12.2
                 Wage and Salary
                  .Employment                       19,300     22,460      25,860     6,560        34.0
                 Manufacturing                       6,620       81090      7,960     1,340        20.2
                 Non-Manufacturing                  12,680     14,370      17,900     5,220        41.2
                   Construction                         760      1,200      2,870     2,110      277.6
                   Transportation, Commun-
                   ications,and Utility                 920      1,040      1,120        200       21.7
                   Trade                             3,790       4,400      4,790     11000        26.4
                   Finance, Insurance,
                     And Real Estate                    500         600       740        240       48.0
                   Service and Miscellaneous         3,070       3,540      4,000        930       30.3
                   Government                        3,640       3,590      4,160        520       14.3
                 Workers in Labor Disbute               270         100       260        ---       ---

                 SOURCE: 'Tables under Employment    Section of  various Monitoring Reports.
                 *1979 figures are subject to revision by the Department of Employment Security.

                 was done on,the annual average employment between 1970 and 1977 to establish
                 the basic trends in employment prior to construction. This analysis "averages
                 out" the differences which occur in the economy inany particular year to give
                 a view of*the overall trend. The result of this analysisis presented on Graph
                .2.1. (The regression lines are the straight lines.) A similar analysis was
                 done on the trend in residential electrical connections for comparative
                 purposes.

                       This graph portrays, in spite of the poor performance in 1975, an overall
                 growth potential occurring in the economy, and a strong relationship is
                 illustrated between household growth and employment. In fact, the slopes of
                 the regression lines (the number added each year) are almost the same for
                 electrical connections as wage and salary employment--about 530 new jobs or
                 connections each year.

                       This close relationship may seem to downplay the importance of the declin-
                 ing household size as a determinant of household growth as discussed previously.
                 However, both labor force participation and household size are.undergoing
                 similar changes. The number of labor force participants per family or per
                 total population.is dramatically increasing just as the      'ratio of households to
                 population is increasing. The -prime stimulus of. this is the increasing pro-
                 portion of females who are labor force participants although this is aided by
                 other factors.6

                       As illustrated in Table 2.3, growth in new households in the county has
                 apparently accelerated since the Satsop Project began. In order to examine

                                                            25

                                                     GRAPH 2.1
                                    AVERAGE ANNUAL LA13OR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT.
                         WAGE AND SALARY EMPLOYMENT, AND RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICAL SERVICE
                                            WITH 1977 REGRESSION ANALYSIS

                                                   LEGEND

                              30    CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
                                    RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICAL SERVICES
                                    CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
                                    WAGE 6 SALARY EMPLOYMENT
                                   I.REGRESSION
                              28     SCALE: 1"   2,000 pers.ons/hous.eholds

                              26
                                                                                                   4f

                           (n

                           <
                           tA 24

                           0

                                   'ss

                           D
                           z

                                                              no*,*
                                                   400
                                                  too

                              16

                              1970    1971   1972   1973    1974    197S   1976    1977   1978    1979

                                                                26

                  whether there is a relationship between household growth'(especially growth
                  above that which is needed to accommodate a declining household size) and
                  employment growth (especially growth above that necessary to recover from
                  the 1975 recession), Table 2.5 was prepared. This table contrasts the actual
                  employment levels of the County in 1976 and 1979 with long-term employment
                  trends as determined by regression analysis. Total employment levels in 1976
                  were almost even with the-long-tem trend although manufacturing was ahead
                  and non-manufacturing (especially trade) was lagging. In 1979, the long-term
                  trend in employment levels was significantly exceeded by the actual     ', though
                  manufacturing lagged. The increase in total employment even accelerated. if
                  this increase continues, th6n one can expect a continued rise in households.

                                                        TABLE 2.5
                                    TREND DEVIATION IN EMPLOYMENT AND LABOR FORCE
                                               1976-1979 ANNUAL AVERAGES

                                                                           1976
                                                                              Number         Percent
                                                    Expected       Actual     Deviation      Deviation
                  Labor Force                         26,387       26 249          -138         -0.5
     0            Employment                          24,055       24:142            87          0.4
                  Wage and Salary Employment          21,030       21,210          180           8.6
                  Manufacturing                        7,699        7,880          181           2.4
                  Non-Manufacturing                   13,328       13,330            2           0.0
                  Trade                                4,144        4,060          -84          -2.0
     0                                                                      1979*
                                                                              Number         Percent
                                                    Expected       Actual     Deviation      Deviation
                  Labor Force                         27,272       32,020        4,748          17.4
                  Employment                          25,042       29,250        4,208          16.8
                  Wage and'Salary Employment          22,626       25,860        3,234          14.3
                  Manufacturing                        8,185        7,960          -225         -2.7
                  Non-Manufacturing                   14,435       17,900        3,465          24.0
                  Trade                                4,567        4,790          223           4.9

                  SOURCE: Tables in various Monitoring Reports under      Employment Section.
                  Expected figures were derived from regression analysis. *1979 figures are
                  subject to revision by the Department of Employment-Security.

                        As employment rises, new entrants to the labor force are needed. New
                  entrants to the labor force can come from three major      sources:

                        1.   People may enter the labor force upon the availability of new Jobs
                             who generally may-not be even seeking work when jobs are not
                             generally available. The largest group of such people are housewives
                             and youth who work periodically. Another group are long-term,
                             unemployed people who may be discouraged from looking for work during
                             bad times.
                        2.   Youth may enter the labor force for the first time--for example, after
                             graduation.

                                                            27.

                        3.   New in-migrants may be attracted to the area by potential jobs.
                              The more employment grows, the more likely that new migrants will
                             be attracted to the area.7

                        The past significant growth in employment is likely to have drawn heavily
                   upon the first two groups already. Consequently, employment increases during
                   1980 will, to a great extent, have to rely on in-migration.

                        In summary, long-term employment growth is occurring along with the gradual
                   increase in households. A recent spurt in employment growth is occurring which
                   reflects the recovery from a recession to a longer term trend of economic growth
                   and a recent increase in manufacturing activity. This recent growth is expected
                   to lead to an acceleration of household growth during the study period. This
                   seems to be reflected in the recent spurt of growth in residential utility
                   connections. As shown on Table 2.3, most of this growth is occurring in the
                   East County area and the beach area with little new growth occurring in the
                   urban area though most of the growth in the key economic sectors is concentrated
                   in the urban area (also see Table 5'.5).8 This suggests that at least a portion
                   of the household growth occurring in East County is due to a suburban effect
                   from Aberdeen-Hoquiam. As previously noted, economic growth has been reversed
                   since the period covered by this analysis, and this situation may not be
                   occurring now. However, the current economic problems may account for some of
                   the slow down in new households indicated on Table 2.3.

                        2.4 Other General Causes of Growth: There are other causes of household
                   growth than the decline in average household size and employment growth. The
                   most prevalent of these could-be an in-migration of retired-age people. Other
                   studies by the Regional Planning Commission have indicated that the potential
                   net effect of this influence on population growth in the East County area
                   is minimal.9

                       .In addition to the general growth of employment in Grays Harbor County,
                   there has also been a much higher and consistent growth in employment in
                   Thurston County (Table 2.6). This growth, in turn, has resulted in Thurston
                   County having the highest rate of population, growth (61.6% since 1970) of any
                   county over 50,000 population in the State.         Since the study area is within
                   commuting range to this growth, it is reasonable to assume that a portion of
                   the growth in households in East County is due to this influence.

                                                          TABLE 2.6
                                         POPULATION, LABOR FORCE, AND EMPLOYMENT
                                                      THURSTON COUNTY

                                         1971           1973          1975           1977            1979

                   Population           78,700         81,300        85,900          101,000        111,100
                   Labor Force          35,330                       40,235          44,090          52,640
                   Employment           32,750          35,350       37,242          40,880          48,950
                   Unemployment          2,580           2,870         2,993           3,210          3,690
                   % Unemployed            7.3%           7.5%          7.4%            7.3%           7.0%

                   SOURCE: Washington    State  Employment Security   Department and   various Monitoring
                             tables.

                                                              28

                     A further influence is the influence of housing market and supply. When
                financing for new units is not available, fewer units are constructed. This
                tends to constrict housing growth which creates a pent up demand for new housing.
                When financing becomes available, there then is a tendency for the supply to
                rapidly catch up with the market creating a relatively fast spurt of growth.
                Since 1975 was a poor year economically, this factor could be at work in this
                area (see Sections in Chapter 6 relating to building permit data). However,
                since this "pent up" demand would only reflect other causes of housing growth,
                such as declining household size and employment growth, this factor would only
                affect the timing and not the ultimate number of new households. Indeed,this
                factor may be contributing to the slackening in growth during the first part of
                1980 as shown on Table 2.3 (it does account for much of the current slowdown
                in building starts).

                     2.5 Conclusion: Prior to the start of the Construction Project, the
                principal cause of growth in the number of households in the region was the
                declining average household size. Since the Project began the growth of new
                households attributable to new population to the area exceeded this factor.
                It is also apparent that the growth in population continues to be related to
                general economic growth in both Grays Harbor County and Thurston Counties.

                     In the study area the focus of household growth attributable to population
                growth is clearly in the "Elma area. However, the rate of population growth
                slackened significantly in most other areas of the county during the third
                year of construction.

                                                    CHAPTER 2
                                                      NOTES

                1.   Declining household size is also discussed in detail in the Grays Harbor
                     Regional Planning Commission, Grays Harbor Region Housing Element, June
                     1979.

                2.   For greater information regarding regional economic conditions, see Grays
                     Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Grays Harbor Overall Economic
                     Development Program, June 1979.

                3.   See-
                     - Oifice of Fiscal Management (O.F.M.), State Population Trends 1976,
                       Washington State, 1976.
                     - O.F.M., State Population Trends, 1977, Washington State, 1977.
                     - O.F.M., State Population Trends, 1979, Washington State, 1979.
                     - Office of Community Development, 1978 Housing Report, Washington State,
                       1978.
                     - See also Note I and Note 9 of this Chapter.

                4.   While several factors are reported in the literature cited, O.F.M. 1976
                     op.cit. was used due to data reported in the First Year Report. A more
                     recent report by O.F.M. in 1979 cited that the national rat  e is now 1.5%
                     per year.

                5.   For a verification of the 1.4% rate used to estimate declining household
                     size see Table 10 in the First Year Report.

                                                        29

      -IN

                  6.   Overall Economic Development Plan, June 1979, op.,cit.

                  7.   For an excellent discussion of the relationship between migration and
                       regional economic development see:
                       - Hoover, Edgar, An Introduction to Regional Economics, Alfred A. Knopf,
                         New York, 1975.

                  8. Overall Economic Development Program Report, June 1979, op. cit.

                  9.   - Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Part   One, City of Monte-sano
                         Comprehensive Plan, City of Montesano, November   1977.
                       - Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Part   One, City of Elma Compre-
                         hensive Plan, September 1978.
                       - Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, City   of McCleary Comprehensive
                         Plan., Part One, September 1978.
                       - Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission,    City of Oakville Comprehensive
                         Plan, Part One, September 1978.
                  10.  Derived from preliminary 1980 U.S. Census Reports.    Only Island and San
                       Juan Counties exceeded Thurston County growth.

                                                           30

                                                   CHAPTER 3

                               INFLUENCE OF SATSOP CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON GROWTH

                                                         31

                              3. INFLUENCE OF SATSOP CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON GROWTH

                       3.1 Introduction: The foregoing discussion has documented that the
                  number of households in the County is increasing, and recent growth has been
                  focused on East County and the ocean beaches. The discussion has suggested
                  that two major underlying causes of this increase can be found occurring in
                  this area:

                       1.   A decreasing average household size; and,
                       2.   A general growth in employment opportunities   in Grays Harbor and
                            Thurston County.

                       Within the economic,growth of Grays Harbor is the   Satsop Project. Since
                  population is focused on the area within the imm diate   vicinity of the Con-
                  struction Project, the actual relationship of the Project to population growth
                  and its location merits close examination.

                       The Satsop Project is adding large numbers of new jobs in the economy of
                  the area. This has increased just during the last year from 2,211 to 3,1.43.1
                  The project is currently the largest single employer in the County and is equal
                  to 10.1%,of the total County employment. Ordinarily, a new employer of this
                  magnitude would produce a substantial increase in population growth: However,
                  a construction project, by its more temporary nature of employment, may not
                  have as direct a bearing on population growth as many other types of employment
                  may have.

                       In practical terms, the impact of a major construction project on population
                  growth is largely a question of whether the construction force tends to be
                  people who commute to the area from residence's in other areas or of people who
                  migrate to the construction area.2 Furthermore, for the purposes here, the
                  number of people who migrate to Grays Harbor County rather than to the neighbor-
                  ing counties is the primary concern for estimating the amount of Coun   ty growth
                  due to this factor. In-migrating workers also fall into at least two categories:
                  (a) very temporary residents who may reside in rooming houses, recreation
                  vehicles, motels, and other temporary accommodat  ions; and (2) new residents who
                  establish households of a more permanent nature.     Obviously, the impact of the
                  first group on population growth will be somewhat less significant than the
                  latter, although the first group may create special t  ypes of social impacts
                  not necessarily related to household growth (as commuters may likewise produce).
                  These concerns will be addressed inother parts of this report.

                       In addition to in-migrating workers are, of course, local residents who
                  gain employment on the Project. These residents may impact potential employ-
                  ment and population growth in several possible ways:

                       1.   The employment on the-Project could reduce    the propensity of these
                            workers to migrate out of the County;
                       2.   These workers may leave another job in the   County which needs to be
                            filled, potentially by a non-migrant; and,
                       3.   These two factors plus possible higher incomes for the resident
                            worker would stimulate a.multiplier effect creating new jobs.

                       The methodology that will be used in this section is graphically displayed
                  on Models 3.1 and 3.2.

                                                           32

                                 MODEL 3.1: INPUT ANALYSIS

                                                           iNFQLWION BASE                                           FIRST STAGE ANALYSIS
                                                            SOS or 1                                                12.    COMPUTE ANNUAL
                                                                                                                                                              --COMPUTE:
                                                           POPULATION[                                                     RATE OF DECLINE                      NUMBER OF NEW
                                                           97k4dLj                         CONNECT                         IN RATIO OF POPU_                    SERVICES DUE TO
                                                      i_.-NUMBER   .OF                     1970 & 19                       LATION TO SERVICES                   DECLINING HOUSE-
                                  POPETLATION              ELECTRICAL                                             '13.     INCREA.' ____                        HOLD SIZE
                                                           SERVICES BY                                                                             __--jP_NMER OF NEW
                                        AND                                                                                             NCE
                                                                                                                           SERVICE
                                   HOUSEHOLD               YEAR AND                                                                  iROJECT                    SERVICES DUE TO
                                       SIZE                                                                                                                     NET MIGRATION

                                                      d.   ECONOMIC BAS                1.  DETERMINE'
                                          11               STUDY WITH                      PROPORTION OF                      Ufflrumm OF:
                                        LABOR              ANALYSIS BY                     EACH SECTOR                     -BASIC JOBS ADDED
                                       FORCE                 CTOR                          RASICIggy-piml                  -NON-BASIC JOBS ADDEE
                                     ANALYSIS              EMPLOYMEN                 12..DETERHIWE"                        -OVERALL RATIO
                                                           BY SECTOR                       INCREASE IN EAC
                                                     rBY YEAR                              SECTORBASIC/
                                                                                            Misic
                                                      r.   SIrRVEY OF                  as  PROPORTION                      FURTHER CLASSIFY
                                                           WORKERS BY                      OF WORKERS                      TRANSIENT
                                                           TYPE OF                         IN TRANSIENI                    OTHER IN-MIGRANT
                                                             SIDESM                    -   HOUSING                                                         10. TABULATE BY      AREA:
                                                               RE      -1
                                                                   SSES OF                                                                                      IN-MIGRANT
                                       PROJECT                                         5.  IDENTIFY                                                                  SIENT
                                       wo"MR.                      ONE                     WORKERS LISTED                                                         RIM RESIDE-
                                      ANALYSIS             BOOKS   EFFECTIV                AND NOT LISTED
                                                           AT START OF                     AND TABULATE                7. LASSIFY AS;
                                                                                           BY AREA                         IN-MIGRANT                                 I
                                                                                                                     I     PRIOR RESIDEN
                                                        i. ESTI14ATE OF
                                                           PROPORTION OF               6.  ADJUST BY
                                                           HOUSEHOLDS WITH                 ESTIMATE
                                                   L       Mj1�TED MWXA�
                                                                                           !THRCAL
                                                                                              ECTIONS
                                                                                                   9

                                                                                                                           COMP
                                                                                                             C             -BAS
                                                                                                        i:?AC
                                                                                                        @C/

                               MODEL 3.2; IMPACT A.NA.LYSIS

                                  GROWTH

                                A. HOUSEHOLDS
                                  ArTRIBUTABLE                                                                                             0.
                                  To GROWTH
                                  BY AREA

                                  FAaORS

                                  WORIMRS
                                  PER
                                  HOUSEHOLD
                                  SECONDARY               2.                  3. SECONDARY
                                  04PLOYMEN                MULT.                                                         13. C
                                  HULT                                         -EMPLOYMEN
                                                                                             5.                          DIST
                                                                                4.            TOTAL                         BY
                                                                                  ADD         IN-MIGPANT
                                                                                              WORKERS

                                  SATSOP                                                                                      5. .
                                  WORKERS                  ADD                                                                BY  .2          .16. MULT

                                                                                               6.
                                                           -4                                    SUB.
                                                                                                                             14. ADD
                                                                                                                                BY
                                E. PRIOR                                                     7.                                 RE
                                  RESIDE-m                                                    IN-;lGRANT
                                  BY AREA                                                     HOUSEH
                                                                                                    OLDS

                                                                                                                             'COMPUTE.
                                  IN-MiGaw"                                                                                   PERCENT
                                                                                                                           DrSTR BUTION
                                                                                                                             BY REA
                                                                                                9. SUB.    0'SECONDARY
                                                                                                             110USEHOLDS

                                                           ADD
                                                           By AREA
                                                                                         T
                                   EC'
                                      L
                                       0
                                       'D
                                       Y:
                                        , N,
                                           Y

                                                                                                                             OMPUTE
                                                                                                                             ERCENT
                                                                                                                             RIBUTION
                                                                                                                              AREA

                                  SATSOP
                                  WO   RS
                                  Tir

                                                                                                                                A    Old,
                                                                                                           O-S

                      The Monitoring Project has collected substantial data which can be applied
                 to estimating the number of workers who are residents (both prior residents and
                 new migrants) of Grays Harbor County. The two main sources of information now
                 used are:

                      1.   Addresses of people hired at the project;4 and,
                      2.   A computerized worker survey conducted by.WPPSS of persons hired.

                      This information then can be used to identify in-migrating workers and
                 workers who were residents of thearea prior to the start of the Project. To
                 identify in-migrants, the hiring date addresses were compared to telephone
                 books for 1977, with those not listed considered to be in-migrants and those
                 listed counted as prior residents. This method has a tendency to overcount
                 the in-migration factor since people with unlisted numbers would be counted as
                 in-migrants. However, this data can be adjusted according to the general ratio
                 of unlisted and no telephone service to number of listed people.

                      The WPPSS' worker survey also makes it possible to go one step further and
                 separate those in-migrants who would be very temporary residents as it requested
                 information regarding the type of living quarters where each worker resided.
                 If it were assumed that those residing in motels/hotelb, rooming houses, recre-
                 ation vehicles, and "other" (and not houses, apartments, duplexes or mobile
                 homes) would be only transient, temporary residents, these then can be subtracted
                 to identify more permanent residents of the area. This tends to underestimate
                 transients since many apartment and mobile home renters could also fall into
                 this category.

                      Table 3.1 applies these computations to the July 1980 total Project employ-
                 ment.5 As indicated on that table a total of 658 workers have in-migrated to
                 the area with at least 219 of these being transients. The largest concentration
                 of these in-migrants is in the Elma-McCleary area. The urban area attracts a
                 relatively lower percent of'these workers.

                      Separate surveying in the City of Elma indicates that within the general
                 area of Elma-McCleary, the impact of the Project is sharply focused on the City
                 itself. While the 459 workers can account for 12.1% of the households in the
                 area, 26.6% of the households surveyed inside the City itself are Satsop
                 workers.6

                      Table 3.2 compares the results of this analysis with the results of the
                 earlier analysis.7 As noted, both in-migration of workers and employment of
                 the area residents have increased during the first two years with Project
                 employment almost tripling over this period.

                      Last year, however, while in-migration continued and even accelerated, the
                 number of prior residents employed on the Project declined in all areas except
                 the urban area. This apparent decline is probably due to a shift in the nature
                 of the Project's construction activities. Early site development activities
                 consisted of trades that were available in the construction sector of the
                 County. As construction activities shifted to other trades such as ironworkers,
                 pipefitters, etc., which were not in good supply locally, the proportion of
                 area residents on the project declined.8

                                                         35

     0                                                    TABLE 3.1
                                      RESIDENTIAL PATTERNS OF CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
                                                           JULY 1980
                                                 (PROJECT EMPLOYMENT 3,143)

                                                                   Other        Total        Prior
     0                                             Transient In-Migrant In-Migrant Resident Total
                    Elma-McCleary                      126           240'         366          93        459
                    Montesano                           25           67            92          53        145
                    Oakville                              0          22            22            3        25
                    Total-Primary Study Area           151           329          480         149        629
                    Total Urban Area*                   64           91           155         122        277
     0              Other Grays Harbor Area               4          19            23            7        30
                    Total County                       219           439          658         278        936

                    *Includes Central Park
     0              See Model 3.1, Products D, E,      and F, for computation methods.

                                                          TABLE 3.2
                                       CUMULATIVE CHANGE IN RESIDENT WORKER PATTERNS
                                                   JUNE 1978 TO JULY 1980

                                                    In-Migrants                      Prior Residents
                                             1978       19791        19801 -    1978       19791       19801

                     EAST COUNTY              125         292        480         119        176          149
                        Elma-m-McCleary        86         219        366          72        110          93
                        Montesano              32         59           92         41          58         53
                       Oakville                 7,        14           22          6          8           3
                     URBAN ARFkS2              28         ill        155          35        100          122
                     OTHER AREAS                9         17           23          9          12          7
                     TOTAL COUNTY             162         420        658         163        288          278
                     lCumulative for total     Project  and  includes transients.
                     21ncludes Central Park.

                     NOTE: Total Project employment increased from 1,093 in June 1978, to 2,211
                             in June 1979, to 3,.143 in July 1980.

                         3.2 Secondary Effect During the First Two        Years of Project Construction:
                    The "secondary effect" of a project is derived from the economic base theory of
                    how regional economies function. The concept of regional economics observes
                    that the economy of any region must be analyzed as a part of a larger national
                    economy. A region supports itself by producing something it can sell to other
                    areas. This income is then used to buy thingsthe region needs. While in the
                    process of this trading with other areas, there is also usually an exchange of
                    goods and services among local people. (A grocer buys his goods wholesale in
                    other areas and in turn sells them to local people.) The basic character of the
                    economy of a region is determined by this trading relationship with other areas.
     0                                                          36

                      In order to buy what it needs or wants, a region must first be able to
                 sell something to earn its income. This thing that is sold must be something
                 withwhich the region can effectively compete with other areas in selling and,
                 consequently, must relate to the particular or unique qualities of the region.
                 The ability to effectively compete with other areas in a particular goods or
                 service is referred to as the region's "comparative advantage." Since this
                 ability to.compete and sell something is what the economy depends upon, such
                 activities are considered "basic" economic activities to the region. Activities
                 which in turn depend on basic activities, or which rely on the region for its
                 market, are considered "non@-basic" activities. Since non-basic activities
                 depend upon basic activities, an expansion in.basic sectors will generally lead
                 to expansion in non-basic sectors. The degr ee to which basic activities support
                 non-basic is measured by the relationship or ratio of non-basic activities to
                 basic activities (measured either by employment or money). This ratio is
                 called the "multiplier effect.119

                      Under this concept, employment on the Construction Project can be viewed
                 as basic employment which produces income for the region to support other
                 economic activities. However, since much of this employment consists of com-
                 muters or very temporary residents, there is a rapid drain of this income from
                 the County to other counties thus having little affect on Grays Harbor. For
                 this reason, only resident project workers,- as identified in the First Year
                 Report, will be considered as basic'employment.

                      The first step in identifying the secondary effect of this resident employ-
                 ment is to establish an understanding of this existing basic, non-basic char-
                 acter on the regional economy. The Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission
                 has analyzed this character on the basis of the 1970 Census of Population, and
                 the results of that analysis are summarized-in the 1979 ed-ition of the Grays
                 Harbor Overall Economic Development-Plan. That analysis has estimated that each
                 basic job (primarily in forest products, agriculture, tourism, and seafoods)
                 supports another 1.5 non-basic jobs. (This ratio compares to.another analysis
                 of the regional economy based on 1970 Census data which yielded a result of
                 between 1.1 and 1.7.) The Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission has
                 estimated that the ratio has increased since 1970 to 1978 from 1.5 to 1.85.10
                 This analysis considered the basic or non-basic character of each sector of the
                 regional economy and identified the number of jobs in each sector which would
                 be engaged in basic activities and the number that would be engaged in non-
                 basic activities.- If the ratio between these jobs is then applied.to the change
                 which has occurred in each sector between June 1977 and June 1979, an estimate
                 of total change in basic jobs and non-basic jobs can be included. Table 3.3
                 makes these computations.

                      This table observes that for every new basic Job another 1.28 non-basic
                 Jobs were created. This ratio is lower     than the regional multiplier estab-
                 lised in the economic base analysis. This is probably due to an increase in
                 basic employment in'manufacturing counter to longer-term trends. In such an
                 increase, it generally takes some time before its full effect on trade and
                 service employment is felt. Consequently, this ratio should be viewed as
                 conservative. Table 3.3 also indicates that resident employment on the Project
                 accounts for 45.68% (7b8 of 1,550) of the growth in basic employment since
                 the start of the Project. Since 708 basic jobs were created. during this period,
                 906additional non-basic jobs are attributable to the Project..

                                                         37

                                                         TABLE 3.3
                                 BASIC AND NON-BASIC ECONOMIC CHANGE IN GRAYS HARBOR
                                                  JUNE 1977 TO JUNE 1979

                                                                             % Non-        New     New
                  .aector                         Change In    % Basic        Basic        Basic  Non-Basic
                                                  Employment Activities      Activities    Jobs    Jobs
                  Manufacturing                      780             87.5         12.5        682        98
                  Transportation,
                   Communication, and
                   Utilities                         290             6.7          93.3        19        271
                  Trade                              420             18.8         81.2        79        341
                  Finance, Insurance, and
     0             Real Estate                       140'            8.0          92.0        11        129
                  Services                           390             13.0         87.0        51        339
                  Government                         810             0.0         100.0          0       810
                  Construction, Excluding
                   Satsop Employment                    0            0.0         100.0          0        0
     0            Satsop Workers, Prior
                   Residents                         288            100.0         0.0         288        0
                  Satsop Workers, In-Migrants        420            100.0         0.0        420         0
                  Total                            3,538             0.0          0.0      1,550      1,988
                  Ratio                                                                               1.28
     0            SOURCE: GH-T.32.3.75, 3/79 and GH-T-32.3.126, 7/80.
                  See also Note 10 and Model 3.1for computations.

                       3.2.1 Migration for SecondaKy Jobs: An increase in secon          dary employment
                  does not automatically yield that same increase in new households since each
                  new family, on the average, has more than one potential labor force entrant.
                  Based on 1970 Census information and computations made in A Framework for
                  Projecting Employment and Population Chan&es Accompanying Energy Development
                  by the Argonne National Laboratory, each household in Grays Harbor County has
                  1.3 labor force participants.11 This factor then could be applied to the
                  estimated secondary jobs created by the Satsop Project, plus the number of in-
                  migrating workers (excluding transient workers), to derive an estimate of in-
                  migrating households formed in the County due to the Project. These computa-,
                  tions yield a total of 925 in-migrating households. Of-these workers, 297
                  have a12 least one permanent Satsop worker which leaves 628 secondary house-
                  holds.

                       3.2.2 Distribution of Secondary Workers: once the number of in-migrating
                  secondary worker households attributable to the Project is determined, the next
                  task nece6sary to measure the impact of the Project on growth patterns is to
                  distribute these secondary households to various areas of the County. Unlike
                  the construction workers, there is no way to identify in-migrating secondary
                  workers who are attributable to the Project and, hence, to measure residence
                  patterns. However, the residential location of such workers would probably be
                  influenced by two major factors: (1) the location of new households (hence,
                  the opportunity to reside), and (2) the residential location of Satsop con-
                  struction workers (hence the location of the economic stimulus). If these
                  factors are equally weighed, a distribution can be estimated as can be seen

                                                             38

                    on Table 3.4. Table 3.5     then combines the in-migrating secondary workers and
                    the construction workers    to estimate the amount of new growth in each area
                    attributable to the Satsop Project.

                                                           TABLE 3.4
                                         ALLOCATION OF SECONDARY HOUSEHOLDS DURING
                                         FIRST TWO YEARS OF CONSTRUCTION, 1977-1979

                                                                                                 Secondary
                                                                            Percent              Households
                                                             Percent of     Resident             Formed
                                                             Net New     1  Project2             During
                                                              Households    Workers    Average   1977-19793
                    Elma-McCleary Area                          32.5          46.5       39.5       248
                    Montesano Area                              17.9          16.5       17.2       108
                    Oakville Area                                 2.7           3.1        2.9        18
                    Primary Impact Area                         53.1          66.1       59.6       374
                    Urban Area (Including Central Park)         12.3          29.8       21.1       132
                    Other                                       34.6            4.1      19.4       122
                    Total                                       100.0        100.0       100.0      628

                    lExcludes  units needed for declining household size; Table 2.3 and Model 3.1.
                    'ZIncludes both in-migrants (including transients) and prior residents; Table 3.2.
                    3See Note  12 and Model 3.2., Step 17.

                                                           TABLE 3.5.
                                                SATSOP INDUCED GROWTH DURING.
                                            THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF.CONSTRUCTION
                                                            1977-1979

                                                                         New
                                                                         Households
                                                      Households Of      Attributable    Total4     % Of
                                        Net New       In-Migrating       To Secondary    Due-To     Total
                                        Househo'd 1
                                                .L S  Construction       Effects         Satsop     Net
                                        (Table 2.3)   Workers2           (Table 3.4)2    Project    Growth5
                     Elma-McCleary            492           149              248           397         80.7
                     Montesano                271           47               108           155         57.2
                     Oakville                   41          14                18             32        73.0
                     East County              804           210              374           584         72.6
                     Urban                    187           75               132           207        110.7
                    .Other                    524           12               122           134         25.5
                     Total                  1,515           297              628           925         61.1

                      See Model 3.1, product A.
                     2Excludes transients; computed     from SecondYear Report; Model 3.1,     product F.
                     3Secondary jobs plus in-migrants minus transients f by 1.3          permanent in-
                      migrant workers. (See Note 12 and Model 3.2, Step 17.)
                    @4Model 3.2, Step 19.
                     5Model 3.2, Step 21.

                                                               39

                        3.3 Secondary Effects    -During Third Year of Project Construction: Since
                    the employment data by sector necessary to analyze basic and non-basic employ-
                    ment growth are not yet available for 1980, it is not possible to make the
                    analysis of secondary impacts for the third year of construction. However, the
                    previous analysis does provide factors which, if applied to estimates of Project
                    worker residence patterns during the second year. will yield an interim estimate
                    of these effects. As identified on Table 3.3, one basic job created 1.28
                    secondary jobs in the Grays Harbor economy. This factor applied to the estimated
                    residents (228)13 that were employed during the third year of the project on
                    Table 3.3 would yield a secondary employment estimate (292). As in the case of
                    the first two years of the Project, these' 520 new jobs could be filled by 96
                    it new" transients and an addi 14 onal 326 in-migrating families of which 142 ate
                    in-migrating Satsop workers.     Table 3.6 attributes the remaining 184 new
                    secondary households added during the third year of construction to various
                    areas. Table 1.7 then combines them with the estimated distribution of in-
                    migrating WPPSS' workers added during the.third year. As noted on Table 3.7,
                    the Satsop Project appears to account for all growth in the County during the
                    third year of construction. In fact, a decline may have occurred without
                    the Project in East County.15

                                                        TABLE 3.6
                                          ALLOCATION OF SECONDARY HOUSEHOLDS
                                            DURING THIRD YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION
                                                          1979-1980

                                                            % Of
                                       % Of                 Resident                 Secondary
                                       Net New    1         Project 2     Average    Hous.eholds Formed
                                       Households           Workers       Percent    During 1979-1980
                    Elma-McCleary           34.2'             49.0         41.6                77
                    Montesano               17.8              15.5         16.6                31
                    Oakville                  5.2               2.7          4.0                7
                    Primary Area            57.3              67.2         62  `2            115
                    Urban Area              -40.0             29.6         _5.@              -10
                    Other Areas             82..7               3.2        43.0                79
                    .Total County           100.0            100.0         100.0             184
                    lExcluding new households    attributable to declining  household size.
                    21noludes prior residents, transients,    and in-migrants for full project
                     period. See Model 3.2 to Step 17 for     computations.

                        3.4 Conclusion: By combining the      effects of all three years of construc-
                    tion, it is then possible to estimate and compare the impact of the project on
                    County growth patterns. This is done on Table 3.8 and Map 3.1. In reviewing
                    these estimates, it must be noted that the estimated percent of Coun     'ty growth
                    attributable to the project is of net new household growth, not the percent of
                    all new households in this area.. In any area,.net growth results from the
                    combined effects of factors stimulating in-migration and out-migration. Con-
                    sequently, while the Sats 'op Project can account for all the net growth occurring
                    in the urban area during the construction period, it prob    .ably is only a part of
                    other factors attracting new households. However, Table 3.8 does indicate.that
                    without the Satsop Project there may not have been a net population increase in

                                                             40

                                                           TABLE 3.7
                                               SATSOP INDUCED GROWTH DURING
                                              THE THIRD YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION
                                                           1979-1980

                                                                         New
                                                       Households Of     Household's      Total,      % Of
    0                                 Net New          In-Migrating      Attributable     Due To      Total
                                     'Householdsl      Constru@tion      To Secondary     Satsop      Net
                                      (Table 2.3)      Workers           Effects3         ProJect4    Growth5
                   Elma-McCleary           113             91                  77             168      148.7
                   Montesano                59             20                  31             51        86.4
                   Oakville                 17               8                   7            15        88.2
                   East County             189             119                115            234       123.4
                   Urban Area              -132            16                 -10             .6          0.0
                   Other Area              273               7                 79             86        31.5
                   Total County            330             14.2               184             326       98.8
                   1Model 3.1, product     A.
                   2Excludes in-migrants.      The 1980   permanent resident migrants     minus   the 1979
                    permanent in-migrants.
                   3kodel 3.2, Step 17.
                   4Model 3.2, Step 19.
                   5Model 3.2, Step 21.

                  the urban area     during this period, and growth in the east part of the County
                  would have been    only 18% of what it subsequently has. been since 1977. In Elma-
                  McCleary, almost all of the'growth in the area is due to the Project.

                                                           TABLE 3.8
                                           SATSOP INDUCED GROWTH IN GRAYS HARBOR
                                            FOR THE'ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION PERIOb
                                                           1977-1980

                                                       Household Of      New
                                                       In-Migrating      Households       Total       % Of
                                                       Construction      Attributable     Due To      Total
                                      Net New          Workers           To Secondary     Satsop      Net
                                      Households'l     (Table 3.1)       Effects          Project     Growth
                  Elma-McCleary             605            240                325             565      93.4
                  Montesano                 330              67               139             206      62.4
                  Oakville                    58             22                25               47     81.0
                  East County               993            329                489             818      82.4
                  Urban Areas                 55             91               122             213     387.3
                  Other Areas               797              19               201             220      27.6
                  Total County             1,845           439                812            1,251,    67.8
                  1Excludes-new households attributable to the declining household size.

                                                                41

                                                                     MAP 3. 1
                                 TOTAL HOUSEHOLD GROWTH AND SATSOP INDUCED GROWTH IN GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY B)
                                                    FOR ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, 197 -19AO

                                                                                        Total New Househol@

                                                                                        Net New Households

                                                                                        Net New Households
                                                                                        In-Migrating Projec

                                                                                        Net New Households
                                                                                        Secondary Effects

                                                                                        Net New Households
                                                                                        Other Factors

                                                                                        Scale   0   400

                                                                                   EAST COUNTY AREA
                       BEACH &      ER-    EA.'                                                    -*,..  SO

                                                                                                  .04-1

                                             "Apc

                                                     CHAPTER 3
                                                       NOTES

                 1.   Monitoring table GH-T.32.15.50,  6/79 and GH-T.32.15.140, 10/80. Past
                      reports used June employment as  the year-end total. However, in 1980,
                      June was an atypical figure due  to several reasons: the Mt. Saint Helens
                      eruption, labor disputes, and the collapse of a crane. Both July and
                      May totals were greater than June. Consequently, July was used instead
                      for this report. May's peak employment was 3,330.

                 2.   Community Development Service Inc., op. cit. (Introduction, Note 2).

                 3.   Community Development Service Inc., Socioeconomic Impact Study WNP-1 and
                      WNP-4, Volume 4, Final Report, WPPSS, May 1979. Estimates of the pro-
                      portion of these types of in-migrants will be made in Chapter 4.

                 4.   For detailed descrip@-ions of this data and specific methodology, see
                      numerous tables as prepared by Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission
                      under the Primary Site-Related Data section of various Monitoring Reports.

                 5.   Area of residence and migratory status is obtained solely from hiring data
                      and not WPPSS'surveydata, a departure from past practice. All known
                      hiring information is averaged for this purpose to determine percent
                      distribution of area of residence and migration status. For example, all
                      known hires residing in Elma and who were in the phone book at the start
                      of the project were divided by total hires. The percentage figure then
                      was multiplied.by the current project employment of 3,143 to initially
                      estimate the current number of workers who were prior residents of Elma.
                      Next, the figure is adjusted to reflect the number of people who may have
                      resided in Elma prior to the-start of the project but might not be listed
                      in the phone book. The adjustment factor used was 13.6% as based upon
                      estimates supplied by Pacific Northwest Bell for their Grays Harbor area
                      listings. A similar process was used for non-migrants*.

                      Once in-migration estimates were made, WPPSS' survey data for the first
                      half of 1980weTe used to identify the Iproportion which appears to be
                      transients as described in the text. Special "movedate" series of computer
                      runs were used rather than "key migration questio*n!' runs (which are
                     ,generally used by WPPSS' staff) since the movedate, series (when the worker
                      moved to current address) are more comparable to the telephone method used
                      by GHRPC staff for migration estimates (see Note 7),.

                 6.   A GHRPC survey of the City of Elma was taken 'in the fall of 1980. The pro-
                      portion of in-migrating Satsop Project households to total Satsop Project
                      households was 70% in this survey.

                 7.   Estimates for 1979 have been revised from last year's report. Last year's
                      report melded,WPPSS' surve Iy results with GHRPC methods described in Note
                      5. Analysis of WPPSS' methodology and GHRPC methods during the last year,
                      however, has indicated that this data cannot-be accurately melded. GHRPC
                      data seeks to measure in-migration according to whether the worker phys@
                      ically resided in the area prior to the start of the project. WPPSS1
                      methods, however, are based on a worker response to a question regarding

                                                         43

                       whether the worker moved to the area to work on the project. Since such
                       a move can be based on a variety of motivations, these methods measure
                       different issues. GHRPC staff feels that the physical move is what is
                       important, not the motivation.- While the two methods yield surprisingly
                       similar results for numbers of in-migrating workers, they are very dif-
                       ferent for identifying prior residents (with WPPSS' methods yielding much
                       higher numbers than GHRPC methods). While WPPSS' staff continues to use
                       the motivation basis for their estimates, another question on.the WPPSS'
                       survey instrument records information similar to the GHRPC method. The
                       survey asks when the worker moved to his residence. This answer, then,
                       can be compared to the start of the project to determine in-migrants.
                       The results of this method are very similar to the GHRPC method for in-
                       migrations and will be used in future reports since it can be generated
                       at far lower costs-and is computerized for rapid analysis with other
                       worker information. The reader should note that all 1979 data in th    4S
                       report are based on these revisions, not on the data in the previous
                       reports.

                   8.  This conclusion is based on a-thorough review of hiring data by craft
                       which has been reported in various Monitoring Reports.

                   9.  While the concept of secondary impacts and multipliers is almost universal-
                       ly accepted among those responsible for analyzing the impact of projects,
                       it receives extensive criticism from literature relating to-regional
                       economics. A particularly strong criticism is voiced by Harry W. Richardson
                       in his text-.Regional-Economics, University of Illinois,-;Press, Urbana, 1979,
                       where he discusses this concept more forits "nostalgia" than for its
                       it potential" (p. 83). A more moderate and useful discussion is found in
                       Edgar Hoover's text, an Introduction to Regional Economics, Alfred Knopf,
                       New York, 1975. In spite of these theoretical objections to this concept,
                       it is still the most used (indeed, the only one used) method of estimating
                       the total effect of a major project. This is probably due to practical
                       limitations and the expense of any other type of analysis. While we are
                       then left with relying on this concept for practical reasons, its crudity,
                       as correttly noted in the theoretical literature, must be kept in mind.
                       It is interesting to note that Richardson's text speaks to the stimulative
                       effect of investment-on regional growth and refers to it as the "dynamo
                       of growth" and as beirlIg particularly overlooked in regional economic
                       analysis (p. 132). With this in mind, the "investment" aspect of this
                       project far exceeds the employment aspect upon which the analysis in this
                       report rests. In other words, the reliance on employment as the indicator
                       of growth (or secondary effects) is likely-to be an understatement from
                       the logic presented by Richardson.

                  10.  Erik J. Stenehjam, and James E. Metzgor, A Framework for Projecting Fmp-oy-
                       ment and Population Changes Accompanying E Inergy Development, Phase II,
                       Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., 1976, and Overall Economic
                       Development Plan, op. cit. (Chapter 2, Note 2).

                  11.  Erik J. Stenehjam, op. cit.

                  12.  As noted in the text, 906 secondary jobs are due to the Satsop proje   ct.
                       To this can be added the 420 Satsop jobs filled by in-migrants for a
                       total of 1,326 Satsop related jobs to be filled by in-migrants. The
                       Second Year Report found that 29.3% (123) of the in-migrating construc-
                       tion workers were transient. This taken from 1,326 leaves 1,203 jobs.

                                                          44

                      Since each in-migrant household has 1.3 workers, it takes 925 in-migrating
                      households to fill these jobs. As noted, 420 - 123 (297) of these are in-
                      migrating construction workers excluding transients*  Consequently, 925 -
                      297 (628) yields the number of in-migrating secondary households.

               13.    From Tables 3.1 and 3.2. In 1980, there were 936 worker s on the Project
                      and in 1979, 708 workers which leaves 228 added between 1-979 and 1980.

                14.   Two-hundred nineteen transients in 1980 (Table 3.1) minus 123 transients
                      in 1979 (Note 12) equal 96. This subtracted from 520 jobs yields 424.
                      Four7hundred twenty-f our jobs would be f-illed by 326 in-migrating families.
                      From Note 12, 297 in-migrating families had one Satsop worker in 1979 and
                      Table 3.1 shows 439 in 1980, yielding 142 in-migrants during the year.
                      This, from the 326 total families, yields 184 secondary families.

                15.   As indicated in Note 6, a hypothetical population decline may also have
                      occurred in Elma itself. While total households in Elma increased by
                      26.7% between 1977 and 1980, 26.6% of the current households are headed
                      by a Satsop worker.

                                                        45

                                                   CHAPTER 4

                                   SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SATSOP WORKERS

                                                        46

                                   4. SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SATSOF WORKERS

                       4.1 Introduction: The analysis of this report to this point has concerned
                  itself with the overall affect of the Project on population growth and the dis-
                  tribution of that affect.- The significance of that growth to the area is also
                  related to the social character of that growth. This Chapter will attempt to
                  examine, to the extent that data are available, the social characteristics of
                  the Satsop worker. In so doing, this Chapter will also analyze in greater
                  depth the residential patterns related to Satsop workers.1

                       4.2  Data: Data relating to the social characteristics of Satsop workers
                  are indeed limited. This consisted primarily of information developed from
                  various surveys of Project workers conducted by WPPSS' personnel. The surveys
                  were made by means of providing each person with a form to fill out along with
                  various other routine employment forms. The forms returned were then computer-
                  ized to yield the results discussed in this Chapter. In this report, one survey
                  period will be used covering the period between April 1980 and June 1980 which
                  involved 1,658 responses.

                       In order to facilitate discussion of this information, the tables in this
                  chapter have been simplifed. For example, "no responses" have been omitted
                  (however, cases when this category was large enough to substantially alter the
                  tabulations are not presented here). More detailed data regarding all responses
                  presented here are available in the appropriate Monitoring Report or are in the
                  files,of the Commission. Data from the worker survey also are compared with
                  data from the U.S. Census of.Population and other sources,as may be appropriate.

                       In reviewing this analysis, it must be noted that it is extremely difficult
                  to survey on a reliable basis a highly changing population. The construction
                  labor force is in a constant state of flux with workers continually being hired,
                  laid off, transferred, rehired, etc. Many workers are very temporary and may
                  accept work on the Project only untilanother position opens nearer to his
                  residence. Other workers may be rehired several,times within a short time.
                  Such problems as this make any analysis of Worker characteristics hazardous
                  and, consequently@j the data discussed here should be used for insight into this
                  dynamic character, rather than a precise measurement,of the characteristics
                  of this work force. It should also be noted that the WPPSS' survey technique
                  is continually being refined to reduce some of these problems.

                       4.3 Age and Family Structure: Table 4.1 compares the age characteristics
                  of the Satsop labor force, as indicated by the WPPSS' survey, to the composition
                  of the Grays Harbor County labor force, as determined by the 1970 Census of
                  Population, the latest data available for this purpose. As exhibited, the
                  Satsop labor force tends to be grouped in the 25 to 44 age groups far more than
                  the labor force of the County. This, of course, is not particularly surprising
                  given the skilled, yet strenuous, nature of work involved on the project. As
                  such, it is expected that the project would likely represent a downward shift
                  in the general age structure of the County, counter to the historical pattern
                  of the County. While the characteristics of both in-migrating workers and
                  prior residents are largely similar, the in-migrants are slightly more   * con-
                  centrated in the 25-34 age group; related probably to the greater mobility.of
                  that group.

                                                          47

                                                             TABLE 4.1
                                                         AGE OF WORKERS
                                                                                  Percent Of
                                                                                  In-migrants
                                                % of Prior                        and Prior
                            % of In-migrant     Residents      % of All           Residents      % Distribution
                            Satsop Workers      Responding     Satsop Workers     Responding     of Grays
                            Responding To       To Both        Responding To      To.Both        Harbor Labor
                   Age      Both  Questions     Questions      Age Question       Questions      Force
                   Group    (N =  397)                651)     (N = I  603)l      (N = 1,048)2   1970
                   15-24          16.9              17.8           15.8              17.5             20.1
                   25-34          41.6              38.7           37.6              39.8             19.3
                   35-44          21.7              23.8           24.6.             23.0             18.9
                   45-64          18.9              19.4           21.3              19.2             37.7
                   65 +             1.0                .3              .6               .6              4.0
                                 100.0            -F00. 6          100.0             100.0            100.0

                   SOURCE: WPPSS' Work Force Survey Computer Tabulations, 2nd              Quarter    1980,  and
                              U.S. Census of Population,1970.
                   11,603 persons responded to age and migration questions out of 1,658               surveys
                    returned. This represents a 63.2% response rate.
                   2This column does not tally with the preceding column due to no responses for
                    migratory status.

                         Table 4.2 portrays the marital status of Project workers as related to the
                   general population of both Grays Harbor County and the State. The most ,
                   remarkable aspect of this data is the relatively high proportion of separated
                   and divorced people among construction workers, particularly the in-migrators,
                   while the general proportion of married people is consistent with both Grays
                   Harbor County and the State. This difference is made up from a lower proportion
                   of single and widowed people among the Satsop Workers.

                         Table 4.3 and 4.4 provide greater insight into the family structure of
                   Satsop workers.     'As can be seen, the proportion of Satsop households of one
                   person is far above the County average. Even after discounting the effect of.
                   this large number of single person housholds, family size still tends to be
                   smaller than the County average with a greater proportion in the under four
                   person household category. While prior resident total household size is com-
                   parable to the County average, the distribution of households is different.
                   Although the proportion of one person prior resident households is four times
                   the County average, it is only half of that of the in-migrants.

                         4.4 Distribution of Satsop Workers: The WPPSS' worker survey has also
                   recorded the residential location of all workers that have been hired (that have
                   completed the survey) on the Project during the second quarter of 1980. Table
                   4.5 presents these results in order to identify the distribution of Satsop
                   workers. This table is different from the estimates made in Chapter 3, since
                   it relates only.to hires made during the second quarter of 1980. Estimates in
                   Chapter 3 are based upon all bires over the life of the Project. As indicated,
                   two-thirds of all workers live in either hurston or Grays Harbor.County.

                                                                 48

                                                          TABLE 4. 2
                                                       MARITAL STATUS

                                                                           % Of
                                                                           Total         1970
                                                         % Of              Workers       % Of      1970
                                 % Of                    Prior Residents   Responding    Grays     % Of
                                 In-migrants             Responding To     To Marital    Harbor    State
                                 Responding To           Marital Status    Status        Popula-   Popula-
                     Marital     Marital Status          Question          Question      tion      tion
                     Status      Question (N = 731)      _(N = 233)           = 964)1    Over 14   Over 14
                     Married             59.2                  69.1           61.6          64.6     64.2
                     Widowed                .3                  1.7               .6.       8.2        2.4
                     Separated/
                     Divorced            16.3                  10.3           14.8          6.5        5.2
                     Single              24.2                  18.9           22.9          21.2     28.2
                                        100.0                 100.0           100.0        100.0     100.0

                   SOURCE: WPPSSI Work Force Survey Computer       Tabulations, 2nd Quarter,    1980, and
                             U.S. Census of Population, 1970.
                   158.1% response rate.

                                                          TABLE 4.3
                                                     TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD

                                                                                            % Of
                                               % Of                    % Of                 All Workers
                                               Prior Residents         In-Migrants          Responding To
                                               Responding              Responding To        Appropriate
                                               To Question             Question             Question
                     Type of Household         (N = 229)               (N = 697)            (N = 926)1

                     Live Alone                      12.7                  25.0                 21.9
                     Live with spouse
                      or dependents                  72.1                  51.1                 56.3
                     Live with other
                      project workers                  1.3                 13.8                 10.7
                     Other type of
                      households                     14.0                  10.2                 11.1
                                                    100.0                  100.0               100.0

                     SOURCE: WPPSS' Work Force Survey     Computer Tabulations, 2nd Quarter, 1980.

                     1
                     55.9% response rate.

                   Pierce County is the third    largest contributor, and Lewis County is the fourth.
                   The relatively high proportion of workers from Lewis County is perhaps the
                   most unexpected result in this analysis,2 Almost all workers hired (91.3%)
                   were within about one hour driving time (see Map 4.1). This feature is lower

                                                              49

                                                          TABLE 4.4
                                                       HOUSEHOLD SIZE

                                                                         Percent Of
                                                                         Total Satsop       Percent Of
                                                                         Workers            Occupied
                                                             Of          Responding To      Housing Units
                                            % Of            Prior        Household Size     In Grays
                                            In-migrants    Residents     Question  1        Harbor In
                    Size of Household       (N    695)      (N   227)    (N   922)          1970
                    One Person                  49A              28.2        44.1                7 * I
                    Two                         19.4             22.0        20.1               21.4
                    Three                       11.1             13.7        11.7               1.5.6
                    Four                        10.6             13.2        11.3               18.5
                    Five                          5.0            13.7         7.2               15.6
                    Six                           2.0            4.o          2.5               10.6
                    Seven                         1.4            2.2          1.6                6.0
                    Eight  or More                1.0            3.1          1.5                5.2
                                                100.0           100.0        100.0             100.0
                    Average'Household Size        2.2            3.0          2.4                2.9
                    SOURCE: WPPSS' Work Force Survey Computer Tabulations,'        2nd Quarter,  1980,
                              and U.S-Census of Population, 1970.

                     55.6% response rate.

                   than many analysts had anticipated and is somewhat lower than previous Grays
                   Harbor Regional Planning Commission est    .imates.3

                                                          TABLE 4.5
                           ESTIMATED RESIDENTIAL DISTRIBUTION OF NEWLY HIRED SATSOP WORKERS
                                              BY WORKERS RESPONDING TO SURVEY
                      Area                                                                (N = 1,141)1
                      Grays Harbor County
                         Elma Area (includes Satsop)                                           15.3
                         McCleary Area                                                         @3.0
                         Montesano Area                                                         4.7
                         Oakville Area (includes Porter/Malone)                                  .5
                         Urban Area                                                            12.1
                         Other Areas                                                            1.9
                      Grays Harbor County Total                                                37.6
                      Lewis County                                                              5.8
                      Mason.Cou.nty                                                             2.5
                      Pacific County                                                             .6
                      Thurston County                                                          30.2
                      Pierce County                                                            14.6
                      Other Areas                                                               8.7
                                                                                               100.0
                      SOURCE: WPPSS'    Work Force Survey Computer Tabulations, 2nd Quarter, 1980.
                      168.8% response   rate.

                                                             50

                                                 MAP 4.1
                                       DISTANCE  IN MILES FROM SITE

                                                                               Everett
                                     ortknaeles
                                                                               SI-10homish

                                                                            T-dTiwndsc

                                                                              Se nj@-*
                                                                                a

                                               101
                                                                                            _go

                                                        B.,
                                          -SI   n.
                                           slielton.           1@

                                                     4
                               -16qulXLITL
                                                                          PuBallup
                          30                                                             410
                                  Aberd-een
                                                          Olynpia,

                                             12-
                                                         U5
                                                         Cen

                                                          Chehalis

                              .60
                          e.,

                        1Z,              0

                                                            L
                                                               -tgv
                                                             ot    Aew

                           A AsT  r                           elso

                                                         @R.

                                                                 US

                   4'.                                            Vancouver
                                  ISOGRAMS
                                                                        COLMaS
                                                                        CIL,
                                  (Dis
             ,OURCE:  WPPSS
                                                                      Portland

                                                     51

                         Table 4.6 presents a more detailed look at the distribution of newly hired
                    Project workers within the five County "impact area." This table also identifies
                    the proportion who have in-migrated and the proportion who were prior residents.
                    As indicated, just under half of all in-migrating workers to this five County
                    area reside in Grays Harbor County, while this County has a slightly lower
                    proportion of all prior residents. A similar relationship between in-migrants
                    and prior residents is also pres   ent for Thurston County. Again, the most
                    significant anomaly in these results is Lewis County which has about-13% of all
                    prior residents of the five County area bired on the Project. This Lewis County
                    relationship indicates that the effects of a large energy project have the
                    ability to linger well after the project is completed.

                                                           TABLE 4.6
                                    ESTIMATED IN-MIGRATION PATTERNS OF SATSOP WORKERS

                                                                                                   % Of
                                                                                                   Total
                                                                                                   Workers
                                                                                      % Of         In Five
                                                                    % Of              Prior        County
                    Area                                            In-Migrants       Residents    Area    -
                                                                    (N    611)        (N   159)    (N = 770
                    Grays Harbor County
                      Elma Area (includes Satsop)                        22.9            12.6          20.8
                      McCleary Area                                       4.4             3.1           4.2
                      Montesano Area                                      5.9             8.8           6.5
     0                Oakville Area (includes Porter/Malone)                .5            1.9             .8
                      Urban Area                                         12.9            17.6          11.9
                      Other Areas                                         2.9             1.9           2.7
                    Grays Harbor County Total                            49.6            45.9          48.8
                    Lewis County                                          5.6            12.6           7.0
                    Mason County                                          2.8             5.0           3.2
     0              Pacific County                                          .8            1.3             .9
                    Thurston County                                      41.2            35.2          40.0
                                                                         100.0           100.0        100.0

                    SOURCE: WPPSS'   Work Force Survey Computer Tabulations, 2nd        quarter, 1980.
     0              157.5% response   rate; the total number responding to location and movedate
                     questions is 953.

                         4.5 Household Tenure: Household tenure (rent or ownership) of Satsop
                    workers varies dramatically by whether the worker is an in-migrant or not. As
     0              indicated on Table 4.7, the vast majority of all migrating workers are renters
                    while the majority of those workers who lived in the area prior to the start
                    of the Satsop Project are owners. Ownership patterns of prior residents are
                    similar to all residents of the County. In 1970, 71% of the occupied units in
                    the Coutty were owner occupied while 66% of the State units were occupied by
                    owners.

                         4.6 Residential Patterns by Structure Type: As in the case of tenure,
                    the type of housing a Satsop worker uses varies significantly by the migratory
                    status of the worker. Table 4.8 demonstrates that, with considerable consistency,

                                                                52
     0

                                                        TABLE 4. 7
                           TENURE PATTERNS OF SATSOP WORKERS BY PERCENT OF SATSOP WORKERS
                                      RESPONDING TO APPROPRIATE SURVEY QUESTIONS1

                                                        Percent of Total             Percent of Total
                                                           In-Migrants                Prior Residents
                                                          In Each Area                 In Each Area

                   AREA                                RENT            OWN          RENT            OWN
                   Grays Harbor County
                    Elma (includes Satsop              72.5           27.5          55.0            45.0
                    McCleary Area                      59.3           40.7                         1.00.0
                    Montesano Area                     610.4          30.6          30.8            69.2
                    Oakville Area                      33.3           66.7                         100.0
                    Total East County Area             69.6           30.4          37.5            62.5
                    Urban Area                         93.3            6.7          24.1            75.9
                    Other Ar6as                        66.7           33.3                         100.0
                   Total Grays Harbor County           75.4           24.6          30.6            69.4
                   Thurston County Totals              73.0           27.0          26-41           73.6

                   SOURCE: WPPSS' Work. Force Survey   Computer Tabulations, 2nd Quarter, 1980.
                   1Based on 666 total responses for   these areas for a response rate of 40.2%.

                   approximately two-thirds of all Satsop workers who resided in the area before
                   construction started, resided in single-family dwellings.while a substantially
                   smaller proportion of the in-migratory workers to this County reside in such
                   housing types. The proportion of in-migrants who live in single-family
                   structures is substantially higher in Thurston County than in Grays Harbor
                   County. Since property values are generally higher for single family dwellings,
                   the property tax returns from in-migrating construction workers may be expected
                   to be greater in Thurston County than in Grays Harbor County. The property
                   tax impact is very low in Elma.

                        In analyzing the data of Table 4.8, it must be mentioned that the type of
                   housing a person resides in (especially a new person to an area) is a function
                   of both availability and preference. Consequently, low percentages for any
                   area may reflect the absence of accommodations in that area rather than a
                   difference in preference. For example, due to zoning restrictions the urban
                   area has very few mobile homes in contrast to the east part of the County;
                   hensd, a very low percentage of Project workers reside in mobile homes in the
                   urban areas.

                        Of particular significance on this table is     the varying pattern of
                   residences of a temporary nature for in-migrating workers. While the Elma area
                   has a high proportion of R.V. use, it has a low proportion of rooming types of
                   use. The urban areas,' in constrast, have very high rooming rates but a low
                   rate of R.V.1s. This, apparently, is related to the greater opportunity to
                   find rooms in the urban areas of Grays Harbor, while R.V.'s and R.V. parks can
                   be more accommodated in rural a:reas. Also, R.V parks represent a quick and
                   inexpensive way for investors to capitalize on @he need for temporary accommoda-
                   tions. Consequently, as construction began these facilities could be quickly
                   provided in the Elma area while rooming f acilities entailed longer time periods and
                   greater risk at the end of construction. This type of factor may also account
                   for the relatively higher proportion of mobile home use by in-migrants in the

                                                             53

                                                             TABLE 4.8
                                 RESIDENTIAL PATTERNS OF SATSOP WORKERS BY STRUCTURE TfPE
                          BY PERCENTAGE OF SATSOP WORKERS RZSPONDI14G TO APPROPRIATE QUESTIONSI

                                                                                      HOTEL/
                                                           SINGLE APART-              MOTEL,
                                                           FAMILY MENT/     MOBILE    ROOMING    R.V. OR
                    AREA,                                  HOME     DUPLEX    HOME    HOUSE      OTHER      TOTAL

                    IN-MIGRANTS
                    Grays Harbor County
                      Elma Area (includes Satsop)          15.2      22.5     27.5       8.0       26.8     100.0
                      McCleary Area                        33.3      18.5     33.3       3.7       11.1     10010
                      Montesano Area                       33.3      41.7     11.1     11.1          M      100.0
                      Oakville Area (includes
                         Porter/Malone)                    100.0      -        -         -           -      100.0
                      Total East County                    22.1      25.0'    25.0       7.8       20.1     100.0
                      Urban Areas                          25.3      22.7      6.7     44.0          1.3    100.0
                      Other Areas                          44.0      11.1     27.8     16.7          -      100.0
                    Total Grays Harbor County              24.2      23.7     20.5     17.5        14.1     100.0
                    Total Thurston County                  47.1      33.2      8.6       '5.7        5.3    100.0

                    PRIOR RESIDENTS
                    Grays Harbor County
                      Elma Area (includes Satsop)          75.0      15.0     10.0                   -      100.0
                      McCleary Area                        60.0       -       40,0       -           -      100.0
                      Montesano Area                       76.9       7.7     15.4       -           -      100.0
                      Oakville Area (includes
                         Porter/Malone)                    100.0      -        -         -           -      100.0
                      Total East County                    75.0      10.0     15.0       -           -      100.0
                      Urban Area                           85.7       7.1      3.6       3.6         -      100.0
                      Other Areas                          66.6       -       33.3       -           -      100.0
                    Total Grays Harbor County              78.9       8.5     11.3       1.4         -      100.0
                    Total Thurston County                  69.8      13.2     13.2       1.9         1.9    10010

                    SOURCE: WPPSS' Work Force        Survey  Computer  Tabulations, 2nd Quarter,      1980.
                    140.1% response rate; N        665.

                    Elma-McCleary area. This very bigh proportion of mobile homes in the McCleary
                    area is probably due to the opening of a relatively large mobile home park near
                    the freeway in the McCleary area.

                          In regards to the locatiotial     tendency of.transients,      there has been a very
                    significant change since the last       report. In that analysis, 24% of the in-
                    migrants to Thurston County were "roomers," but this dropped to only 5.7% this
                    year. Meanwhile, in the urban area of Grays Harbor, the proportion increased
                    from 32% to 44%. The causes of this shift are unknown. Data from this table
                    can be compared to Chapter 6 in this report which addresses residential con-
                    stru"ction patterns in the County.

                          4.7 Household Characteristics: As is demonstrated on Table 4.9, a high
                    proportion of workers live alone or with other Project workers. Over 52% of
                    the in-migrants to the Elma area are in such households. This tendency, how-
                    ever, appears to decrease with distance to the east of the Project as the pro-
                    portion of workers with dependents becomes higher.

                                                                   54

                                                        TABLE 4.9
                        HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS OF IN-MIGRATING SATSOP WORMS FOR SELECTM)
                    AREAS BY PERCENTAGE OF SATSOP WORKERS RESPONDING TO APPROPRIATE QUESTIONS

                                                       LIVE           LIVE           LTVE IN
                                                                                      .L
                                                       14ITH SPOUSE   WITH OTHER     OTHER TYPE
                                               LIVE    OR OTHER       PROJECT        OF
                   AREA                        ALONE   DEPENDENT      WORKER         HOUSEHOLD     TOTAL

                   Elma Area
                      (N = 138)                24.6        47.8           22.5          5..1       100.0
                   East County Area
                      (N = 201)                25.4        48.3           18.9          715        100.0
                   Urban Area  (N = 78)        33.3        30.8           28,21         7.7        100.0
                   Total Grays Harbor Area
                     (N = 298)                 27.5        43.6           21.1          7.7        .100.0
                   Total Five County Area
                     (N = 597)                 24.5        50.8           15.9          8.9        iOO.O

                   SOURCE: WPPSSI Work Force Computer     Tabulations, 2nd Quarter, 1980.
                   1
                    56% response rate; a total of 928 persons responded to all three appropriate
                    questions out of a possible 1,658 who returned surveys.

                        4.8 Conclusion: It is apparent from the data presented here that the
                   Project labor force tends to be younger, have fewer family commitments, and
                   tends to be more mobile than the host community. The-pe newcomers, with
                   significantly different characteristics, will bring with them significantly
                   different norms, values, and behaviors. When these norms, values, and
                   behaviors interact with the preexisting norms and values of a community,
                   significant social change in the community can occur.5 While these effects
                   are difficult if not impossible to measure, data presented in the last Chapter
                   of this report suggests that such change is happening and perhaps substantially.
                   For example, the rise in crime that is reported in that Chapter could be con-
                   sidered evidence that such change is occurring.6.

                                                         CHAPTER 4
                                                           NOTES

                   1.   Information regarding the social characteristics     of construction workers
                        on other projects is quite limited. This is in part due to the highly
                        changing and complex employment patterns common to large projects. This
                        continual changing makes any surveying of workers difficult,and many
                        technical problems relating to sampling procedures-are encountered. These
                        problems*were present in this survey, and, consequently can affect the
                        validity of the data reported here.

                        These conditions also pose interpretive problems when data      are used.
                        These int epretive problems have led to disagreements on how this inf orma-.
                        tion might be used, and it should be noted that the data as interpreted
                        here by the Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission staff does not
                        reflect the view of the Power System.

                                                              5.5

                       To further complicate the issues involved, the information in this section
                       relating to migratory status (in-migrating or prior resident) is not
                       comparable to similar analysis published separately by WPPSS. This is
                       due to a dif f erence in the def initions of in-migrating Proj ect workers as
                       used bythe GHRPC and WPPSS. The GHRPC considers anyone who moved to
                       his residence since the start of the project as an in-migrator. WPPSS,
                       on the other hand, classifies an in-migrator as one who responds affirm-
                       ative to the qi@estion, "Did you move to this area to work on the project?"

                 2.    If these higher proportions of construction workers from the Centralia
                       area are due to the construction of the coal plants there, then it would
                       appear that many workers may remain in an area for many years after a
                       project is completed. The Centralia project was completed in 1972. This
                       could have some implication on the withdrawal of workers from this area
                       after the Satsop project is completed.

                 3.    A commute of greater than 60 miles is not considered unusual for con-
                       struction workers. Such a commuting distance reaches beyond the Tacoma
                       area:where a large construction labor force is present. An analysis of
                       the supply of construction workers in Washington is found in Em2lo)Ment
                       Trends in Construction industrX, 1975-1985, Department of Revenue, 1975.
                       An analysis of the socioeconomic impact of WNP-3 and WNP-5 in 1975
                       anticipated much greater long-distance commuting than is now occurring..
                       The second year report estimated that over 15% of the workers resided
                       outside of the 60 mile driving distance.

                 4.    Grays Harbor-Region Housing Element, Grays Harbor Regional Planning Com-
                       mission, 1979.

                 5.    Stephen J. Fitsimmons, et al, Social Assessment Manual, Western Press,
                       Boulder, Colorado, 1977, provides a concise discussion of these effects
                       on pages 36 through 3�. A standard sociology text, Rodney Stark, Social
                       Problems, Random House, New York, 1975, discusses a concept referred to
                       as "strangerhood" on page 50 and its relationship to social problems.
                       Warren G. Bemis and Philip E. Stark, The TMorary Society, Harper and
                       Row, New York, 1968, discusses some theoretical implications on mobility
                       on page 78. Martha Curry,.@@t al, State and Local Planning Procedures
                       Dealing with Social and Economic Impacts from Nuclear Power Plants,
                       Battelle Notthwest, Seattle, 1977, suggests that social change can be
                       associated with nuclear power plant construction and indicates that such
                       changes did occur during the Trojan Project in Oregon (p. 34). Karl
                       Hekler, et al, Evaluation of Power Facilities, Berkshire County Regional
                       Planning Commission, Pittsfield, Mass. discusses particular aspects of
                       the interaction between various groups of people during a construction
                       project.

                 6.    A National Strategy.to.Reduce Crime, National Advisory Commission on
                       Eriminal Justice Standirds and Goals, 1973, page 16, states, "Every
                       serious study of crime has noted the association between fluctuation      in
                       crime rates and changes in population, social values, and economic
                       conditions." It further notes the relationship between crime and pro-
                       portion of younger males in the population, population mobilityt and
                       family stability.

                                                           56

                                                   CHAPTER 5

                                               ECONOMIC CHANGES

                                                        57

                                               5.. ECONOMIC CHANGES

                      5.1 Introduction: Any large construction project can significantly affect
                 economic conditions in a region. The potential of the Satsop project to do this
                 is substantial since the total estimated project cost is-over seven times the
                 total assessed value of the County, and a peak employment of approximately 6,400
                 workers represents about 23% of the total employment of the County, It is
                 currently estimated that the payroll.of the project to Grays Harbor County
                 residents exceeds $12 million each quarter. This Chapter will discuss the
                 economic change that has been occurring in the study area and the region during
                 the first three years of construction.

                      The Monitoring Project has considered economic change and reports all
                 recent information available on economic activity. This information generally
                 consists of data related to employment, unemployment, and sales. in addition,
                 some information is available on banking and mortgage activity, number of
                 businesses, and new construction.

                      5.2 KmploM2n_t and Un@jmployment: As discussed under Chapter 2, employ-
                 ment is rising out of the 1975 "recession." The latest employment data avail-
                 able by economic sector discussed in that Chapter demonstrated that all sectors
                 have increased. More recent data relating to estimated total employment are
                 ,presented on Table 5.1. This indicates that the employment growth up to June
                 1979 was well'above the long-term trends. Since then, however, County total
                 employment has decreased and unemployment has risen sharply.
                      Project employees comprise approximately 9% of the total County June i980
                 employment, and the increase in Project employment tends to reduce the magnitude
                 of the drop in total employment. Since the start of construction in June 1977,
                 Project employment has'accounted for 90% of the total net increase in employ-
                 ment.

                      Table 5 '.2 reports the change in unemployment registration by the type of
                 job last held between June 1977, June 1978, and June 1979. In all sectors,
                 except construction and wood products, unemployment is somewhat down,or even,
                 from 1977. This is in sharp contrast from previous years when construction
                 and wood products unemployment levels were also declining, and declines in
                 other sectors were much greater.

                      As noted in various reports on the regional economy, Grays Harbor is
                 heavily dominated by the forest products industry. This industry is particular-
                 ly noted for its wide cycles of economic activity associated with national
                 housing markets. As mortgage interest rates continue to escalate nationally,
                 a slowdown in this market can be anticipated, and a downward cycle in the
                 region's forest products sectors will probably ensue. The current rise in
                 unemployment and decrease in employment appears clearly related to these
                 factors.1

                      One of the anticipated effects of the Project was that it could induce
                 unemployment by attracting people to the area for work. Earlier analysis
                 could not detect such an effect occurring. Except for the rise in average
                 construction unemployment, Tabl,e 5.2 still does not clearly identify this
                 effect. The rise in average construction unemployment could indicate that

                                                          58

                                                        TABLE 5.1
                              GRAYS HARBOR EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT, AND LABOR FORCE
                                    COMPARED TO OX-SITE CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT
                                     MONTHLY AVERAGES, JUNE 1977 TO JULY 1980

                                                                                              On-Site
                                           Labor                             Unemployment Employment
                 Period                    Force Em2loyment UnemployTent          Rate     Monthly Ave.
                 June 1977                 28,628    25,844       2,784            9.7          315*
                 July 1977                 28,495    25,580       2,915           10.2          389
                 August                    28,468    25,756       2,712            9.5          461
                 September.                28,381,   26,046       2,335            8.2          389
                 October                   27,894    25,535       2,359            8.5          462
                 November                  27,628    25,021       2,607            9.4          431
                 December                  27,865    24,983       2,882           10.3          372
                 January                   27,500    24,530       2,970           10.8          381
                 February                  27,150    24,650       2,500            9.2          409
                 March                     27,950    25,380       2,570            9.2          393
                 April                     28,240    25,850       2,390            8.5-         407
                'May                       28,700    26,730       1,970            6.9          517
                 June 1978                 29,130    27,270       1,860            6.4          680
                 July 1978                 29,640    27,360       2,280            7.7        1,053
                 August                    29,980    271,560      2,420            8.1        1,210
                 September                 29,930    27,760       2,170            7.3        1,305
                 October                   29,310    27,260       2,050            7.0        1$467
                 November                            26,850       2,150            7.4        1 383
                 December                  29,260    26,860       2,400            8.2        1,328
                 January                   30,700    26,760       3,940           12.8        1,481
                 February                  30,670    27,620       3,050            9.9        1,820
                 March                     31,000    28%420       2,580            8.3        1,835
                 April                     31,630    28,780       2,850            9.0        1,911
                 May                       32,480    30,100       2,380            7.3        2,101
                 June  1979                33,280    31,030       2,250            6.8        2,211
                 July  1979                33,170    30,570       2,600            7.8        2,100
                 August                    32,650    30,260       2,390            7.3        2,211
                 September                 32,310    30,140       2,170            6.7        2,211
                 October                   32,140    29,730       2,410            7.5        2,312
                 November                  31,860,   28,850       3,010            9.4        2,401
                 December                  32,320    28,710       3,610           11.2        2,481
                 January                   31,210    26,450       4,760           15.3        2,517
                 February                  30,830    27,650       3,180           10.3        2,800
                 March                     31,260    28,020       3,240           10.4        2,905
                 April                     31,610    27,790       3,820           12.1        3,039
                 May                       31,480    28,490       2,990            9.5        2,607
                 June 1980                 31,650    28,620       3,030            9.6        2,519
                 July  1980                31,550    27,980       3,570           11.3        3,143
                 Percent Change
                   July 1977-June 1978        2.2%      6.6%      -36.2%         -37.3%         74.8%
                   July 1978-June 1979       12.3%     13.4%       -1.3%         -11.7%       110.0%
                   July 1979-June 19.80      -4.6%     -6.4%       16.5%          23.1%         20.0%
                 SOURCE: Employment Security and      WrPSS' "Manning@' Report. -
                 *Estimated. Please.note that all. employment figures are       estimates  and are
                 subject to revision by the 'Employment Security.

                                                            59

                                                      TABLE 5.2
     0                              CHIOME IN REGULAR ENTITLEMENT LIUMLOYMENT
                                           INSURED RECIPIENTS BY SECTOR
                                                  GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY

                                                                            Number Change
                                                   June 1977    6/77-6/78     6/77-6/79     6/77-6/80
                 Total Recipients                    1,465        -67@__       _-805          +207
                   Construction                       160          -78           -81          +117
                   Lumber and WoodProducts-           603         -277          -344          +228
                   Other Manufacturing                151          -59           -79           -22
                   Transportation, Cormuni-
                     cations, and Utilities           144          -89          -123           -59
                   Trade                              189          -76           -73            -3
                   Finance, Insurance,and
                     Real Estate                       17          -11           -11
                   Service                            130          -76           -60           -35
                   Public Administration               26          -10             -7           -4
                   Other                               45            -3          -27           -16
                 Total Insured Unemployment          2,784        -924          -534          +246

                 SOURCE: Various tables in Monitoring    Reports,  and Table 5.1.  on  previous page.

                 this effect may be occurring, but other factors such as the depressed housing
                 market were probably more significant. Also, employment on the Project has a
                 high turnover, and this turnover is affected by theweather and the actual
                 construction activities. Between jobs, coastruction,workers may file for
                 unemployment compensation thus increasing the number of claims reported. This
                 measure of idle construction workers is associated with any construction project,
                 and is not the same as attracting unemployed worker,% who do      not obtain employ-
                 ment on the Project. In June 1980, the usual factors were augmented by the
                 collapse of a construction crane and the M-4. Saint Helen's eruption.

                      As noted on Table 5.3, there has been a significant rise in new applicants
                 for jobs at the Washington State Employment Security Service Office for Grays
                 Harbor. While this could be an early indication of an induced unemployment
                 effect, it was probably more related to problems in the forest products industry.
                 It is interesting to note that new registrations also fell for the second
                 quarter of 1980. It will be particularly difficult to associate any relation-
                 ship between the Project and County unemployment levels because of the more
                 Prominent influence of forest products.

                      5.3 Sales AcLlyltyL A common measure of economic activity in Washington
                 State is sales activity since data relating to sales ate readily available due
                 to the collection of a State,sales tax. While this information is most useful
                 for measuring economic activity, it does@ have two significant limitations:
                 first, it only reflect taxable sales and does not include sales to areas out-
                .side the State, and second, it is heavily influenced by inflation and, hence,
                 tends to overstate true economic change.

                      Table 5.4 presents current   taxable sales volumes in the County and compares
                 change to the Seattle consumer price index. While total sales increased over

                                                           60

                                                                           TABLE 5.3
                                                           EMPLOYMENT APPLICATIONS AND PLACEMENT
                                                               AT ABERDEEN EMPLOYMElff SERVICE

                                                     1977                     1978                     1979                       1980
                                             Third        Fourth       First       Second       First        Second      First        Second
                                              gaarter      quarter      Luarter     quarter      Quarter      qR@,rter    Quarter      Quarter
                   Aberdeen
                         Applications            1,442        1,384       1,312        1,391       1,480        1,649        1,736.      1,570
                         Placements                819          764         603          892          659         886          657          711
                         Ratio                    0.59         0.55        0.46         0.64        0.44         0.54         0.38        0.45

                   Statewide
                         Applications           77,624      73,061       61,161       71,982      69,161       83,167      75,652       79,480
                         % in Aberdeen            1.86         1.89        2.15         1.93        2.14         1.98         2.29         1.98
                         Placements             28,324      27,062       22,338      33,506       26,174       30,242      23,457       26,550
                         State Ratio              0.36        0.37         0.37         0.47        0.38         0.36         0.31        0.33

                   SOURCE: Tables under Employment Section        of various   Monitoring  Reports.

                   the reported period, this increase varied substantially by sector. Not sur-
                   prisingly, contract construction sales (which includes most contracts-including
                   labor--on the Satsop plant) has increased dramatically. The slowdown in retail
                   sales is in part due to the removal of sales tax on food.2 The strong perfor-
                  .mance of wholesaling is particularly noteworthy.

                                                            TABLE 5.4
                                         TAXABLE RETAIL    SALES, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY
                                                            1975-1979
                                                   (in thousands of dollars)

                                                                                  75-77                  77-79
                                                           1975         1977      % &         1979       % 6
                   Retail Sales                          $147,734     $202,271      36.9     $2012471     -o.4*
                   Services                                20,469       28,150      37.5      30,036       6.7
                   Contracting                             20,377       59,880    193.9       205,810    243.7
                   Manufacturing                            .7,981      12,702      59.2      23,589      85.7
                   Transportation, Communica-
                     tions, and'Utilities                   1,479        3,114    110.5         3,050     -2.1
                   Wholesaling                             27,738       45,252      63.1      64,152      41.8
                   Financing, Insurance, and
                     Real Estate                            1,038        3,492    236.4         3,459     -0.9
                   Other                                    I.M2         11218      20.4        1,175     -3.5
                   TOTAL                                   227,829      356,078     56.3      332,741     49.6*
                   Total  Except Contracting             $2071,452    $296,198      42.8    $326,931*     10.4*
                   Seattle Consumer Price Index             155.8        177.6      14.0        222.6**   25.3

                   SOURCE: Table GH-T.4.81, 1/81.
                   Numbers might not add due to rounding.         *Sales tax on food was deleted as       of
                   July 1, 1978. **September.,

                         Graph S. I def lates this sales data by means of the consumer price index. This
                   reveals a substantial loss in terms of real business activity (except construc-
                   tion) throughout the County. This falling off of sales in most sectors is a*
                   disturbingtrend that indicates the beginning of another downward cycle a the
                   areavs economy that has been so characteristic of the County's historry.i

                         Information regarding the sales activity by various sectors is not avail-
                   able for the study area. However, it is possible by means of using sales tax
                   revenue information to determine the total sales volume in the cities of the
                   study area,4
                                   Table 5.5 presents this data for East County cities-and other
                   incorporated areas in the County. Since data by sector are based upon when
                   taxes are paid and since data by area are based upon when taxes are received
                   by local governments, Table 5.4 and 5.5 cannot be directly compared.
                         The most significant conclusion of Table 5.5 is that ail small cities in
                   the region, except for Elma, lost sales in 1979. This is a reversal of the
                   earlier pattern of firm growth during the Project, Even when sales*did aot
                   drop (Elma and the urban area), growth in dollar volume was less than tb,,--, rate
                   of inflation. Another significant feature of Table 5.15 is the identified drop
                   in sales activity in Elma prior to the Construction.Project and its dramatic
                   turnabout after the Project.began. In Montesano and McCleary, significant

                                                                 62

                                                                              GRAPH 5.1

                                                        Taxable Retail Sales for Selected Groupings
                                                              Iconverted to 1974 Dollars as based upon the
                                                                     Seattle Consumer Price indezi
                                                                       Grays Harbor County                                Total Taxable
                                                                         April-June 1979-1980                             Retail sates

                                            7M
                                                                                                a  m1nus contr

                                                                                                              ,X

                                         E

                                                                                                                          Contracting

                                                                            ..........                   ........
                                                                         r e t a I I t ra d e mi n u s food::::
                                                                   ....................... ............. ::,: .......... ........
                                                                                                   .................
                                         7;           *::::::::::::::::::::::::* :::, :::,
                                                                                                                          Retait Trade
                                                                          ......................
                                                                          .............

                                                                                                                          Wholesaling

                                                             ...........    .... .....................................................

                                             OR

                                              74           75            76            77           78            79-          8w*
                                                                                2nd Ouarter
                                               'Sales tax deleted Trom food 7/78 "Based upon September CPR

                                                                                     63

                                                                                        TABLE 5.5
                                                                     TAXABLE SALES OF GRAYS HARBOR COU M
                                                                               BY INCORPORATED AREAS
                                                                                       (Thousands)

                                                                                                                               75-76       76-77        77-78      78-79-
                                              1975            19-76            1977            1978*            1979          % &         % &          % A         % a
                    Elma                        9,637            8,936      $  12,190         $-16,229       $  18-,379        -17.7      -3 5 -.4     -@-3-.l     .13.2
                    McCleary                    2,322            2,942           3,381            4,528           4,289        26.7         14.9        33.9        -5.3
                    Montesano                 16,030          18,930           20,493          27,427           27,301         18.1           8.3       33.8        -0.5
                    Oakville                    1,233            1,330           1,654            1,532           1,415          7.9        24.4        -7.4        -7.6
                    Total Cities
                     in Study
                     Area                     29,222          32,138           37,718          49,716,          51,384         10.0         17.4        31.8           3.4
                    Aberdeen-
                     Hoquiam-
                     Cosmopolis              176,189          205,220         245,104          290,937         294,515         16.5         19.4        18.7           1.2
                    Beach Cities           $ 211,301,      $ 26,845         $ 32,886        $ 37,308         $ 33,?40          26.0         22.5        13.4       -10.9
                    Seattle
                     Consumer
                     Price Index              155.8           164.5            177.6           i94.8           222.6**           5.6          8.0       13.2        14.3

                    SOURCE: Table GH-T.4.80, 1/81.

                    *Sales tax on food was deleted July 1, 1978.
                    **September.

                increases'in sales occurred in 1978, the first full year of construction.
                Oakville continues to decline in sales. Taken together, this information
                appears to suggest that economic activity in East County experienced a signif-
                icant indirect stimulus from the Construction Project in the first year of
                construction activity. Since then sales activity has moderated but is still
                well above pre-Project levels. It is probable that current slowdowns are more
                related to the general weakening in other sectors than to the Project.' If
                this is correct, the early stimulus of the Project has helped to insulate these
                cities from the cyclical economic probleins that may be beginning in-the forest
                products industry.

                     5.4 Banking Activi@y: . Other common indicators of economic activity are
                loans and deposits in banking institutions. All banking activity   has increased
                since 1975, Table 5.6. Also, as in other indicators, the rate of   increase has
                declined for the County generally but accelerated for East County  during 1977-
    0           1978 which continues into 1980. Table 5.7 evidences a sharp decline in the
                number of mortgages in the last year. This factor is almost certainly due to
                the continuing increase in interest rates and has particular significance to
                land development trends which will-be considered in the next Chapter. While
                the number of mortgages declined,(1980 mortgages are fewer than the total
                number recorded in 1976), the average@value of mortgages has dramatically
                increased leading to an increase in total value in spite of the decline in
                number.

                     5.5 Business 'Activity: The Monitoring Project hassought to measure
                changes within the business community of East County. Unfortunately, this is
                a difficult task since almost all major data sources relating to economic
                activity do not report any information at the subcounty level by sector.5

                     Since direct periodic surveying of the.business community was impractical
                due to the expense, another,method had to be developed. A possible source of
                insight into changes in the business community is available by comparing
                successive editions of yellow pages of the appropriate telephone books. The
                yellow pages provide information regarding both the number of businesses
                operating and.the number of business services available in the area, and these
                businesses or services.can be separated by sector; While this method cannot
                be used to directly indicate employment or volume of business occurring, it
                could identify significant shifts in business.opportunity within this area and,
                hence, insight into economic conditions.

                     Table 5.8 compares the change in the number of business services, as
                recorded in the yellow pages, with the number of businesses. tusiness services
                represent the total listings in the yellow pages with many businesses offering
                a number of services and, hence, are listed.in several places. The number of
                businesses thus represents the number of different establishments irrespective
                of the number of services each might provide. This yellow' page information is
                then compared to the number of reporting sales tax units as recorded by the
                Department of Revenue for Aberdeen, Grays Harbor County, a-ad the State. While
                reporting tax units are not strictly- comparable to the count of businesses
                in the yellow pages, the trends in business informationas indicated by both,
                should be roughly comparable.

                     Table 5.8 indicates that businesses are being  formed faster in the study
                area than*in the State, County, or Aberdeen. In fact, the rate of net new
                business formation is higher in'the area of Grays Harbor outside Aberdeen than

                                                        65

                                                                                 TABLE 5.6
                                                               BANKING ACTIVITY IN GRAYS HARBOR.COUNTY

                                       1975                  1976                       1977                         1978                         1979
                                      AMOUNT        AMOUNT           CHANEF-,    AMOUNT       % CHANGE        AMOUNT       % CHANGE        AMOUNT       % CHANGE
            East County Banks
                Deposits           34,654,255       35,364,532        2.0       40,056,176       13.3        51,588,000       28.8        59,506,000       15.3
                Loans ($),         11,765,094        12,489,453       6.2       15,583,875       24.8        20,242,000       29.9        26,513,000       31.0
                Ratio Loans/                                                           0.389     10.2              0.392        0.8             0.446      13.8
                  Deposits                0.339           0.353       4.1

            Urban Area Banks
                Deposits           95,385,941      107,643,660       12.9       121,132,084      12.2       145,40MOO         20.0       147,001,000         1.1
                Loans              48,011,480       62,756,429       30.7       83,832,808       33.6        81,163,000       -3.2-       94,760,000       16.8
                Ratio Loans/
                  Deposits                0.503           0.583      15.9              0.692     18.7              0,558     -19.4              0.645      15.6

            SOURCE: Monitoring      Table GH-T.4.69,      4/80.

                                                                                 TABLE .5.7
                                                                     REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE ACTIVITY
                                                                           GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY

                                         .1975                 1976                       1977                       1978                         1979
                                         AMOUNT         AMOUNT     % CHANGE-      AMOUNT       % CHANGE       AMOUNT       %  CHANGE       AMOUNT       % CHANGE
            Number of
                Mortgages                   1,842           2,400     30.3             3,294     37.3               3V218     -2.3              21,332    -27.5
            Total Value    of Real
                Estate Mortgage
                Purchases             52,341,963 619845,696           18.2      97,628,015       57.9       127,188,134       30.3       155,438,338       22.2
            Average
                Value
                Per Transaction            28,416         25,769      -9.3            29,638     15.0             39,524      33.4             66,655      68.6

            SOURCE: Monitoring Table GH-T.4.80,           1/80.

                                                                                                                            4000

                                                                    Graph 5.2
                                              Mortgage Actlvlty, Grays Harbor County: 1970-1979
                                   $140    Total Real Estate Purchase Amount =---m                                          3500
                               C
                                                         Number of Mortgages towittieso

                               C
                               0
                                   $120

                               0
                               Y!
                                   $100

                               0

                               03  $80                                                                                     2000
                               E0
                               <
                               0
                                0
                               .C L%                              1000"
                                0
                                =
                               CL  $60

                               Im
                               1@
                               0

                                   $40                                                                                     1000

                                   $20                                                                                      500
                               0

                                                                                    IT       3
                                      1970    1971     1972     1973      1974     1975    1976      1977    1978      1979

                                    SOURCE: Table number CH-T.4.80, 1180.

                                                                               67

                                                                   TABLE 5.8
                                                          EAST COUNTY BUSINESSES

                                                                                                             1976-1979
                                                                                                        Number,      Percent
                                                                   1976          1978         1979
                                                                                                         ghan&e      @han@,e
                     Number of Business Services
                           Elma                                       268          337          318           50       18.7
                           Montesano                                  285          361          332           47       16.5
                           McCleary.                                   so           99            96          16       20.0,
                           Other East County                           34           39            27          -7       -20.6
                           Total                                      -667         836          T7-3         TO        15. 9
                     Number of Businesses
                           Elma                                       164          223          213           49       29.9
                           Montesano                                  172          204          205           33       19.2
                           McCleary                                    45           57            56          11       24.4
                           Other East County                           16           20            11.         -5       -31.1
                           Total                                      397          504          485
                     Sales Taxing Units (Quarterly
                     Average)
                           Aberdeen                                   897          990         11000         163       11.5
                           Grays Harbor County                      2,291        2.,596        2,6-10        319       13.9
                           State                                  119,762      128,102      135,150       15,388       12.8

                     SOURCE: Monitoring Tables GH-T.4.57-64,               4/80 and    Department     of Revenue.

                     in Aberdeen or the State as a whole. In               the study area, the        rate of net new
                     business formation is particularly high in Elma where the number of businesses
                     represented over 55% of all new business formation in East County in 1979.
                     While city business activity is growing in East County, the outlying areas are
                     losing businesses.

                           Table 5.9 compares the change in number of-busiuesses between 1976 and 1979
                     by sector in both East County as a whole and the Elma area. Again, this data
                     represents the number of separate establishments rather than the number of
                     different services which might be available. In the case where a business may
                     offer several services in different sectors, some judgment had to be applied
                     to identify the most appropriate sector under which to.classify such businesses.

                           Not surprisingly, new construction related businesses are particularly
                     noticeable. However, there are significant increases in almost all sectors in
                     both areas, and most such increases are above State average rates of business
                     formation for all businesses. While significant increases in those types of
                     businesses which are related to construction worker serv'ide should be noted
                     (eating and drinking placesi lodging, real estate, etc.) in the first
                     year of the Project, the second year trends illustrate,the spreading of activity
                     through other sectors. while actually experiencing some declines in these worker
                     service activities.

                           5.6 New Construction: New construction is a generally accepted and
                     accessible indicator of investment and, hence, economic conditions. Table 5.10
                     compares the value of new construction in the two                 .years before the Project began

                                                                         68

                                                                 TABLE 5.9
                                                   NUMBER OF BUSINESSES BY SECTOR

                                                                                                               % Change
                                                                                     1976     1978      '979    1976-4979
                                                                                                        L
                     EAST COUNTY TOTAL                                               -@-97    50-4      485         22.2
                       Agricultural and      Forest Services                          13       15       11        -:-15.4
     0                 Construction                                                   35       58       47          34.3
                       Mining Total                                                    2        9         3         50.0
                          Sand and Gravel                                             (2)      (9)      (3)       (50.0)
                       Manufacturing                                                  23       30       29          26.1
                       Transportation, Communications, and Utilities.                 13       15       24          84.6
                       Trade and Wholesaling Total                                   133      159       170         27.8
                          Eating and Drinking Places                                 (20)     (29)      (25)      (25.0)
                          Tave-rns                                                    (6)      (8)      (8)       (33.3)
                       Services Total                                                151      176       163          7.9
                          Motels and Lodging                                         (11)     (14)      (12)        (9-1)
                       Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Total                      27       42       38          40.7
                          Real Estate                                                 (8)     (20)      (15)      (87.5)

                     ELMA AREA TOTAL                                                 164      223       213         29.9
                       Agricultural and Forest Services                                3        4         3          0.0
                       Construction                                                   13       29       23          76.9
                       Mining Total                                                    1        6         2       100.0
                          Sand and Gravel                                             (1)      (6)      (2)      (100-0)
                       Manufacturing                                                  12       15       14          16.7
                       Transportation, Communications, and Utilities                   8        9       13          62.5
                       Trade and Wholesaling Total                                    53       67       76          43.4
                          Eating and Drinking Places                                 (10)     (15)      (13)      (30.0)
                       Services Total                                                 67       78       71           6.0
                          Motels and Lodging                                          (6)      (8)      (5)      (-16.7)
                       Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Total                       7       15       11          57.1
                          Real Estate                                                 (3)      (9)      (6)      (100.0)

                     SOURCE: Monitoring Tables GH-T.4.57-64, 4/80.

                     with the last three years during construction. It excludes any construction
                     value of the Satsop project. At first glance the indicator departs in its
                     .implications from all             others in this report with a-decline occurting in
                     the Elma area over this'period. However, this decline is almost completely
                     due to the construction of a new chemical plant near Elma which was assessed
                     during the two years previous to the start of the Satsop project. If the
                     influence of this project is deleted the results of this table are generally
                     similar to all other indicators; an overall rise in the County with a much
                     stronger increase in East County. The tremendous growth in the McCleary area
                     should be noted, along with the exceptionally high amount of activity.oc                    curring.
                     in the Montesano area.

                           In order to illustrate the         significance of new construction on various
                     areas, Table 5.10 also comp-@Lres        the value of new construction in the last
                     three years to the total assessed value of Grays Harbor County. While this new
                     construction equalled 10.1% of the total assessed value of the County each year,
                     new construction equalled 3.8%          in East County.

                                                                       69

                        This is the only indicator or piece of datum that draws out the presence
                  of the Ventron Chemical Plan near Elma. As a new multimillion dollar facility
                  employing between 40 and 50 people, this plant clearly has significance on
                  economic conditions and growth patterns -in Elma. Unfortunately, none of the
                  available data is capable of assessing this relationship and. consequently, the
                  impact of this facility on this analysis is not clear.

                                                        TABLE 5.10
                                              VALUATION OF NEW CONSTRUCTION
                                             (Excluding the Satsop Project)

                                                                                         1978-1980 Annual
                                                  ANNUAL AVERAGES                        Average New
                                                             Three Years                 Construction
                                          Two Years          Of Proj.ect                 Percent of 1.979
                                          Before Project     1978, 1979,     Percent     County Assessment
                                          1976 and 1977      and 1.980              e    For Each Area
                  Elma  City               $    787,923      $ 1,423,521        80.7             5.8
                  Elma  Area                 6,135,7433         2,865,885       -53.3            3.5
                  McCleary City                 324,114           606,478       87.1             3.8
                  McCleary Area                  87,520           946,349       981.3            13.1
                  Montesano City                529,975          1,760,627      132.2            3.2,
                  Montesano Areal               877,780          3,569,063      306.6            33.4
                  Oakville City                  48,885           212,665       335.0            5.4
                  Oakville Area                 164,355           325,272       97.9             2.7
                  Total East County          8,956,29-5        11,709,860       30.7             3.8
                  Urban Area2                16,642.,893       19,082,025       1.4.7            3.7
                  Rest of County             5,740,382         13,246,431       130.8            3.0
                  Total Grays Harbor
                   .County                   31,339,570        44,038,316       40.5             10.1.
                  East County
                    Excluding Elma
                    Rural                 $  2,820,552       $ 8,843,975        213.6            3.9
                  lInclud'es Central Park; 21acorporated     area only; 31ncludes    construction of
                  Ventron Chemical Plant.

                  SOURCE: Monit   oring Tables GH-T.5.10.2, 10/80 and GH-T.7.154, 7/80.

                        5.7 Conclusion: All generally accepted indicators of economic conditions
                  were  improving during the start of the Project. This was particularly true
                  for the first year of construction with some slackening in the second year.
                  However, the third year of construction has demonstrated a decline in several
                  aspects.

                        It is clear that much    of the economic problems now.slowing, economic growth
                  are due to general factors     in the regional economy not related to Satsop.         The
                  Satsop project may be playing a substantial role in moderating@those worsening
                  conditionz. The Satsop project is a diversification in the economy which
                  appears to have provided some b@uffering to the economy in face of same strikes
                  and some large mill closings which occurred during this period. This diversifi-
                  cati6n could become very important if.the current lumber recession continues.

                                                               70

                     Available information still does not indicate that a significant induced
                unemployment effect is occurring, although there is a noticeable increase in
                unemployed construction workers. Whatever effect may be present would
                certainly be overshadowed by influences on unemployment from other sectors.

                                                   CHAPTER 5
                                                     NOTES

                1.   See Overall Economic Development Plan, Grays Harbor Regional Planning
                     Commission, June 1979, for discussions of the cyclical nature of the
                     Grays Harbor economy. Since June 1980 and the actual writing of this
                     report, these factors become much.wdrse as numerous forest products lay@-
                     offs began during the fall of 1980.

                2.   By statewide vote the sales tax on food was removed, thus creating a
                     reduction in taxable retail sales, even though total sales probably did
                     not.decrease.

                3.   Overall Economic Development Plan, op. cit

                4.   The volume of taxable retail sales for a city or town is calculated by
                     multiplying the annual sales tax revenue total by a factor of 238.877.

                     At the onset of the Monitoring Project extensive discussions occurred
                     between WPPSS' staff, Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission staff,
                     and the Washington State kmployment Security Department in an.attempt
                     to arrangp for a subcounty reporting of employment information. However,
                     this was to no avail.

                                                       71

                                                   CHAPTER 6

                                      LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CHANGES

                                                       72

                                     6. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CHANGES

                    6.1 Introduction: Since a major construction project may stimulate land
               development activity, such a 'ctivity has been closely monitored. Change in land
               use patterns which may be produced by induced growth and other effects of the
               Project could be one of the more lasting results of this Projpct's construction.

                    Laud development activities and land use changes proceed along a logical
               sequence of events through the obtaining of proper zoning for-an anticipated
               .use, partitioning of land for sale, obtaining any necessary zoning permits,
               and obtaining a building permit. Of course, any of these particular steps
               may or may not be needed for all development or for any particular development
               or use of land. However, when growth occurs one may expect all these activities
               to increase. The early steps (zone changes and land divisions) should occur
               well in advance and, indeed, are usually expected to be the first signs of a
               potential rapid change in the actual use of land. These early activities may
               occur only on the basis of an expectation that growth may occur.

                    6.2 Zoning: Good records of zone changes are available only for'the unin-
               corporated area jurisdiction of the County Planning Department. This, however$
               doesnot pose a serious problem since it is in the unincorporated area where it
               is generally necessary to obtain a zone change as a prelude to development.
               Table 6.1 summarizes the activity that has occurred over the last seven years.
               Several points are significant:

                    1. . While East County has been@,the focal point for zoning attention over
                         the past six years, the greatest activity inside this area occurred
                         during 1978. There was a slight decrease in zoning changes in 1979.
                         The first half of 1980 seems to suggest another slight decrease from
                         the previous year', although if the activity recorded for the first
                         half continues, zoning changes will be double the 1977 level.
                    2.   While there was an increase in zoning activity in the East County
                        .during 1977, it was not as pronounced      nor as high as it was in
                         1973. In 1978, however, the increase   was dramatic.
                    3.   While almost all zoning changes from 1977  to the first half of 1980
                         in East County were to more intense use classifications (mostly
                         conversion of agricultural areas), theopposite was true in 1976
                         when almost all zoning changes were to a less intense use. These
                         could indicate that the threat of development pressure may lead some
                         land owners to seek greater protection.
                    4.   The,greatest impact of zoning changes has been the loss of agricul-
                         tural areas to other potential uses.1
                    5.   Rezoning activity had not yet increased significantly by theend of
                         1977, but in 1978 a sharp increase occurred. This was well after
                         the start of the Construction Project.
                    6.   The overall pattern of zoning activity consisted of a rapid   increase
                         in conversions to more intense use as the Project startedthen, while
                         still highappears to be moderating.

                    Zoning changes are illustrated on Map 6.1 This map clearly demonstrates
               the focus of this activity in the Elma area.

                                                       73

                                                      TABLE 6.1
                                                   ZONING CHANGES
                                                      1973-1980

                                                                                       First
                                                                                       Half    Total
                                   1973   1974     1975  1976    1977   1978    1979   1980     Changes
              EAST COUNTY
                TOTAL,CHANGES        10     5       4       5      8      22      20     8         82

              Changes t o More
               Intense Use:           7     3       2              7      20      18     7         64
                From Agricul-
                 ture                 6     3       2              5      17      15     5         53
                From General
                  Development         I     -       -              -      1       -      -         2
                From Other                                         2      2       3      2         9

              Changes to Less
               Intense Use:           3     1       1       5             2       2      1         15
                To Agriculture        -             1       2             1       -      -         4
                To General
                  Development         2     1       -       2             -       1                6
                To Residential        1                     1             1              1         4
                To Other                                    -             -       1      -         I

              Same Intensity                                -             -       -                3

              OTHER AREAS OF
              COUNTY TOTAL
              CHANGES                 2     1       1       1      4      6       6      2         23

                                                    1              3      5       5      1         16
              More Intensive          I     -               -

              Less Intensive                                                                       5

              Same Intensity          I                     -                                      2

              SOURCE, Monitoring Table GH-T.9.48,     10/80

                     6.3 Land Divisions:     For various reasons not completely understood,actual
                subdivisions of land (division of land into more than four separate parcels) had
                been fairly rare in this County from 1972 to 1978. As recorded by the Assessor, as
                of January 19781,there has been only one approvedsubdivision in East County
                since 1972 (10 lots inside McCleary). Prior to 1978 the last subdivision in
                the unincorporated areas of the County was in the North Beach area (42 units)
                in 1973. In 1978, however, 6 subdivisions of 76 lots were approvedkith 63 of
                those lots being in East County. This surge of subdivision activity apparently
                subsided in 1979 in East County, but increased in other parts of the County,
                primarily in Ocean Shores. The first half of 1980 shows renewed subdivision
                activity in East County.

                                                           74

                                                    MAP 6. 1
                                                ZONING CHANGES
                                                   1975-1979

                                                                                1975 and 1976

                                                                                1977 and 1978
                                                                          -Z =1979

                                                                               0        0

               SOURCE: Map number GH-M.32.9.143,  4/80.

             FiRPC

                                                      75

                      Subdivision, however, is not the only method of land division. Short
                platting involves the creation of four or less lots out of one parcel. Here
                activity had been increasing until 1980 where first half figures could be
                indicating a slight decline. This is illustrated on Table 6.3. The rate of
                lot creation in East County jumped by 89% between 1976 and 1977, another 61%
                in 1978 and 8.9% in 1979. East County activity comprises most of the activity
                in the County (71% during,the first half of 1980). Since requirements and
                standards which must be met are less demanding for short plats than for sub-
                divisions, the reliance by potential developers on short platting rather than
                subdivision indicates that lower quality but less intensive lots are generally
                being created.

                                                      TABLE 6_2
                                              SUBDIVISION LOTS CREATED
                                              (Excluding Condominiums)

                                      East County       Other       Total Lots     Total Subdivisions
                1974                        0              0            0                   0
                1975                       10              0          10                    1
                1976                        0            13           13                    1
                1977                        0              0            0                   0
                1978                       63            1*3          76                    6
                1979                        0            56           56                    5
                1980  First Half           31            18           49                    2

                SOURCE: Monitoring table GH-T.9.46,      10/80.

                                                      TABLE 6.3
                                              ,SHORT PLAT LOTS CREATED

                                                    East County          Other          Total
                          1975                           18               17              35
                          1976                           26                 6             32
                          1977                           49               24              73
                          1978                           79               22              101
                          1979                           86               16              102
                          1980  First Half               30               12              42

                SOURCE:   Monitoring table   GH-T.9.47,  10/80.

                      See,location of both   subdivisions and short plats as identified on Maps
                6.2 and 6.3. Map 6.3 again shows the high level of activity occurring in East
                County althoughnot particularly focused on the Elma area as in the case of
                zoning.
                      6.4 Other Zoning Actions:. In addition to obtaining the proper zoning for
                a development, there are often other zoning actions that may be necessary before
                a project or activity can continue. These actions include conditional uses and
                variances. While only a small percentage of all development requires such
                permits, their presence can indicate a general interest in land development.
                As these permits increase, development activity also tends to increase.

                                                           76

                                                    MAP 6. 2
                                           LOCATION OF SUBDIVISIONS
                                                   1975-1979

                                                                           x  = 1975 and 1976

                                                                           0  = 1977 and 1978
                                                                              = 1979

                                                                                         0

              SOURCE   Map number GH-M.32.9 .141, 4/80.

             ,@Rpc

                                                      77

                                                    MAP 6. 3
                                            LOCATION OF SHORT PLATS
                                                    1975-1979

                   lj%@@

                                                                                 1975 and 1976

                                                                                 1977 and 1978
                                                                                 1979,

             GHRPC

                SOURCE: Map number GH-M.32.9.142, 4180.

                                                       78

                      As in the case'of other activities, conditional use permits increased
                 rapidly inthe East County area at the start of the project (from 2 in 1973 to
                 24 in 1977 and 2@ in 1978 then moderating in 1979 (18) and 1980). These permits
                 have been generally of two types both closely related to the Satsop project:
                 (I)permits for gravel operations, and (2) mobile home parks. However, mobile
                 home permit activity has dropped significantly since 1978. Figures for 1980
                 indicate a substantial slow down in activity, including opening new gravel pits.

                      Therapid increase in the number of gravel. permitsbas been.one Of t'be most
                 apparent and significant impacts of the project. Not only does the"activity
                 significantly alter the character of the land where they are granted, but they
                 also determine the flow of construction trucks and related concerns of traffic
                 congestion, wear on streets, accidents   ', etc. Granting of these permits,further-
                 more, adds to the conversion of agricultural land discussed earlier under 6.2
                 Zoninz,as 63% of all gravel use permits have been granted-in agricultural zotAes-3
                 Map 6-.4 illustrates the distribution of these permits in the County. This
                 activity finally seems to be slowing with only one new permit being issued in
                 the first half of 1980@in East County.

                                                      TABLE 6.4
                                      COUNTY CONDITIONAL USE PE  RMIT ACTIVITY

                                                          East County
                                       Mobile.Home                                              Total
                                          Parks           Gravel       Other       Total        County
                 1973                        1               0           1            2          10
                 1974                        4               1           1            6            8
                 1975                        2               5           3          10           19
                 1976                        4               7           1          12           17
                 1977                        3              18           3          24           30
                 1978                        3@             17           3          23           47
                 1979                        1              13           4          18           29
                 1980 First Half             1               1           2            4          10
                 TOTAL                      19              62           18         99           170
                 SOURCE: Monitoring table GH-T.9.49, 10/80.

                                                      TABLE 6.5
                                       AGRICULTURAL AREAS AND GRAVEL PERMITS

                                            Total Conditional            Number            Percent
                                             Use Permits For             Granted in        Located in
                                            Gravel Extraction            Agricultural-     Agricultural
                                      Eas t CountX     Other Areas       Zones             Zones
                 1973                       0                0                   0                  0
                 1974                       1                0                   1               100.0
                 1975                       5                2                   2               28.6
                 1976                       7                1                   4               50.0
                 1977                     18                 3                  15               71.4
                 1978                     17                 6                  15               65.2
                 1979                     13                 5                  12               66.7
                 1980 First Half            1                2                   2               66.7
                 TOTAL                    62                19                  51               63.0
                 SOURCE: Monitoring table    GH-T.9.50 and  51, 10/80.

                                                            79

                                                      MAP 6. 4
                              LOCATION OF CONDITIONAL LAND USE PER14ITS APPROVED FOP,
                        GRAVEL EXTRACTIONS, ROCK,QUARRTES, AND SURFACE MINING, 1975-1979

                      ............

                                                                                  1975 and 1976

                                                                                  1977 and 1978
                                                                                  1979

                                                                              CK

                                                                       r

             @IRPC

                SOURCE: Map number GH-M.32.9.145, 4/80.

                                                        80

                      The issuance of variances by the County has increased. However, unlike
                 soi@e other planning activities, variance activity is also taking place or, the
                 beach areas. Less than half of the approved variances in 1976, 1977, a-ad 1979
                 were in East County though this area had 52% of this activity in 1978 and 60%
                 for the first half of 1980. The most frequent type of variance request was
                 for a variance of setback requirements (53% of the total activity since 1973).
                 Map 6.5 shows the location of approved variances in the County. Unlike other
                 indicators,this activity continues to increase.

                                                       TABLE 6.6
                                              VARIANCE PER141T ACTIVITY

                                                 East County          Other Areas           Total.
                       1973                            1                   6                  7
                       1974                            1                   2                  3
                       1975                            13                  2                15
                       1976                            6                   7                13
                       1977                            6                   9                15
                       1978                           14                   13               27
                       1979                           10                   17               27
                       1980 First Half                 9                   6                15
                       TOTAL                                                               122,

                      ,SOURCE: Monitoring table GH-T.9.52, 10/80.

                     6.5 Building Permits: After all necessary zoning permits are obtained,
                 a building permit-is usually the next required step for development. Gra,-.)hs
                 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 illustrate the activity which is occurring throughout the
                 County. Building permit activity was up in the entire County in 1977 and 1978
                 with East Countv being no exception. In 1.979, activity was still high but is
                 below the level of the two previous years,but a sharp decline started with the
                 first half of 1980. As noted on Graph 6.2, of the three major areas of the
                 County, East County led in the number of permitsr(by number of units) issued
                 during 1977, but in 1978, 1979, and 1980 permits dropped below that.level.
                 Whilethis area has approximately 30% of the population,it hashad over 34% of
                 the new housing construction since the start of the Satsop project. The 'number
                 of permits in West County continued to rise through 1979, but this area also
                 appears to be slowing into 1980..

                     While the bulk of all   permits in East County during 1977 (45%) was for
                 multiple family units, multiple family dwellings dropped to a more character-
                 istic level during 1978 and 1979 and are estimated to be only about 11% for
                 1980. Single family and mobile home starts reached a peak for the County in
                 1978 with single family home starts estimated to decline by- 33% and mobile
                 homes by 24% in 1980. It is noted that mobile homes in East County rose 31%
                 in 1980 over 1979, and again reach almost the same level as 1978.

                     Table 6.7 identifies the location of new starts in eastern Grays Harbor
                 County. As shown, total activity has doubled in East County since 1975 with
                 most of the building activity being focused on the Elma area,followed closely
                 by the Montesano area. A sharp decline appears for 1980, however. It is
                 interesting to note that building permit activity does seem to be closely
                 related with household growth as measured by electrical connections. The Elma

                                                          81

                                                     MAP 6. 5
                                              LOCATION OF VARIARCES
                                                     1975-1-979

                               7-

                                                                                 1975 and 1976
                                                                                 1977 and 1978
                                                                                 1979

                                         x
                                                                               0

                                                              0,

                                                                       . . . . . . . . . . . . .x

               SOURCE: Map number GH-M-32.9.146, 4/80.

                                                       82

                                                                                                    GRAPH 6.1

                                                                           AUTHORIZED DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE
                                                                                 EASTERN GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY
                                                                                                    1975-1980

                                                                                                                         133

                                                                         Multi-Famiiy

                                                                                               117                                                 117

                                                                                                                          103
                                                                                                                                                                           .0'

                                                      Single-Family
                                    1.4    0

                                                                                                         0
                                   z
                                   1-4                                                                                                              64

                                         60

                                                                     so                Mobi le   Homes

                                              30
                                              ......                26@

                                           0

                                          1975                     176                        14.7-1                    1478                                                     0
                                                                                                                                                                       Estimated

                                             SOURCE: Monitoring table GH-T.5.103, 1/81.

                                                                                                          83

                                                                                   GRAPH 6.2
                                                            AUTHORIZED DWELLING UNITS BY AREA
                                                                       GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY
                                                                                    1975-1980

                                                      EAST COUNTY                          URBAN AREA                        WEST COUNTY

                                                                                                                                                351

                                                               313

                                                                          258
                                                                                                                                       266
                                                                                                                                                       48

                                                                                              205
                                           0
                                                                          ;x-:

                                       1                                                                                          153
                                      Lu                  151
                                                                                                                                   X
                                                                                                                                                       w
                                                                                                            -:44                                       <
                                                     ?is

                                                                               LLJ

                                                                                                                                                       UJ
                                                                               <

                                                                               V)
                                                                               Lu                                  or
                                                                                                            ;5s,

                                                                                                                   uj

                                                                                                                   Lu
                                             OR                           .1
                                                      75 76 77 TO         79   80                                  so         75 76    77 78 79 80

                                                SOURCE: Monitoring table GH-T.5.103, 1/81.
                                                                                                                              100
                                                                                         210

                                                                                                     84

                                                  GRAPH 6.3
                                      AUTHORIZED DWELLING  UNITS BY TYPE
                                            GRAYS HARBOR   COUNTY
                                                    1974-1980

                                                               873

                        z

                          150

                                            tft
                                            0                             4u
                                          r
                                          : 9  -   E            E         e
                                          T               E               0  c         E
                                      c-              C,
                               LL     m               =  m I LL        u-                   LL
                                      LL                  LL                           'L      a)
                               di do

                                  5
                                1 7--1    1975                 1977      1978      1079       1980

                             SOURCE:   Monitoring    table GH.-T.5.103, 1/81.

                                                               85

                  area (including the City) leads in both activities, followed closely by
                  Montesano. New building starts in 1979 and the first half of 1980,in nearly
                  all areas of the County except for the Beach Area,are below the levels reached
                  in 1977 and 1978. This probably refiects the 'availability of mortgage money
                  and the high interest rates. See Section 5.4 in Chapter 5.

                                                           TABLE 6.7
                                              NEW BUILDING STARTS BY LOCATION

                                                        1975    1976    1977     1978    1979   1980-First Half

               "'entral Park                             11      15       14      19      22            5

               Montesano City                            17        8      48      32      18            2.
               'dontesano Unincorporated Area            14      33       67      43      39           30*
               'E,Iria City                              12      26       71      14      47            4
               Elma Unincorporated Area                  24      27       58      74      59           14
               '..-icCleary Town                         16        9      17      20        5           1,
               KcCleary Unincorporated Area                5       7        9     24      37            3
               Oakville City                          N/A          4        2       8       7           4*
                          Unincorporated Area            13      13       19      25      18           10*
               0

                                                                                  13
               ..atsop                                     6       9       8                6           8*
               Total East County                       118      151     313     272      258           81
               'Urban Area                             210      205     304     301      132           38

               Beach and Other Areas                   100      153     256     335      351           105

               'TOTAL COUNTY                           428      509     873     908      741           224

               SOURCE., Monitoring Table GH-T.5.101,         10/80.

               *Greater than rate of construction in         1979.

                       At present it is impossible to       compare building    permit activity in the'
                 last few years with the early part of the decade since data for the permitting
                 agencies are not readily available. However, the Assessor's office has data
                 specifying when new dwellings are placed on the assessment'rolls. Since there
                 may be a considerable time lag between the issuance of a permit and the place-
                 ment of the structure on the tax rolls, information is not comparable to data
                 presented above.4 Table.6.8 presents this information for the East County
                 area. As shown, there was intense building activity in the study area early
                 in the decade which slacked off in the middle years. This. was followed by a
                 period of resurgence.5

                       In conclusion,-land development activity in the study area sharply
                 increased during 1978,especially in zoning actions which convert agricultural
                 zones to other uses. While building activity also increased singificantly, it
                 seems to reach a peak in 1978with a considerable slowing of activity during
                 1979 and 1980. Assessor's data indicate that current activity is of a similar
                 level to earlier periods (1972-1973) in.the decade.

                                                                B6

                                                             TABLE 6.8
                                                 COMPLETED NiW DWELLING UNITS
                                                     (Excludes Mobile Homes)
                                                              1971-1979

                           Central                                 Malone-
                           Park         Elma          McCleary     Porter        Montesano     Oakville      Total.
                           and          and            and         and           and            and'         East
                           ILi @nit@    Vicini        Vicinity     Vicinity      Vicinity_     Vicinity      _go!Li1t
                 IL971         26           38            12            1             43            2            122
                 1972          51           75            36            7             23           13            205
                 1973          29           35            17            6             66           14            167
                 1974          20           16            10            1             63           10            120,
                 1975          16           57            17            3             14            4            Ill,
                 1976          10           17            13            1             28            5             74
                 1977          27           52            32            3             83            4            201
                 1978          28           66            50            7             44           10            205
                 1979          34           77            42            3             38            .9           203
                 TOTAL        241           433          229            32           402           71          1,408

                 SOURCE: Monitoring       tables GH-T.32.5.95-100, 7/80.

                         6.6 Housing Costs and AvailabililyL. The Monitoring Program has observed
                   change in both the costs and avai.      lability of housing in the East County area.

                         Table 6.9 and 6.10 and Graph 6.4 record large increases in both the costs
                   of new houses and in rents. While this has been observed, the significance of
                   this rise is difficult to assess since it is known that housing costs and rents
                   are rising generally throughout the County and elsewhere. From 1970 to 1978,
                   (Table 6.10) median values increased most significantly in the McCleary area.
                   Table 6.9 illustrates similar conclusions for McCleary from 1974 to 1979 for
                   sale costs.-

                         While the availability of units for rent increased in the last year over
                   1977,(Table 6.11    'and Graph 6.5) the number of homes purchased has declined (Table
                   6.11) from the high recorded in 1977. This again could reflect interest rates
                   rather than availability.

                         Table 6.12 records the total number of units for which permits were'issued
                   county-wide since 1976. These starts, plus the County total for 19.74 and 1975, are
                   compared to projections under two different population forecast assumptions by
                   the Regional Planning Commission for new units needed to meet regional housing
                   needs between 1974 and 1990 (Tables 6.13 and 6.14).

                         As shown, housing starts for 19714, 1975, and 1976 were substantially below
                   the identified needs. However, for the first time housing starts in 1977 were
                   above projected needs as were starts for 1978 under all assumptions. This was
                   also true in.1979, under almost all assumptions. In spite of this resurgence
                   in the regional housing market, new construction still lags well below long-
                   term housing needs. Reports from other areas of the State indicate that this
                   sharp increase in housing starts during this period is part of a general trend,
                   and therefore cannot be readily attributable to the Construction Project.6

                                                                  87

                                                                                      TABLE 6.9
                                                                                    HOUSING COSTS7'
                                                                                    -EAST COUNTY

                           Average Monthly   Advertised Rents:

                                                1975                1976                     1977                     1979                    1979
                                     .1974 11/1-12/31- 1/1-6130 7/1-12/31 1/1-6130 1/1-12/31 1/1-6/30 7/1-12/31 1/1-6130 7 1-12                           31
                           East
                           County     NIA       $135         $149         $162        $190        $188         $228        $247         $266         $282
                           Average Sale   Price of Three Bedroom Homes:                                                                       % Change
                                                                 1974         1975         1976          1977         1978         1979       1974-1979
                           Central Park   and Vicinity         $30,320  -     $31.306      $34,333     $45@456     $50,739      $56,410           86.0
                           Elms and Vicinity                    24,613        28.514       30,537      32.927       43,524       46,821           90.2
                           McCleary and Vicinity                20.729        21,670       26,891      29.150       34,334       48,344          03.2
                           Malone-Porter and Vicinity           Insufficient data     (is  included    in total averages)
                           Montesano and Vicinity               24,585        24.449       30.864      34,656       41,833       50.794          106.6
                           Oakville and Vicinity                25,951        30,944       39.542      22,280       50.188       43,971           69.4
                           TOTAL EAST COUNTY                   $25,631        $27,641      $31,310     $34.843     $43,068      $50,208           95.9

                           Average Sale Price of Two Bedroom Homes:,
                                                                                                                                              Z Change
                                                                 1974         1975         1976          1977         1978         1979       1974-1979
                           Central Park and Vicinity           $36,963        $22,864      $24,939     $46-,552    $fS@012      $@4,T36           73.5
                           Elms and Vicinity                    16,563        16,765       21,926      23,503       33,753       32,028           93.4
                           McCleary and Vicinity                10,224        15,546       16,266      18,331       23,502       38,269          274.3
                           Malone-Porter and Vicinity           Insufficient data     (is  included    in total averages)
                           Montesano and Vicinity               22,607        17,935       22.950      22,521       27,384       39,540           74.9
                           Oakville and Vicinity                13,955        10.704       12,829      39,400       39,354       30,000          115.0
                           TOTAL EAST COUNTY                   $19,234        $17,843      $23,162     $26,193     $31,059      $40,661          MAI
                           SOURCE: Table CH-T.32..5.86-92, 7/80 and           Grays liarbor County Assessor!s Records.

                                                                                    TABLE 6.10
                                                                        MEDIAN RESIDENCE VALUES
                                                        GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY AND COMPARATIVE AREAS
                                                                                    1970-1978

                                                                                 1970                     1978                Percent qh:@jn@e
                               National                                       $17,000                  $   ---
                               Washington State                               18,500
                               Seattle-Everett                                19,500                       ---
                               Portland, Oregon                               16,700                       ---                          ---

                               Grays Harbor County
                                  Aberdeen                                    13,445                   28,177                        109.6
                                  Westport                                    14,285                   24,999                          75.0
                                  Ocean Shores                                23,333                   35,714                          53.1

                               East County Area
                                  Central Park                                22,415                   44,473                          98.4
                                  Montesano                                   15,721                   31,660                        101.4
                                  Elma                                        13,981                   34,990                        150.3
                                  McCleary                                    12,319                   27,857                        126.1
                                  Oakville                                    $ 8,447                  $19,166                       126.9

                               SOURCE: GH-T.32.5.62, 6/79.

                                                                                           88

                                                         'GRAPH '6.4
                            AVERAGE RENT PER UNIT (ALL UNTITS INCLUDED REGAFWLESS OF TYPE)
                                    MONTESANO, ELMA,@M=EARY, SATSOP, AND OAKVILLE
                                           (FAST COUNTY), GRAYS HARBOR-COUNTY

                     30G-

                     275-

                     25G-

                     225-

                     20G-

                  R  17

                     150-1

                  W
                     1255-

                     100-

                       75-

                       5(@

                       25-

                        0-
                              Jan.- July-       Jan.- July- Jan.- July- Jan.-             July-
                              June     Dec.     June    Dec.    June    Dec.     June     Dec.
                               1976    1976     1977    1977    1978     1978- 1979       1979

                               SOURCE: Chart     number GH-C.32.5.10, 7180.

                                                               89@

                                                                              TABLE 6.11
                                                                        HOUSING AVAILABILITYS
                                                                              EAST COUNTY

                        Average Monthly Number of Rental Unite      Advertised.

                                                                        1976                1977                1976                 1979
                                                      L975          Jan.-     July-      Jan.-   July,-      Jan.-    July-    Jan.-     July-
                                          1974      (Nov.-Dec.)     June      Dec.       June    Dec.        June     Dec.     June      Dec.
                        Bast County       N/A          11           13.5        6.5      6.7        9.8      14        11      12.Z      18.5

                        Total Number of   Sales of Three Bedroom Homes:
                                                                                                                               %Change
                                                            1974        1975       1976       1977       1978       1979       1974-1979
                                                                35           42                                                      20
                        Central Park and   Vicinity                                 55           62          38       42
                        Elms and Vicinity                       27           35     36           41          41       38             41
                        McCleary and Vicinity                   17           1.5    26           60          42       31             82
                        Malone-Porter and Vicinity              0            0           3       6           4         2             -
                        Montesano and Vicinity                  32           46     48           49          49       44             38
                        Oakville and Vicinity                   13           12     15           14          16       12             -8.
                        TOTAL EAST COUNTY                    124        ISO        183           232         190     169             36

                        Total Number of, Sales of Two Bedroom    Homes:
                                                                                                                                Change
                                                            1974        1975       1976       1977       1978       1979       1974-1979
                        Central Park and Vicinity               13           14     12           28          20       12             -8
                        Elma and Vicinity                       19           27     23           46          38       .19            0
                        McCleary and Vicinity                   13           9      29           30          319      139            0
                        Malone-Porter and.Vicinity              4            3           7       7           2         2          -50
                        Montesano and Vicinity                  30           29     40           37          33       22          -27
                        Oakville and Vicinity                   13           9           9       10          17        7          -46
                        TOTAL FAST COUNTY                       92           91    120           158         141      75          -18

                        SOURCE: Tables GH-T.32.5,86-92. 7/80 and Grays Harbor County Assessor's              records.

                                                                             TABLE 6.12
                                                                INCREASES IN HOUSING STARTS
                                                            IN GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY BY AREA
                                                                             1976-1979

                                                                                                 1976-1979                   1976-1979
                                                 1976       1977       1978        1979     Number Increase             Percent Increase
                     Satsop                           9         8                  -6                  -3                        .-33.3
                     Central Park                   15          14           19     22                   7                           46.7
                     Oakville Area*                 17          21           33     25                   8                           47.1
                     McCleary Area                  16          26           44     42                 26                         162.5
                     Montesano Area                 41       115             75     57                 16                            39.0
                     Elma Area                      53       129             88    106                 53                         100.0
                     East County                  151        313        272        258                107                            70.9
                     Urban Area                   205        304        301        132,               -73                         -35.6
                     Rest o,   'f County          153        256        335        351                198                         129.4
                     Total County                 509        873        908        741                232                            45.6

                     *In6ludes Malone-Porter and                 Vicinity.

                     SOURCE: Monitoring table GH-T.5.103, 1/81.

                                                                                   90

                                                                 GRAPH 6.5
                                             NUMBER OF UNITS (BY TYPE) ADVERTISED AS AVAILABLE
                             MONTESANO, ELMA, MCCLEARY, SATSOP, AND OAKVILLE (EAST COUNTY), GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY

                  40-                                       Single Family (Single family units and
                                                            mobile homes)
                                                            Multi-family (Duplexes, triplexes,
                  35
                                                            and apartments)

                  30 -

                                                                                I-we,
                  25                %

                  20

                                                                          ee.-
                z                                            40'
                  15                    %

                                              00 01w
                  10

                    5

                    0                                                                                             . .....
                          Jan. April July Oct.  'Jan. April July Oct. Jan. April     July Oct    Jan. April July  Oct.
                          Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June        Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept.   Dec.
                                   1976                   1977                    1978                    1979

                          SOURCE: Chart number GH-G.32.5.9, 7/80.

                   However, the clear focus of new starts on Elma, as seen                   on Table 6.12,suggests
                   that the communities near theSite are particularly-attractive to housing
                   investment. This attractiveness would seem to be at least partially related
                   to the prospective economic and population growth which is expected to occur
                   due to the Project. Also, in spite of a tightening of the money market and
                   rising interest rates, new housing starts are still significantly higher than.
                   they were in 1976.

                                                                 TABLE 6.13
                             ANNUAL UNITS REQUIRED TO MEET REGIONAL 1990 CONSTRUCTION GOALS
                               AND CURRENT CONSTRUCTION WITH CONTINUED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
                                                                  1974-1979

                                                        Annual Goal                              Surplus/Deficit
                         Actual             With                  Without               With                 Without
                         New                Aggressive            Aggressive            Aggressive           Aggressive
                Year     Construction       Rehabilitation        Rehabilitation        Rebabilitation       Rebabilitation
                  0-4           372                 676                   853                 -304                  -481
                .'L975          428                 676                   853                 -248                  -425
                -11976          509                 676                   853                 -167                  -344
                1977            873                 676                   853                   197                    20
                1978            908                 676                   853                   232                    55
                '1979           741                 676                   853                    65                 -112
                TOTAL        3,831                4,056                 5,118                 -225                -1,287

                SOURCE: Grays Harbor Region Housing Element, Grays Harbor Regional Planning
                            Commission,* June 1979,as updated.

                                                                 TABLE 6.14
                             ANNUAL UNITS REQUIRED TO MEET REGIONAL.1990 CONSTRUCTION GOALS
                                   AND CURRENT CONSTRUCTION WITH POOR ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
                                                                  1974-1979

                                                        Annual    Goal                           Surplus/Deficit
                         Actual             With                  Without               With                 Without
                         New                Aggressive            Aggressive            Aggressive           Aggressive
                ,@Iear   Construction       Rehabilitation        Rehabilitation        Rehabilitation       Rehabilitation
                1974            372                 517                   671                 -145                  .-299
                1975            428                 517                   .671                  -89                 -243
                '1976           509                 517                   671                    -8                 -162
     41                         873                 517                   671                   356                  202
                @1978           908                 517                   671                   391                  237
                1979            741                 517                   671                   224                    70
                TOTAL        3,831                3,102                 4,026                   729                 -195

                SOURCE: Grays       Harbor Region Housing         Element,    Grays Harbor      Regional Planning
                              mmission, June 1979,as updated.

                                                                        92.

                     6.7 Actual Land Use Chang,(@L. Zoning and land division actions -do not
               autbmatically lead to an actual change in use. Consequently, such actions are
               only an indication of where land.use change might occur in the future, and
               other information is needed to assess the actual change that is occurring in
               the area. As a part of the Monitoring Program, actual changes in use are being
               observed.

                     In 1977, all land uses were inventoried in areas where settlement patterns
               were focused in East County.10 These.original inventory areas are Identified
               on Map 6.6. This inventory was then updated in 1978, 1979, and 1980. Thus,
               all change can be identified by comparing these inventories. The expanded
               areas, also shown on Map 6.6, were inventoried for the first time in 1980
               and noted all changes from base information taken from 1977 aerial photo-
               graphs. All inventories are on file with the Regional Planning Commission and
               were published as maps and tables in the December 1978, January 1980, and
               January 1981 editions of the Monitoring Reports..

                     Table 6.15 tabulates the acres of land use change identified in this
               process from 1977 to 1980. Within the inventoried area, a total of 1,069 acres
               changed use. Table 6.16 tabulates the number of land use changes that have
               occurred, a total of 959.   'The most significant new use is residential, com-
               prising 39% of the total acres changed and 84% of the total number of changes.
               The most frequent type of new residential use is classifed as low density.
               In all inventoried areas, a total of 755 changes, comprising 374 acres, created
               new low.density residential use. Of the total area inventoried, 165 acres
               changed to low density residential use whichhad been forest lands, 1.16 had
               been vacant (i.e. not in an identifiable use) and 101 acres had been in agricul-
               ture uses.

                     New industrial uses constituted 34% of the tota@l change in acres. Out of
               the total,361 acres             changed to industrial use, 330 acres or 91% of
              @the total are now used for gravel pits. The land now used for gravel pits was
               originally in forest (1.63 acres), agricultural uses (154 acres), and vacant (14
               acres). With the exception of public/semi public uses (11%), and agricultural
               uses M), all other new uses (commercial, vacant, and forest) amounted to 5%
               or less of the total new use of acreage. The west laydown area for the Satsop
               Construction Project accounted for 100 acres of-the 121 total acres changed to
               public/semi-public use. Almost all new uses occur on land previously classified
               as forest, agricultural, or vacant land. The amount of forest land lost to
               development is 529 acres, accounting for approximately 50% of the total.
               Development occurred on 321 acres of former agricultural land (30%) and on
               178 acres previously classified as'vacant (17%).

                     Tables 6.17 and 6.18 shows the acres of change and the number of changes
               for the incorporated areas of East County. New low. density residential Use
               occurred in the incorporated area on only 33 acres o  'ut of the total of 374
               (9%) and 125 changes out of the total of 755 (17%). This indicates that this
               kind of development is far greater in the unincorporated areas of East County.

                     Tables 6.19 and 6.20 give the general distribution of all land use change
               by acres and units in-the inventoried areas. Map 6.7 graphically compares the
               changes in each of the inventory areas. Since this table excludes gravel pits,
               it consists primarily of residential uses, and mostly of a low density character.

                                                       93,

                                                                                                                                                        MAP 6. 6

                                                                                                                                         LAND USE INVENTORY
                                                                                                                                        EASTERN GRAYS HARBOR
                                                                                                                                                      1977-1980

                                                                                                            3:

                                                                                                                                                                    Mocle

                                                                                                                                                                      iF,
                                                        44.       contrai rsrot

                                                                                                           chahe                                            Malon
                                                                                                                       -WN P 3/5:

                                                                                                                                                                     to

                                                                                                                                                                       t

                                                                                                                    LEGEND

                                                                                                  Original Inventory Areas w-.av                     I
                                                                                                  Expanded Inventory Areas im
                                                                                                  City/Community Boundaries                 .......
                                                                                                  State Forest Rbundaries
                                                                                                                    R@

                                                                                                                                                                      EAR
                                                                                                                                    RIM

                                                                                                                TABLE 6.15
                                                                            TOTAL ACRES OF LAND USE CHANGES-ORIGINAL AND EXPANDED INVENTORY AREAS
                                                                                                      FASTERN GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY
                                                                                                                  1977-1980

                                                                                                              Original Use and Acres of Change
                                                                                                                                    Public/                             Total        of Tota'
                                               New Use               Residential     Agricultural Industrial Commercial            Semi Public Vacant         Forest    ChapAe      Change
                                               Residential                 .56           111.75             .70          1.21                         13B.99  162.40          415.61      39
                                                 Low Density                             100.75-            .70          1.21                         115.60  156.15          374.41      33
                                                 Koderate                  .56              11.00                                                     20.62       6.25        38.43       4
                                                 High                                                                                                 2.77                    2.77
                                               Agricultural                                                                                           4.30    94.00           98.30       9
                                               Industrial Total          3.76            169.02                                                       16.80   171.40          360.98      34
                                                 Gravel                                  153.52                                                       13.80   162.60          329.92      31
                                               Commercial                5.63               1.50                                         .50          6.28        1.50        15.41       1
                                               Public/
                                                 Semi Public             10.70                                                                        9.50    100.001         120.81      11
                                               Vacant                    14.57              38.15                          .70           .16          2.50                    56.08       5
                                               Forest                      .50              1.00                                                                              1.50
                                               Total                     35.72           321.42             .70          2.52            .66          178-37 529.30     1,063-69          100Z
                                               Percent                     3%               30%                                                       17%     50%             100%

                                               *Less than 12.
                                               Percentages might    not total 100% due to rounding.
                                               lRepresents the west laydown area for the Satsop Construction Project.

                   to
                   Un
                                                                                                               TABLE 6.16
                                                                           TOTAL NUMBER OF LAND USE CHANGES-ORIG174AL AND EXPANDED INVENTORY              AREAS
                                                                                                     EASTEF-11 GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY
                                                                                                                  1977-1980

                                                                                                            Original Use and Number of C
                                                                                                                                  Public/                                     Total Z of Total
                                                                   Residentia      Agricultural Tndustrial Commercial                             Vacant      Jar-e-at        QggZg Chango
                                             New U5,e
                                                                                                                                  aemi Publ ic
                                             Residential                   3             180             2               5                        356         260             806         84
                                               Low                                       176             2               5                        314         258             755         79
                                               Moderate                    3                4                                                         38          2           47          5
                                               High                                                                                                   4                       4
                                             Agricultural                                                                                             1           2           3
                                             Industrial Total              3                7                                                         5           11          26          3
                                               Gravell                                      4                                                         1           6           11          1
                                             Commercial                  21                 3                            4             1              18          3           50          5
                                             Public/
                                               Semi Public                                  5                            4                            3           2           14          2
                                             Vacant                      51                 2                            3             1                                      57          6
                                             Forest                        1                2                                                                                 3
                                             Total                       79              09              2              16             2          383         278             959         !00%
                                             Percent                     8%              21%                             2%            k              40%         29Z         100%
                                             *Less chart 1%.
                                             Percentages might not total 100% due to          rounding.

                                                                                                        TABLE 6.17
                                                                                  TOTAL ACRES OF LAND USE CHANCKS-INCORPORATED AREAS
                                                                                               EASTERN CUTS RARBOR COUNTY
                                                                                                           1977-1980

                                                                                                    Original Use and Acres of Change
                                                                                                                          Public/                          Total   Z of Total
                                               New Use          RASidential At,  ricultural 'Industrial Commercial Semi Public Vacant Forest @e                     Change
                                               Residential           .56            2.75                        .47                      38.35     2.50    44.63         68
                                                 Low D-nity                         2.75                        .47                      27.21     2.25    32.68         50
                                                 Moderate            .56                                                                 9.87       .25    10.68         16
                                                 High                                                                                    1.27                1.27        2
                                               Industrial            .14                                                                           1.00      1.14        2
                                               Commercial           2.28                                                      .50        2.98                5.76        9
                                               Public
                                                 Semi  Public                                                   .51                      1.00                1.51        2
                                               Vacant               4.17            8.15                        .10           .16                          12.58         19
                                               Total                7.15           16'.-90                 -1. 08-.15-6---42--33---3-50             @65.62100Z
                                               Percent               112             17%                        2%             12        652       52      100%

                                               Percentages might not    total 100% due  to rounding.

                                                                                                        TABLE 6.18
                                                                                 TOTAL YLXB-PR OF LAND VSZ CHANGES-INCOPPORATED ARLJLS
                                                                                               EASTFY-N GRAYS W&RBOR COU'frY
                                                                                                          1977-1980

                                                                                                  Original Use and Number of Changes
                                                                                                                           Public/
                                                 New Use          Residential Agricultural Industrial Commercial Semi ?ubllc Vacant Forest Total Percent
                                                 Residential            3               5                           3                      .127        6     144         72
                                                   Low Density                          5                           3                      112         5     125         62
                                                   Moderate             3                                                                   13         1       17        8
                                                   High                                                                                       2                  2       1
                                                 Industrial             1                                                                              1         2       1
                                                 Co ercial            13                                                         1          11                 25        12
                                                 Public/
                                                   Semi Public                                                      3                         1                  4       2
                                                 Vacant               23                1                           1                                  1       26        13
                                                 Total                                                              7            1         139         a     201      100%
                                                 Percent              20%               3Z                          3%                      691        4%    100%

                                                 Percentages might not total 100% due     to rounding.

                                                              TABLE 6.19
                                      ACRES OF LAND USE CHANGE (EXCLUDING GRAVEL PITS)
                                            ORIGINAL AND EXPANDED INVENTORY AREAS
                                                    EASTERN GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY
                                                               1977-1980

                                                              Original Use and Acres of Change

                                                                                            In
                                               In               In                 In       Other
                 Original Inventory            Incorporated     Agricultural     Forest     Rural
                 Ar'eas                        Areas             Areas           Areas      Areas     Total     Percent
                 Central Park                                         1.00           5.30   .24.40     30.70          4'
                 Montesano and     Area              9.12            37.95          15.60    48.78    111.45       15
                 Elma and Area                      31.18            45.00          165.40   38.06    279.64       38
                 McCleary and Area                  11.96            15.20          13.00     7.60     47.76          7
                 Porter/Malone Area                                   2.00           3.00     2.40       7.40         1
                 Oakville and Area                 -13.18            29 " 50        106-00   13.80    162.48       22
                 Subtotal                           65.44            130.65         308.30  1.35.04   639.43       88

                 Expanded    Inventory
                 Areas
                 South of   Central Park
                   and   Montesano
                   Planning Areas                                                    1.00                1.00
                 Wynoocbee Valley                                     5.50          14.50     1.50     21.50          3-
                 Satsop Valley                                        8.00          111.50    3.50     23.00          3
                 North of Elma
                   Planning Area                                                     6.50                6.50         1
                 South of McCleary
                   Planning Area                                                                 .50       .50
                 Vicinity of Elma
                   and Malone-Porter
                   Planning Areas                                     5.00           8.00        .50   13.50          2
                 Vicinity of Oakville
                   Planning Area                                      9.50          10.00     5.00     24.50          3
                 Subtotal                                            28.00          51.50    11.00     90.50       12
                  rand Tota                                                          @.@4
                 Percent                             9%                  22%           49%    20%      100%

                 *Less than 1%.
                 Percentages might not total 100% due to           rounding.

                   As in virtually every other factor of           change, the Elma area has the most acres
                   changed (38% of the total) and also the most in number (26% of the total).
                   Oakville, in contrast to most other indicators of change discussed in this
                   report, has beenthe.site of significant activity in land use change comprising
                   .22% of the change in acreage (the second highest behind Elma) and 13% of the
                   number of'changes. The Montesano area is third in the number of acres changed-
                   (15% of the total), but has the second highest number of changes (21% of the

                                                                     97

                                                                                                                                                                 MAP 6. 7

                                                                                                                                         LAND USE CHANGE BY INVENTORY AREAS
                                                                                                                                                    (EXCLUDING GRAVEL PITS)
                                                                                                                                                EASTERN GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY
                                                                                                                                                                1977-198.0

                                                              If                                                                         as
                                                                                                                                                                mmwmmmim
                                                                                                                                                                         v amp
                                                                                                                                                                                              dour

                  00

                                                                                                                                                                      m  ion

                                                                                                                                                                              flow                          06

                    TOTAL ACRES OF CHANGE
                                  SCALE                                                                                                               no'     low=

                                    280

                                    162                                   Proportions by           Original Character of Area
                                   -111                                             Agriculture                   BMW-

                                                                                    Forest

                                                                                    Vacant
                                    :31
                                    i3                                              Incorporated
                                     7

                                                                                                                                                                                          Le"Im Co.

                                                                TABLE 6.20
                                      NUMBER OF LAND USE CHANGES (EXCLUDING GRAVEL PITS)
                                               ORIGINAL AND EXPANDED INVENTORY AREAS
                                                      EASTERN GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY
                                                                  1977-1980

                                                               Original Use and Number of Changes.

                                                                                                 In
                                                In                 In                  In        Other
                 Original   Inventory            Incorporated      Agricultural       Forest     Rural
                 Areas                           Areas              Areas             Areas      Areas     Total Percent
                 Central Park                                               5             17        70.       92         10'
                 ftntesano and Area                    47                 16              26       112       201         21
                 "'Ima and Area                                                                     43
                                                                          35              85
                                                       79                                                    242         26
                 McCleary and       Area               37                 22              24        13        96         .10
                 Porter/Malone Area                                         4             3          8        15           2
                 Oakville and Area                     38                 51              19        18       126         .13
                 Subtotal                              201                133            174       264.      772         82.

                 EApanded   Inventory
                 kreas
                 ."outh of  Central Park
                   and Montesano
                   Planning Areas                                                         .2                     2
                 dynoochee Valley                                         11              15         3        29           3
                 Satsop Valley                                            16              25         7        48           5
                 '.,'orth of Elma
                   Planning Area                                                          13                  13"          1
                 South of McCleary
                   Planning Area
                 Vicinity of Elma
                   and Malone-Porter
                   Planning Areas                                         10              16         1        27           3
                 'icinity of Oakville
                   Planning Area                                          19              20        10        49           5
                 ,V.ubtotal_                                              -56             91        22       169         i8
                 "rip                                                                                        9 1_@0@0
                     _Z total                            11               L_@R    ___7_21           r8
                 -,Iercent                             21%                20%            28%       30%       100%

                 "Less than 1%.
                 lerceutages might not total 100% due to rounding.

                   total). The-ex-panded inventory areas had only 12% of the total acreage that
                   changed use and 18% of all land use changes. In the expanded inventory areas,
                   the most activity appears to be in the Satsop and Wynoochee Valleys and in the
                   vicinity of the Oakville planning area.

                          Table 6.21 illustrates that the intensivenes               s of land use changes varies
                   significantly between areas. In Central Park.. the land area involved in each
                   change is very small, about one tbird of an acre, while in the Elma and Oakville
                   areas, each change averaged more than one acre.

                                                                         99

                                                            TABLE 6.21
                                             RATIO OF ACRES TO NUMBER OF CHANGES,
                                                     (EXCLUDING GRAVEL PITS)
                                                             1977-1980

                  Original Inventory                     Number                 Number                  Acres Per
                  Areas                                  Of Acres              Of Changes               q@e.
                  Central Park                              30.70                   92                        .334
                  Montesano and Area                       111-45                  201                        .554
                  Elma and Area                            279.64                  242                      1.156
                  McCleary and Area                         47.76                   96                        .498
                  Porter/Malone Area                         7.40                   15                        .493
                  Oakville and Area                        162.48                  126                      1.290
                  Subtotal                                 639.43                  772                        .828

                  Expanded    Inventory
                  Areas
                  South   of Central Park
                    and Montesano
                    Planning Areas                           1.00                      2                      .500
                  Wynoochee Valley                          21-50                   29                        .741
                  Satsop Valley                             23-00                   48                        .479
                  North of Elma
                    'Planning Area                           6.50                   13                        .500
                  South of McCleary
                    Planning Area                              .50                     1                      .500
                  Vicinity of Elma
                    and Malone-Porter
                    Planning Areas                          13.50                   27                        .500
                  Vicinity of Oakville
                    Planning Area                           24.50                   49                        .500
                  Subtotal                                  90-50                  169                        .536
                       cr ota-                      ------ 7_2T.'@T

                        Table  6.19 also illustrates that only 9% of the acres changed are in
                  incorporated areas, while 49% are in unincorporated @orest areas,,and.22%                   are in
                  unincorporated agricultural areas. Most of the agricultural land losses
                  occurred in the Elma area (45 acres), the Montesano area (38 acres) and the
                  Oakville area (30 acres). Of the incorporated areas, the city of Elma changed
                  the most followed, surprisingly, by Oakville. The fact that 91% of the acres
                  changed (again, excluding gravel pits) and 79% of the number of changes has
                  occurred in the unincorporated areas may be one of the observations of t1lis
                  Monitoring Project which.has long-term implications. This change can.be
                  described appropriately'as urban sprawl in areas with minimal, if any, public
                  services and facilities. If this sprawl continues, additional public expend-
                  itures may be needed to support these new developments. A growing body of
                  literature at the national, state, and local levels are suggesting that con-
                  tinued urban sprawl creates considerable long-term costs to local governments
                  and that more orderly patterns of growth may significantly reduce these costs.11

                        In addition to such costs., sprawl into agricultural areas interferes with
                  the retention of these areas in agriculture. Not only do residences themselves

                                                                 100

               displace agriculture, residential uses also conflict with adjacent farming
               activities. Families often object,to farming practices such as fertilizing and
               spraying, and children or pets may interfere with farm activities. This,coupled
               with increased land values induced by new development, frequently leads to
               further conversion of agricultural land and the breakup of economic farm
               units.12

                     6.8 Land Development and the Project: Except for the obvious example of
               gravel pits, the relationship between the Construction Project and the adverse
               effects of land development discussed in this Chapter (increased urban sprawl
               and conversion of agricultural land) is indirect at best. While there is an
               obvious relationship between the' 1@roject and land development (accounting for
               approximately 68% of the demand for total new housing units from 1977-1980   in
               East County, Table 3.8), the Project cannot be held completely responsible for
               the specific location of development and, hence, theundesirable     aspects. it
               is clear that the population and economic  growth either created or induced  by
               the Project has created a significant portion of this market for this land
               development. It alsoappears that the presence of the Project has tended to
               attract and focus investment and, hence, land developers in East County and
               Elm in particular. It might even be asserted that without the Project the.
               focus of this development might not have been on Elma. However, the Satsop
               Project has little, if any, influence on whether land development will occur
               on agricultural land or in incorporated areas. This effect could occur only
               if there were no opportunities in appropriate locations, but this generally is
               not the case.13 Specific development decisions are made by land owners and
               residential developers acting independently in a competitive market. Only local
               government planning and zoning authority has the ability to reduce these
               problem once the market develops. The ability of a local government to respond
               to these problems is determined by a complex interaction of political pressures,
               public awareness, and financial ability. Potential pressures for development
               has in the past tended to make response  Iless than effective. Awareness of the
               problem associated with uncontrolled development is increasing and may lead
               to greater effectiveness.

                     While the project is responsible for a portion of the market leading to
               these problems, its presence has also, again indirectly, assisted in increasing
               the ability of the local area to respond to these pressures. This has occurred
               in several ways:

                     1.   Direct financial assistance to local governments to build infra-
                          structures and provide services;
                     2.   Direct tax payments and indirect tax revenue from increased economic
                          activity;,
                     3.   Planning assistance to cities;
                     4.   Qualifying the area for grants to address these issues;
                     5.   Financing the Monitoring Project which increases knowledge about
                          these problems; and,
                     6.   The Project's controversial nature stimulates greater attention and
                          concern for these problems than what otherwise would exist.

                     While this Chapter has indicated that the ability bf this area to respond
               to these pressures is less than fully effective, it,nonetheless,is likely that
               conditions could be worse and much activity is now occurring to reduce these
               problems.14

                                                       101

                    The land development now occurring in the region does have very significant
               positive effects. Nonetheleast of these is the increase in the housing supply.
               The region in general and East County in particular, especially Elma, has had
               for many years severe housing problems, both in terms of undersupply and in
               condition. The economic stimulus and its related improvement in investment
               climate in East County unquestionably has assisted in creating good years in
               housing construction, permitting the region to exceed its annual houging goals
               (Table 6.13). Even with the growth stimulated by the project, housing con.-
               struction has kept pace leading to an increase in availability (Table 6.11).
               Thishousing supply will remain available after the project is completed,

                    6.9 Conclusion: Land development activities have increased dramatically
               since the start of the Project proceeding at a particularly rapid pace during
               the first two years of construction,then moderatiftg in part. This increase has
               occurred in all phases of the development process, from zoning actions to actual
               changes in land use. This activity is generally focused on the Elma area.
               Land development occurs more frequently in unincorporated areas rather than in
               the cities of East County.

                    Land development activities of both the speculative nature and of actual
               construction are leading to an increase in the loss of agricultural land and in
               urban sprawl. As such, these activities have long-term implications on the
               area. Land.development activities have also greatly increased the housing
               supply and housing availability in East County.

                    the Project itself has a very significant and direct impact on land
               development and use patterns in the f6rm of creating large expanses of gravel
               pits. This is probably the most significant visual impact of this Project to
               date and has resulted in the permanent loss of many acres of farm lands. The
               relationship of the Project to other aspects of land development is basi'cally
               indirect--creating a major part of the market and improving the investment
               climate,especially as it relates to the Elma area. The Satsop project has
               also tended to increase public concern about and attention to land development
               activity.

                                                  CHAPTER 6
                                                    NOTES

               1.   The number of zone conversions and conditional use permits granted in
                    agricultural zones warrant particular attentionsince it portends a
                    significant environmental impact of the Project. However, the number of
                    changes or permits granted as cited in this report do not necessarily.in
                    themselves provide any idea of the significance of this activity. Since
                    extensive areas of the County are zoned agricultural, it is possible that
                    many of these conversions might be appropriate. Further research is needed
                    to identify acres of land involved, types of soils, whether the use act-
                    ually does change, and presence of other factors. Two separate studies
                    are currently being undertaki--n, "Agricultural Land Policies" and "Rural
                    Land Policies" to address this issue by Grays Harbor Regional Planning
                    Commission and the County.

               2.   The agricultural zone has had a ten (10) acre minimum lot size and has
                    uses generally restricted to agriculturally related activities. The

                                                      102

                     General Development zone is a mixed rural zone allowing a variety of
                     uses on a low density basis; it generally has a five (5) acre minimum lat
                     size,and it does allow mobile home courts as a conditional use.

                3.   See note I above.

                4.   This discrepancy between building permit data and Assessor records could
                     be a significant limitation to the use of building permit data, and further
                     research should be undertaken.

                5.   While much of the data contained in the State HousinS Report for our area
                     is not accurate (1978 Housing Report, 22-, cit.), their building permit
                     data for the State gives a similar pattern of high construction activity
                     early in the decade.

                6.   This conclusion is derived from information in the Thurston County portion
                     of the Monitoring Program, and from controversies being extensively reported
                     in the Seattle media.

                7.   Each sale is included regardless of age, condition, acreage, or other items
                     that might be included in the sale. Thus, a very large sale or a very
                     small sale could deflate or inflate these figures in any one year. These
                     figures are, therefore, not totally comparable to figures shown On table
                     GH-T.32.5.93, 7/80 which do not include the sale price of residences which
                     included more than ten acres of land.

                B.   These figures include transactions where the sale price is not known.

                9.   In the platted areas outside the town limits of McCleary (Township 18.
                     Range 5), there were insufficient sales of two bedroom homes to develop
                     averages. Two sales, One in 1978 and one in 1979, therefore, did not
                     appear on table GH-T.32.5.89, 7/80 but are included in these figures.

                10.  The methodology for this inventory is discussed in the December 1978
                     Monitoring Report, and in a series of planning analyses for each of those
                     planning areas. These analyses also discuss land use patterns and trends
                     prior to the Construction Project:

                     -  City of Montesano Comprehensive Plan, Part I, Inventory and Analysis.,
                        Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, 1977.

                     -  City of Elma Comprehensive Plan, Part I, Inventory,and Analysis, Grays
                        Harbor Regional Planning Commission, 1978.

                     -  lown of McCleary Com2rehensive Plan, Part I, Inventory and Lnaly!!is,
                        Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, 1978.

                     -  City of Oakville Comprehensive Plan, Part 1, Inventory and  An@@jy.2is,
                        Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, 1978.

                     -  Tlanning Analysis For Central. Park, Part I, Inventory and Analysis,
                        Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, 1978.

                11.  Problems associated with urban sprawl in Grays Harbor County are discussed
                     at length in the Grays Harbor Region . Housing Element, Grays Harbor

                                                       103

                     Regional Planning Commission, 1979. Other major studies include Costs of
                     Sprawl, Real Estate Research Corporation for the Council on Environmental.
                     Quality, 1974, and Cost of Growth: Public Costs of Alternative_22y!@@
                     ment Patterns, King County, 1979.

               12.   These problems have been identified and discussed by a special committee
                     for agricultural policy development appointed by the County Board of
                     Commissioners in.1.979.

                     Land Use: Tough Choices in Today's World, Soil Conservation Society of
                     America, 1977, offers an overall discussion of agricultural vs. develop-
                     ment issues.

               13.   See land use analyses cited in Note 10, and the Region    Housing Element
                     cited in Note 11. These reports have generally concluded that sufficient
                     area is available in appropriate locations to accommodate much of this
                     growth pressure. The major exception to this@giay be in the City of
                     Montesano.

               14.   Unlike many nonmetropolitan counties, this County was completely zoned.
                     prior to the Construction Project with an extensive agricultural zone on
                     most agricultural lands. Furthermore, much.of the.prime agricultural.land
                     is also controlled by means of a strong shoreline management program in
                     the floodplains. (Indeed, residential development on floodplains has been
                     minimal.) These controls have probably diverted a considerable amount of
                     development pressure. The project and the development discussed in this
                     Chapter has stimulated far greater interest in land,use problems than
                     existed before. All four cities and the County have completed or are
                     undertaking massive adjustments to their land use programs with a signifi-
                     cant portion of these efforts being funded by the Power System or by
                     grants made available becaus-e of the Construction Project.

                                                       104

     0

     0

                                                  CHAPTER 7

                                               SOCIAL CONCERNS

     0

     0

     6

                                                                          I

     0

                                                 p

     0

               i

     0

                                                      105

                                                 7. SOCIAL CONCERNS

                       7.1 - Introduction: In any comprehensive analysis of this type, it
                  imper'ative to look at those changes that might occur as the result of this
                  Construction Project that affect other than physical or land use type of issues.
                  These concerns are usually referred to as "social" issues. Data are generally
                  to softer" in this area, thus it is much more difficult to make a direct corriela-
                  tion of any occurrence to any other occurrence. While this report touches
                  @briefly on social issues as they relate to characteristics of the Satsop labor
                  force with comparisons to Grays Harbor's demographics in Chapter 4, several
                  other areas warrant further attention.

                       7.2 Crime: Populations which rapidly increase and change, eitber,perma-
                  nently or temporarily, can contribute to increased social stress. One measure-
                  ment of social stress that can be examined is the change in and level of criminal,
                  activity in the affected areas.1

                       Criminal activity can be measured by tbe number of actual criminal offenses
                  reported to police agencies and by the number of actual arrests made by these
                  agencies. While a number of things can affect local data from year to year
                  (change in administratlon, record keeping procedures, more police officers,
                  better training, and the willingness of the public to report offenses), a fairly
                  accurate picture of the current conditions can be depicted by comparing local
                  rates per 1,000 population  2to natioiial rates as furnished by the FBI for com-
                  parable sized communities.

                       Table 7.1 illustrates the FBI Part I crime classification (murder, rape,
                  robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle tbeft) offense
                  rates per 1,000 population for the urban area (Aberdeen, Iloquiam, and Cosmopolis),
                  the East County departments (Elma, McCleary, and Montesano; Oakville data were
                  not available until 1980 and historically were included within the Sheriff's
                  data), and the unincorporated rural areas of Grays Harbor County (Sheriff's
                  jurisdiction).

                                                        TABLE 7.1
                                                      OFFENSE RATES

                                                                         National Offense Rates for
                  Area                  Local Offense Rates                 comparable Sized Areas
                               1975   1976  1977    1978   1979     1980   1975  1976   1977   1978  1979

                  Elma       71.25  59.92 110-93 128.86 112.36     .--- 41.13  39.88  39.06 40.30  45.04
                  McCleary   21.18  30.48   24.33    19-82 77.86  73.50 41.13  39.88  39.06 40.30  45.04
                  Montesano  34.76  34.05   44.80   70.36  57.89  45.26 41.13  39.88  39-06 40.30  45.04
                  Oakville    --- ---        ---    ---     ---   54.79 41.13  39-98  39.06 40.30  45,04
                  Urban Area 67.63  63.69   58.83   62.44  71.62  82.66 55.91  55.37  52.69 54.03  59.63
                  Unincor-
                   porated
                   Rural
                   Area      40.34 40.99 41.63 40.14                    17.67 17.68 17@26 16.56 17.44

                  SOURCE:  Tables GH-T.1.1.106-114, 10/80 a-nd Washington State TJCR Program.
                                 unavailable.

                                                          106

                          National rates for these sized cities appear to decline slightly each year
                    froifi 1975 through 1977 and then increase in 1978 and 1979. National rates for
                    unincorporated areas appear fairly constant over time with slight reductions in
                    1978 and 1979. Local rates for the unincorporated area (though more thandouble
                    national rates) appear fairly constant with some slight declines. Urban area
                    rates appear to increase significantly in 1979 and again in 1980 to a level of
                    22% over 1975 rates. McCleary rates increase in 1976 and then decrease each
                    year until 1979 where a 268% increase over 1975 rates are recorded. This appears
                    to decline slightly in 1980. Montesano rates rise in 1977 to above historical
                    rates and for the first time are higher than national rates. A large increase
                    occurred in 1978 but appears to decline in 1979 and again in 1980 to asimilar
                    rate as 1977. Offense rates in Elma rise dramatically in 1977 to over three
                    times the national rate. Offense rates in 1978 continue to rise to a level of
                    220% higher than national rates though a leve              ling off occurs in 1979. Accurate
                    data appears unavailable for 1980.3 Oakville rates for 1980 are 22% higher than
                    national rates for cities of comparable size.

                          Table 7.2 illustrates and compares all criminal arrest (FBI Part I and Part
                    II crime classifications, excluding traffic) rates.

     0
                                                                   TABLE 7.2
                                                                ARREST RATES

                                                                                           National Arrest Rates for
                    Area                          Local Arrest Rates                               @ble.,_@:@L _A.reas
                                                                                                                I         i
                                           9-76    19 7 7 -i-0-8        9 7 9     1980        1976     1977       9-@d     979
                  Elma                 66.80     88.50      138.56    1.37.82 120.80,      48.04     48.90    45.41     47.13
                  McCleary             44.97     37.26      51.40      90.71      56.54    48.04     48.90    45.41     47.13
                  Montesano              --       --        52.86      67.72      51.42    48.04     48.90    45.41     47.13
                  Urban Area           79.77     82.18      94.66     123.87       --      44.13     43.79    42.60     44.31
                  Unincorporated
                    Rural Area         45.61     50.58      44.04                          31.71     32.22    32.21,    34.34

                  SOURCE: Tables       G11-T.1  1.118-126, 1/81       and local    agencies.

                          National arrest rates appear fairly constant over time with small city rates
                    being slightly less and urban area and unincorporated rates slightly higher than
                    in 1976. Local rates, except for Montesano, rise from 1976 to 1977 for all agencies.
                    Significant increases are seen in 1978, except for the unincorporated area, with
                    the Elma. rates more than doubling from 1976. When comparing 1979 local rates to
                    1979 national arrest rates, McCleary's rates are 92% higher, Montesano's are 44%
                    higher, and the urban area is 180% higher. The rates for Elma in 1979 are 192%
                    higher than 1979 national arrest rates. In 1980, al                    local rates ap     pear to decline
                    from 1979 but remain higher than the national rates.

                          An additional indicator of crime trends in an area is the number of juveniles
                    referred to the County.Juvenile Department by police or other agencies.5 The
                    trend on Table 7.3, at least for total Part I referrals, follows essentially the
                    same patterns as are apparent for several agencies on Table 7.2--a. slight increase
                    from 1976 to 1977 which is followed by large increases from 1977 to 1978 and from
                    1978 to 1979.

                                                                      107

                                                        TABLE 7.3
                           NUMBER OF JUVENILES REFERRED TO COUNTY JUVENILE DEPARTMENT
                                                 FOR SELECTED OFFENSES       6
                                           GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, 1975-1978

                           PART I CLASSES                   1975      1976     1977        1978      1979
                 Criminal Homicide                             0         1          1        0         0
                 Forcible Rape                                 6         1          0        1         0
                 Robbery                                       2         2          5        0         6
                 Aggravated Assault (Estimated)              11         22        23        10         6
                 Burglary                                   114         82        72        96       173
                 Larceny                                    168       183         198       284      299
                 Motor Vehicle Theft                         29         21        16        39        47
                            Total Part 1                    3330      -SE2       Tf-5      W-305     531
                           PART II CLASSES
                 Other Assaults (Estimated)                  11         22        23        10        26
                 Narcotic Drug Laws                          77       115         69        71        68
                 Offenses Against Family/Children            12         15        56        21        47
                 Liquor Laws                                332       263        294        288      264

                 SOURCE: Table GH-T    .11.115, 10/80.

                     Attempts have been made in the Monitoring Program to identify specific Gon-
                struction Project related offenses and offenders in the Elma, McCleary, and
                Montesano Police Departments. Forms soliciting this information are supplied to
                each police department, and all have agreed upon a common definition of "site
                related.117 Table 7.4 and 7.5 depict the results of these efforts.

                                                       TABLE 7.4
                                    PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL ACTUAL PART I OFFENSES
                                             KNOWN TO BE PROJECT RELATED

                    AREA/OFFENSE                            1978             1979              1980
                                                             M                M                 M
                        Elma
                    Robbery                                  0.0             100.0*             0.0
                    Aggravated Assault                      50.0              47.7             66.7
                    Burglary .                              19.1               7.7              0.0
                    Larceny-Theft                           14.8              22.5             17.4
                    Auto Theft                              15.4              30.0              0.0
                    Total Part I FBI   Offenses             19.7              27.8             15.8
                       McCleary
                    Burglary                                10.0*              0.0              0.0
                    Larceny                                  6.7*              3.7             10.2
                    Total Part I FBI Offenses                7.4               2.7              9.6

                        Montesano
                    To     Part I FBI Offenses                                 0.6*             0.0

                    SOURCE: Tables GH-T.11.44, 47,& 50, 3/79-, GF-T.11.77-79, 10/79,and GFI-T.11.
                               137-139, 4/81.
                    *Actual numbers are very srall.            unavailable,

                                                           108

                                                          TABLE 7.5
                                           PERCENTAGE OF PART I AND II ARRESTS
                                               KNOWN TO BE PROJECT RELATED

                                                                     1978            1979              1980
                                                                       M               W               M
                    Elma
                 Aggravated Assault                                  37.5            52.0              66,7
                 Burglary                                            64.3            17.6               0.0
                 Larceny                                               2.9           12.1              16.7
                 Other Assaults                                      21.1            31J               16.7
                 Stolen Property (Buy., Poss., Rec.)                 12.5              010             100.0*
                 Narcotic Drug Laws                                  11.1              6.1             12.5*
                 DWI                                                 14.3            29.2              25.3
                 Liquor Laws                                           6.4             8.0              3.4
                 All Other                                           10.2            19.3              20.3
                 TOTAL ARRESTS                                       13.0            20.9              18.0

                    McCleary*
                 Larceny                                             20.0            12.5              27.3
                 Other Assa-Lilts                                      0.0             0.0             100.0
                 Narcotic Drug Laws.                                 28.6              9.' 1           10.0
                 Offenses Against Family/Children                      0.0           40.0               0.0
                 DWI                                                   0.0           15.4               0.0
                 Liquor Laws                                           0.0             0.0              7.1.
                 All Other                                           10.0            33.3              40.0
                 TOTAL ARRESTS                                         5.9           10.0              18.8

                    Montesano*
                 Burglary                                              --              9.0              --
                 Larceny                                                             14.q
                 Narcotic  Drug Laws                                                 25.0
                 DWI                                                                 11.8
                 Liquor Laws                                                           2.7
                 TOTAL ARRESTS                                                         5.1

                 SOURCE:- Tables GH-T.11.44, 47, and 50, 3/79:         GH-T.11.77-79, 10/79; and GH-T.11.
                           137-139, 4/81.
                 *Actual numbers are very' small.             unavailable.

                      As can be readily observed by these two tables, the percentage of total
                 offenses and arrests that are known to be related to the Satsop Project is ccn--
                 siderable. This involvement appears to almost double each year in McCleary and
                 increases in Elma approximately 38% over 1978. Even if total numbers are small
                 (e.g. in McCleary), these figures still reflect an actual portrayal of workload
                 on these departm.ents.8

                      7.3 Other Police Services: In addition to crime related activities, local
                 police departments, and particularly smaller departments, are service type of
                 agencies. For example, they might provide directions or other information, they
                 might assist the ambulance service, or they might assist with any variety of
                 complaints that do not culminate in an arrest or an offense. Table 7.6, in an
                 effort to document this type of activity, is presented. Police traffic activities
                 are addressed in the next section of this chapter.

                                                            109

                                                       TA3.rE 7. 6
                                   TOTAL CALLS FOR SERVICE AND RADIO DISPATCHES

                                                                                        Percent Change
                Calls For Service:         1978        1979            1980                 1978-1980
                  Elma                    10,632       17,520      25,794   (3,130)           142.6
                  McCleary                 1,389       1,078        11059                     -23@8
                  Montesano               19,480       25,640      22,741                      16.7
                Radio Dispatches:
                  Elma                    43,510       61,726     65,633    (7,612)            50.8
                  McCleary                   667          654         620                      -7.0
                  Montesano                5,700       6,714        2,144                     --62.4

                SOURCE: Tables GH-T.11.44, 47, and 50,3/79; GH-T.11.77-79, 10/79; and,
                          GH-T.11.137-139, 41/81.

                Please note that these figures are not comparable between departments. For
                example, Montesano Police Department does not dispatch for the fire and ambulance
                while Elma Police Department does. Methodologies for recording calls for
                service also could be different. Numbers in parentheses are the numbers of
                known Site-related calls and dispatches.

                     Project related calls for service and. radio dispatches in Elma for 1980
                appears to be almost 12%.    It r-,iust be noted Lhat the acti-tal Project Site is not
                within Elma's jurisdiction though they would respond to requests for assistance.
                Calls for service in 1980 doubled over 1978 levels in Elma, increase about 16%
                in Montesano, and decrease substantially in McCleary. Radio dispatches appear
                to increase in Elma, though at about half the rate as calls for service, and
                decrease in McCleary and Montesano.

                     7.4 Traffic:    One of the most visible phenomenons associated with a large
                construction project, particularly in rural areas, may be increased traffic
                activity, and the Satsop Construction Project may be no exception. Complaints,
                especially relating to gravel and rock trucks, are heard in       9Elma, McCleary,
                Montesano, and in the unincorporated areas around the Site.         To give an idea of,
                the volume of gravel trucks that has occurred in the area, on May 8, 1978, 1.,080
                gravel trucks--most with "pups" (trailers) --passed in-bound bytheWPPSS' guard post
                on the WPPSSEast Access Road (an extension of Lambert Road which intersects
                with Wakefield Road) between 6:00      a.m. to 10:00 p.m.    At t1hat time, they were
                bauling approximately 30,000 cubic yards per day with an estimated need to haul
                50,000 cubic yards per day for the     next six months to meet the construction.
                schedule.10 While this number has      not remained at this high volume consiEtently,
                this type of traffic will probably     continue throughout most of the construction
                period. It is clear that large volumes of Project related traffic are in the
                East County area, but except for access roads to the Project Site, quantification
                of this impact is difficult.11

                     Traffic activity can be measured by traffic volumes (usually measured by
                average daily traffic volum.es-ADT) on key roads and by traffic violation and
                collision activity. Although a number of variables can affect local data
                (administrative policy, road conditions and miles of road, record keeping pro-
                cedures, and unusual events. such as local celebrations or protests), a fairly
                accurate picture can be ascertained by examining local data over time.

                                                         110

                           The following tables reflect the number of traffic collisions and traffic.
                     violations reported. by local police agencies for several areas w                            .ithin Grays
                     Harbor County-12

                                                                        TABLE 7.7
                                                  TRAFFIC COLLISIONS PER 1,000               POPULATION

                  AREA                                        1975        1976        1977        1978        .1979    1980 P-roiected
                  Elma*                                                 2T@Tl       4@_.12     2 i_.@2_5_  2"j__@.@2
                  4-cCleary*                                            22.1.0      16.73      13.22       12.14               4.24
                                                            20.07       17.56       1.6.49     21.43       14.0-4            12.32
                  @-,Iontesano
                  ,?@berdeen                                43.45       48.00       45.77      46.65       39.48             '.37.00
                  Roq
                  i uiam                                    29.24       31-59       36.43      30.38       29-42             30.88
                  Grays Harbor Rural                        35.51       38.01       39.04      40.67       .33.94            25.99
                     (includes all areas
                     except Aberdeen,
                     Hoquiam, and Montesano)
                  Crays Harbor County Total                 36.13       39-09       39.64      39-92       33-97             29.15
                  State of    Washington
                     (State   Highways)                     10.35       10.24       10.00        9.77        9.27

                  SOURCE:     Vari  ous Monitoring Reports under public safety section; "Summary of
                              Vehicle Collisions," Records Section, Washington State Patrol; and
                              Highway Traffic Accident_j@f_p.2rL, Washington State Department of Trans-
                              portation (Olympia: annually).

                  :@,stim                                                                      --.= unavailable.
                      tates for 1980 are based upon 6 months of,data.
                              for these agencies might not be comparable with the statistics for the
                  other areas as,methodologies could be different.

                                                                      TABLE 7.8
                                                        NUMBER OF TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS

                     AREA                  1976             1977             1978                   1979                   1980
                     Elma                   .597          1, 1             1,351                   2,069   (539)
                     McCleary                332              280             694   (20)              396  (19)              406 (23)
                     Montesano                                                468   (--)             444   (32)              387 (14)

                     SOURCE: Various taliles in               the  public    safety section of numerous Monitoring
                                  Reports.

                     Figures might not be comparable                between entities because of differing methodol-
                     ogies. Numbers in parenthesis are the number of known Site related violations.
                             unavailable.

                           From observing Table 7.7, it appears that traffic collisions decline or
                     remain fairly constant in all areas except for 1977 in Elma. Traffic violations
                     in Elma appear to increase dramatically each year with figures for 1979 being
                   247%bigher than in 1976. McCleary, too, shows substantial increases from 1976
                     to 1978 though data for 1979 indicates a decline from the 1978 levels. Activity
                     appears to decline over time in Montesano.

               Data on Table 7.9 shows increases on state highways from 1976 to 1979 in accl.-
               dents occurring at seven locations that are in the vicinity of the Project.
               Rates for 1979 appear to increase from 1978 at six locati    ons though three of
               the eleven locations are lower than 1978 rates.

                                                     TABLE 7.9
                         ACCIDENT RATES REPORTED, STATE HIGHWAYS, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY

               Highway Niunber/Location       1976 Rate      1977 Rate      1978 Rate      1979 Rate.
               Highway 8
                 Junction 12                     .5             .3             -.9             .8
                 Junction 108                   ..8            1.0             .5            1.4
                 Mox-Chehalis Road               .4            1.4             .7            1.1
               Highway 12
                 Junction 101                   15.7          16.3*           5.0            5.5
                 Central Park Drive             .1.4           1.6             .8            1.?
                 Junction 107                    .6             .5             .7              .3
                 Satsop Road                     .3             .5             .3              .3
                 Schouweiler Road (Hurd)         '.2            .9             .8            1.0
                 Junction Highway 8              .7            2.0            1.8            2.7
                 Mox-Cbehalis Road              2.0            2.8            1.8            2.6
                 Porter Creek Road              2.5            2.8            3.2            1.5
               State Total                      2.6            2.4            2.2            2.2

               SOURCE: Tables GH-T.8.12, 9/78 and GH-T.8.48, 1/81.

               .*This 'Location's rate ranked thirteen highest within the State Highway System
               in 1977. The accident rates are computed on the following formula.:

                         Accident Rate = (Number of accidents) x 1,000,000
                                          (Section length) x (AADT) x (365 Ea-ysT

                    Tables 7,10 and 7.11 and Graph 7.1 display average daily traffic volume      S
               for certain Grays Harbor County roads and for various locations on State Routes
               1.2 and 8.

                                                       112

                                                                         -TABLE 7.10.
                                                            AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT)
                                                                  GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY ROADS

                                        Functional*      Capacity*        19"73       10/1977 7/1978 6/1979          6/1980              %
              Highway                  Classification        (ADT)      @ADT)           (ADT)     (ADT)    (ADT)       @ADT)          1973-1980
              Highway 410
               Between Brady
                and Satsop             Major Arterial 1,000-3,000 2,249                 11915     2,398    21888   3,035            34.9
              South Bank Road
               South of Delezene       Secondary
                Road Intersection      Arterial          500-1,000        206              306       434      388    724           251.5

              Porter Creek Road
               West-of Bridge          Access Road       250-500          477                -         -   1,120     586  (9/80)    22.9
              Schouweiler Road
               Between 410 and
                Highway 12             Access,Road       250-500          974           2,152     1,872    1,777   1,878            92.8

              Site Related   Roads
               Wakefield Road**        Secondary
                                       Arterial          500-11000      1,022           1,778     5,435    5,015   5,388           427.2
               Workman Cr  eek**       Access Road       250-500            70 (1969)   2,117     4,794    3,528   5,013           136.8 (77-80)
               Wenzel Slough           Access Road       250-500          164           1,106     4,135       459    422           157.3
               Keys Road**             Access Road       250-500          321             454        461      273    601            87.2

              SOURCE: Tables GH-T.32.8.2, 12/77, GH-T.32.8.25, 6/79,          and GH-T.32.8.39, 7/80.

                        *Based upon the Grays Harbor County Road Department's functional classification and capacity standards
                         as adopted in 1978.
                       **These roads have been or are.planned to be improved as the result of approximately $3 million
                         appropriated by TATPPSS.
                       See map number GH-M.8.13, 10/80 for actual locations.

                                                           TABLE 7.11
                                            AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME (ADT)
                                                         STATE HIGHWAYS

                                            1973        1975       1977       1979       %         %
                  Highway/Location         (ADT)      JADT)       (ADT@      (ADT)       73-7,5    75-77    77-7.9
                  Highway 8
                    Thurston/Grays
                    Harbor County
                    Line                    7,600       7,400      81900      91900      -2.6      20.3       11.2
                    McCleary City
                    Limits (ECL/WCL)        6,600       6,600      7,800      8,700          .0    18.2       11.5

                    Junction on
                    Ramp Hwy 12 (NE)        8,100       8,300     10,100     11,200       2.5      21.7.      10.9

                  Highway 12
                    Thurston/Grays
                    Harbor County
                    Line (W)                3,100       3,450      3,650      3,850      11.3        5.8      @5.5

                    Oakville-ECL            2,950       3,100      4,100      4,400       5.1      32.3       7.3

                    Elma-Junction
                    off Ramp to
                    3rd Street (W)          9,800     10,600      12,200     15,400       8.2      15.1       26.2

                    Junction
                    Schouweiler
                    Road (E)                9,800     10,600      12,200     15,400       8.2      15.1       26.2

                    Junction
                    Satsop
                    Road (E)                9,700       91500     10,900     13,700      -2.1      14.7       25.7
                    Montesano (WCL)        10,200       9,900     11,700     14,300      -2.9      18.2       22.2

                    Central Park
                    Drive (NW)             15,100     1@,200      17,400     19,300          .7    14.5       1.0.9
                    Wishkah Bridge,,
                    Aberdeen               19,300     19,300      22,100     25,200          .0    14.5       14.0

                  Highway 101
                    Junction 107 (N)        4,100       4,250      4,750      4,900       3.7      11.8       3.2

                  Highway 108
                    McCleary (NCL)          1,480       1,470      1,550      1$650       -.7        5.4      6.5

                  SOURCE: Tables GH-T.32.8.1, 12/77           and  GH-T.8.47, 1/81.
                  Letters in parentheses represent the leg of an intersection,                the  direction of
                  the flow of traffic, or the City limits (e.g. ECL                east city ILIPLits).

                                                                114

                                                 GRAPH 7.1,
                                     AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
                                S I TE RE LATED ROADS, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY

                                                                        Wakefield Road

                                                                       0@'Wbrkman Crook Rd.

               V
               c

               0
               -c

                  3
               0
               b.

               E

                                                                       Schouwaller Road

                                                          Wenzel Slough Road

                       ....................

                                           Keys Road

                                             uth Bank Road
                  0

                  1973            1/1978
                                                  12/1978           12/1979          12/1980

                                                   115

                      Average daily traffic volumes for these State routes show increases at all.
                  locations with those locations directly related to Site access having the
                  largest increases. For example, Highway 12 and the junction of 3rd Street in
                  Elma. is the main access route to the Site, and the junction of Schouweiler and
                  Highway 12 was the location (and still partially is) of numerous Site offices.
                  These two locations sbow the largest increase in ADT in the State routes listed.
                  The Thurston/Grays Harbor County line location on Highway 8 shows an increase
                  of 11.2% from 1977 to 1979.     This location would record Olympia and Seattle-
                  Tacoma area commuters to the Site. Similar trends occur for County roads.
                  Project related activity can be readily seen in these counts. For example,
                  Keys Road showed an ADT of 461 in July 1978 during a period prior to completion
                  of the East Access Road. The ADTin June 1979 was back to 273 when this road
                  was not used for Site access. However, in 1980 counts are up again as con-
                  struction began on a west access road and on a large laydown. area.

                      The average daily traffic volumes do not give a complete picture of traffic
                  condition. Peak volumes also must be considered to give an indication of when
                  traffic congestion or other problems might occur. These types of counts are
                  available from special counters that record vehicles in fifteen minute segments.

                                                      TABLE 7.12
                                              PEAK HOURLY TRAFFIC.VOLUMES
                                                  SITE ACCESS ROUTES

                  Location           April 1978     December 1978. September 1979       September 1980
                  Workman Creek
                       A.M.               416             476              988               1,175
                       P.M.               454             483              926               1,041
                  Wakefield  Road
                       A.M.               214             912             1,765              1,108
                       P.M.               329           1,094             1,251              1,039
                  South Bank Road
                       A.M.                 81                             248                  490
                       P.M.               133                              353                  301

                  SOURCE: Tables,GIT-T.32.8.10, 6/78; GH-T.32.8.19, 12/78; GH-T.32.8.32, 10179;
                            and GH-T.8.46, 10/80.

                      Graph 7.2 clearly demonstrates the worker traffic to the Site--7:00-8:00
                  a.m. is the starting time of most employees and 4:00-5:00 p.m. is the quitting
                  time. This peak type of situation has caused some problems particularly at the
                  South Elma intersection of Wakefield, Workman Creek, and South Bank Road. This
               'has necessitated a traffic control officer to direct vehicles at peak periods
                  even though this intersection was improved.

                                                          116

                                                                                                              GRAPH 7.2

                                                                                              HOURLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
                                                                            SITE ACCESS ROUTES, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY
                                                                                                         DECEMBER 1980

                                               12

                                                               AN CREEK
                                                             11e ID ROA0
                                                              AOA           ..........
                                                     -W.l LE, I.R., M

                                                                                                                                                                 F
                                                                        4           41

                                            SOURCE: GH-C.8.26, 1/81.

                                                                                                                   117

                       Composition of traffic, as seen in Table 7.13, reflects the construction
                  tYVe. of traffic (i.e. gravel trucks, heavy equipment, material deliveries, etc.),
                  It also shows the declining percentage of over two axle traffic as total traffic
                  volumes increase to the Site.

                                                          TABLE 7.13
                                                   COMPOSITION OF TRAFFIC
                                         PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL COUNTS OVER 2 AXLES

                                                    OCT.              SEPT.             SEPT.            JUNE
                   LOCATION                         1977              1978-             1979             1980
                   Wenzel Slough Road                                                   27.0              --
                                                    84.8
                   Workman Creek Road               53.6               19.7             20.1             30.7
                   Wakef ield Road                  63.5               33.9               2.6            19.1

                   South Bank Road                   --                 7.0             27.1

                   SOURCE: Numerous tables shown in the traffic section of various Monitoring
                             Reports.

                  Two numbers are s   hown when a count was taken on more than one day during the
                  ,month indicated.          unavailable.

                       As manpower has increased availability of parking on Site has become a
                  premium with various solutions proposed from the use of more mass transit to
                  adding parking. The Grays Harbor Transit Authority has one workrun bus daily
                  .to and from the Site which serves areas from Hoquiam to Elma. It costs a rider
                  only 50o@ a day for this service, and ridership remained at about eighty riders
                  per day during 1980. A similar run was begun from Olympia in 1979 but was dropped
                  because of low ridership. Table 7.14 illustrates that some car pooling is
                  occurring though over time it appears to decrease. Part of this could be due
                  to more shifts being added and to staggerging beginning and ending work hours.

                                                          TABLE 7.14
                                                   VEHICLE OCCUPANCY RATES

                                 LOCATION                            DATE                  RATE

                                 Wakefield,                    September   1979@           1.55
                                 South Bank, and               June 1980                   1.48
                                 Workman Cr  *eek              September   1980            1.44
                                 Intersection                  December 1980               1.48

                                 SOURCE: Various tables      in traffic section of different
                                           Monitoring Reports.

                     One other piece of datum available on traffic characteristics is' the number
                of vehicles with out-of-state licenses at the Wakefield/Workman Intersection.
                This percentage indicates that persons in-migrating from out-of-state to work
                on this project represents a bigher proportion of this population th-n is
                indicated by the total state in-migrations of out-of-state vehicles.73

                                                  TABLE 7.15
                                      PERCENTAGE OF OUT-OF-STATE VEHICLES

                                                                     % OF TOTAL VEHICLE REGISTRATION.(
              LOCATION/EXPLANATION             DATE                    WITH OUT-OF-STATE L=N3ZS___.,
              South on Wakefield Road          September 1979                      11.7
              East on Workman Creek            December 1979                       12.0
              State Registrations of           1979
               Out-of-State Vehicles           1979                                 7.5

              SOURCE: GH-T.32.8.36,  1/80 and State Department of Licensing.

                     7.5 Schools: The subject of   schools and its related concerns were not
                addressed in the First Year Report. This was partially because schools are
               .financially covered by statute (and agreement) for impact related to large
                construction projects such as Satsop and partially because of a desire to limit
                the scope of that report to areas which were not being covered elsewhere, i.e.
                the schools were probably doing their own impact analysis. However, to compre-
                hensively cover those areas where social well-being and a way-of-life might be
                affected, it is necessary to give some attention to this subject,

                     Table 7.16 identifies the May school district full-time equivalent enroll-
                ment CFTE) in com@arison with those students identified as eligible for WPPSS'
                impact payments.'   The obvious problem here is the possibility of undercounting
                all new Satsop related pupils as persons who might have moved to the area to
                work on the project but who were not employed on Site during the May 1 pay
                period would not be included. Further, no student whose parent resided in the
                area prior to May 1, 1976 is included.

                                                     119

                                                                                                           TABLE 7.16
                                                                                    SCHOOL ENROLLMENT AND PROJECT RELATIONSHIP

                                                                               May 1, 1978                          MM 1. 1979                                  May 1, 1980
                                                                                         Eligible                           Eligible                          Eligible          Divtrihutiou
                                                                                         ProJect                            Project                           Prdject           of Project
                                                                                         Related                            Related                           Related           Related
                                                                                         Students                           Students                          Students          JLM!SaL�__
                                Distriets,                                  FTE       0     2 of FTE            FTE            Z of FTE          FTE          9  Z of FTE       Percent
                                Grays Harbor County
                                  Primary Study Area
                                Elma                                      1,626       34         2.1            1,628       94        5.8        1,729    173        10.0               23.4
                                McCleary                                       308       6       1.9            354         29        8.2           377       26         6.9            3.5
                                Montesano                                 1,395          2*        -            1.470       29        2.0        1,400        43         3.1            5.8
                                Sateop                                         68        1       1.5                75      2         2.3           61        7      11.5                  .9
                                Oakville                                       332       3         .9           346         7         2.0           338       10         310            1.4
                                  Subtotal                               _T;_729    4-6          --i-.2    _@, _87 3        16-1      _@_.2   _@_,9_05    '@5_9      _@_.6              35.0
                                  Urban Area
                                Aberdeen                                  4,666          a         .2           4.434       3         4 .1       4,297        17         .4             2.3
                                Hoquiam                                   2,541          2         .1           2,503       3         .1         2,399        13         .5             1.8
                                Cosmopolis                                     306       0         .0           312         0         .0            304       0          .0                .0
                                  Subtotal.                               7.515       IU         _. 1      _@72 4-9         -6        Z-.1    '_jT0_0_O   -30        -.4                4.1
                                Total Grays Harbor County                11,244       56           .5      11,122           167       1.5     10,905      289            2.7            39.1

                                Tenino                                           -       -         -                -       -         -          1,215        13         1.1            I.B
                                Worth Thurston                            7.962       25           .3           7,761       76        1.0        8,063    144            1.8            19.4
                                Tumwater                                  3,670          6         .2           3.404       40        1.2        3,692        71         1.9            9.6
                                driffin                                        345       5       1.4            355         6         1.7           371       11         3.0            1.5
                                Olympia                                   7.268       48           .7           7,204       87        1.2        6,975    138            2.0            18.6
                                Rochester                                 1,264          5         .4           1,093       9         .8         1,259        30         2.4            4.1,
                                Total Thurston County                    20.509       89           .4      19,817           218       .1      @1,575      4'0_7      7_9                55.0

                                Shelton                                   3,359          2       4.1            3.429       7         .2         3,321        13         .4             1.8
                                Mary Knight                                    154       1         .6           171         1         .6            166       4          2,2               .5
                                Total Mason County                        3.513          3       _Z 1      -T.600           8         2          3,507    -17            -.5            2.3
                                @e-i. County
                                Chehalis                                  2,106          0         .0           2,137       0         .0         2.175        7          .3                .9
                                Centralia                                 3.270       13           .4           3,248       20        .6         3,241        15         .5             2.0
                                Winlock                                                            7-               -       -         -             728       5          .7                .7
                                Total Levis County                        5,376       13           .2           5,385       20        .4         6,144        27         .4             3.6
                                rOTX_A@LS @RC 1-@Z

                                SOURCE: Various tables under the school section of different                                   Monitoring Reports;            1JNP 3/5   Socioeconomic
                                             Summan, October 1980, WPPSS; and Superintendent of Public Instruction.

                                *Because of surveying problems,this figure is probably invalid.                                         no school survey conducted.

                                      There are several ways to examine school enrollment information. The
                            usual method is to look at enrollments which are generally based on full-time
                            equivalent students. This method provides an overview of any changes that
                            might occur. The second method is to examine student population by cohort or
                            group. Table 7.17 displ                            ays the first method.

                                                                                                   TABLE 7.17
                                                                                    SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS (FTE)
                                                                                            OCTOBER             1975-1980
                                         15                                                                                                                     % 16                    %
                       2-stricts                                      1975          -1976          1977             1978          1979           1980         1975-1977 1977-1980
                       Ima                                         1,604            1,606        1,638          1,663          1,725          1-,729               2.1                     5.6
                       C.Cleary                                         300           311            311            319               382        359               3.7                  15.4
                     .ontesano                                     1,477            1,448        1,395          1,473          1,435          1,400             -5.6                        .4
                       atsop                                             86              71             63             75             61            67        -26.7                        6.3
                       Aville                                           365           325            316            342               345        338          -13.4                        7.0
                       @:ital East County                          3,832            3,761        3,723          3,872          3,948          3,893             -2.8                       4.6
                       7ban Area Districts                         8,030            1,985        7,921          @,628          i,440          7,009             -1.4                  -11.5
                        her Districts                              1,999            2,080        2,040          2,032          2,002          2,071                2.1.                    1.5
                       OURCE: Various tables under school section of several Monitoring Reports.

                                                                                                          .120

                     As illustrated on Table 7.17, enrollments decline consistently each year
                from 1975 to 1980 in the urban area districts with a debline of over 12% recorded'
                during this period. Enrollments increase 3.6% from 1975 to 1980 in the other
                districts though the increase of 4.1% from 1975 to 1976 declines each year
                thereafter. East County schools show a 1.9% decrease from 1975 to 1976 and a
                1.0% decrease from 1976 to 1977; increases of 4.0% from 1977 to 1978 and 2.0%
                from 1978 to 1979; then a 1.4% decrease from 1979 to 1986. An increase of 1.6%
                is recorded in 1980 over 1975 'Levels. While most of the East County school
                districts lost population from 1975 to 1976, all had sizeable gainsfrom 1977
                to 1980. It is difficult to gain insight into migration from these figures
                though it would appear that some in-migration must be occurring as the decline
                in birth rates alone would more than compensate for any decline in enrollment
                during this period.16

                     Another method of examining change in school enrollment patterns is to
                examine'a class cohort, i.e. to follow one class of students as they move up
                through the grades (first graders in 1973 become second graders in 1974, and
                the same group becomes eighth graders in 1980). This demonstrates whether a
                particular class becomes larger or smaller over time. This method eliminates
                the variable of decreasing enrollments caused by declining birth rates which can
                have a significant bearing on student populations. We know that live births
                by Grays Harbor residents reduced 22% from 1970 to 1975 (produc'ing school age
                children in 1976 through 1981).   The State rate declined 18.1% over this same
                period. It is noted, however, that birth rates appear to increase from 1975
                through 1979 for both Grays Harbor and the Stat ?7'hich will affect school
               ,enrollment six years later (1981 through 1987).

                     Other variables can influence change in cohorts including interchange with
                private schools, holding students back or skipping grades, deaths, the dropout
                rate, and migration. Since the net effect of the first three variables is
                generally minimal,18 this change then reflects largely the dropout rate and
                migration. Therefore, a factoring out of the dropout rate would yield a
                potential measurement of net migration of school age children and thus net
                population movement in the area served by a particular school district.

                     Tables 7.18 and 7.19 reflect this cohort examination with a dropout factor
                added for the East County schools and for the other school districts in. Grays
                Harbor County.

                                                      121

                                                                     TABLE 7.18
                                                                CHANGE IN COHORT
                                                       EAST COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS
                                          MONTESANO, SATSOP, ELMA, MCCLEARY, AND OAKVILLE
                                                                OCTOBER 1973-1980

                     Year                                                 Beginning Grade of Cohort
                     (October)                                       1          2           3            4-        5         To t a I
                     1973                                          297        255         299        323           317       1@491
                     1974                                          282        255         307        324           323       1,491
                     1975                                          304        254         315        302           333       1,508
                     1976                                          2 7 9      254         294        312           324       1,4063
                     % 6 in Cohort Prior to Satsop
                          Construction Project                    -6.1        -0.4      -1.7         -3.4          2.2        -1.9

                     1977                                          285        275         300        308           322       1,490
                     1978                                          310        300         342        340           349       1,641
                     1979                                          329        306         350        334           350       1,669
                     1980                                          -326       318         359        316           300       1,619
                                                                     8          9         10         11           1.2
                                                                           Ending Grade of Cohort
                     % &  in Cohort (76-80) After
                          Satsop Construction
                          Project                                 16.8       25.2       22.1         1.3          -7.4'       10.7

                     SOURCE: Numerous tables in school                 section    of various         nitoring Reports.

                                                                     TABLE 7.19
                                                                CHANGE IN COHORT
                                             ALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY
                                                        EXCEPT THOSE IN EAST COUNTY
                                                                OCTOBER 1973-1980

                     Year                                                Beginning Grade of Cohort
                     (October)                                       1         2            3            4         D         Total
                     1973                                          818        7911        808        771           815       4,003
                     1974                                          782        750         806        762           839       3,939
                     1975                                          753        735         823        772           841       3,924
                     1976                                          758        742         809        803           852       3,964
                     % & in Cohort Prior to Satsop
                          Construction Project                   -7.3        -6.2         0.1        4.2           4,5        -1.0

                     1977                                          768        749         850        800           982*      4,149
                     1978                                          756        774         824        974*          936       4,264
                     1979                                          754        775         977*       928           807       4,241
                     1980                                          745        857*        849        780           708       3,939
                                                                     8         9          10         11           12
                                                                           Ending    Grade of Cohort
                     %A in Cohort (76-80) After
                          Satsop Construction
                          Project                                -1.7        15.5         4.9       -2.9        -16.9         -o.6

                     SOURCE:     Various tables in school section of different Monitoring Reports.
                     *Entry of private school students into public system.

                                                                        122

                     It is apparent from Table 7.18 that in-migration is now occurring in the East
                ,".ourty school districts. While in October 1976 an out.-migration was occurririg
                in four of the five cohorts, in 1980 in-migration increased substantially in
                all cohorts (and seems to reverse the out-migration trend) except for the 5
                through 12 cohort group. However, it is possible that the dropout rates could
                be higher than indicated by available data.19 The remainder of the school
                districts in the County appear to have an out-migration only in the two lower
                grade cohorts and in-migration in the remairider from 1973 to 1.976. From 1976
                to 1980, the 1-8 cohort continues to decline though not as significantly as
                the decline from 1973 to 1976. The trend for the second and third groups appears
                to reverse, and the upper-grade cohort declines considerable. The private school
                entrants at grade 9 obviously effect.these cohorts as can be seen on Table 7.20.
                It is somewhat difficult to assign these students to any one public school
                district. However, most students probably enter the Aberdeen and Hoquiam. School
                Districts as St. Marys in Aberdeen is the largest private school (65% of the
                known private enrollments in 1978) in Grays Harbor County.

                                                     TABLE 7.20
                                            PRIVATE SCHOOL EN'ROLLMENTS

                                                   1975       1976       1977       1978        1979

                   Total Known Enrollments          191        224        247        265        311

                     If a school district is confronted with an increase in enrollment, the
                ability of the district to cope with this situation can be compounded by a lack
                of facilities, staff, and other resources. East County schools reflect some
                problems in these areas.20

                                                     TABLE 7.21
                                            ESTIMATED UNTHOUSED STUDENTS
                                                 EAST COUNTY SCHOOLS

                                                              1978           '1979          1980

                      Montesano School District                119            165             133
                      Satsop School District                    8               0               0
                      Elma School District                     122           A38             203
                      McCleary School District                  0              34             57

                      SOURCE: Various tables in school section of different Monitoring Reports.

                     This problem is being addressed by WPPSS. However, it must be stressed
                that this type of problem, when compounded, can cause changes in how a com-
                munity might view its schools.

                                                         123

                      One other indicator available which might depict social change is dropout
                 rat@s.

                                                       TABLE 7.22
                                                      DROPOUT RATES
                                                         1976-1.980

                                                                                                       76-77
                                                                                                        To
                                                              Percent Dropouts                         79-80
                 Area                      1976-1977      1977-1978      1978-1979      1979-1980      %
               ,@berdeen                                      9.64         10.89           8109        -14.2
                                              9.43
               Hoquiam                       10.12          11.05          11.27           3.30        -67.4
               North Beach                   13.16          15.16          10.88           11.24       -14.6
               Quinault                      10.26          16.79          10.24           13.95        40.0
               Wishkah Valley                 5.00            2.22          2.17           3.85        -23.0
               Ocosta                         7.20          10.92          10.73           5.86        -18.6
               Elma                           5.49          10.26          10.86           6.85         24.8
               Montesano                      2.93            4.00          3.03           4,63         58.0
               Oakville                       4.1-4         10.08           5.00           7.50         76.9
               ,-rays Harbor County
                 Total Percent                8.27            9.94          9.91           6.77        -18.1
                     Total Percent            6.61            7.06          7.96           7.53        .13.9

               SOURCE: Table GH-T.6.90,      1/80 and GH--T.6.174, 1/81.

                     While the large increases      in dropout rates of the     1977@1978 'and 1978@1979
                 school years appear to decline     in the 1979-1980 school    year, rates are still
                 significantly higher than 1976-1977 rates for the three Fast County schools of
                 Elma, Montesano, and Oakville.21

                      7.6 Social S   ervices: Early in the monitoring program a cursory examination
                 was completed of approximately 200 different agencies in Grays Harbor County
                 which'provide various social services.         Because of the multitude of agencies,
                 it was decided to select several of the."major" social service agencies for
                 -note indepth study and annual monitoring.22    . These agencies are Mental Health,
                 Alcohol Program, Health Department, Coi=unity Action Council, and the local
                 Department of Social and Health Services. Additionally, United Way was added
                 to give some insight into local funding patterns for social services. While
                 such agencies do not always keep detailed records, some information is available.
                 Further, agencies were requested to try to identify Satsop Project related
                 clients if at all possible,

                                                            124

                                                   TABLE 7.23
                                   PERSONS SERVED BY SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES
                                                    1977-1,979

                                                    % Satsop           % Satsop            % Satsop
                         AGENCY                1977  ProLect    1978    Project    1979     Proj ec
               Mental Health                 1,835    3.9-      2,088     3.5,     2,328     3,@6
               Alcohol Program               1,610     -        2,475     1.0*     2,923     2.6*
               Grays Harbor Public Health
               Services
                Personal Health Services
                 Field Activities            3,746     -        5,603              5,926
                 Clinic Activities
                   (Service/Visits)               -    -        25,829             35,346
                Environmental Health
                   (Service/Visits)          4,294     -        4,684      -       6,225      -
               Community Action Program      2,971     -        4,858     2.2      6,304     6.8
               Department of Social and
               Health Services
                Regular AFDC (average
                   persons per month)        2,533              2,378              2,435
                Food Stamps (average
                   persons per month)        4,145              3,680              4,437

               SOURCE: Tables under   social service'section of various   Monitoring Reports.

                   unavailable. *Estimated.

                    While case loads appear to be increasing substantially (almost doubling
               in several agencies), the known identifiable impact of the Satsop froject
               appears to be minimal at this time. For example, the persons served by Mental
               Realth increased by 27.3% without the identified Satsop clients from 1977 to
               1979. While some of these clients might be considered "secondary" impacts
               'because of increased social stress ,23 this phenomenon cannot be conclusively
               evidenced at this time.

                    It is noted that for the first time financial support from United Way was
               allocated'for two specific East County programs in the 1978-1979 funding period.
               This increased to three programs receiving support in the 1979-1980 funding
               period. Further, contributions were solicited from three East County business
               areas for the first time in 1977, In 1979, this was expanded to include the
               entire communities. Contributions rose from .4% in. 1977 to 5.2% of the. total
               County contributions in 1979.24 This fl-irst action illustrates that the per-
               ception of "need" in East County is present.

                    7.7 Political ChanRe: One interesting bit of datum available is the change
               in elected officials which has occurred in Grays Harbor County. Unfortunately,
               we have been unable to find any publication by which we can compare this infor-
               mation. While it certainly is apparent that more change occurred from 1976-1978
               in the elected offices than had occurred from 1974-1976, it is not known if this
               trend is something that is part of State or national trends (such as a trend
               of voting against incumbents), or if this reflects just local patterns. This
               high degree of change appears to lessen in several entities from 1.11,78-1980.
               Obviously, as growth pressures occur more and more controversies and pressures
               arise with-the people looking to their elected official for prompt solutions.
               If solutions and compromise appear unsatisfactory to the local constituents,

                                                      125

                the elected official will be quickly replaced. Comparison of 1978--1980 with
                1976-1978 indicates that greater stability has returned to the local politica-"ki
                scene.

                                                       TABLE 7.24
                                         PERCENT CHANTIGE IN ELECTED OFFICIALS
                                                         1976-11078

                                                                          1978 % 6
                                              1.914-1976             1976-                 1978-1980 %
                Flma                               33.3                   66.7                     0@0
                McCleary                           33.3                   16.7                   33.3
                Montesano                          25.0                   -15.()                 37.5
                Oakville                           33.3                   66.7                   116.7
                                                                          11.9
                Urban Area                         37.5                                          28.1
                Other                              36.4                   45.5                   45.5
                Grays  Harbor County
                  (excluding judges)               30.0                   20.0                     0.0

                SOURCE: Table GBY-T.32.7.153,      4/80,

                     7.8 Conclusions: While it is difficult to make direct cause and effect
                conclusions, the limited available information seems to show that Social change
                is occurring. These indicators, when combined with the analysis of the social
                characteristics of Satsop workers in Chapter 4, should be expected to indic-ate
                gradual shifts of attitudes, norms, and. behaviors inthe impact area..

                     Criminal offenses for 197/8 through -1.980 known to be related to the Project
                account for an average of 21% of the total known. offens'es in Elma. and 7%-in McCleacy,
                When these Satsop related offenses are deducted, rates are still much 'higher
                than national averages for comparably sized areas. The amount of this remainder
                which could be indirectly related to the Project is unknowi. Also, the propor-
                tion of all arrests which are Satsop related substantially increases over 1978
                levels in Elma and McCleary.

                     Aberdeen-U,rban area arrest rates are 180% higher than similar sized communities
                for 1979 though, historically, rates have been higher (the .1975 rates were 62%
                ,higher than the national). In contrast, rural offense and arrest rates appear
                fairly constant over time and remain higher than national rates. The nurriber of
                juveniles referred to the County Juvenile Department for Part I offenses declined
                from 1975 to 1977 and then increased by 69% from 1977 to 1979. General calls
                for service in Elma are increasing significantly. Approximately 12% of all
                reported calls for set-vice in Elma were known to be project related during 1980.

                     Wbile traffic violations in Elma increased by 247% from 1976 to 1979 and
                19% in McCleary (a 109% increase was recorded from 1976 to 1978 for McCleary),
                collisions in these cities do not appear to be increasing significantly. Accidents
                on State highways appear to increase over 1976 levels at seven locations near the
                Site. Average daily traffic on County roads leading to the Site shows a direct
                relationship to the work force employed on the Site as does composition of 5ite
                traffic, and the peak count traffic data. The average daily traffic on State
                highways increased at all locations with these increases being -the most dramatic
                at locations directly related to the Site (at Satsop and Keys Road going east on
                                                          126

                 Highway 12, at Schouweiler Road going east, and at the Elma off-ramp junction
                 of Third Street and Highway 12).   The increase on Highway 8 at the Grays Harbor/
                 Thurston County line could reflect the increased commuter traffic from the
                 Olympia and Seattle-Tacoma areas to the Project.    The number of vehicles with
                 out-of-state licenses of workers on Site illustrates the in-migration charac-
                 teristics of this population.

                      The largest percentage of total school enrollment that has been identified
                 as Satsop related are in the East County schools with 12% of the Satsop School
                 District enrollment being identified as Project related.     It appears that net
                 in-migration is occurring in the East County schools with this rate increasing
                 considerably after the Construction Project began. The remainder of the school
                 districts have declined in net in-migration. in several cohorts and may even
                 have had a net out-migration. Dropout rates increase dramatically in most
                 school districts from the 1976-1977 school year to the 1977-1978 school year
                 though this increase appears to decline in most areas in the 1979-1980 school
                 years. All three East County high schools show significant increases from the
                 1976-1977 school year to the 1979-1980 school year; Elma with an increase of
                 25%, Montesano 58%, and Oakvilie 77%.

                      While case loads appear to increase significantly for all social service
                 agencies monitored, those cases which can be identified as directly related to
                 the Satsop Project appear to be minimal at this time for most agencies.

                      Increased change is also occurring in the political arena. The change in
                 elected officials increased from 1976 to 1978 in all East County cities except for
                 McCleary. From 1974 to 1980, Montesano and Oakville had a 100% change in their
                 elected officals. Elma had an 83% change, and McCleary a 50% change. All
                 East County cities have adopted new comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances
                 are being revised.  The County is currently considering revising its subdivision
                 ordinance and has changed some procedures on gravel pits and private road develop-
                 ment. Agricultural land policies and rural land policies are currently being con-
                 sidered. (All growth pressure issues.) Elma and Oakville changed their govern-
                 ment form from 4th class city status to non-charter code city status in 1977 as
                 did Hoquiam (was 2nd class) and Cosmopolis.25

                      In summary, social change appears to be occurring in certain areas. In
                 addition, the Project seems to be a contributor to this change and if the second-
                 ary impact of the project (see Chapter 3) is considered, the full impact of the
                 Project on the social character of Grays Harbor County could be considerable.

                                                     CHAPTER 7
                                                       NOTES

                  1.  The term "social stress," has been the short hand notion applied to the
                      potential sociological and psychological change which is often associated
                      with high growth situations. In this case,a relatively rural environment
                      will have a large infusion of newcomers with new ideas and new ways of
                      doing things. The interaction of the new with the old may result in
                      uncertainty and insecurity. These concepts are suggested in both the
                      popular literature (Future Shock) and the technical literature (Stephen
                      J. Fitzsimmons, et al; Social Assessment Manual, Westview Press, Boulder,
                      Colorado, 1977; and Karl Hehler, Evaluation of Power Facilities, A

                                                        127

                    Reviewers Handbook, Berkshire Regional Planning Commission, Billsfield
                    Mass., 1974).  Issues related to these concerns have also been noted in
                    research of other construction projects (B. H. Bronfman, A Study of
                    Community Leaders in a Nuclear Host Community; Local Issues, Expectations
                    and Support and Opposition, ERDA, 1977, and John Gordon and David Darling
                    The Economic Impact of the Hoosier Energy Plant on Sullivan County, Purdue
                    University).

                    The close relationship between criminal activity and significant social
                    change and stress should also be noted. A National Strategy to Reduce
                    Crime, National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and
                    Goals, 1973, observes tendencies for a positive relationship between the
                    proportion of young adults in a population, population mobility, and family
                    instability, and crime rates. Community Crime Prevention, National
                    Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, 1973, further
                    indicates that a strong sense of community is a key feature in Maintaining
                    a low crime rate. From this it may be inferred that a rising crime rate
                    may signify a weak sense of "community" among at least some segiments of
                    the population.

                2.  For crime classification definitions and for  national crime trends refer
                    to Webster, Crime in the United States, 1979, FBI Unifom Crime Reports,
                    United States Department of justice.

                3.  The Elma Police Department had significant personnel changes in 1980.
                    Further, their Uniform Crime Reports and monitoring reports were not
                    completed on a monthly basis.     This necessitated a new employee having
                    to go back through available records to try to reconstruct data. Because
                    of these problems, 1980 data might not be comparable with earlier periods
                    and is not used when patterns appear significantly skewed from historical
                    trends.

                4.  For greater information regarding crime related concerns refer to the
                    regions Annual Law and Justice Plans.

                5.  Ibid.

                6.  Because of major changes in State law in July 1978, other Part II offense
                    classifications are not comparable over time. Thus, they are not reported
                    on this table.

                7.  For the purposes of the Monitoring Project a WPPSS' or site-related law
                    enforcement contact will be:

                          Any contact made where the individual is currently working
                          or is employed and has worked during the preceding six
                          months for any contractor or subcontractor working for the
                          Satsop Construction Project. Any contact made which
                          identifies that family members of contacted individuals are
                          working on the Project (such as a juvenile and the father
                          is employed on Site) should be counted as WPPSS' Project
                          related. Informational contacts (i.e. directions to the
                          Site for material deliveries, siteseers, persons seeking
                          employment at the Site, etc.) should also be counted as a
                          WPPSS' project related law enforcement contact.

                     It is not expected that  all Site-related contacts will be able to be
                     counted. However, because of the broad nature of the above definition,
                     some contacts counted as Site-related may be of families or persons who
                     are long-time residents of the area but who are now employed on the
                     Project. However, it is hoped that over-weighing some Site-related
                     contacts will balance out the contacts in which Site-relatedness cannot
                     be identified, such as traffic problems or when    the individual does not
                     reveal his employer.

                 8.  The potential impact of the Construction Project on police needs was
                     identified early by the affected cities.    As a result of discussion
                     between the Power System and the cities, the Power System agreed to
                     provide $1,543,000 to five cities to offset the anticipated increased
                     police costs during the Project period.

                 9.  Indeed, traffic issues have been perhaps one of the most frequent news
                     issues related to the Construction Project.     This problem is also
                     lighted in research; see B. H. Bronfman,op. cit.

                10.  Monitoring report, July 1978, page II-160.

                11.  Gravel truck movement in the City of Elma has resulted in financial assis-
                     tance ($109,000) to the City from the Power System. Also, agreements
                     between the Power System, the State Department of Transportation, and the
                     County have resulted in substantial payments by the Power System for new
                     road construction.

                12.  See Note 3 of this Chapter.

                13.  The Washington State Department of Licensing reports that during 1979,
                     7 1/2% of all new registrations of vehicles were out-of-state. This figure
                     includes both persons in-migrating with vehicles and out-of-state new
                     car sales to in-state residents. It is estimated that new car sales
                     probably account for only 2 to 3% of the total new registrations.

                14.  To be counted as eligible, the parent must have moved to the school
                     district after May 1, 1976 and be employed by one of the construction
                     contractors during the pay period which included May 1 of each annual
                     survey. All returns are validated by Washington Public Power Supply
                     System by checking with the contractor. Only school districts covered by
                     agreement with WPPSS are included in this table.

                15.  Urban school districts include Aberdeen, Hoquiam, Cosmopolis, and Wishkah
                     Valley. Other includes North Beach, Taholah, Quinault, and Ocosta School
                     Districts.

                16.  Office of Financial Management, State of Washington, Population Trends,
                     1979; and Department of Social and Health Services, State of Washington,
                     Vital Statistics, 1970-1978.

                17.  Ibid.

                18.  Except for a large jump in urban area students in the 9th grade when
                     private school students enter the higher grades in publis schools.

                                                       129

                19.  According to the Washington State Super intendent of Schools, data includes
                     only dropouts reported who drop out of school during the school year and
                     does not include those who failed to return after the summer. As a result,
                     figures are lower than the true annual dropout rate,

                20.  Data is based only upon permanent buildings. The use of portable class-
                     rooms tends to mitigate some of these problems. See WAC 180-30-010 for
                     definition of space allocation formula.

                21.  See Note 19 of this Chapter.

                22.  The criteria used to select these "major agencies" were:

                           (a) Must have full-time professional staff;
                           (b) Must have been in existence since 1972;
                           (c) Must have an existing budget over $50,000;
                           (d) Must offer at least six of the eleven major  categories of
                               service (juvenile assistance, education, counseling, etc.);
                           (e) Must keep adequate records in order to allow monitoring;
                           (f) Must have permanent and separate Facility;
                           (g) Must offer services to adults and juveniles;
                           (h) Must offer services to all areas of Grays Harbor  County;
                           (i) Must have served at least 50 clients in 1976; and,
                           (j) Must not be covered in another data element (e.g. job
                               services would be covered within the employment data
                               element).

                23. See Note   1 of this Chapter.

                24. See tables GH-T.32.10.28 and 29, 4/80.

                25.  See Title 35A RCW, the Optional Municipal Code, description of
                     provisions for cities electing this government form.

                                                       130

                                                                                                                             NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY

                                                                                                                             3 6668 14110814 4