:a report/to the Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission ; prepared by the staff of the Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission. Main report Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission (Wash.) Aberdeen, Wash.:The Commission,1981. Nuclear power plants Washington (State) Grays Harbor County Sociological aspects. Nuclear power plants Economic aspects Washington (State) Grays Harbor County. Coastal zone management Washington (State) Grays Harbor County. Grays Harbor County (Wash.) Sociological aspects. Grays Harbor County (Wash.) Economic aspects. Satsop Nuclear Power Plant Washington (State) Grays Harbor County Sociological aspects. Satsop Nuclear Power Plant Economic aspects Washington (State) Grays Harbor County. 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 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 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. 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. 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 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-: 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 0 p 0 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 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